[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.
I think that will be done by future historians if we’re lucky and future archeologists if we’re not.
Steven Mosher says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:17 am
Mashey needs to be questioned
———————————————————-
And we are not talking, “How’s the weather?”
The problem (for the complainers) with opening an investigation of Heartland’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is that the many on the complainers side that are blatantly abusing the requirements now would need to worry. If Heartland is determined to be squeaky clean, they would need to keep that quiet and work to control suggestions to investigate other tax exempts.
However, since the media and the Justice “system” seem to be “owned” by or easily bamboozled by the complainers, they may not need to worry. Besides they can simply open their propaganda book to the chapter on protecting their on-going abuses of tax exempt status, fill in the blanks in the appropriate templates and move on to their next step in implementing their elitist total Government solution. (too bad most of the alarmist worker bees don’t know what their queens real objectives are or that they are walking a path to subjugation.
Oh well!
Maybe they would like to have a look at the Center for American progress rights to 501 (c)(3) status? Especially Romm’s bit. I don’t see anyone from there opening the books on their contributors soon!
Talk about a pot calling a kettle black!
While we’re on the subject of Fakegate, it seems the folks at Wiki are having trouble with full context (not to mention the inappropriate use of plurals and the word “leaked”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Or maybe it’s just that the good Dr. Connolley (AKA “the Mailed Fist”) is up to his old tricks again.
This may be the beginning of a series of nuisance suits, the kind of strategy that drove Sarah Palin from office. A problem here is that with all these groups acting concurrently, they’re reinforcing each other. (There doesn’t have to be a master plan. In addition to being mutually reinforcing, this activity probably also serves to recruit others.)
Basically, a heavy dose of negative reinforcement is called for. But that takes resources – and commitment.
One useful feature of all this is that these people are revealing themselves in no uncertain terms, in part because they seem utterly oblivious to the spectacle they’re making. This insularity (and resulting recklessness) is an Archilles heel that can be taken advantage of.
> Maybe somebody should ask the IRS to take a close look at Gleick’s organization….
You don’t think some senior Republicans would be interested to know that a 503(c) is basically saying “Don’t vote for any Republican candidate for President”? as loudly as it can.
And not only is that 503(c) tax-exempt, they are also in receipt of federal grants as well.
I don’t know, I think we’re seeing desperation. Heartland is chicken feed, the risk should be too great to pursue this given the massive amount of funds the propagandists tax exempts have in play.
Gail Combs says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:04 am
“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.”
Sounds like USA == Greece… only that you still print your own currency.
@mpaul – “…. So who else was involved? Who were the other “plumbers”?…
Perhaps worthy of repeating from another of my WUWT comments, (also noted by other kind commenter at WUWT), I detailed some critical Desmogblog & related ties that actually go back 17+ years, à la Watergate: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html
All part of a larger, older highly questionable effort to marginalize skeptics at all costs, by any means.
“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,”
And who determined that these orgnizations were “misinforming the public” and by what rule of law?
The funniest aspect of all this is the supposed link to the fuel industries. They are in no way threatened by the alarmists. There is no credible substitute. The cost of any restrictions on carbon fuels is passed on to the customer at a profit. If anything, the fuel companies should support the warmists and they do. The entire argument is nonsense.
copner says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:30 am
——————————-
Reply: you are probably aware of this, but in case you’re not, the following is from the PI website list of the PI’s advisory board:
I don’t think she is still working for Kerry, but talk about a possible conduit for federal funds!
Kerry: Pete, how much you need this year?
Gleick: How much you got?
> And who determined that these orgnizations were “misinforming the public” and by what rule of law?
John Mashey. He has appointed himself as ultimate arbiter of truth.
It’s the same disease that apparently quite a few others on his side are suffering from. If you don’t agree with them, you are apparently, by definition, lying.
It’s fortunate that these arbiters of truth seem to all agree with each other, apparently about everything, because what would happen if 2 of them ever did have a different opinion from each other, who knows what would happen?
OK, as a Brit I’m a bit of an outsider in US lobbying discussions, but the impression I get of Heartland from here is that their affairs will turn out to be (if investigated) quite as above-board as they say they are. Honesty sort of goes with the stuff they support, from what I’ve seen about them here and elsewhere.
Now, the funding of the AGW ‘teams’ … that would make interesting reading, once your brain got used to the astronomical size of the figures involved.
Russell C says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:43 am
“Perhaps worthy of repeating from another of my WUWT comments, (also noted by other kind commenter at WUWT), I detailed some critical Desmogblog & related ties that actually go back 17+ years, à la Watergate: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html
”
Thanks; I missed that. Fascinating to see all these decades of alternative reality construction.
The IRS is being used against the Tea Party folks, too:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/14/alexander-corker-question-irs-over-tea-party/
Here’s my questions for these seven climate scientists who apparently all or most work for publicly funded agencies and universities. What gives you the right, given the taxpayers of the United States pay your salary, provide unparalleled job security, pensions, and in general pecuniary interests vis a vis funding to willingly,openly and viciously attack private citizens , groups and organizations with whom you do not agree? These individuals use their position and status both as a sword and a shield far beyond the norms and standards that the vast majority of “employees” are able to do to say or do.I have no problem with freedom of expression but really this special “unfiltered” academic freedom and civil service freedom is beyond the pale.
John A says:
“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.”
_________________________
“On corruption within the global warming movement” – a Hypothesis
I believe that the global warming fraudsters are even more corrupt than the public evidence contained in the ClimateGate 1 & 2 emails. Here is my rationale, developed from decades of business experience in many parts of the world.
We have clear evidence in the ClimateGate emails of unprofessional, indecent and unethical behaviour by the global warming “elite”, including attempts to harm the careers of climate realists and intimidate the editors of professional journals, corruption of the peer review process, as well as open discussions of scientific fraud such as “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline”.
When people openly discuss such offensive acts in their emails, one can be reasonably certain that there are even more repulsive practices that they only discuss among themselves by phone or in person, so as to leave no record of these odious conversations.
Another symptom is the feigned anger of the warming fraudsters against climate realists – I have seen this tactic used many times as a smokescreen in business, and have even been able to detect people who were stealing within their organizations from this aggressive behaviour.
The argument that the ClimateGate emails are somehow mis-interpreted and the toxic comments are in fact innocent, is utterly specious.
The ClimateGate emails are, in all probability, just the “tip of the iceberg”, and the corruption runs much deeper and wider within the global warming movement.
“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.”
—————————————————————————–
Talk about yellow ‘journalism’!
… ‘his audit’ – an audit is a dispassionate, impartial compilation of relevant facts. The first principle of a proper audit is that the auditor should not have a dog in the fight. To put it mildly, a polemic is not an audit, and the unfortunately named Mr Mashey has unquestionably penned a polemic in this case.
…’Others were demanding more disclosure’ – this sort of mealy-mouthed ‘journalism’ always reminds me of a TV interview between a featherbrained Australian TV ‘journalist’ and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. He ran the ‘people have said’ (you are the spawn of Satan) line on her. She looked him in the eye, and said ‘which people? who? when?’ Well, shuffle, shuffle, looks at boots, he would prefer not to say, but how does she respond. ‘But who? You want me to respond to criticism – criticism from whom? When? What did they say?’ And so it went on for a couple of minutes till the coward backed down, because he was setting up a strawman, or lying, or didn’t have the guts to ask the question directly.
It is is a cheap and all too common ‘trick’ (in the sense that we have come to know) for reporters to do this. Whenever you see ‘it is claimed’, or ‘questions are being asked’ or any of those passive voice constructions (look it up – it is at least as important as basic physics) – realise that it is a cover for laziness, incompetence or pushing an agenda.
Incidentally, if anyone has a link to the abovementioned interview, which I think was on 60 Minutes, or a transcript, I’d be grateful. I saw it, it certainly happened.
This is a dangerous action. It could set precedents which may well backfire on the Pro-warming groups If it comes to it how would WWF, Greenpeace etc fare under equal scrutiny?
I neglected to mention in my previous post (under the description of yellow journalism) the use of ‘trove’. It wasn’t just a bunch of typical institutional documents, it was apparently a ‘trove’, which means ‘a collection of valuable items discovered or found’. You know, like Spanish treasure or gold sovereigns or something. If that’s a ‘trove’, the minutes of my last local council meeting must be Eldorado.
Joanna @ur momisugly 11:55 AM
Here it is.
Interestingly, the google search I did turned this up too.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104530
Isn’t that network publically funded? Embargoed?
John Kettlewell –
The letter which you located is apparently a revised version. Goldenberg’s statement in her article (quoted in the main post) that the letter was published and later removed refers to the original version. The revised version is tamer than the original in at least a couple of places.
Goldenberg quotes the original about revealing the source of climate skeptics’ funding: “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.” The revised version has “This will help people to make up their own minds about the truth of the climate change threat, so that action can be planned on the basis of evidence rather than confusion.”
The revised version has this sentence: “As climate and other scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about mainstream international climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst.” Goldenberg quotes the now-lost original: “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”. Presumably this was an allusion to the forged strategy document, which said “Other contributions [to Heartland] will be pursued … from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.” When it became clear that the strategy document was fake, the letter was revised to remove a claim of manipulation of science for profit.