Meanwhile in Guardian-land…

[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.

And the Hockey Team are back:

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
78 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 17, 2012 12:47 pm

Alice and I went to a service at the Black Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem during the 2008 presidential race, primarily to listen to their renowned choir. Except for a tour group seated in the back, we were about the only non-blacks there. One of the deacons took special care of us and escorted us to good seats. The choir was wonderful, but the most interesting and entertaining part was the sermon, a significant portion of which was devoted to getting out the black vote for Obama. At one point in his exhortation, the minister directed his flock to: “Get everyone to vote! Obama needs all of us! Get your crack-head cousin (registered to vote), then get his sorry butt out of bed and make sure he do (vote).”
In a racially mixed church, a minister promoting either a Republican or Democrat would certainly get complaints from the opposing side, but if there was a Republican member of this Harlem church, I doubt he or she ever let anyone know. Prohibitions of political activity by exempt organizations don’t work if it is considered acceptable by some, but not by others.

Timbo
March 17, 2012 1:06 pm

Allan MacRae says:
March 17, 2012 at 10:36 am
“On corruption within the global warming movement” – a Hypothesis
I think you are onto something. I have no scientific training, apart from what little rubbed off in high school. What made my BS spidey senses tingle was the hysterical reaction of the proponents of AGW or whatever they’re going to baptize it next to any questioning of their position. This is something I have often encountered in my professional life and usually meant that there was something fishy going on. Maybe we are missing an even bigger picture?

March 17, 2012 1:12 pm

johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 11:55 am

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.

Our crack research staff turned up these tidbits, johanna –
(1) The transcript (from Wiki):

In an interview with George Negus for the Australian TV program 60 minutes, the following exchange occurred [2]:
Negus: Why do people stop us in the street almost and tell us that Margaret Thatcher isn’t just inflexible, she’s not just single-minded, on occasions she’t plain pig-headed and won’t be told by anybody?
Thatcher: Would you tell me who has stopped you in the street and said that?
Negus: Ordinary Britons…
Thatcher: Where?
Negus: In conversation, in pubs…
Thatcher (interrupting): I thought you’d just come from Belize
Negus: Oh this is not the first time we’ve been here.
Thatcher: Will you tell me who, and where and when?
Negus: Ordinary Britons in restaurants and cabs
Thatcher: How many?
Negus: …in cabs
Thatcher: How many?
Negus: I would say at least one in two
Thatcher: Why won’t you tell me their names and who they are?

(2) The video (the audio is really, really low, but it’s there):

.

Kozlowski
March 17, 2012 1:33 pm

Compare the minuscule budget of Heartland vs. all of the Big Green opponents and it makes you wonder…
Then again, truth doesn’t need that much funding. Lies do. Apparently lies need billions while the truth needs a few million.
So the “whistleblower to the IRS” + the FakeGate documents were meant to be the one-two punch against Heartland, to knock it out of the game. Why was Heartland considered Ground Zero in the climate wars? Were they really that effective? On such a small budget? I had barely heard of them (only tangentially) before FakeGate, despite having been a reader of WUWT for many years.

johanna
March 17, 2012 1:37 pm

John M says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Joanna 11:55 AM
Here it is.
————————————————————
Thanks, that’s part of it. But as your other link shows, it was edited by the TV producers – the original went on for quite a bit longer.
She made mincemeat of George Negus, who recently has been in the news for participating in trashing (in a joking way, of course!) on television a guy who won the Victoria Cross for extraordinary heroism in Afghanistan. It is the highest military honour that can be awarded in Australia, and the recipients in our entire history number in a few hundreds. The backlash against Negus and his co-panelists on the chat show that demeaned Ben Roberts-Smith by calling him stupid and sexually inadequate (only joking, ha-ha) was massive.
If anyone discussing scientific or simply factual issues has to engage with so called journalists, extreme caution is the watchword. As Anthony has discovered, and as the examples we have been discussing illustrate, it is a game in which anyone who is not a reporter is just seen as cannon fodder. They couldn’t obliterate the Margaret Thatcher interview because she was the Prime Minister of the UK. If she had been Maggie Thatcher of Nowheresville, her trouncing of the journalist would never have seen the light of day.

March 17, 2012 2:52 pm

Here’s my theory on the problem with official climate science:
Many people going through public schools are consciously and subliminally indoctrinated with the understanding that mankind is destroying the earth especially via technology (chemicals, energy production, etc.) When they graduate from their primary education (having their critical faculties suitably diminished) some of them will go into earth sciences so they can save their planet from the evils of corporate pollution.
They enter their particular field of science with a firm premise that mankind is destroying their planet. Any evidence seeking they engage in is done solely for the purpose of verifying their initial premise.

jorgekafkazar
March 17, 2012 3:31 pm

Allan MacRae says: “…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.
I’ve read the Climategate papers, Allen. These wankers aren’t that bright.

Phil
March 17, 2012 3:46 pm

It is unfortunate, but true, that the IRS allows itself to be used for private score settling. There ought to be a law against it.

Shona
March 17, 2012 3:51 pm

“rw says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:19 am
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.

I think they’re getting hysterical, for more than ten years now the data, even massaged, hasn’t been fitting the narrative, and the gap is beginning to be plainly visible.
Also I think this stuff just puts the general public against them. The truly gobsmacking thing from the Heartland kerfuffle was how tiny the sums were.

Jack
March 17, 2012 4:49 pm

“systematic manipulation and suppression of climate science”
They have that right but aimed at the wrong side. Why do rational scientists across the world need FOI requests to test the CAGW data? Is it because the data has been subject to “systematic manipulation”?
Own goal!

March 17, 2012 5:59 pm

Keep in mind that the guy Obama appointed to head the IRS [Timmy Geithner] was caught cheating on his taxes. Naturaly, being Obama’s pal he not only skated, he was rewarded for it. You can see his signature on the new U.S. currency.

DavidA
March 17, 2012 6:05 pm

Mashey comments here, #774 (Deltoid).

The history is over Deep Climate, posted a few days ago.
My report was capped the day before and I’d written the IRS complaint, finishing about 10:30. Everything in mine was from public information. I regen’d the PDF to fix the date on the afternoon of the 14th, and wrote the blog post sitting in the jury-selection room. [Thanks goodness San Mateo provides WiFi and power strips.]
If I had any idea that Peter was going to release this material, I would have begged him not to do it, or at the least, send it to the IRS as a whistleblower complaint indicating the specific alleged violations. That info and mine inter-corroborate rather well, and I’d created a framework for categorizing the issues.
Everybody made a big deal of the strategy doc and the education angle. As I noted in Fakeducation, trying to do this was nothing new, so I ignored the strategy doc for the real meat in the Funding and Budget. [I used to be an Officer at MIPS, and am a 10-year Trustee at a nonprofit. So, I’ve been in a fair number of Board meetings and am used to looking at Board packages.
The strategy document sure “feels” like something Bast could dash off, as its style is quite consistent with the voluminous materials I’d been looking at. … but then anyone familiar with that style could easily fake it, IF they had the Board package in hand. Anyway, I spent 60 seconds on it and then forget about it. See this DSB and see what you think. I’ve really never cared, because the Board package has the good stuff.

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 6:15 pm

DirkH says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:36 am
Sounds like USA == Greece… only that you still print your own currency.
_______________________________________
They are the same only the people in the USA are more naive.

barry
March 17, 2012 6:18 pm

Maybe I’m naive, but seeing as we know where the funding for climate science comes from (government), isn’t there a principle of parity here, where it is right and just that we likewise know who is funding the critics? This is an ethical question, setting aside the legalities.
Do we let the whole issue of who is funding what drop now? Or how can this line of enquiry only apply to one side?

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 6:30 pm

Hawkwood says:
March 17, 2012 at 10:30 am
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? ….
_____________________________________
They are are would be masters and it shows in their arrogance and disdain for the “Average Joe” who some of them call The Great Unwashed

March 17, 2012 6:44 pm

If I am investigating the gleick affair there are several questions I want to ask John Mashey.
Looking at his “document” it was clear that he was trying to trace money through various organizations including heartland. Gleick went on a phising expedition basically in search of information that mashey wanted.
So, I want to know about all the contacts between Mashey and Gleick. Also, looking through the network of other connections between them I’m going to look for cut outs as well.. Like Mashey–>mandia–>Gleick. So, I’d go after his phone records, email records, logs of the google groups that he belongs to. Did he conspire with Gleick basically.

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 6:57 pm

am Grove says:
March 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Here’s my theory on the problem with official climate science:
Many people going through public schools are consciously and subliminally indoctrinated with the understanding that mankind is destroying the earth ….
___________________________________________
You are absolutely correct. That is one of the reasons Heartland is targeted. They wanted to have SCIENCE not propaganda taught in school. Unlike those intent on Dumbing Down America
In this article, No Teacher, but Every Textbook, Left Behind…..We have learned this, if nothing else, from the selective prosecution of Mr. Gossai: con a few people, and it’s a felony; con millions, and it’s educating the youth of America

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
March 17, 2012 7:06 pm

Who is this whistleblowing Dark Knight?

John Mashey…

And this is when I started laughing.

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 7:13 pm

barry says: March 17, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Maybe I’m naive, but seeing as we know where the funding for climate science comes from (government), isn’t there a principle of parity here, where it is right and just that we likewise know who is funding the critics? This is an ethical question, setting aside the legalities.
Do we let the whole issue of who is funding what drop now? Or how can this line of enquiry only apply to one side?
_________________________________
Oh I agree Barry. I would love to see these people drug kicking and screaming into court and put on trial for the trillions of dollars that has been bilked from tax payers around the world.
Unfortunately I have learned to my despair they OWN the police and the courts and therefore the laws only apply to us little guys. That is not only based on reading but on personal experience. You have to be really dumb and low on the totem pole to actually go to jail. You can have a prison record, steal a car, get caught red handed and get nothing but a couple months probation. Do you really think anything would actually happen to these guys?

March 17, 2012 8:00 pm

jorgekafkazar says: March 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Allan MacRae says: “…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.”
I’ve read the Climategate papers, Allan. These wankers aren’t that bright.
__________________
Jorge, the evidence suggests that they are bright enough.
To date, global warming is a trillion dollar scam. That is, a million million dollars of scarce global resources has been misappropriated, squandered on junk science, warmist scaremongering and worthless energy technologies from grid-connected wind and solar power to corn ethanol and similar food-to-fuel nonsense.
All of these worthless energy technologies require huge life-of-project subsidies from the public purse to survive. This means that these technologies are utterly uneconomic. It also means that they will go bankrupt the minute these huge public subsidies cease.
To summarize, a trillion dollars has been misappropriated, most of it squandered on uneconomic “green energy” schemes that go bankrupt the minute the global warming scam ends.
So do not underestimate the scale of the scam, or the huge assets that the global warming fraudsters have to support them.
And if the global warming fraudsters are indeed “not that bright”, just imagine where we’d be if they were.

Brian H
March 18, 2012 2:41 am

Edit note:
This got lost is in the days following Fakegate, as WordPress sometime fails to notify me that Guest posts are in que queue,

Brian H
March 18, 2012 2:42 am

Expanded edit note:
This got lost is in the days following Fakegate, as WordPress sometime sometimes fails to notify me that Guest posts are in que queue,

Brian H
March 18, 2012 2:45 am

And “Skeptical Science” is anything but skeptical or scientific.
I’ve always understood the title to refer to the blog’s attack on skeptical science, not realizing that it’s the only kind there is.

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 6:28 am
Robert of Ottawa
March 18, 2012 8:41 am

It is quite clear to me that Sierra, Greenpeace, WWF, Evnironmental Defence Fund, Suzuki, etc. are political organizations and NOT charities; they should have their charitable status removed. Surely a charity performs charitable acts, not agit-prop.