Leaked Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

 Denialgate – Heartland Institute Internal Documents Leaked

A genuine conspiracy to mislead the American people on climate change has been unmasked tonight with the release  of several internal documents from the Heartland Institute, an organisation that has long been suspected of being a major cog in the climate change denial machine.

One document reveals that the Institute pay climate skeptic and defender of the tobacco industry Fred Singer $5K/month, while the weatherman Anthony Watts who runs a popular climate denial blog is on track to receive  $90,000 in 2012. Funding is also to be made available  to run courses in American schools that cast doubts  on climate science.

After this there can no longer be any doubt about Heartland’s role in funding climate disinformation and seeking to undermine the IPCC. We always knew it, but now there is proof that so-called  ‘indepdendent’ climate ‘sceptics’ have been  getting paid by corporate America. After enduring two years of  the  ‘Climategate’ nonsense the good guys finally have some ammo to fire back.

Now what we need is a whistleblower  to shine some light into the dark recesses of our own Global Warming Policy Foundation**.

More via the links below or on Twitter under the hashtag #denialgate . We will attempt to keep this links list updated as the story continues to unroll. Links are in (roughly) chronological order.


DeSmogBlog article with links to the documents –  DeSmogBlog (who originally broke the story)

Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed – from Deep Climate

HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute’s Insider Reveals Secrets – Greg Laden

Is Turnabout Fair Play? – Planet3.0

Guardian article 15/02/2012 – The Guardian

The REAL Climategate: Blog Busts Anti-Science Warchest – Forbes

Openness: A Heartland-warming tale – BBC News

Inside the dark Heartland of climate denialism – ThinkOrSwim  blog

Heartland Institute attempts to discredit “stolen” papers – Business Green

The Heartland Files and the Climate Fight – Andrew Revkin, New York Times

Climate Denial Bombshell UPDATED – Neorenaissance , Shawn Lawrence Otto

Heartland Documents Reveal Fringe Denial Group Plans – Climate Progress

How is Joe Bast Like Joe Camel? – Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Climate science attack machine took donations from major corporations – Guardian

Heartland And DeSmogBlog Square Off Over Incendiary Documents – Forbes

Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science – NY Times

Internal Heartland Institute Email Blasts “Lamestream Media” for Climate Leak – Mother Jones

Theft and Apparent Forgery of Heartland Institute Documents – American Spectator fingers Gleick prior to his confession

Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents – Guardidan 21/02/2100

Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job –  Guardian 24/02/2012



 ** Bob Carter ($12K pa from Heartland) is on the advisory board of GWPF
      – which is presumably one of the ‘parallel organizations’ referred to in the documents.

14 Responses to “Leaked Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine”

  • klem:

    Anyone in posession of those documents are in posession of stolen items. Releasing the information on those documents will encourage litigation. I hope Desmogblog has deep pockets.


  • admin:

    These documents were not stolen, they were leaked by a whistleblower. Slightly more ethical than the hacker who broke into the UEA computer and stole the ‘Climategate’ e-mails, don’t you think?

    Bit late to put the genie back in the bottle – by now there are thousands of copies of these documents all over the world. And frankly, I would love to see the Heartland Institute bring it on with a legal challenge – but further public exposure is the last thing this group wants. I expect them to be trying to keep a very low profile over the next few weeks.

  • admin:

    Heartland’s demands to Greg Laden, DeSmogBlog and others:

    . . . we respectfully demand:
    (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site;
    (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents;
    (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents;
    (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings;
    (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

    It’s a pity that at no time did the institute suggest that the hackers who breached the East Anglia University security system to steal the ‘Climategate’ emails had been in the wrong to do so. Shameless, self-pitying, staggeringly hypocritical (the Institute called the UEA hack “so good, so juicy”). Anyone who hasn’t invested financially or psychologically in their lies can only react with contempt.

  • Iain G Richmond:

    “One thing that’s clear from the documents is that the Heartland Institute is largely behind the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project that purports to mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by producing reports downplaying the extent of global warming as well as the involvement of greenhouse gas emissions in producing it.” BBC report.

    Can you please explain what is wrong in doing that? Surely if the warmist is secure in its beliefs and has the Data to back it up why should they worry who funds what and where it comes from. The truth(if it is there ) is easily defended.

    Phil Jones received £15.9 million in government funding. None of his detractors objected to that. It was his criminal manipulation of DATA and the attempted cover up which was the issue.

    If the HI did the same then fair enough vilify them.

  • admin:

    Mr. Richmond,

    I sugest you take care who you accuse of criminal activities on a public forum.

    Phil Jones was cleared by no less than four separate enquiries of any wrongdoing.

  • Iain G Richmond:

    Mr Ad(ho)min(em)

    Did Phil Jones Manipulate data ?

    Was the manipulated data intended to mislead?

    Is the act of intentionally misleading fraudulent?

    Is fraud a criminal act?

    May I suggest that you take care when suggesting on a public forum that war, famine, climate change and dismantling the Catholic Church is the best way to control world population.

    • admin:

      To answer your questions in order,

      There wasn’t any ‘manipulated’ data

      Now let me get this straight – are you accusing Prof. Jones of a criminal act, even though he was completely cleared by four separate enquiries?

      A straight yes or no will suffice.

  • Iain G Richmond:

    You are correct. Phil Jones was not ‘convicted’ of manipulating data which would be a criminal act.

    George Monbiot ( Guardian July 2010)puts it well….

    So was I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones’s resignation? I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I’ve now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I’d conclude that Phil Jones should hang on – BUT ONLY JUST. I hope the last review gives him some peace.

    Another commentator, Gerald Warner, gave this assessment….

    “Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism.”

    And he concludes…….

    “So, this is an important and encouraging development for everybody dedicated to blowing the AGW scam out of the water. It means one of the principal pillars of the IPCC that might have been cosmetically repaired now remains irretrievably compromised. The next few years will be critical for the survival of the AGW superstition: it is now, partly due to Climategate and partly to the global recession, fighting for survival. This latest blunder significantly lessens its prospects of pulling through. A big thank you to Professor Edward Acton and the climate establishment at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere, without whose purblind sense of entitlement the eventual overthrow of this false orthodoxy might not have been possible.”

    And the House of Commons Committee on Science and technology stated at the time….

    “A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable”


  • admin:

    It’s a bit of a quantum leap between ‘not irreproachable‘ and ‘brand remains toxic‘ is it not?

  • Iain G Richmond:

    Would welcome your opinion on this article

    If you can manage more than a one liner.

  • admin:

    Sorry, my German isn’t up to it.

    When the book has been published in English and I have had a chance to have a look I might care to comment. However, the main focus of this site is renewable energy, and I don’t have the time to read each and every denialist manifesto that comes out.

  • Iain G Richmond:

    Hi AD(ho)MIN(em),

    kann nicht verstehen Deutsch? Schade, wird Sie wissen lassen, wenn Buch-ID auf Englisch veröffentlicht.
    Ich denke, Ihre Web-Seite ist mehr politisch als wissenschaftliche oder technologische. Für einen intelligenten Ansatz sollten Sie wirklich öffnen Sie Ihren Geist.

    At a certain age some people’s minds close up and they live on their intellectual fat.
    – Blessing Irish

    Pity your mind is closed it is certainly not the mark of a Scientist or someone who claims to speak on complex scientific subjects with authority.

  • admin:

    Since when is not being able to read German the sign of a closed mind?

  • Iain G Richmond:

    “Für einen intelligenten Ansatz sollten Sie wirklich öffnen Sie Ihren Geist”…..For a more intelligent approach you should really have an open mind.

    Nothing to do with reading German which will be obvious to everyone except it seems yourself. Dummer Mensch.

    Your orthogonal is orthogonal to my orthogonal… Now, can we, orthogonally, get back from semantics and back to doing horribly orthogonal things to the AGW DEBATE.

Leave a Reply