As Democrat Senators spent their second day this week outlining the cash funneled to front groups in the fossil fuel-funded climate Web of Denial, predictably, some of the spiders started crawling out of that web.
The senators received a sharply worded missive from a line-up of 22 free market groups, 21 of whom have received …. If you are a reporter covering ExxonMobil and the unfolding ExxonKnew investigations underway in several states, the story can get very complex. Exxon is claiming it did nothing wrong.
We thought we would take it back to basics — the source documents. We created …. They are trying to out-Koch the Kochs in targeted climate denial spending in recent years. Rebekah Mercer also sits on their Board, as she would as a major shareholder.
In , the Mercer foundation gave out small grants to just 5 grantees in and around NYC. Perhaps they brought the show to the Mercers home town, literally on Broadway. We know the Mercers like to remain anonymous if possible. We urge the public to go to heartland. Which organization has produced more scholarly research and informed commentary?
Which one devotes most of its attention to politicizing the issue, scaring people with misleading images and rhetoric, and attacking those who disagree? The answer will be clear within a couple minutes. Not a single coal-powered generating plant has been removed from the U. So, Goreham is right. For years, the organization has received funding from fossil fuel interests such as ExxonMobil and the coal magnate Koch brothers.
How much? The Heartland Institute has not received any funding from ExxonMobil either the corporation or its foundation since Heartland received a single donation from the Charles G. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that our relationships with Altria, ExxonMobil, the Koch Foundation, or any other donors was anything other than honorable and professional.
This is merely an attempt by UCS to smear Heartland by association — helped by a mainstream media that constantly demonizes these companies. In fact, Heartland has never received funding from Koch Industries. But is that really true by the definition it applies to the Koch foundations? We are trying to introduce a little truth and common sense to the public debate. Al Gore compared us to racists, alcoholics, and Holocaust deniers without a single protest or complaint from the mainstream media.
Who's got an echo chamber? Not us. If you are interested in learning the truth about climate change and a wide range of other important public policy issues , subscribe to some of our free digital newsletters and other publications. Think for yourself. MediaTransparency is a Web site for conspiracy theorists that grew out of attempts in the s to blame liberal set-backs on what Hillary Rodham Clinton famously called "the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Apparently it is up to us to point out the obvious: More than 90 percent of our income came from sources other than the 37 foundations our paranoid critics think rule the world. The truth is that we solicit the support of these foundations, and they contribute because they agree with our free-market philosophy, not because we are part of some vast right-ring conspiracy.
SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, a partisan advocacy group. Heartland is one of scores of free-market think tanks that are unfairly criticized on this site. The site devotes much space to Heartland's alleged ties to Philip Morris and the tobacco industry. While on the board, he helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes and abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement.
This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help "give or get" financial support. Philip Morris' support never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland's annual budget. None of the correspondence between Marden and his colleagues at Philip Morris suggests any improper influence over Heartland's programs or positions, and indeed there was none.
Heartland was speaking up for over-taxed smokers and against nanny state regulations long before Philip Morris offered any funding and before Marden joined the organization's board.
None of these simple and exculpatory facts are reported by SourceWatch. Similarly, SourceWatch reports contributions to Heartland by ExxonMobil and implies improper influence, but again presents no evidence of this occurring. Walter Buchholtz was a public relations advisor for ExxonMobil during his service on The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors from to , and like Marden, he helped persuade his company to contribute to Heartland.
He never exerted improper influence on any Heartland staff, and his company never gave more than 5 percent the organization's annual receipts. ExxonMobil stopped contributing to Heartland in , before Heartland hosted its first International Conference on Climate Change and before it published the first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined have never exceeded 5 percent of Heartland's budget.
The fact is, Heartland has received negligible amounts of funding from fossil fuel companies over the years. Our positions on climate change and energy issues have always been — and always will be — based on principle, not funding.
ExxonSecrets is a project of Greenpeace, the radical environmental group that attacks all conservative and libertarian groups, not just The Heartland Institute. Buchholtz was never a member of Heartland's staff. The site presents a list of gifts from ExxonMobil to Heartland from to , based on annual reports from ExxonMobil, but fails to mention that the gifts never exceeded 5 percent of Heartland's annual budgets, makes no mention of Heartland's policies that separate donors from our researchers and writers, and presents no evidence at all of an improper relationship.
It should matter that Heartland gets 95 percent of its income from energy consumers and only 5 percent from energy producers, but this fact doesn't appear on ExxonSecrets. While the first gift to Heartland reported on the ExxonSecrets site appears to have been made in , the site fails to report that Heartland was questioning the science behind the global warming scare since And although ExxonMobil hasn't contributed to Heartland since , Heartland greatly increased its concentration and publication output on global warming since then.
We often write replies to individuals and organizations that make false or misleading claims about, or donors, and our work. Here are links to some of those replies:. Heartland Replies to Naomi Oreskes March 31, Heartland Replies to Jeffrey Sachs May 7, Heartland Replies to 11 Members of the U.
Heartland Replies to Michael J. Heartland Replies to ClimateScienceWatch. Heartland Replies to The Economist June 1, Heartland Replies to Greenpeace March 28, Heartland Replies to Rep. Heartland Replies to 'Nature' July 28, Heartland Replies to Fuller Re.
Note that after this information became public, some donors pulled their support of the Institute. The Heartland Institute has over experts and staff members on their website. View the attached spreadsheet for a complete list of Heartland experts and staff. As noted on the Heartland website, not all of the experts they list maintain a direct relationship with Heartland. View the attached spreadsheet to see a full list of Heartland Experts year over year. Archived June, DeSmog researched those same 58 experts , and has produced a counter-flyer that identifies the extent of peer-reviewed research and background on each.
Interior Department. Fred Singer, ed. The Heartland Institute , Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Eds. D, Idso, S. Since , the Heartland Institute has hosted their annual International Conference on Climate Change where dozens of climate change skeptics converge to discuss issues and strategies to oppose climate action:.
Archived July 27, PDF , Archived July 25, Archived December 11, DeSmog reported on the conference here. Archived April, Archived July 9, Archived April 28, Archived January 7, Senators and Representatives will be invited to speak side-by-side with leading scientists and economists. Allied organizations have been invited to be cosponsors, to help supply speakers and promote the event to their members and supporters. Archived February 19, Archived July 14, Archived July 25, See the draft agenda PDF.
Videos of the speakers are available at the ICCC website. Archived October 11, Archived September 1, Archived May 3, Archived May 10, Archived August 15, In order to boost attendance, Heartland joined with the libertarian FreedomFest event.
Archived July 28, Archived July 15, Archived March 8, Archived March 27, Archived March 27, 7. Translated via Google Translate. Archived November 23, The Heartland Institute conducted a poll with Rasmussen Reports from April 29, to May 3, which asked 2, likely voters a series of questions about climate change. Archived May 26, Archived June 1, Archived December 10, This significant, needless, and unjust cost is a very real regressive tax on American families that has made our country worse off.
However, Huffpost earlier reported the layoffs were due to financial difficulties. Huffpost reviewed a screenshot of a text message between Heartland events coordinator Nikki Comerford and a former colleague. Archived March 9, What an asshole. Heartland confirmed it had made layoffs in a March 8 press release. Archived March 17, The Heartland Institute opposed the Transportation and Climate Initiative TCI , a program designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector.
Archived February 14, PDF on file at DeSmog. Pyle, representing the Institute for Economic Research. Archived February 5, The investigation took place in December Reporters posed as PR consultants for a Berlin-based strategic communication agency with interest in finding potential donors from Germany in the automotive and energy sectors. Diesel instead of electric cars, energy from coal instead of wind turbines, industry growth instead of environmental protection.
In a private interview, James Taylor outlined how best to provide donations. He brought DonorsTrust as one of several US groups best used to keep donations anonymous. In a follow-up call between the reporter posing as an interested party ready to do business with Heartland, and Taylor, the reporter asked whether content could be bought if he were a donor to Heartland.
Taylor highlighted a year-old Youtuber from Germany as a promising social media strategy. Disseminate certain information. Content in exchange for money. The only difference is that the content is political. When Taylor sent a formal funding proposal in several hours, it outlined a plan for a possible campaign in Germany. Conventional power plants could be closed and replaced by expensive, unreliable wind turbine systems. Diesel vehicles could be banned. Taylor then reiterated Donors Trust as a funding vehicle, as well as the National Philanthropic Trust.
DW also outlined how Heartland has historically made major impacts on climate policy in places such as Australia. Archived January 14, That requires a compelling EPA filing, of course, one that proves the benign and beneficial nature of more CO2 in the air based on the incredible work that Craig Idso has carried on for his Dad, Sherwood Idso and mentor, Sylvan Wittwer. As Palmer described it: Fred Palmer. At the same time Craig will develop additional, original research showing the truth of CO2 which will be distributed as generated to the regulators.
By doing so, coal suppliers can then engage directly with the regulators with challenges to the announced closures; rep-opening previous announcements where the plants are still operating is not out of the question.
He also makes recommendations on coal industry groups that could be encouraged to join the pro-coal coalition: Fred Palmer. These include:. Archived December 7, And that is not about attacking science, as many people would lead you to believe.
I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end. Archived October 22, Citing a study by the Manhattan Institute , Benson claimed that greater adoption of zero-emission vehicles ZEVs would result in increased pollution and environmental costs, as well as more traffic fatalities. Archived October 1, Archived September 24, So in this case, this is one easy way of getting bigger, is to have sort of that H.
Mencken hobgoblin that always comes up in front of you. And carbon dioxide becomes that molecule by which we can take control of your lives, of your efforts, and everything that goes on. Put it this way, if we can release more of it, we should have a whole lot more of it, as simple as that. So a drought region becoming green, even in desert, a desert area. These are overall benefits, overall positive effects on the plants, as far as we can tell […] the impact on the temperature, we are unable to find it.
I really cannot find [it] after 30 years. I mean, why? Why should warmer temperatures be badder than colder temperatures? It helps plant life and increases crops. Get rid of these utopian delusions. There is so much coal available that nobody worries about running out for at least hundreds of years. What we lack is the will to use it and the freedom to use it. They can no longer be tolerated. The climate change sustainability agenda that is being advanced by these activists and bureaucrats is eco-fascist, totalitarian and racist.
Retrieved from Twitter. Benny Peiser appeared on a Heartland Institute podcast where he acknowledged a warming climate but claimed that it does not pose a threat to humankind or the environment: H.
Sterling Burnett. Archived May 29, So for the time being we are absolutely fine and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Peiser also expressed his belief that scientists holding the consensus viewpoint on climate change are stifling debate and displaying autocratic tendencies:. The Heartland Institute, represented by Tim Huelskamp , signed on to an open letter organized by the American Energy Alliance designed to fight against an electric vehicle tax credit.
Clean project has systematically debunked this, among other well-rehearsed talking points and misinformation put forward by industry about electric vehicles. Archived April 10, I look forward to being able to help Heartland dispel fear and overreaction to climate hysteria by providing factual essays and research that helps policy makers with climate related decisions.
Archived December 6, That means a healthy skepticism of data interpretation and policy conclusions and an end to the war on science and scientists by powerful state-backed forces. In an official statement marking the event, Taylor said:. We will also be presenting examples of real-world evidence contradicting important U. Skeptics present a far better scientific case. Archived November 6, The group was behind a Florida textbook bill, HB, that was signed into law in Panelists included Stanley B.
The event took place at Independent Institute headquarters. September 11, Archived September 17, The panelists denied any connection between extreme weather events and climate change.
The more the better. Video of the second day of the event below. June 7, Archived June 12, Among numerous other claims, Huselkamp stated that the NPCC report—which he included a copy of in the letter to Pruitt—contained scientific evidence that: Tim Huselkamp. October 25, They recognised us as the pre-eminent organisation opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy.
John Konkus, EPA deputy associate administrator for public affairs, reached out multiple times to Heartland in the emails, T he Guardian reported.
The documents showed communications between the EPA and a number of corporate-funded conservative think tanks with views that run counter to established science on climate change including the Heartland Institute , the Manhattan Institute , and the CO2 Coalition. Archived May 14, View the original FOIA documents here. According to Benjamin D. Joe Bast denied that the Heartland Institute holds views outside of the mainstream scientific consensus:.
In a speech to the U. Sterling Burnett to discuss the past and future of the Heartland Institute including his stepping down as President and CEO and his planned departure from the organization. Archived March 11, Under your leadership, the Heartland Institute became a leader and has been recognized as such in the realm of climate science, economics, and policy.
Why did the Heartland Institute become so deeply involved in this one issue? We did our first book that had a chapter on climate change in it. We addressed it primarily from an economic perspective, arguing that the cost of reducing emissions was really high compared to the sketchy evidence that we had about the cost of harms and offsetting benefits.
Nobody listened to us. We did three, four, or five I thought really good policy studies on this topic looking specifically for example, at a carbon tax on agriculture, and the studies got almost no attention. So we did a deep dive in ; we said, where is this fear coming from? Is it based on sound science? Who are the scientists who are in this debate? Do they need our help?
I respect that. But the result was a gap: there was no free market voice on the climate science debate that was taking place, and that was a critical error on the part of free market activists. Unless we address the science, we are going to lose this debate. We had a tremendous impact. That book, that series of books, has been cited over times in peer-reviewed articles. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it that it translated it into Chinese and published a condensed volume of Climate Change Reconsidered.
People who expected all along that global warming was junk science, that they would rather have good jobs and inexpensive energy than pursue some liberal dream of, you know, replacing all fossil fuel with wind and solar power. He might not even have been the final choice, but the alternative was truly scary. You know, Hillary Clinton was committed to finishing what Barack Obama started, and that was pretty much destroying the local decentralized education system in America—replacing it with a centralized curriculum.
Destroying the decentralized health care system that used to depend primarily on private insurance companies and doctors in private practice. So replacing that with Obamacare, destroying the financial sector. Hillary Clinton was committed to waging that war for another four years. So we got a second chance at freedom with the election of Donald Trump. It is perched on an edge. I am optimistic. I think Heartland is going to grow. You know, I raised about six million dollars a year for the Heartland Institute.
We should be at eight or ten [million]. We should have twenty, twenty five guys working in our, just in our government relations office, working with state legislators, giving them the information that they need, testifying when they need testimony, helping them draft legislation. So Heartland should be doing well in future years. I only hope and pray that freedom in the United States is going to continue rising while the Heartland Institute is performing its job.
Orr also wrote the second chapter of the book. Orr said that the Clean Air Act was very successful in combatting air pollution. Scott Armstrong. They demand that the Museum support a party line, thinly disguised as science.
0コメント