Browse
Engage
Research
Can the climate-science debate get any more toxic?
The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank that challenges the scientific consensus about climate change, was embarrassed by the release on Tuesday of confidential documents, including the names of corporate donors. They were published by environmental bloggers led by the DeSmogBlog, which describes its purpose as "clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science."
Yesterday, Heartland struck back, saying that a key document was a forgery and that others were stolen "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." Heartland said: "We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."
Wow. It's getting nasty out there.
Heartland, the DeSmogBlog and others who rushed to report on the purloined documents -- one of which may turn out to be a fake -- all come out of this tainted, some worse than others.
Here are my reactions to the documents, and the ensuing brouhaha:
Money corrupts -- or does it? Heartland's critics have long charged that the think thank is funded by the oil, coal and gas industries. Yesterday, after the documents were published, a blogger for Oil Change International, which is critical (to say the least) of the fossil fuel industry, wrote that the leaked documents confirmed
what many people have known for years. That the Heartland Institute is effectively acting as a front group for big oil and energy, raising money from companies which are threatened by climate policies, so that it can essentially do their dirty work in undermining legislation that threatens their corporate bottom line.
Uh, no. If anything, it's the opposite. Heartland turns out to be a small nonprofit, with a budget of well under $10 million a year. Few of its corporate donors come from the fossil fuel industry. Heartland's 2011 corporate donors, according to a leaked fundraising plan, include:
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings ($60,000), Altria Client Services ($50,000), AT&T ($30,000), the Charles Koch Foundation ($25,000), the General Motors Foundation ($15,000), GlaxoSmithKline ($20,000), Golden Rule Insurance Co. ($250,000), KCI ($115,000) Microsoft ($59,908), Nucor ($100,000), Renaissance Re ($317,000), Reynolds American ($110,000), State Farm ($230,000), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ($60,000), Time Warner Cable ($10,000) and XL Group ($35,000).
Most of these donations were not climate-related, but intended to support Heartland's de-regulatory agenda in the health care, insurance and telecom industries. I emailed Microsoft and learned that its donations represent the fair market value of free software that the company makes available to all 501-C-3 nonprofit groups. [In FY 2011, Microsoft donated $844 million in software to 44,000 nonprofits around the world. The company has adopted a broad policy statement on climate change supporting government action to create market-based mechanisms to address climate change.] GlaxoSmithKline also publicly disassociated itself from Heartland's climate positions.
This isn't to say that Heartland won't raise money from groups with a strong financial interest in its arguments. Here's an excerpt from the fundraising plan, not about climate, but about fracking:
Fracking became controversial in 2010 and 2011 because environmentalists, hoping to prevent the development of large reserves of oil and natural case in the Marcellus Shale Formation, invented charges that fracking poses environmental and safety risks. The liberal media has uncritically reported these charges as though they were scientifically based, leading to pressure on national and state elected officials to ban or regulate the use of fracking. Heartland has been one of the most outspoken defenders of fracking in the U.S., using Environment & Climate News, its Web sites, and its PR and GR operations to comment repeatedly on the issue and reach large audiences. We have not, however, yet attempted to raise funds from businesses with a financial interest in fracking. In 2012 we intend to correct that oversight and approach dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle.
Aside from the claim that environmentalists "invented" the problems associated with fracking -- tell that to people in Pennsylvania and Wyoming who can't drink their water -- the trouble here is that once Heartland raises money from the "dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle," its position will be fixed. Given that unanswered questions remain about fracking, that's not a place where a respected think tank would want to be. Its positions should be based on the evidence, not on the financial interests of its donors.
Then there's the mystery man known in the Heartland documents as ... the Anonymous Donor.
Did these groups check w/
Did these groups check w/ East Anglia scientists before rolling out a huge, coordinated "climategate" scandal just ahead of international climate negotiations?
This article reads like it's written by someone who's new to the game, and doesn't understand the role DeSmogBlog plays - one of the few groups fighting deniers head on, instead of 'rising above' and letting them continue to win by preserving the status quo - I know that's not the case with Mr. Gunther, which is what makes this piece so puzzling.
In an ugly fight, the side that ignores the rules of the "referees" will win.
yeah, Mooney and Heartland
yeah, Mooney and Heartland are pretty much equivalent here. yup. lazy, lazy lazy false equivalence and writing there Mr. Gunther. I searched the GB archives and did not come up with a similar oped on the East Anglia stolen (and subsequently distorted) emails, so this he said/he said article is puzzling.
Absolutely This 'he says, she
Absolutely
This 'he says, she says' line is rather absurd.
1. Does the disputed document -- putting aside specific language -- have facts in it that are corroborated by the undisputed documents and the named actors? Yes.
2. Does Heartland regularly disseminate and promote information that has already been shown to be false and misleading -- without recanting? Yes. Does the 'other side' deal with those who can show errors in their work and correct/learn from those mistakes? Yes.
3. Is Heartland in an incredible double standard of cheering (and abusing) the East Anglia theft while screaming bloody murder over its sending out its material to unknown recipients? Yes.
Etc ...
You are too knowledgeable about this entire space to get a pass on this shallow 'he says/she says' type reporting. Are you going to show this in future work?