Eco-Radical Defrauds Conservative Institute


Pages: 1 2

None of the authentic stolen documents was especially damning to Heartland. For example, a list of donors failed to identify any oil companies among Heartland supporters, despite the left’s insistence that the Heartland Institute is in the pocket of “big oil.” And yes, the Koch Foundation did kick in twenty five grand, but that money was earmarked for research and advocacy regarding free-market solutions for health care, not for environmental issues. There was no smoking gun to be found, which – as someone who knows and admires the ethics and principles of the leadership of the Heartland Institute – came as absolutely no surprise to the author.

Nonetheless, a parody of a smoking gun appeared among the documents that DeSmogBlog published, in the form of a memo that purported to outline Heartland’s climate change strategy. It was a crude forgery, full of ridiculous, inflammatory phrasing that no public policy organization would actually use, along with statements that were obviously clumsily cut and pasted from legitimate documents. (Read Meagan McArdle’s devastating deconstruction of the fake strategy memo here.) Heartland says that it is developing the forensic evidence to prove that the memo is a fake. While no one has yet proven that Gleick is the author of the phony document, that seems a likely answer to the mystery. In addition to the suspicious time-line, the forged strategy memo specifically calls out Gleick (and no one else) as an opponent to be countered. Outside of Peter Gleick, there really isn’t anybody who thinks that Peter Gleick – a water guy, not a climatologist – is an especially important figure in the climate science debate. It is simply ludicrous to believe that an organization like Heartland would focus on a bit player like Peter Gleick when big dogs like Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen do so very much more to undermine the scientific method in the guise of saving the planet.

However, this episode reinforces a few basic truths. First, it’s clear that organizations like Heartland are the Davids, not the Goliaths, when it comes to discussing so-called climate change. Heartland’s funding is tiny compared to the big dogs among leftist environmental groups like the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund and American Lung Association. Second, it’s equally clear that “big oil” isn’t behind opposition to global-warming goodthink. Organizations like Heartland are trying to defend sound science, not pay homage to non-existent corporate masters. Finally, and most disturbingly, Gleick’s actions are yet another example of how the alarmist crowd continues to abandon any pretense of objectivity or morality in order to get their way. As the Climategate scandals have revealed, the high-priests and priestesses of the global warming religion will stop at nothing to stamp out heritics.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • The Infidel

    Yet they can't seem to understand that, once they lie, nothing can be believed about what they say, if they have to lie to win the debate, they have nothing to bring to the table. the debate is over and the climate scarists lost, big time. If you are a climate scarist, don't bother, because nothing you say can be now taken as truth.

    • Rebecca

      Infidel-

      I don't want to sound like I am trivializing the effects of a loss of trust. However, your oh-so-pure "once they lie, nothing can be believed …" does not fully describe the situation. Gleick did commit a breach of honor, and in so doing damaged his own reputation and the movement he supports.

      However, as I understand it, Gleick lied to uncover certain facts that he considered significant. People generally considered honorable have done that for time immemorial- I recall that an ambassador has been defined as an honorable man sent abroad to lie for his country.

      Your broad brush indignation is tempered, in my mind, but a distinction you show no evidence of making, but which I think is nonetheless real: the difference between a personal lie, and a professional one.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    Having "debated" with lefties over the years I've determined that such exercises in folly ALWAYS degenerate into obfuscation. When they find themselves losing due to lack of facts or effective logical argument, they resort to various ploys: NAME CALLING – You are so heartless you would throw your own grandmother out into the street. BAND WAGON – Everyone agrees that ….. If you are not on the BAND WAGON, you are a discredited loner. A "denier." THE BIG LIE – telling an obvious, blatant falsehood over and over and over again eventually cements the lie into people's minds as an established "fact." GLITTERING GENERALITIES – If you die fighting for Allah, you will attain paradise complete with 72 shotgun toting Roman Catholic nuns….. er, Virgins. VIRGINS!

  • maturin20

    Just look at the graph and then tell me how Global Warming is not happening:
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+global+wa

    • Rifleman

      Well, if a graph shows it, it must be true.

      Then why all the fraud and subterfuge?

      • maturin20

        The graph is right there. It's simple math data. If you don't believe it, then you don't believe in math, and there is really nothing that can be done for you. If you don't believe in tree ring samples, and ice core samples, coral surveys, lake sedimentary readings, and cave deposit readings cross-referenced, then you simply do not believe in science, and speaking to you about it is a wasted effort.

        • Rifleman

          Sure, and scientists never get their math wrong, and never commit fraud. I don't doubt it's warmed up since the last ice age, but I'm still trying to figure out how they ended it without internal combustion engines.You're right though, you're wasting your time on me, I was wise to the hoax by the early 80s.

          • maturin20

            Right. Several hundred scientists in every single field of science all got this wrong at the same time.

          • Rifleman

            Several hundred scientists from any and/or every field of science have never been wrong? Right.

            Oh yea, are you going to get around to answering my first question?

  • Rifleman

    Gleick was losing the debate and turned to crime to try and catch up. What a guy.

    It’s funny that they couldn’t make a forgery that would even pass a casual inspection. They’re mentally incapable of understanding any thought process but their own, so ascribe to Heartland a mirror of their own thinking and tactics. Their childishly simplistic caricature of how the members of conservative foundations think and operate is shallow and twisted enough for a Hollywood script.

  • wasicu36

    Attempting to reason with any stripe of liberal is like trying to teach a pig ballet: it frustrates you and enrages the pig. We need to figure out a way to induce all envirocrats to willingly leap into volcanoes or over waterfalls as sacrifices to "Gaia"

  • kblink45

    This has been going on for decades. The hippies when I was in college actually defended a form of collective-suicide of the human race. They were so distraught by deforestation, they would cry and clamor for an end to human consumption, i.e., existence. When I called them on it by asking them why they weren't killing themselves or their families, they would call me a fascist. The conclusion I drew is that econutjobs would support Soviet-style pogroms and gulags for global warming deniers. Many of them would actually support rounding us up and "solving" us. They are scary.

  • Jim

    You can find a list of Pacific's donor list on google.If you are familiar with Bechtel Corp you would get an idea of how wealthy and powerful the donors are. Some are governmental organizations but over all the term water pops up way to often.
    Judging by the recent discussions on world wide water shortage I smell a coincidence . It smells like "Corner the market."
    Foundations serve as innocent conduits for money chasing massive resource controll.

  • Rifleman

    Thanks. Though Al is part of a racket set up by a con job, they don't rate "gangster" because gangsters are willing to do their own enforcement and gore's bunch sends the government. I thought that was common knowledge too.

  • maturin20

    And if Al Gore existed, or if Al Gore did not exist, the global temperature graph would read the same numbers.