Showing posts with label Heartland Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heartland Institute. Show all posts

Thursday, July 10, 2014

News From Heartland Institute Climate Conference: Barre Seid Is HI's Anonymous Donor

This has long been suspected, but apparently has been confirmed.  Barre is this guy, a reclusive billionaire known for funding right-wing causes. It will be interesting now to see if any pressure is brought to bear upon him and his holdings.  General Motors, for example, was eventually convinced to end their funding of HI.

Monday, July 01, 2013

Heartland Institute Vs. Chinese Academy Of Science, Round II

Last week the Heartland Institute got into it with Chinese Academy of Science.  The academy had seen fit to translate  HI's  Climate Change Reconsidered reports, and PR guy Jim Lakely from the institute suggested that this counted as an endorsement of the think-tank's position re global warming.  But no; CAS begged to differ, in fairly strong terms, and Lakeley was forced to issue an apology/retraction.

Now, however, we find that HI's words were hollow.  CEO Joe Bast writes:

Regrettably, the lies of some advocates, perhaps aided by confusion caused by the language barrier, led Chinese officials to threaten to cancel a planned workshop in Beijing for some of the authors and translators of Climate Change Reconsidered. With four scientists representing The Heartland Institute already in Beijing, we agreed to remove the news release and the book itself from our Web site.

Now that the workshop has been successfully concluded, we have restored our original news release...

So once they got their boys thehelloutta China, they went back to their original, misleading statement.

I emailed CAS once again to see if they had any further response to this latest bit of trickery, and they responded as follows:

Dear Mr. Murphy,

It's very kind of you to remind us the repost of the Heartland release. We have notice it last week. The CAS attitude towards the translated book had been made clear in the statements on June 15 as follows: http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml. We are sure that we have sent you the translator's preface in our last email, in which the translator had addressed his views on climate change and on the translation of the book.

We hope to receive your continuing focus on the Chinese Academy of Sciences, both on its scientific efforts&achievements and on its official website.


Best,
Chinese Academy of Sciences

Which, to me at least, suggests they are really, really tired of the Heartland Institute and the whole clown show HI inflicted on them.  I suspect that this will be the last bit of cooperating we see between HI and CAS for a long while.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Chinese Academy Of Sciences Issues A Statement; Heartland Institute Issues A Grovelling Apology

First, from the CAS site:

The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was published in May 2013 through Science Press. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

To clarify the fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now making an official statement as follows:

Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing diverse academic arguments.

Secondly, neither the translation nor the publication represents any views of the Chinese Academy of Sciences or its affiliations on related issues.

Thirdly, it is earnestly called upon by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the general public not to accept and disseminate any misleading information related to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Now from HI's Jim Lakeley:

"Some people interpreted our news release and a blog post describing this event as implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the views contained in the original books. This is not the case, and we apologize to those who may have been confused by these news reports.

"To be clear, the release of this new publication does not imply CAS and any of its affiliates involved with its production 'endorse' the skeptical views contained in the report. Rather, as stated in the translator's preface of the book, 'The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC.' "

I have not reproduced HI's full statement out of decency's sake; click through the link to experience the full measure of Jim Lakely's self-abasement.  The date on Google Search (6 hours ago) suggests that Jim was up at midnight last night rhetorically flogging himself, which is unusual.  Its more typically HI to try and bluster their way through.

Oh, and in case you haven't been following, background is here and here.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Cooperation Between The Heartland Institute And The Chinese Academy Of Sciences: Much Less than Meets The Eye

Breitbart News has reported that the Heartland Institute--an infamous U.S. think-tank that shilled for both the oil and tobacco companies in times past--has teamed up the with the Chinese Academy of Sciences to publish Chinese translations of HI's Climate Change Reconsidered papers, which are attempted "rebuttals" of the IPCC consensus report on global warming:

The volumes, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, are chock full of 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data concerning the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet.

And here is shot of the publication's cover:
View cover.jpg in slide show
However, Breitbart makes it sound as though CAS has endorsed HI's rebuttal and has reconsidered its stand on the IPCC consensus, which the academy previously supported.  This is not the case.  CAS was kind enough to respond to an email query I sent them with the following:

(Note: as usual, you can read it easier if you click on the image)

So, CAS has NOT changed its mind re the facts of AGW, and indeed whatever cooperation took place was between one branch of CAS and HI, not the former organization as a whole (its governing body, as it were).

Once again, the folks at Heartland have wildly exaggerated events, if not lied about them.

Note: The "mistaken" news release announcing the translation has been pulled from the UCAS website.  Perhaps the CAS is distancing itself from the "Lanzhou branch"?

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Pfizer Abandons Heartland Institute

From one of the very few media outlets that has bothered to pick up the story, an early Xmas gift:

A major pharmaceutical company has opted to sever ties with a libertarian think tank that provides arguments critical of global warming and the effects of tobacco smoking.

Pfizer Inc., a New York City-based business that boasts of being the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company, decided to cut financial support from the Heartland Institute.

Pfizer's decision came about after lot of hard-work that started this Spring after the leak of HI's financial statements and their short-lived and yet now infamous billboard campaign.  As Brad Johnson of Forecast the Facts put it:

This was the result of a sustained campaign by a lot of people. We at Forecast the Facts applied pressure on lots of fronts -- getting customers to complain on Facebook and phone calls, flyering Pfizer employees at their NY headquarters, flyering participants of medical conferences sponsored by Pfizer, writing blog posts and putting out media statements and working with other bloggers and writers at the New York Times and specialty health publications, coordinating with the American Thoracic Society, American Cancer Society, and numerous other health groups (many of which take funding from Pfizer). We also worked with Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, shareholder groups, SumOfUs, and other great organizations who also applied invaluable pressure on Pfizer's board.

And, just to blow my own horn a little, one of  2012's few concrete accomplishments here at BCLSB was my campaign to convince of number of "experts" associated with HI to cut their ties to the organization after the aforementioned billboard campaign.  Nice to see their gradual ostracization within the lobbying community and, more importantly, their gradual de-funding has continued apace.  Its probably safe to say that HI has lost $100,000s in industry support since May.

PS.  More here.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Richard Epstein Off The Heartland Expert List

As regular readers may know, I spent a good part of May 2012 trying to convince that subset of the Heartland Institute expert list  who were also legitimate scientists to distances themselves from HI for their disastrous billboard campaign, with some modest success.  Well, one of the people I emailed was Richard Epstein, a  Professor of Law at NYU School of Law.  I can't claim causality, but it is worth noting that he is no longer on the HI list about a month after I made contact with him.  So 1/2 a BOOYAH! for me.  Here's the googlecache of his entry, and a screen-cap below:
I would also point out that, a week after I contacted Jan Veizer, and he claimed he didn't even know he was on the HI list, claimed in fact  that he did not "appreciate" being on the list...he's still on the list.  I have no idea why; I've suggested to Marc Morano and Joe Bast and some of the other HI lads  that they pull Mr. Veizer's entry, but apparently they have not.  I shall try and clarify what is going on today.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Jan Veizer Didn't Even Know He Was On Heartland List--Also, He Deplores My Actions

This morning I recieved an email from Jan Veizer, a geologist at the University of Ottawa.  He too is on the Heartland Institute expert list:


From: REDACTED
To: bigcitylib@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Jan Veizer And The Heartland Institute
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:48:04 +0000



I was not aware of this and and do not appreciate of being listed without asking my permission. However, I equally deplore your snooping and imposition by your "friendliy advice".


I would challenge the notion that I was snooping, however.  Mr. Veizer got the same email as everyone else (see here), and I did not in his case do any kind of follow-up.  But whatever.  I have emailed Joe, Marc, and the gang at HI and suggested they delete Mr. Veizer's entry.  That is, frankly, my favorite part of the exercise.  

Friday, June 01, 2012

Heartland Expert List Roundup

If you've been following along lately, you'll know that my project for May was to--in wake of the Heartland Institute's disastrous billboard campaign--contact scientists on the their expert list and ask them politely whether they wished to remain on that list.  A copy of the form letter I used can be found here, and the results here.  But the short version is: 84 experts (about 30% of the list) were contacted, and 12 responded.  Of the 12, seven had their names removed from the Heartland list, prompting this open letter from HI CEO Joe Bast.

I've posted an excel file here with a further breakdown of who replied, who didn't, and what the ones who did reply said to me.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Lomborg Makes It Official

Bjørn Lomborg's  assistant emailed me this morning to confirm that Mr. Lomborg no longer wished to have an entry on the Heartland Institute expert list:

Dear M.J.Murphy, 

Thank you for your email pointing out to the affiliation problem. 


As Lomborg is not affiliated with the Heartland Institute, we asked them to take Lomborg off from their list.

On behalf of Bjorn Lomborg
Best wishes,

Zsuzsa Horvath

Personal Assistant
www.lomborg.com
Twitter: @bjornlomborg
Facebook: www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg


Some background here and here, if you haven't been following.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Bjørn Lomborg Disses Deniers?

Although neither the folks at the Heartland Institute nor Mr. Lomborg have confirmed Mr. Lomborg's withdrawal from the institute's Expert List, sometime over the course of the last three or four days his entry was indeed deleted from that list .  This may or may not have been due to my efforts, outlined here and here. Naturally, given Mr. Lomborg's centrality to the AGW debate, I made several attempts to contact him.  Though none of these messages were replied to, he was was certainly made aware of the institute's billboard campaign.

I would note that Mr. Lomborg previously quit the board of Energy and Environment over their stance re global warming.

h/t John Mashey.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Just Who Has Bailed On The Heartland Institute?

Yesterday, I noticed this in the UK Gaurdian re. The Heartland Institute's ongoing travails:

A number of other experts meanwhile began cutting their ties with Heartland, according to a tally kept by a Canadian blogger BigCityLiberal.

But I noted that they just linked  to my blog front page.  So I thought I would work up a proper tally of those Heartland "experts" who have responded to my email re the now infamous billboard:

On May 11, Heartland Institute fellow Dennis Avery became the first to bite, penning this passionate if somewhat cracked defense of the institute.  You can see the form letter I've been using  underneath his  diatribe.

On Sunday, May 13th, well-known climatologist Chris Landsea became the first respondent to inform me that he no longer wished to be associated with Heartland.   Given his centrality to some aspects of the AGW debate, Mr. Landsea's renunciation generated a number of MSM stories, here and here.

On Monday, May 14th, both Miklos Zagoni of Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, and well-known medical entomologist Paul Reiter asked that Heartland remove them from their list of experts.

On May 15th, I received stirring defenses of the Institute from Sonja A Boehmer-ChristiansenS. Fred Singer, and Brian Valentine, all of which I noted in this post.  I also had a brief contact I had with G. Cornelis van Kooten (discussed in the same post), who insisted that he had no idea what I was on about, but whose name was removed from the list somewhere between the 14th and 15th.  This was the first suggestion from any of the Heartland experts that the Institute might have volunteered them for the position without asking consent.  I would also note that Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen has since disappeared from the list, though this may be the result of an accident on HI's part.  I have emailed her regarding the matter but received no response.  


Later on the 15th, I was contacted by economist Henry "Jake" Jacoby, who told me that he would contact HI and have his entry deleted.  This is the first confirmed case where Heartland slapped up someone on their website as an expert without letting that person know in advance.

On May 16th, Joe Bast posted an open letter to all those scholars who had "abandoned" HI, in which he bitched at length.

On Saturday, May 19th, Economist Peter Cramton  informed me by email that he too would no longer be associated with HI.

So far, Mr. Cramton is the last person on the Heartland list to have contacted me.  In addition, I am informed that Roger Pielke Jr. has had his entry deleted, though this was not due to efforts on my part.  And Benny Peiser disappeared from the list way back on May 5th or so, presumably because of the billboards but well before my email campaign began.

So far that makes about 80 emails sent but unanswered.  I don't expect too many more responses, although I think some U.S. academic institutions may be in the middle of final exams, so perhaps when those are done  I might get another note or two.

Update: Sometime between about May 24th and 26th Bjørn Lomborg's name was removed from the Heartland list.  He confirms his removal here.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Heartland Loses Another!

Economist Peter Cramton ( a specialist on auction theory and practice) sent me the following email today:

Dear Mr. Murphy,

I do believe that climate change is one of the key challenges of the day. As such, I have done considerable research in support of effective climate policy (see http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers/climate/). I was shocked by the billboard and then the failure of Heartland to make an immediate and clear apology for what was to me an outrageous blunder.

I have asked Heartland to remove me from there list of experts.

It is fine to include my response in your blog.

Peter Cramton
Professor of Economics
University of Maryland

So there you have it.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Washington Post Picks Up Chris Landsea Story

Gives me a nice cite and link.  But my favorite bit is the opening line:

More than a week after it was abandoned, the Heartland Institute’s controversial billboard campaign - linking global warming belief with mass murder - continues drawing strong reactions

Because keeping the story alive was one of the reasons behind the whole exercise. Another being to inform some of the people on the list that they were on it (because they might have forgotten or have never known) and give them a chance to have their entry deleted.

Miklos Zagoni Wants Off Heartland Institute Expert List

Mr. Zagoni, a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, sent me the following email this morning:

Dear Mr Muprhy,

I got no connection to the HI since four years, and do not want to have.
I am happy if being removed from their list.

Yours sincerely:
Miklos Zagoni



I have forwarded this email to James Lakely at the Heartland Institute.  As an aside, it looks as though I number of people that I have not been in touch with have recently been removed from the list.  They include Benny Peiser, Roger Pielke Jr., Oliver Frauenfeld and David Henderson.  Roger definitely de-listed over the billboard fiasco; Benny probably did (he would have heard about it from the Climate Skeptic Mailing List).  The other two I don't know about.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Chris Landsea Dumps Heartland

As readers might know, I have been contacting scientists/academics on the Heartland Institute Expert list and asking if, in light of the Institute's billboard fiasco, they intend to remain on said list.  This afternoon I received the following response from research meteorologist Chris Landsea:


Dear M.J. Murphy,
 
I recall that several years ago that Heartland had asked if i could
be listed as an expert in the issue of hurricanes and climate variability
and change.  I haven't had any direct interaction with Heartland
in any other capacity.  The billboard campaign that they are displaying
is not in good taste nor is furthering the advancement of better
understanding of how our climate fluctuates and changes.  I will
ask them to remove my name from their listing of Experts.
 
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
And here is e-mail to HI:


Dear Heartland Institute,
 
I am currently listed on your website as an expert in the issue of
hurricanes and climate variability and change:
 
http://heartland.org/christopher-landsea
 
The billboard campaign that you all have recently been displaying
is not in good taste nor is it furthering the advancement of better
understanding of how our climate fluctuates and changes.  Please
remove my name from your list of Experts.
 
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea


So there you have it.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Heartland/Hudson Senior Fellow Dennis Avery Doubles Down On Billboard Campaign

So, for the past couple of days I have been sending out emails to those scientist/intellectual types on the Heartland Institute's Expert pages, letting them know that 1) they are in fact listed as HI experts (which some of them may not realize), and 2) that HI recently launched a horribly tasteless billboard campaign, which they quickly abandoned, comparing  scientists and others who believe in the reality of anthropogenic global warming to the Unabomber and other mass murdering types.  I've also asked them if, in light of these facts, they are willing to continue to be associated with HI, because within the last couple of days corporate sponsors have been abandoning the institute in droves.   The first to respond to my inquiries is Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at both the Heartland and Hudson Institute.  Below is his email to me reproduced in its entirety, and under that the email I've been sending to the folks on the HI experts list (about 50 of them so far), just for reference purposes.  I would just note that in these form emails I use my real name, M.J. Murphy, as well as my Internet moniker BCL (short for BigCityLib).  I would also note that the boldings are mine:

Dear BigCityLib: I am a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, and proud of my association with Heartland. I continue to agree with Heartland that man-made warming is a tiny element of the planet’s warming since the Maunder Minimum ended about 1715. (The warming from 1915-1940 was as rapid and lasted about as long as the 1976-1998 warming, but came too soon to be blamed on CO2.) The real warming factor is the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, whose centuries-long “little ice ages” collapsed most human cultures before 1850 AD (after short periods of success during the global warming phases of the cycle). That’s why our cultures have lasted only about 500 years, on average. It’s not due to some lurking flaw in our psyches, but to inadequate farming and terribly unstable “little ice age” weather.

 The earth’s hundreds of previous global warmings have been the good times for humans and other life forms, and this will continue to be true. The appropriate policy today is to produce still more fertilizer and still-higher crop yields, so we can feed a projected peak population of 8.1 billion people in 2050 without displacing more wildlife. (By 2300, the UN’s Low Variant Projection says human numbers will have declined to 2.3 billion, due to the low birth rates that accord with low death rates. Your frantic fear of “overpopulation” will by then have faded into the mists.)

Relying on solar and wind would achieve the Greenpeace goal of fewer people, but through ghastly hardships (Would that qualify as mass murder on a far grander scale than the Unabomber?) Nor would this “save the planet.” Hungry people eat the wildlife before they starve.

Do not destroy our vital energy systems: I think the billboard was an effective way to carry this message beyond the current “skeptic” ranks It certainly attracted attention to the question. I continue to be amazed at the “religious” belief of BigCityLiberals in a theory which has been betrayed by 1) the existence of the D-O cycle which has been known now for 28 years and won for Dansgaard and Oeschger the “environmental Nobel,” the Tyler Prize; 2) the non-warming of the past 15 years, which defies the Greenhouse Theory; 3) the falsification of the global climate models’ predictions; 4) the continuing expansion of snow and ice in the Antarctic; and 5) the historical pattern of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which tells us that the current global cooling is likely to last decades more and will thus destroy the man-made warming campaign.

May I publish your decision to renounce the man-made warming campaign and help to reduce the anguish which this well-meant but misguided effort has inflicted on the general public?

Dennis Avery

---

And here's my original email to Mr. Avery:


Dear Mr. Avery,
I am wondering if you are aware

1) that you are listed as a "Heartland Institute Expert"
http://heartland.org/dennis-avery

...and 2) that Heartland recently ran a billboard campaign comparing AGW believers to mass murderers (in particular to the Unabomber)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?newsfeed=true

A number of scientists have asked that they be removed from the HI list of experts because of this billboard campaign, and a number of sponsors have withdrawn their funding. I wonder if you will continue to be associated with them?

And may I publish any response here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/

M.J.Murphy
BCL


Thursday, May 10, 2012

No Charges Filed Against Gleick

As readers may remember, Peter Gleick is the hydroclimatologist who suckered the Heartland Institute out of some of their budget documents, which act has, directly or indirectly, resulted in HI's losing $100,000s in funding from its corporate sponsors.  After Mr. Gleick's identity was revealed, rumors swirled re lawsuits and possible charges laid against him.  Well, this morning, responding to an inquiry of mine, I received a short email from Ross Rice of the Chicago FBI, which I have excerpted below:

While we do ask for the public's assistance with many cases, we generally do NOT detail what we might be investigating unless or until an arrest is made or charges are filed. As such, I can tell you that no arrests have been made nor have any criminal charges been filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Peter Gleick.

Regards,
SA Ross Rice
Chicago FBI

Hard to imagine anything coming of this now.  Presumably the police don't believe the nonsense HI is trying to pass off as evidence of wrongdoing.

Monday, May 07, 2012

Heartland Institute Loses Another Sponsor After PR Fiasco

So, late last week The Heartland Institute puts up this bill-board outside of Chicago:

...with the promise of more ads to come, featuring other notables such as Osama Bin Laden. The billboard, lets just say, gets noticed.  Leo Hickman is first out of the gate:

It really is hard to know where to begin with this one. But let's start with: "What on earth were they thinking?"

And a shit storm follows. HI allies like Canadian economist  Ross McKitrick threaten to pull out of this year's version of Deniapalooza (the annual HI climate conference) if the billboard campaign is not discontinued; conference speaker Donna Lafromboise, another Canuck, does indeed pull out.  By late Friday, Heartland has already pulled down the billboard although, as many people have noted, they don't sound particularly apologetic about comparing folks who believe in the science of AGW to mass murderers.

Fortunately, the fallout has continued through the weekend.  Most significantly, Diageo, one of the world's largest drink manufacturers, has decided against providing further funding to the Institute:

Following the widespread outcry triggered by Heartland's billboards, a Diageo spokeswoman told the Guardian: "Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo's only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future."

Various pressure campaigns against HI's remaining sponsors continue. DeSmog Blog has provided a handy list of these companies if anyone wants to pen an aggrieved email.  Of course, the bulk of HI's funding is provided by a single anonymous donor.  This story in the Shimer College Events Examiner puts into words what many have suspected:

In February, the "Denialgate" security breach exposed Bast's administrative incompetence, as well as internal Heartland documents that strongly suggested that it had been receiving massive infusions of cash from the same source that had bankrolled the attempted takeover of Shimer: Chicago industrialist Barre Seid.


We shall see where this story goes.  But, watching the push-back against HI build from my small place behind the scenes, I will say that the climate science community has learned alot about fighting back over the past couple of years.  It is not out of the question that, with some continued effort, the Institute might be forced out of business.