[NOTE: This got lost is the days following Fakegate, as WordPress sometime fails to notify me that Guest posts are in que, so in deference to the author, I’m running it now – Anthony]
Guest post by John A
In the virtual reality world of climate science, it appears that quoted statements from emails made by some climate scientists showing malfeasance and outright lying are false because they are “out of context” and quoted statements from fake documents purporting to come from thinktanks are true because…well probably because that’s what we come to expect from people like that.
In Guardian-land, this means that someone has taken it upon himself to report the Heartland Institute to the IRS. No really.
The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances – including its donors and tax status.
The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
Who is this whistleblowing Dark Knight?
John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland’s public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.
Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months’ research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.
Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.
Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show.
“I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3),” Mashey said. “My extensive study of these think anks[sic] showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities.”
Mashey later published his audit of Heartland finances in Desmogblog, which was the first outlet to run the trove of Heartland documents.
Others were demanding more disclosure from Heartland about its donors and its activities.
This appears to be a consistent target for the climate alarmists – don’t argue the facts, methods or data. Instead try to get your opponents fired or defunded.
This is what passes for climate science these days.
Here’s a mystery item (my emphasis):
In a letter that was published on Friday and then subsequently removed, more than 30 leading health professionals and scientists from the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand called on Heartland to come clean. “What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic manipulation and suppression of climate science for private benefit as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst,” the letter said.
“It is in the public, national, and global interest for all funding behind their activities to be revealed. This allows people to make up their own minds about the truth of the climate change threat, so that action can be planned in the light of reality rather than the murky shadows of secretly funded disinformation.”
How do we know that such a letter existed and it is not the figment of some journalist’s imagination? Where was it published? Why was the letter withdrawn? Alas, we mere mortals shall never know.
In a separate initiative, seven climate scientists wrote an open letter calling on Heartland to see the moment of exposure as an opportunity to change tack.
The scientists, who included Kevin Trenbeth at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and Ben Santer at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, also took Heartland to task for its response to the 2009 and 2011 hacks of climate scientists’ emails. “The Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilising and distorting emails stolen from scientists,” the letter said.
“The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options,” the letter said.
“We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward.”
Of course the last time either Gavin Schmidt or John Cook argued in a fair debate they got creamed. Which is why they most certainly do not engage in a civil debate – the Climategate emails show anything but civility. And “Skeptical Science” is anything but skeptical or scientific.
Mashey also lives on the West Coast and has close links with DeSmogBlog and was investigating the Heartland Institute…hmmm…I wonder if he has an Epson scanner?
If I were paranoid, I’d say these events are awfully convenient for all of these things to happen at the same time, with the same people and on the same blog. But I’m not very conspiratorially minded.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From your post…
“Of course the last time either Gavin Schmidt or John Cook argued in a fair debate they got creamed. Which is why they most certainly do not engage in a civil debate – the Climategate emails show anything but civility. And “Skeptical Science” is anything but skeptical or scientific.”
John Cooks’ facebook page is a complete joke. It’s really laughable, seriously. Apart from the vast volume of supporting evidence and actual science, I was once asked to prove interglacials were warmer than glacials, seriously!!!
If I were paranoid, I’d say these events are awfully convenient for all of these things to happen at the same time, with the same people and on the same blog. But I’m not very conspiratorially minded.
=====================
Well John…..I don’t agree….LOL
I’ve never seen a requirement that 501(c)3 must be factual, if so wouldn’t that rule out religious purpose organizations?
I think I found the letter that disappeared, via a Bing search I got to a blog http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/18/doctors-letter.html
which has a link to the letter http://www.climateandhealth.org/magazine/read/call-to-reveal-all-funding-behind-climate-sceptics-_179.html
the signatories are listed at the direct link
Who funds John Mashey and his activities?
Given how important the CAGW theory is to the funding of so many, and just how much money and reputations are at stake, I am surprised that the dirty play is so limited.
As the morals of the alarmists are non-existent, and they can justify crimes by their aim, one can expect a lot more if things start to go really bad for them.
Interesting how these ‘scientists’ are concerned that the public only gets pre-qualified information. They must believe that the public, you and me, is not qualified to sort and understand on our own what’s useful information and what’s not.
That’s not about arrogance anymore. This is about freedom or red-green dictatorship.
Mashey needs to be questioned
It looks like there was a coordinated campaign that was planned and partially executed against Heartland. So who else was involved? Who were the other “plumbers”?
Maybe somebody should ask the IRS to take a close look at Gleick’s organization. If his little caper involved use of organization assets (computer, network address, communication services, scanner…) then, through its tax-advantaged status, it has been getting a public subsidy to enable its employee to commit felonies. What else has its founder, Peter Gleick, been doing with it?
And, yes, it would be good to ask Mr. Mashey some questions. He has entered the arena; let him bask in the attention.
“…seven climate scientists wrote an open letter calling on Heartland to see the moment of exposure as an opportunity to change tack.”
Yeah, I like the positive attitude. No problems, only opportunities.
Like an FOIA request may be an opportunity to stop screwing around and communicate your data rather than conniving to avoid doing so. You know, like an “opportunity” to comply with the legal requirement.
Like a request for Mann’s emails may be an “opportunity” to provide the “context” they always say is missing.
With so many “opportunities” of their own I’m surprised they have time club together to share their bountiful wisdom with Heartland.
If I comment about Mashey I’m sure to get snipped.
Mashey is prima facie a Gleick shill. First perfuse your watermelon with moonshine, then draw it out with a very long straw.
I am laughing so hard the tears are running down my face.
One of my big red buttons is the fact that tax exempts get around no political activism by forming a separate arm that they can funnel great wads of money into.
From the IRS news room:
Note this about supporting a CANDIDATE for public office and not about supporting a specific IDEA such as the Catholic Chrch’s stand on Abortion.
And there folks is the great big loop hole!
The “Follow the money trail” is obvious in the TIDES FOUNDATION AND TIDES CENTER a foundation set up specifically for “Laundering” money so those foundations supporting an unpopular idea do not receive fallout.
Steven Mosher says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:17 am
Mashey needs to be questioned
===========================================
Yes, he does.
“Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months’ research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.” …….. coincidence?
But, really, this is quite humorous. I really appreciate HI. I like Singer. I like Idso. But, if the lunatics think by smearing these people will somehow put the genie back in the bottle they’re even more delusional than I thought. The fact that this effort has entirely backfired is greatly delicious.
But, its just as fun to watch them expend all of this effort, which, even if it were successful, wouldn’t change the discussion one whit. Even better, let’s say they were successful and the IRS found that advocacy can strip an organization of tax exempt status……… how much would the Sierra Club and all of the rest of the watermelon groups owe?
Gosh, these pathetic losers are less rational than I thought.
Is there one prominent alarmist climate scientist capable of honest dialogue about the issues? This is how we know we’re winning. And, they’ll become more shrill and desperate as the layers of lies and obfuscation are peeled back.
Maybe he should file a complaint about the Tides foudation sending money to Tides Canada and then that money being used for political purposes then eh.
Just ask Ezra Levant
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/muppet-monster-mash/1513828026001
I posited this possibility early on: that Mashey and Gleick were staging a two-pronged attack and that others had prior knowledge of it, namely desmogblog, who, lacking barely any traffic at their website, would gain from two blockbuster stories at the same time. I had only circumstantial evidence for this: the timing of the two releases, the similarly rabid ideological fanaticism of all parties with an interest in publishing this information, and the geographical closeness of Mashey and Gleick residences in the Bay Area. Desmog, lacking any substantial visitor traffic at their blog, stood to gain by publishing both “blockbuster” stories.
Mashey, Deep Climate guitar…
oMan says: @ur momisugly March 17, 2012 at 8:30 am
Maybe somebody should ask the IRS to take a close look at Gleick’s organization….
________________________________________
Sorry does not work that way. I knew a guy who was dealing in illegally obtained software. I knew where it was kept. I went to the IRS in my city and discussed the situation with them and they were VERY INTERESTED but could do nothing because it was out of jurisdiction. They sent me to the correct office. The IRS agent there, after I explained the situation and named the guy turned white and told me there was know way they could touch the guy. Since then he just made a multi-million dollar insider trading coup. Again illegal but no one will touch him.
On the subject of tax exemptions and 503(c)s, I was under the impression that promoting opinions, even opinions that others may consider wrong or non-factual was fine, but what is not specifically not allowed is promoting particular candidates or parties in elections. You know things like “don’t vote Republican” or “don’t vote for Smith”
I may be wrong about this. But that was my impression.
In which case, to me at least, this would seem a much more questionable activity done by a 503(c) – and yes it was done by a 503(c), since not only does it appear as a press release on their website, and specifically says it is done by one (emphasis added)
http://pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/climate_bs_award_2011.html
In response to these efforts, in 2010 the Pacific Institute launched the annual Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards. We are now pleased, and disturbed, to announce the winners of the 2011 (second annual) Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards:
THE WINNER OF THE 2011 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARDS IS:
All of the Republican candidates for President
Being anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, seems a requirement for nomination to lead the Republican Party… .[snip]..The choice among the current Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, disdain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the individual candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? The group wins the 2011 Award hands down.
It would be better to investigate how a small cabal of scientists and their acolytes have managed to corrupt climate science and in doing so cost us all billions in lost finances, as well as redirecting billions from worthwhile environmental and social causes.
Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I’m having trouble posting because of the security system log-in requirements. If it is a duplicate, please feel free to delete one copy. Thanks
———————————————————————————————-
In terms of the debate, who funds is the biggest red herring ever. The only case where it might possibly be relevant is if somebody changes their views as a result of being funded by a certain source.
Let’s take the example of a well-known journalist who was attacked for receiving about $1K for attending a Heartland conference. If you’ve read this journalist’s articles, you can’t have any serious doubt that he’s always had the same views, and I’m not even sure all his views align with Heartland’s. Nobody would seriously suggest he’d throwaway a multi-decade career in journalism for $1K funding which probably barely paid his expenses to attend the conference.
Likewise, our host on this forum, is being attacked because Heartland are helping arranging funding for a weather data website. The data is public data and verifiable, so he couldn’t bend the data even if he wanted to. Moreover you only need to read this blog to see our host holds some pretty strong views, argues them passionately, (I personally don’t necessarily agree with them all), and really truly believes in what he is saying. It’s possible that he might have some of his views changed by rational argument or new data, but it’s looney tunes stuff to think he’s expressing views he doesn’t really believe in.
So what is the real reason they bang on about funding? Partly it’s propaganda – if they can find a tenuous link to the enemy (fossil fuels, automobiles, etc.) it makes a good ad hominem argument, no matter how logically flawed. But the main reason is that don’t want people funding arguments they disagree with – they simply want them silenced.
That’s why there is a campaign now to stop GM funding Heartland – even though GM’s funding is not even on climate related field.
That’s why there is speculation on the green blogs about the anonymous donor. Turns out they think they’ve identified him – and it’s a business person who is not connected to fossil fuels. Apparently he just believes in Heartland’s positions…. they think that is just as bad. In short – fossil fuel interest or not fossil fuel interest – it’s simply bad that anybody funds Heartland.
That’s why scientists who have received funding from Heartland are coming under attack – all these scientists needed to do is to have followed the disclosure procedures to their employer. I can’t say whether every single one has, but it’s a heck of an assumption – on no evidence whatsoever – that they wouldn’t, despite the fact that their Heartland work such as writing reports, etc., was public knowledge even prior to Gleick’s activities.
Finally, that’s the basis of Mashey’s report. As much as anybody can make out, the core of his argument seems to be that Heartland is promoting opinions that he disagrees with. Any opinion that he disagrees with, he considers non-factual, and he then further argues 503(c)’s aren’t allow to promote such “non-factual” opinions.
Incidentally it is an abuse of the language to call Mashey a “whistleblower”. A whistleblower is somebody inside an organization who reveals wrongdoing. Mashey is an outsider who thinks he can tell other people what opinions they are allowed to express: There are words for that kind of anti-free-speech busybody, but “whistleblower” isn’t one that I would use.
Finally, FWIW, I don’t think Mashey was involved in writing the strategy memo. If he had been, IMHO, it would most likely be 250 pages long, written in green ink, in 6 point font.
oMan says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:30 am
Reply: check out the timing of this post:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/where-do-we-draw-the-line/
Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show….
“I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3),” Mashey said…”Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities.”
Hmm. Interesting standard. Should it apply to Greenshirt organizations as well? Here’s an interesting article discussing American foundations intruding into Canadian oil policy:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/01/20120108-131514.html
Excerpt:
But the biggest threat isn’t the clowns. It’s the well-paid foreign professional lobbyists who used Leggett’s weakness to take over the process.
Like the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation. They’ve hired the West Coast Environmental
Law Foundation to “prevent the development of a pipeline and tanker port” in B.C.
That lobby group took $200,000 to do the Rockefellers’ bidding. They’re signed up to speak at the hearings.
San Francisco’s Moore Foundation has poured in more than $9 million to Aboriginal groups on the north coast of B.C. to oppose resource development.
Their Canadian lobby group, Ecotrust, will testify to Leggett also.
According to research by Vivian Krause, the U.S. Tides Foundation and their Canadian affiliate have poured millions of dollars into 36 cookie-cutter groups to oppose Canadian resource industries.
They all sound so local and real – the Dogwood Initiative, the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defence Council, etc.
But they’re just tentacles of the same foreign foundation.