Skip to content

Anti-science Lobby Group Funded By Polluters Writes “Global Warming Curriculum” For Schools

2012/02/25

The Heartland Institute’s President and CEO just admitted that Heartland is writing a “global warming curriculum” that would say climate science isn’t settled. Heartland would like to create the appearance of a scientific debate where there is none by having our teachers claim we just don’t know if humans are changing our climate.

*

Go to: Climate Reality: Tell Heartland Institute: Keep Climate Denial Out of Our Schools to sign a petition to keep science in our schools, and polluting corporations out.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. 2012/02/26 7:44 am

    Some Interesting things from an article/blog I found while doing some back tracking on the Heartland Institute:

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

    Nine of the ten most prolific authors cited in a list of over 900 climate sceptic papers linked to by the Global Warming Policy Foundation have direct links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.

    Eight are affiliated to Exxon-funded organisations

    The article goes on to say that:

    A significant chunk of the list is authored by a small group of writers with extensive links to each other and to the oil industry …and … The most cited source for the ‘peer reviewed papers’ featured is a minor journal which appears to have a political agenda to promote climate skepticism

    “The most cited journal in the list (by a clear margin) was “Energy and Environment” and its editor, Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen, has said that she is “following [her] political agenda” in editing the journal, which is co-edited by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation”

    As well, prominent scientists featured on the list didn’t agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming – and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past.

    ——————

    Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen is also listed by the Heartland Foundation as one of their experts.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110610213648/http://www.heartland.org/about/globalwarmingexperts.html

    • 2012/02/26 8:05 am

      Thanks for the links, the evidence has always been out there but it’s becoming clearer and clearer who is corrupting the democratic process and destroying our children’s future.

    • 2012/02/28 1:36 pm

      That is pure nonsense and completely refuted,

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

      In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.

      To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions:
      ….
      The Heartland’s list of experts is simply a list of whom they consider experts and has nothing to do with who is or is not affiliated with the institute.

      (Christine here: thanks for dropping by and providing us with a point of view of an anti-science climate change denier. However your comment is an entire blog posting, which isn’t appropriate for this comment section. You have provided a link to your website/blog posting, those who are interested can follow that link.)

      • 2012/02/28 7:11 pm

        Easy to make blanket statements, but harder to make the case, especially when your (and the Heartland Inst’s) credibility is called into question by its funders. And making statements such as one from your website, “SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy”, doesn’t help your case at all.

        Speaking of propaganda, that’s what this comment has all over it. Move along.

      • 2012/02/28 7:35 pm

        No blanket statements, just the facts. You obviously did not understand what I posted. The Carbon Brief failed to show any connections of funding sources for the scientists they smeared. They instead played a game called six degrees of Kevin Bacon. The case is made in the links provided.

        The Sourcewatch claims are supported and cited.

      • 2012/02/29 12:24 am

        It is not true that I posted an entire blog posting. I posted the summary plus a single response from Dr. Christy not every scientist in that link. I also include a second separate rebuttal to the false claims made about Dr. Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen’s “political agenda” and the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment which can be found here,

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

        In regards to myself I am not “anti-science” nor do I deny that the climate changes. What I do question is the extent that man can influence the climate and I support my arguments with peer-reviewed scientific research.

      • 2012/02/29 11:05 am

        It’s rather odd that you asked these people if they had received “direct” funding only … what about … “indirectly”

        1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

        Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”

        the link below however says otherwise:

        “has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to a review of Exxon’s own financial documents”

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

        why don’t you ask him again, maybe he forgot, especially as I like the man and would hate to see him get into any trouble over the stupid way in which you phrased your questions, it gave them no leeway and no chance to expand on their answers… that is not how you question a scientist, one should always allow them the freedom to express themselves by giving them questions which allow for flexibility. :-(

        A better way would have been to ask something like this:

        “There are reports that you might have received some funding, either directly or indirectly from Exxon, as far as you can remember, is this correct?”

        After all, even the most intelligent men in the world have fallible memories and I would hate to bring their integrity into question over an answer that could well involve remembering decades of funding from many sources.

        Also let me state right now that I in no way believe any of these scientists have ever allowed any kind of funding to influence their opinion, in fact I am sure of it, I do however believe that in their “Trust of other human beings” these men have unwittingly had their opinions USED by others to further one agenda or another which might or might not be connected to their own beliefs.

        the last statement might also explain my comments below.

      • 2012/03/01 12:15 pm

        There is nothing odd about asking them a direct question. I had no idea the number of conspiracy theorists who would attempt to play the game six degrees of Kevin Bacon which is what the Carbon Brief did. None of those scientists received funding for their research from any institute that received funding from Exxon or any other indirect way.

        Your PBS link does not says otherwise and no one has been able to produce documents saying otherwise. The $10,000 was to the SEPP.

        They were given plenty of leeway with the last question and I did not edit any of their responses,

        “4. Please include any additional comment on the article,”

        The irrefutable fact is that the scientists on the page never received any funding direct or indirect from Exxon.

        The fact remains that there exists credentialed scientists who do not support an alarmist position on global warming.

  2. 2012/02/28 10:41 pm

    poptech – maybe you could clarify something for me.

    Is it true that the heartland foundation is a member of the John Birch society and that it helps it with its drive to help change certain state laws and legislation in the same manner that the Heritage boys are also associated with the Birchers in helping them change Federal Laws and legislation? :-)

    if so, have any of the so called heartland experts ever had anything to do with the John Birch society … you know who they are, don’t you … the guys who claim they want a Republic ….without Democracy :-(

    • 2012/02/28 10:46 pm

      You might not wish to publish my comments, Christine, sometimes things are best left alone …. for a while :-)

    • 2012/03/01 12:29 pm

      I have no idea how an Institute can be a member of another society but no I have never heard this before. I checked and found no evidence of this. At best they share certain limited government positions with the JBS.

      I sure hope they are working with other organizations to change federal laws in the name of personal liberty and economic freedom.

      I have no idea who the game six degrees of Kevin Bacon can be played in relation to the JBS.

      Obviously if they did they would want a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy because they do not believe in mob rule and they wish to protect minorities’ rights.

      “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson

      • 2012/03/05 10:08 am

        There are many types of democracy, the United States does not hold copyright on it.

        What you are saying about a Constitutional Republic has already been tried once … have you forgotten? It was called the Roman Empire, it too was a Constitutional Republic exactly as so called libertarians of today wish to have it and it is the dream of fools who never learned the lessons of history.

        It is also the dream of wannabe dictators, despots and tyrants who will go all out to fool the people into believing what they say until it is too late to stop them.

        “Those who never learn history, are bound to repeat it” -George De Santillana,

        I rather quote him because Jefferson was a believer in slavery who often quoted one thing for political purposes while actually believing in quite the opposite.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

        It is a real pity many Americans never ever pick up a history book.

        The odd thing here is that your own comments on what you consider to be “mob rule” come straight out of the John Birch conspiracy theory. No more revolting piece of disgusting material has ever been conceived by a single human being who ever understood the needs of humanity.

      • 2012/03/05 1:34 pm

        There are many types of Democracy of which the United States is none, it is a Constitutional Republic.

        The Roman Empire was an Autocracy. The Roman Republic was a
        Oligarchic Republic, neither was a Constitutional Republic.

        Quote the prominent libertarian who “dreamed” of the Roman Empire as some ideal form of government. That is absolutely absurd.

        Jefferson’s positions on limited government have been immortalized in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Anyone rational does not pretend he was perfect in regards to slavery nor do I care as slavery has long been abolished. It is a tired red herring.

        So Thomas Jefferson was quoting a John Birch conspiracy theory? I had no idea.

  3. 2012/03/05 2:21 pm

    These are your own comments:

    “Obviously if they did they would want a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy because they do not believe in mob rule and they wish to protect minorities’ rights.”

    Then you quoted a slave keeper in order to support your argument, it was you quoting the very words of the JB blue book not the slave keeper.

    As for your declaration of independence … Hey, if you want to give everybody guns so they can murder each other on the streets then by all means, enjoy what ever “freedom” you imagine you have; Frankly you’d be better off saving all that money you spend on bullets to kill each other and use it to buy medicines and food for the millions of poor sods you have living on the streets.

    Truth of the matter is that your beliefs in a Republic have ruined what was once a proud nation, get with the times, embrace democracy, love Obama, clean up your part of the world, throw away your SUVs and do something about all those drugs your leaders allow into your country to keep you all zonked out of your minds, then come back and talk to me about the thoughts of a slave trader.

    Oh, and buy a history book :-(

    • 2012/03/05 2:46 pm

      I will always quote an American founding father, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States because he is one of heroes. Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man whom I thank for the freedoms he has given me.

      I emphatically support the 2nd amendment and my constitutional right to own firearms and thus be able to defend myself. I own various firearms and have never murdered nor had someone attempt to murder me.

      I embrace a true limited government Constitutional Republic never mob-ruled Democracy.

      I reject all forms of socialism that Obama stands for. I never voted for him and never will. I stand for personal liberty and economic freedom.

      My part of the world (my property) is very clean as I am anal like that.

      I will always own an SUV and am proud of it. These are great versatile vehicles.

      I fully reject drug use – especially ones that damage your brain like Marijuana and use none nor have I ever even tried any.

      I read real books not Wikipedia and have an extensive collection of history books, none on slavery as I have no obsessions on subjects that I have no interest in. Though, I am well read on the subject, it is a tired red herring. Really I don’t care about slavery and never will. I nor my family have anything to do with slavery. Slavery is abolished, get over it.

    • 2012/03/06 9:43 pm

      I have checked and could not find an original source of the quote attributed to Jefferson, so I will retract only the attribution of that quote to him, http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule

      Since I had no interest in the John Birch Society, I had not heard of it’s “Blue Book” before but I searched it and did not find that quote.

      Your silly obsession with the JBS is fascinating as they hold very little influence in the United States. Most of what you know of them is likely urban legend and myths,

      http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/myths-vs-facts

      I always find conspiracy theorists fascinating.

      • 2012/03/07 8:56 pm

        What I find fascinating is that after having mentioned that your own thoughts are almost the same as those of the JBS you then go searching for a quote from Jefferson.

        Bit by bit, the JBS society has over the years been brainwashing many Americans into their line of thinking, this link is just to inform you about them, you might not think much of them but they happen to have a lot of influence in Americans way of thinking.

        http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/1029207-1.html

        Either way, lets drop it, this is not our site and we’re beginning to look like a bunch of trolls. Good to see you stand up for your beliefs.

        That’s what DEMOCRACY is all about :-)

      • 2012/03/07 10:25 pm

        No, I found the Jefferson quote when I was looking for a quote to support my argument regarding Democracy. It had nothing to do with you mentioning the JBS.

        You really do not get it, the JBS has little to no influence in U.S. politics. Their publication “The New American” (est. circulation: 20,000) is hardly ever referenced by anyone. Their representatives do not appear on TV or talk radio. The only time the JBS is mentioned at all is by far-left media types attempting to smear conservatives with conspiracy theories.

        I have been following and studying U.S. politics since the 80s and they were rarely mentioned in U.S. politics. I confirmed this using Google News;

        I searched Google News archives for the “John Birch Society” and it is clear they have been declining in U.S. Political discussions,

        1960-1970 = 6950 Results
        1970-1980 = 1770 Results
        1980-1990 = 1790 Results (Increase due to founders death in 1985)
        1990-2000 = 935 Results
        2000-2010 = 811 Results

        They were a big deal in the 60s but not since, your article even states they peaked in the 60s.

        I see no evidence of them having any significant influence over American thinking.

  4. 2012/11/14 11:58 am

    Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d like to shoot
    you an email. I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it develop over time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: