Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Documents Reveal Plans, Funders and Goals of 'Climate Denial' Machine
The DeSmogBlog, which has long covered the impacts global warming and fossil fuel industry-backed misinformation campaigns, on Tuesday released internal documents from the Heartland Institute -- "the heart of the climate denial machine" -- that discuss "its current plans, many of its funders, and details" confirming years of suspicion and reporting on their goals and machinations.
The Koch-funded Heartland Institute is the 'heart' of the climate denial machine. "The heart of the climate denial machine," writes Brendan Demelle at DeSmog,"Relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more."
The documents include:
- Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.
The January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states:
“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”
- Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:
Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”
- Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.
“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
And:
Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile 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.” (emphasis added)
Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.
And Suzanne Goldenberg, writing for The Guardian:
The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change. (Photograph: Koch Industries)
It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents. "There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.
The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels at New York's Time Square as well as in Washington DC.
If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.
"It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."
The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that year.
In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

115 Comments so far
Show AllThe ETC Group, in its excellent report on geoengineering, calls this the Lomborg manoeuver:
Geoengineering and denialism are contradictory only in rational terms. From the point of view of profits for the fossil fuel interests behind both initiatives, it makes perfect sense. Artificial cooling (probably Solar Radiation Management by means of stratospheric SO2), will be framed as an alternative to phasing out carbon emissions.
More sales for the oil companies, more sales for the engineering and aviation behemoths - everyone's happy. The world ocean would become virtually inert, but later we'll figure out a way to profit from that, too.
Gates and his associates hold several geoengineering patents.
But the real insanity is obvious here....
Regarding "even if it works":
Just to clarify, there's little doubt that stratospheric sulfate aerosols would be effective in cooling the Earth:
Cooling via stratospheric SO2 is an extremely dangerous, persistent idea specifically because it would be both effective and feasible. No international or even national agreement would be required. Any private concern could start an SRM program at any time, with no authorization. I haven't heard of any laws against it.
The very definition of disaster capitalism.
Capitalist globalisation is itself nothing more than economic colonialism.. When done properly it will produce the same destruction of indigenous populations, cultures, free enterprise and civil liberties as classical colonisation with little or no need for a large occupying presence or military intervention.
Capitalist market incursions into lands with a peaceful societal outlook, educational institutions, industrial development, human freedom, public institutions and viable systems of governance, divide and destroy the unity of the local people, who are then more easily exploited and driven into abject poverty.
This makes a few government officials and members of the upper class, who were already relatively wealthy, much richer while ensuring that whatever resources the nation may have are available exclusively to the capitalist profit machine. The People of the client state be damned.
Planned obsolescence is absolutely an indispensable aspect of any for-profit, market-driven economy.
The saddest thing is, it's completely unnecessary. Life is not about profit. The for-profit paradigm violates some of the most basic laws of nature.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~markwrede/NonFic/ThermoEcon.html
Life is about living and, in order to avoid extinction, a symbiotic relationship with the environment is essential. The profit motive demands only taking and consuming without ever returning anything to the system that supports Life.
I'm sure you've seen the movie "Independence Day". Think of the aliens that attacked Earth in that flik. They were the ultimate consumerist society. This could be us in the future; provided we survive at all.
President Thomas Whitmore: (Played by Bill Pullman)
"I saw... its thoughts. I saw what they're planning to do. They're like locusts. They're moving from planet to planet... their whole civilization. After they've consumed every natural resource they move on..."
From the movie, Independence Day
Actually, electrical power generation from coal and other fossil fuels is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
Thus those running air conditioners, clothes dryers, electric water heaters, hair dryers, freezers, and refrigerators are among those most responsible. A lot of that activity is done by "the corporations" (mainly to produce the goods and services we citizens demand, although much goes to wasteful and unproductive ends like the military), and of lot of that is done by the 150 million or so homeowners and renters in the U.S.
And then there are also the cars we drive long distances across our low-density, auto-friendly suburban wastelands ...
It's easy to blame this all on the big bad corporations. But I think we also need to look in the mirror.
But to ignore the implications of memos such as those discussed here gives the "other guys" carte blanche to continue their misinformation campaigns which will make any effective policies even more unlikely.
The science is not going to win this battle.
Hayduke2000,
The study of climate change is no longer a science because ignorami from places like the Heartland institute keep attacking the science, or because DeSmogBlog reports on these attacks?
By that logic, Darwin is no longer a scientist, because he has been subject to similar right-wing attacks, which have also been reported on.
Hayduke2000 wrote: There is no "atmospheric CO2 equals global warming" truism.
It is not easy to understand exactly how light energy works, but it is easy to explain how infrared light interacts with a CO2 molecule - it makes it vibrate, absorbing the energy, which is later radiated in a random direction. Objects at room temperature, like the Earth, glow with IR light. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere bounce that energy back down toward the surface - energy which would otherwise escape into space. By the simple means of retaining energy like a blanket, the Earth is warmed.
Without greenhouse warming from CO2, the global mean temperature of the Earth would be -15°C instead of +15°C. The greenhouse warming effect of CO2 has worked on the Earth throughout geologic history, going up and down with the temperature. The greenhouse warming effect of CO2 also works on Venus and Mars - keeping both planets much warmer than they would be if they had no atmospheres.
All scientific knowledge is contingent upon the arrival of a better theory, but the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 has been known since physicists first discovered the radiative properties of certain molecules (those with dipole moments) more than 100 years ago. The greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is no more mysterious or controversial than how gravity works.
Hayduke2000's motivations are not interesting to me. When a clear-cut misstatement such as his confusion about atmospheric CO2 emerges from whatever source, it can be exploited as a teachable moment for whoever (else) might be interested.
Some people who make similar misstatements are in fact sincerely confused. The carpet-bombing of misinformation on this issue has been quite effective, after all. At any rate, there's no need to assume that someone parroting fossil fuel industry lies is industry sponsored - if one's strategy is to elucidate the science. Issues at the personal level can get in the way.
Hayduke2000 uses equivalence rhetoric again by suggesting (again, without evidence) that there are two opposing but equally valid sides (or "wings") to the science of climate change. This is the tactic that was used for decades by the Tobacco Institute (the tobacco industry's propaganda arm) to cast doubt on the link between tobacco and cancer. The Institute was finally exposed (and ordered shut down by a court) after it's internal documents were turned over in the Minnesota lawsuit, and those documents revealed that the Institute was fully aware that smoking causes cancer.
The Heartland Institute is Big Carbon's Tobacco Institute, and Hayduke2000's comments mark him as a likely paid shill.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_techniques
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Shoe Thrower,
You say "it's a question of relative magnitude." My previous post quantifies CO2's total influence on the Earth's temperature: without greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, the Earth would be 30°C (54°F) cooler - frozen solid from pole to pole.
How do we know this? The amount of energy given off by a planet needs to equal the amount of energy absorbed - output has to equal input. If there's an imbalance in the energy budget (as there is today), more energy is being absorbed than emitted, and the planet will heat up until enough energy is emitted to rebalance the energy budget.
We can accurately measure how much energy from sunlight is constantly bombarding the Earth. From this input, the Stefan-Boltzman equation very simply determines how warm the planet should be: -15°C for a planet at Earth's distance from the Sun, with no atmosphere. Something is warming the Earth by blocking the radiation of Earth's heat to space - and that something is the greenhouse effect.
This much emerges from a basic property of all matter called blackbody radiation. Most of the factors in the "messy algorithm" you cite are relevant only at regional and temporary scales, having no effect on the long-term energy budget of the Earth, or any other planet, considered as a whole. The scale of other factors which are global in scope is known with high confidence to be quite negligible compared to the 30°C magnitude of total greenhouse warming on Earth.
The point about "heat from below" is an interesting one. From the Skeptical Science website:
Here's an interesting interview of Oreskes, talking about Merchants of Doubt:
Another outstanding science historian is Spencer Weart. The Discovery of Global Warming (free online) is the standard reference on the development of climate science.
Self-styled "climate skeptics" display no actual skepticism whatsoever when it comes to parroting the corporate anti-science doctrine, no matter how absurd or inconsistent.
The excellent denial-debunking site SkepticalScience is not "ironically named." It is named in the spirit of reclaiming the good name of skepticism from the crackpots aiming to appropriate it:
+16 incompetence for Nosferatu.
joNova.com belongs to a company (HQ in Seattle, Washington) providing "Integrated Business Planning" software. It does not host any Skeptics Guide to anything.
This comment I agree with, though most of them here about this subject I do not. And incidentally, I am in agreement with most issues here at CD - just not "climate deniers". What does that mean anyway? Do you think that people that disagree with the highly politicized atmosphere and machinations of the IPCC deny that "climate changes"? Climate is always changing, and has always changed in our planet's history.
There happen to be a plethora of scientists (from many disciplines) that disagree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Just google something like "scientists that disagree with global warming" and you will find many accomplished scientists and professors. Although it is true many in the oil and gas industry also do, to say that they and industry paid scientists are the only ones is just ignorant. The vast majority of geologists who have studied our planets' past climate will tell you we are well within natural limits of climate change - there is just way too much hype and superficial understanding of this issue.
Having been one whose studies have concentrated mostly on the past 20,000 years of earth history - I am much more concerned about the consequences of humans having to deal with another ice age. And yes, from my studies, I think that is much more likely of an impending disaster for the human population at some point.
Also, I am an environmentalist and a leftist. I quit my first and only industry job after one month out of grad school.
Peace Now.