- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


February 2012
« Jan   Mar »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Tiny Budget for Heartland Institute Trying to Counter Global Climate Madness and Scientific Fraud

Heartland Institute bad – DeSmogBlog says so! ‘Did you know the Heartland Institute employs skeptics?’ ‘And it’s ‘suggested’ they get money from people who agree with them and have interests in carbon dense energy!’

The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

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.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.


I am a retired academic who engages in professional pro bono and paid consultancy activity from time to time, including for the Heartland Institute amongst other organisations. That said, the details of my personal finances are just that, personal and private, and I therefore have no comment to make on the stolen, and inaccurate by tampering, Heartland papers.

Because I am a professional scientist, to state or imply that I (or any other senior scientist) would accept funding that was conditional on my expressing a particular scientific viewpoint is both offensive and inaccurate, and will expose anyone who writes or says it in public to legal hazard.


For more go to:

Heartland documents: what’s the big deal? ‘These [skeptical] sums are loose change compared to the billions that are funneled to green groups, alarmist research establishments…”…smear blogs, propaganda organizations and the like. For alarmists to complain about such tiny sums is simply laughable’

‘With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, & $95 million respectively, how can Greenpeace, Sierra Club, & NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million?’ — Revealed: The ‘heart of the climate denial machine’ allegedly relies on $200k per year donated from Koch to Heartland

‘How did Heartland allegedly win climate debate by buying scientists for $300k, while warmists lost it while splitting up $79 billion in US govt money?

Warmist Kelly Rigg is outraged that a ‘well-funded’ organization should dare to spend a dollar to counter every 47 dollars spent by an organization she’s run campaigns for’

Flashback: Read Climate Depot’s report on the warmist funding vs. skeptical funding — Warmists funding massive compared to paltry skeptical funding

Warmist Tobis: ‘Is Turnabout Fair Play?’ — ‘The bit about ‘dissuading teachers from teaching science’ was presumably just a sloppy edit, right?’

Heartland Institute documents leaked: ‘Documents published on Desmog blog & elsewhere, which appear to detail US think-tank’s budget and anti-climate-change strategy’

Aussie Skeptical scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-skeptic think tank

‘UK Greenie George Monbiot claims it’s ‘deeply sinister’ for one dollar in private money to be used to counter $100 in public money that NASA is using to promote the climate hoax’

‘According to the most recent data on, Joe Romm’s Center for American Progress spends 10 times as much money as Morano’s CFACT’ — ‘And Greenpeace spends one hundred times as much money annually as Morano’s CFACT’

Warmists Declare: ‘Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine’ — Warmists giddy: ‘Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents’

Warmist headbangers go ape over Heartland finance leak: Warmists ‘think this is some kind of equivalent to Climategate (v1 and v2), which demonstrated widespread scientific fraud, manipulation of data, destruction of emails and avoidance of FOI requests on the part of the consensus boys’

Hooray, staunch privacy advocate Andy Revkin of NYT has once again been replaced by heroic whistle-blowing Andy!!! ‘Remember during ClimateGate, when Andy was all about privacy and not sharing documents not intended for the public eye? Now that he thinks he sees a ‘confidential’ Heartland memo, he’s already tweeted about it four times in an hour’


The above information has been provided by Marc Morano, Bob Carter and the Heartland Institute. I was first alerted to the issue when this blog was hit by a spammer attempting to post misleading and defamatory statements about Bob Carter.


71 Responses to “Tiny Budget for Heartland Institute Trying to Counter Global Climate Madness and Scientific Fraud”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. Comment from: jennifer

    Jo Nova places relative budgets in some context:

  2. Comment from: Luke

    “Warmist headbangers go ape over Heartland finance leak: Warmists ‘think this is some kind of equivalent to Climategate (v1 and v2), which demonstrated widespread scientific fraud, manipulation of data, destruction of emails and avoidance of FOI requests on the part of the consensus boys’” – what a pretentious wank

  3. Comment from: Robert

    I love it that Heartland takes money from the fossil fuel industry. But I’m biased. I have an irrational love of fossil fuels. I keep imagining that my entire life is made easier, healthier, safer and more enjoyable at every moment by reliable electricity and transport, all enabled by coal and petroleum.

    I’m such a hick. I wish I was all posh and clever like those Greens and GetUp people.

  4. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Admit it Luke, in your wildest dreams I bet you never guessed there was such a huge denial machine out there.

    SS and DSB have been wetting themselves above and below for the last couple of days over these docs.

    You do realise that Heartland have been denying FOI all these years? And the money! The money!

    WUWT is gonna get paid 90 thou! [44 actually] for just producing a website! And the scoundrel denied, DENIED! he’d ever received money! [er...well, he hadn't when he denied it]

    Compare that to what we poor Warmers have to put up with! [like billions]

    I’m gonna paint DENIERGATE on my balloon on a stick just so everyone knows. IN BRIGHT PINK!

  5. Comment from: MostlyHarmless

    News of my “well-organised disinformation campaign” must have reached “Big Oil” by now, but I’m still waiting for my cheque. It’s quite obvious “climate change” has wreaked havoc on the postal service. Add it to the List.

  6. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Do you think Heartland will get a Nobull prize like Al?

  7. Comment from: Minister for Truth

    What a pathetic load of desparate drivel from the alarmanistas and their bag carriers like the perennially vexatious nong, who has nothing better to do with his life than to dominate any web site that may be antethical to the alarmist cause..and this one in particular.

    But then given the standards exposed by climate gate v1 and v2 clearly anything goes with these manipulative academic dopes.

    The only thing that is pretentious though has been their continuing behaviour through out it all.

    I have had my lifes fill of dam leftist academics…cant run their institutions properly… and cant manage the peer review processes in an open and transparent way.

    It is way past the time for demanding an open and wide inquiry into AGW,PR, funding and these organisations roles and their behaviour…. to get them to come up to scratch.

    Its not going to happen under the Gillard minority schemozzle ..the worst govt in Australias history.

  8. Comment from: James Mayeau

    So what? One of the fakes was particularly bad compared to the rest.
    Climate Progress: Evidence so fake even a warmist won’t buy it. < good bumpersticker fodder.

    But even if they were the goods, gold plated originals, stolen directly from the Heartland by Joe Romm himself, so what?

    You didn't think Heartland had operating expenses? True it's slightly less than what Al Gore pays the pool boy, but they have em.

    Congratulations on figuring it out.

    Another tip for warmists which might come in handy. Streetlights – Green means go. Red, stop.
    (don't tell anyone you heard it from me.)

  9. Comment from: John Sayers

    Ben Cubby at the SMH was first out with it in this morning’s edition. I wonder how serious the Heartland Institute is in their threat of legal action against those who publish the stolen papers.

  10. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

  11. Comment from: Polyaulax

    The money amount is irrelevant,as creating spam is cheaper than doing real science. More interesting are the sources,and the candid accounts of the mission. Nova provides the usual fog of nonsense….not context.

    It’s not the first time that ‘Nova’ has peddled a comparison between the budget of a national research organisation and the budget of a lobbyist with a single issue brief…and it’s still the same risible false equivalence. NASA does pure and applied research -not all on climate- at and through many institutions ,with some public outreach,as is expected of every agency. Heartland does no research,just scripting and strategy,as Bob Carter has explained-when he says he “receives no research money from special interest organisations” I believe him,as he does no climate research,just ‘outreach’ for Heartland and other lobbyists!

    Nova claims that Heartland has only one major donor. We don’t know who this person is…and we don’t know whether this donor is a conduit for others as well as him/herself. Nova continues the wool-pulling attempt by equating multi-issue conservation lobby organisations with Heartland. She is lazy indeed.

    You think Revkin is a hypocrite? Now that Heartland is trying to be cute about the ethics of an internet hacker gaining access to their confidential communications,we’ll see them arguing against the use of the contents of the hacked UEA CRU server,eh?

  12. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Poly, the fact that you still think Climategate is the work of a hacker says it all.

    After C1 and C2, with the promise of C3 being the daddy of them all, you can’t be serious.

    “NASA does pure and applied research”

    Like this you mean:

    Jo Nova is not trying to “equate”. On one hand we have govt and UN fabulously- funded “science” pushing a questionable cause that won’t reveal data provided at our expense as opposed to a small, self funded org trying to scrutinise that “science”.

    You should be cheering Heartland, not criticising them.

  13. Comment from: hunter

    Warmist twits demonstrating that they lie to make their points.
    Nothing new in that.

  14. Comment from: Dennis Webb


    The Australian Government pays Tim Flannery $180,000 per year to spread misinformation about drought and floods and sea level rise.

    James Hansen heads the NASA propaganda machine that has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with propaganda about faux temperature rise and the evils of coal as a source of energy.

    The British government bankrolls the totally corrupt East Anglia Climate Research Unit that produces temperature data that is pure bunkum.

    To put the counter argument, the real science, there is but a few blogs, like this one, and a few dedicated scientists like Bob Carter, and one relatively well funded think tank, The Heartland Institute. There is nothing illegal or fraudulent about the Heartland Institute unlike the CRU and NASA who purport to be something they are not.

    Shut up.

  15. Comment from: Polyaulax

    Drongo,very predictably,you imply that Climategate was the work of an insider or whistleblower…without any evidence whatsoever. How many years has this hope been presented as fact? Where is the proof of your belief of choice? Hey,I’m going to claim ‘Heartlandattack’ as the work of a whistleblower ! It’s true because I have no evidence,and they deny it. They would,wouldn’t they? sarc. That is the logical consequence of the game you guys bring.

    Climategate remains a beat-up of depressingly enduring appeal to you because you want it to be real.

    Nova is trying to draw an equivalence between two very different budgets,applied to two very different programs. Now,if she was to attempt to equate Heartland’s budget to NASA’s media spend on climate announcements alone,then she’d be on somewhere closer to apples and apples…but still nowhere close enough,because,again,Heartland has no in-house research findings to publicise. Just disinformation to package and push.

  16. Comment from: James Mayeau

    I read Jo’s post. Thought she was comparing Heartland to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, WWF, oh and she did toss in a bit about the NSW Government’s $700 million Climate Change Fund.
    But wait a second. The NSW Climate Change Fund isn’t a research fund. It’s a grab bag to buy off business, households, schools, communities and government by buying them crappy apparatus to save water, energy and greenhouse gas emissions no matter at what cost.

    We Americans call it welfare for the rich.

    Fair ball. Ruling on the field, Jo Nova gets the ground rule double, and takes the extra base.

    Play ball.

  17. Comment from: spangled drongo

    “Climategate remains a beat-up of depressingly enduring appeal to you because you want it to be real.”

    You don’t have to “want” anything with Climategate. It tells a sorry story of the gatekeepers all by itself and if it had been investigated with any reasonable degree of integrity, the hockey team would be in gaol.

    Where they will be investigated more thoroughly, by Cucinelli, they are spending a fortune to avoid.

    “Heartlandattack” says absolutely nothing.

  18. Comment from: Debbie

    We’re not talking about passing a university course.
    Real people and real life is being adversely affected by poor policy here.
    If people and communities are being hurt then there is something wrong with the political agenda and the implementation.
    It is not a cerebral pass or fail exercise. Wakey Wakey :-)

  19. Comment from: Polyaulax

    Couldn’t agree more,Debbie. It’s a no-brainer: we don’t need a Wegman-style social network analysis to find the cosy little club on retainers from Heartland. Idso’s getting a pile for some reason.Singer,Carter,Goklany,Soon,D’Aleo,Khandekar,Loehle,Balling and more….all singing for their supper on high rotation at Wattsy’s,though the material is a little inbred.

  20. Comment from: Robert

    At last, proof that Heartland isn’t paying skeptics nearly enough. The salary cap has to go!

  21. Comment from: M.Hulme

    D’Aleo, Soon and Loehle “singing for their supper”? If that’s the case then I really do need to emigrate to the US. Suppers must be really cheap there. Their payment of $125 per month wouldn’t buy me a sandwich each day in the UK.

  22. Comment from: Another Ian

    Flannery gets another recognition!

    How many Flanneries in your gauge?
    31 Comments | Permalink
    Andrew Bolt Blog

    Andrew Bolt
    Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 12:01am

    The prediction:

    In 2005, (Chief Climate Commissioner Tim) Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties with water”.

    The reality:

    Sydney’s sad summer story continues with the city recording its wettest January in 11 years and coldest in 12 years.

    The reaction, from a Jason Morrison listener called John:

    My wife and I have decided that every inch of rain that we measure in the rain gauge will now be called a FLANNERY in honour of the great scientist and former Australian of the year.

    It’s catching on. The whole neighbourhood is calling them flanneries.

    We had 87mm ….almost 3 Flanneries.

    There’s now a sign at the local shop and he calls them Flanneries as well.

    He may have got it very wrong but we are determined never to forget the great man.”


  23. Comment from: John Sayers

    “At last, proof that Heartland isn’t paying skeptics nearly enough. The salary cap has to go!”

    exactly :)

  24. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Good comment from NiV:

    “If they’d hacked Heartland to expose scientific errors being knowingly made, I’d be fine with that. We don’t want that sort of thing on our side. But to do it for some lame argument about Heartland giving money to sceptics, as if anyone didn’t know that, is a weak justification for illegality. And to then mix in faked documents is merely further illustration of their moral stature.”

    If the main doc is a fake as claimed, it will be interesting to see if Richard Black, SS, DeSmogBlog etc, apologise or if not, whether Heartland sues them.

  25. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Another Ian,

    24 Flanneries in our gauge for Jan and another 4 this month. Even more than this time last year.

  26. Comment from: Robert

    If Heartland win their suit, we should insist that leading skeptics be paid properly in future. No more singing for their supper on high rotation at Wattsy’s.

    What do we want? More money for skeptics!

    When do we want it? Now!

  27. Comment from: Debbie

    Wow Poly,
    That was a classic case of missing the point.

  28. Comment from: Luke

    “the totally corrupt East Anglia Climate Research Unit ” you just have to laugh and laugh at crap like this. What arrant bullshit.

    If there is a big fraud – we’re still waiting guys …. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    I think the visceral reaction the blog denier-o-sphere on this memo is just oh so much mock outrage. What a massive reaction over nothing.

    You’d have to be daft to think that outfits like Heartland are sweetness and light.

    Money for sceptics ? what so we have more papers like McLean et al and Archy on solar doodies – pullease – give us a break. So what’s Robert saying – hey we’d like some money for badly formulated quack ideas that don’t make sense. And everyone gets a turn. And every child player wins a prize. Pigs botty.

  29. Comment from: Robert

    “So what’s Robert saying – hey we’d like some money for badly formulated quack ideas that don’t make sense.”

    AGW? Wind farms? Solar rebates? Carbon Credits? Carbon taxes? Carbon sequestration? Climate models? Hockey sticks? Projected coal-plant closures with no nukes in place? Refusing to upgrade and modernise coal power generation in Australia while sending 75% of our coal off-shore to be combusted in the exact same atmosphere as our own? Wrecking viable industries while subsidising turkeys? Wrecking agriculture so we can have lots of unmanaged, fire-prone regrowth? Refusing to harvest water? Making people buy dunnies that won’t flush human excrement after five goes? Timmy’s Geothermia? GetUp?

    Pullease. What arrant pigs botty!

  30. Comment from: hunter

    The believer dogma that any skeptic paid any money is corrupt, while the billions flowing through to believer causes is pure and innocent is nearly as non-rational as the believer assertion that any opposition to the AGW movement is politically based, while AGW believers do not practice politics.
    It is odd that this theft of a private group’s documents, and the insertion of a cheap blatant forgery is greeted with such hysterical idiocratic nastiness by the believers.
    When skeptics got the climategate leaks, most spent days verifying veracity before discussing it.
    Desmog blog posted in about an hour.
    This is going to play out, but not the way the believers want it to play out.

  31. Comment from: hunter

    Since you are now holding out for ‘big fraud’, does that mean you now accept that CRU, IPCC and other AGW promotional organs have been committing little frauds?

  32. Comment from: Another Ian

    Is this you Luke or a borrowed handle?

    “JSmith says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:24 am

    [snip. More sock puppetry from Gneiss, RW, Alan Statham, J. Fischer, BA, Stevo, Harry Lebowski, KevinJ, Jennifer, Luke, Jackson, etc. All the same troll. ~dbs, mod.]”

    In comments at

  33. Comment from: Luke

    Yea this really big fraud with global temperature analysis that just seems to get re-confirmed by alternative analysis. Yes hunter – everyone is in on it. Adjusts tin-foil hat for Mars transmission.

    All this kerfuffle over the appearance of some tedious little meeting minute is so boring – what else would you expect? Is anyone really shocked? And what hypocrisy after the so-called Climategate crimes! What was fun is how many of the skeptic sites just cut and pasted the same line. Don’t think – just parrot. Polly wanna agree. Polly wanna agenda.

    And you have to hand to our Robby “Wrecking agriculture so we can have lots of unmanaged, fire-prone regrowth?” – errr um – yes that’s what additional atmospheric CO2 will do – preference woodies over grasses – thanks for playing.

  34. Comment from: Another Ian

    Another take on this here

  35. Comment from: Another Ian

    And one from Josh

  36. Comment from: Robert

    “looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.”

    That’s how a warmist says “looks like it’s a fake”.

    And if you can experiment with CO2 and get some trees to do a bit better than a sorghum crop, you’ve got your favourite headline: IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!

    Why worry about reality when you’ve got factoids, models, spin, teenie-talk and GetUp? Thanks for playing.

  37. Comment from: Another Ian

    “TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.”

    From comments at

  38. Comment from: Debbie

    The objection stems from the fact that the science and associated modelling has been hijacked and used inappropriately.
    It is the hypothesis that warming or otherwise is caused by human behaviour and therefore can be managed by controlling human behaviour that is under question. We all know that climate changes, it is the WHY it changes and whether we can influence that or even IF we should influence that which is the real point.
    I do have to giggle at accusations that sceptics receive massive funding. Seriously, go check where $billions of tax payer funding has been chanelled. If there is any truth to your claims then I would have to comment ” pot call in the kettle black”.
    No research or science is without funding of some description. Some receive more than others. Some are funded by govt and some are funded by other means. It’s the nature of the beast.
    My objection, which labels me a sceptic, is some of the work has been hijacked and used for a political agenda. As you often comment, the AGW celebs and the politicians are not the science. Yet they are the ones who are the ‘ambassadors’ FOR AGW!

  39. Comment from: Neville

    Geeezzz climategate 1 and 2 were real emails not fake documents like some of the above fraud. What don’t the hysterics understand about this reality?

    None of the climategate scientists (?) deny that the emails are not their real emails.

    BTW just more evidence that proves conclusively that we in the OECD can do Sweet FA about AGW mitigation and would be barking mad to try.

    Where does this fit with Juliar’s “greatest moral challenge of our generation” lie?

  40. Comment from: Luke

    The more they rant – the more you know it’s hurting. So much spirited defense.

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    “Research” Debs – “research” – pullease.

  41. Comment from: Luke

    And how interesting could it get

  42. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Luke quotes a scoundrel like Mashey. He is about on par with Black of the BBC who would not report on Climategate 1&2 because they wanted to check authenticity.

    Here however, they can’t wait to broadcast fakery.

    I wonder if the fact that it has a West Coast time zone means Mashey and DSB were involved in the forgery?

  43. Comment from: Luke

    Yes yes yes SD – all very boring but …. What fascinating social analysis

  44. Comment from: Robert

    Yep. All the warmie ingredients are in the mix: beat-up, fakery, bungling, over-complication, and, of course…


  45. Comment from: Luke

    Robert obviously describing sceptic publications….

  46. Comment from: Robert

    There’s a rumour, not yet confirmed, that the Heartland office staff pinched each other’s teabags and stole the toilet paper.


  47. Comment from: hunter

    You are painted into a corner.

  48. Comment from: hunter

    People not committing fraud do not hide from FOIA requests and do not hide the decline, and do not conspire to rig peer review. People not committing fraud tend to be transparent. Is the IPCC transparent? People not committing fraud are not trying to suppress counter arguments.
    Frankly you do not know that other lines of evidence support your theory. You only know you have been told that this is the case.

  49. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Social analysis from John Mashey?

    The Rev. Ian Paisley has a better social analysis than John Mashey:

  50. Comment from: Ian Thomson

    Hi Luke,

    “And you have to hand to our Robby “Wrecking agriculture so we can have lots of unmanaged, fire-prone regrowth?” – errr um – yes that’s what additional atmospheric CO2 will do – preference woodies over grasses – thanks for playing.”

    First, I guess like most greenies, you don’t know the difference between managed forest and the thickets of eucalyptus weeds now thriving out here.
    Second ,I heard an inspired scientific type telling us yesterday that “timber will be the steel of the 21st Century.” That highrise buildings will be built with it. It is apparently renewable stuff,with no footprints. ( Can already see the campaign against copper chromium arsenate and fire retardant treated timber, so it must be native. )

    More carbon please .

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All