Gringo
Lv 6
Gringo asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

Is This Possibly Climategate 3?

Let's see if anyone can place the quote below in the proper context. It comes from an internal Heartland Institute confidential January 2012 memo titled "2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" and was very recently obtained by Desmogblog along with a whole batch over other interesting documents which are currently being crowd-sourced:

"Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland.

Our current budget includes 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."

Update 3:

To Maxx:

And your source for that figure is.....wait for it......

the SPPI

which is run by .......

Craig Idso ($11,600 per month) and Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month).

Of course! Who in their right mind could doubt that $79 billion figure?

Update 4:

Edit @Maxx:

Yes, I did dismiss Jo Nova's report published by Heartland funded SPPI right away because a) it is cherry-picked data from an interested, industry funded source but, more importantly b) it is irrelevant as all governments spend money on scientific research.

You and others are now using the 'the government spends far more on climate science' meme as some kind of counter argument to Heartland and other deniers funding 'skeptical' groups when there really is no such comparison as the industry funded deniers don't do any research; their actions are primarily limited to criticizing the work of real scientists and confusing the general public with their usual cherry-picking and repeating climate myths debunked ages ago.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Gary F
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hah! It's more than a scandal - it's a sin that the Heartland Institute is over-paying like that. The whole Idso family (dad and two lads) of deniers isn't worth that much. And, they get even more from Exxon who funds the patriarch's (Sherwood) institute, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change where they all work.

    You can't argue with their publication record, either. One of boys was published in the prestigious 'The New American' - official magazine of the John Birch Society. Boy Howdy.

    ======

    Maxx --

    >>from the vicious lies cranked out by the Warmist taxpayer funded industry everyday?<<

    Sherwood Idso worked for over 30 years for the US Department of Agriculture. For most of that time he was also an adjunct professor at Arizona State University. He has received funding from at least a dozen government agencies.

    Do you know anything about anything?

  • 9 years ago

    No this is nothing like climategate.

    Climategate was about uncovering the fact (yes, possibly illegally) that so-called climate scientists were negligent in their ANALYSIS and interpretation of data. And, don't try to say they were cleared because the NSF was only assessing if they were using false DATA, they were not at accessing whether the application of analysis was appropriate, which we know how the schtick was derived.

    What you have uncovered is that a special interest think tank is trying to protect those in line to be harmed most by the alarmists action are compensating those that are skilled in that manner. I'm not sure I see what is wrong with that.

  • eric c
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Whereas your source come from the very credible "desmog" blog. Give me a break!!

    "DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money". Since it's creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources."

  • Moe
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Does this stuff really confuse you that much? Seems they are paying high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message and someone wants to expand this if funding is available.

    Humans have got to be one of the most under represented groups on the planet and I sure as hell couldn't afford to pay for a proper defense. I'm glad there are groups out there looking out for the human species.

    Now in what context does this fit your people are making up lies to cover up the truth that AGW is real, it's unprecedented, it's going to cause bad things to happen and we are the cause, theory.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    It's not so much the money as the tactics- same as the tobacco companies- confuse the public to delay regulations and increase profits. I'm very concerned with their intrusion into classrooms- like churches with their creation stories.

    their connection with WUWT is not surprizing.

  • 9 years ago

    NO. "Climategate" was a stupid denier croc. To its credit, the usually lame news media actually reported fairly accurately how there was no "there there" other than a few scientists occasionally saying rude things in private e-mails.

    This Heartland revelation is totally different. It is not exactly surprising, but it is significant. Some key liar-deniers, it turns out, are not just anti-science fake-scientist crackpots and con-artists (which is obvious to any openminded person who has been following this) they are also exposed here as hired tools of the fossil fuel industry.

  • Ian
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Unlike an alarmist making feeble excuses like "Oh, hiding the decline was taken out of context", I would say this looks pretty damning IF TRUE.

    It in no way changes the fact that global warming is a giant hoax though.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    After a couple of fake climate scandals, we finally have a real one.

    Maxx

    <What about James Hansen, how much you think he makes a month.>

    He has an executive position with NASA and I am sure that he is compensated accordingly. I am sure that Exxon has a $1 billion check for him. All James Hansen has to do is say that he was wrong about global warming and that check is his.

    And Eric C responds to the desmogblog article with an ad hom.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Hey GaryF, good to see the other children will still let you play. E-mail me while I am still above ground and above room temperature.☺

    Talk about obscene oil company profits. I just had to come back to this site to see if the alarmist have gotten any brighter or if you all were still bent on supporting bogus science and becoming serfs and worthless drones.

  • 9 years ago

    Robert 'Bob' Carter,

    Funny then that he claims to get no money from 'special interest groups' on his own web page

    Yet apart from his connection to Heartland he is also connected to the Institute of Public Affairs

    an Australian mirror of Heartland, which pushes very similar views on issues ranging from AGW to Smoking http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu...

    (who also pay him) add up the multiple groups he is linked to, if each pay him similar amounts he is being funded with significant amounts of money, by groups that could only be classed as 'special interest' and Carter only gets about an 8th of the amount Idso gets.

    These apples don't fall far from the tree

    Maxx: "the American taxpayers have doled out about 78 BILLION" they have, what did they spend it on as the U.S. has to date done very little in terms of action on climate change, I'd be interested to see what you base that figure on, or is just something Anthony Watts once said. Lets see you put some truth were you rhetoric is, for once!

    As I suspected you have nothing but more rants and some unsubstantiated information, you really think most of NSAS budget is spent on climate change research, that's laughable and a pretty obvious reason why you post yet another denier site as source, because you have no real source.

    If you had any understanding of the real world you would know that NASA's funding went down not up, but then deniers never let fact get in the way of a good rant, do you also believe that the reduction in weather stations is some sinister plot to hide temperature trends rather than what it actually was a reduction in funding (by congress) causing the downsizing of the weather station network, but then I would think someone of your mindset would claim that reduction was actually an increase.

    For those interested: in a demonstration of how denier lie, which maxx has so kindly provided this is how NASA has vastly increased it's budget with AGW

    Their peak as a percentage of U.S. GDP was around 3-4% back in the 60's (the height of the Apollo program) their most recent highest allocation was almost 20 billion dollars (back in 1991) at that point about 1% of U.S. GDP today's NASA's funding is in the realm of 15-17 billion a year which is ~0.5% of U.S. GDP. they put (in 2004) less than 10% of their budget into climate (and related fields) 1.3 billion of a total government commitment of just 1.9 billion is that a lot of money for an individual it certainly sounds a lot for the U.S. economy it is tiny, that same government spent $66 billion developing one fighter aircraft (the F22) only to cancel it, but strangely I don't see right wingers grumbling about that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual...

    http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/

    Deniers might even be able to claim the 78 billion figure, but I'm sure to do so they are adding up ever cent back to the fifties to do so, do that with any continuing government funding on any issue medial. education, military or many other and you would get astronomical numbers that dwarf the 78 billion figure. In fact a quick google shows the U.S. spent 70 billion on education in just 2010, The U.S. Military budget took a 20% cut yet is still for one year 8 times ($525.4 billion) the claimed 78 billion that accrued over decades, in fact the U.S. military spent more on overseas deployment 88 billion in just one year and that is separate to their base allocation of the 500b and in one year not 5 decades.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.