Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Read the following (allegedly) from the Libertarian "Think Tank" called "The Heartland Institute," and think back to how outraged the Global-Warming Deniers were in falsely claiming that the climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were keeping out opposing views of those deniers. "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

Read the whole article: Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Here's what The Heartland Institute has written on its website:

One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to "re-send" board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

Read the whole article: "Heartland Institute Responds to Stolen and Fake Documents."

Here's my take on that Heartland post. That post says that documents were emailed by Heartland. Now, if Heartland's explanation is correct, at least you'd think Heartland would say that it fully understands how anyone would think the documents are Heartland documents since they came from Heartland via email. I also wonder if Heartland itself waited until East Anglia confirmed the authenticity of every email before Heartland commented negatively about those emails. I also wonder if, in the face of East Anglia's statements and the outcomes of the investigations, Heartland has retracted every statement Heartland has made about those emails. Is the Heartland's public position now that all of the "Climategate" hubbub was the total smokescreen that it was? I'm sure they won't get far attacking every site that took Heartland emails for Heartland emails if Heartland itself didn't wait concerning the East Anglia emails and hasn't done a complete retraction.

Well, we'll see how the original-source journalist(s) respond. They won't reveal their sources. However, someone along the line may obtain and reveal email-server logs substantiated by the server host that might not jibe with Heartland's version. It could go the other way though.

Heartland didn't release the full email-headers concerning the emails in question. Why not? If they are going to go to court over this, they'll have to open those up in public anyway.

Do you think the libertarians will be yelling and screaming about the (alleged) censorship efforts of The Heartland Institute? You know they won't. What's really important though also to note is that the (alleged/reported) statement by that Institute is not subject to interpretation or being taken out of context the way the libertarians took the East Anglia emails and twisted them to suit the libertarians' twisted, selfish, greedy, anti-environmental purposes.

Well, that's the best anyone can do. We'll see.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.
    • That document is a fake. Heartland said so immediately.


      You need to either take down this post, or correct it. Your conclusions here are based on a document Heartland did not produce.

      • Hi Jim,

        First, using the same logic you are applying, you don't know the document is fake. You're just taking Heartland's word for it. Right now though, it's more like word against word. You suggested that I should have waited to see whether or not Heartland denied the document. Well, I should think then that consistency further suggests that we wait to see the responses to Heartland's denials.

        Also, it's not necessary to post the same thing twice and the same link four times. I allowed only one of your comments and deleted the duplicate URL/link in that one.

        Anyway, I have revised the post to reflect your concerns.

        That said, I still do not count Heartland as a credible source/expert on Global Warming.

        Do you have any comments about Heartland vis-a-vis the East Anglia so-called "Climategate" emails? Did Heartland and you both wait before wading in against the East Anglia scientists? Have you both fully retracted your positions (if you, Jim, bought into the falsehood about those emails spread mostly by libertarians)?

        If not, why the double standard?



        Tom Usher

    • "The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget." -- Peter Gleick

    • "Heartland's latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy."Â 

       "It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however."