Heartland Institute: A Manifestation of the Kochtopus Empire

Thu, 2012-03-01 11:36Steve Horn
Steve Horn's picture

Heartland Institute: A Manifestation of the Kochtopus Empire

It is nearly impossible to discuss the vast climate change denial echo chamber and not mention the Koch BrothersKoch Industries, and what some have called the Koch Empire.

Perhaps unsurpisingly then, the origins of the Heartland Institute – whose internal documents were recently leaked to DeSmogBlog – have a direct historical link to the rise of the Kochtopus's wide-reaching climate change denial machine.

It all began in 1977 in Wichita, Kansas, with the creation of the Cato Institute.

David Padden, Cato Institute, and the Rise of Heartland

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 and originally funded by Charles Koch, of Koch Industries fame and fortune.

It is known today for its libertarian policy stances on issues like the War on Drugsanti-interventionist foreign policy, and support for civil liberties, and perhaps most notoriously for its climate change denial and pro-polluter stance in energy policy debates. Cato's most infamous talking head today is Pat Michaels, who serves as its “Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies.”

One of the key original members of Cato's Board of Directors was David Padden, a Chicago, IL-based investment banker and then owner of Padden & Company, which now also has a spinoff called Padco Lease Corporation. Padden passed away in October 2011.

In 1984, piggybacking off of his role at Cato, Padden founded the Heartland Institute, also serving on its original Board of Directors.

Padden also served on the original Board of Directors of another organization founded that year, Citizens for a Sound Economy, now known as both FreedomWorks and Americans for ProsperityBoth of these echo chambers recieved their initial seed money from the Koch family fortune.

Padden also served as the original co-chairman with Joseph Bast at Heartland, while U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a current Republican Party candidate for the 2012 election, was the first chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy.

Koch Empire Funds Heartland Climate Change Denial Echo Chamber

Between 1986 and 2009, the Koch Empire gave $75,000 to the Heartland Institute, according to Greenpeace USA's PolluterWatch project. During that same time period, the Empire gave just under $14 million to Cato, over $7.5 million to Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity), and over $5.5 million to Americans for Prosperity, according to PolluterWatch.

Prior to his death, Padden had affiliations with all of these outfits. 

Joseph Bast, the current head of Heartland, served as Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee of the State Policy Network (SPN). He is on the Board of Advisors of the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), a member of SPN.

SPN received $39,000 from the Koch Empire between 1986 and 2009, according to PolluterWatch. IPI, meanwhile, does not make its funding sources publicly available, but its 2006 annual report shows that it received $50,000 from the Cato Institute that year. 

Heartland Exposed: Sowing the Seeds of Doubt

As DeSmogBlog has made clear through Heartland Exposed, Heartland, and the vast echo chamber it is a part of, are still hard at work “sowing the seeds of doubt” on climate change.

Heartland and its affiliates are a small, but vocal part of the deeply-intertwined, well-funded machine undermining democracy and delaying action to address an ever-worsening climate change crisis

And at the center of it all, lo and behold, is the Kochtopus Empire.

Explore this Prezi infographic created by the International Forum on Globalization to learn more about the tentacles of the Kochtopus:
  

 

Comments

Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. Released in late February by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Cultivating the Grassroots was written by Sarah Hansen, who served as executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005.

 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/154290/why_the_environmental_movement_is_not_winning

 

$10 Billion dollars? Are you kidding me? That’s a staggering amount of funding for one issue and it literally dwarfs the amount of spending that the skeptics get.

What I want to know is, where is this money coming from?… Is the left that wealthy?

Great point but don’t expect to get an nswer here.

And we can queue the nasty responses from Phil et al in 3, 2, 1………

Have a great weekend Chas ;)

 

…from what you’re saying perhaps they should be spending it all on advertising and not doing any work at all.

That would make them more like Heartland ‘for profit’ lobbiests, right?

$10 billion in lobbying and advertising?  That’s what you think Greenpeace does?

Come back here when you graduate from high school or something.

The $10B over 10 years is indeed for far more than climate policy. If covers all philanthropy for environment (might even include Heartland!).

Climate funding is not insignificant - maybe over 10% of that total. But even there, it’s not just to support the cap-and-trade (uh, a 1970’s Republican proposal, by the way to use market forces to accomplish a social goal in the public interest) policies you despise.

The amounts include scientific research, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and much more.

To equate that with Heartland Institute funding directed at discrediting a single scientific theory is farcical on its face.

Here is a list of the climate related grants from the top 50 funders:

http://foundationcenter.org/gpf/climatechange/tables/2-Top_50_Grants_CC_Dom_2008.pdf

The sources are not communists, socialists, or foreign agents. They are respected names in American industry.

In the end, physics doesn’t care if you are liberal or libertarian. I would not put my money on the 1:20 horse (the odds that climate change is natural).

The sources are not communists, socialists, or foreign agents. They are respected names in American industry.

Koch is a respected name in American industry too. Not nearly as respected a name in American politics, of course, but you can’t possibly hate on people for making Dixie Cups. 

And the reason they lose some respect is that their environmental record with their coal, oil, and forestry interests leaves much to be desired. They consistently fight regulation of any kind. Their Georgia Pacific division also has been criticized for clear cutting and then abandoning tracts in Georgia and California. Yes, they are much more than Dixie Cups.

 

I didn’t intend that comment to be taken entirely literally ;)

Dude, read the report, that measly $10 B is from all sources, representing over 28,000 different environmental groups over ten years. It isn’t for one issue like climate change either, it’s for a wide spectrum of environmental issues including social justice and poverty issues.

Charles and David Koch themselves are fifth on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans with $21 billion each. Koch industries had revenues of $100 billion in 2009 alone.

Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory. But hey, I think Koch Industries has some aluminum holdings so you might be able to get a good deal on tin foil from them.

Why couldn’t the Koch’s be more like Iron Man?

Or just get a yacht and a harem like all the other rich guys.

It takes a lot less money to destroy than to build. It takes far less money to create confusion than it does to unite people in understanding. The Koch brothers need only spend a small percentage of their money to buy the right to rip apart the natural world and sell it piece by piece. They are like two characters from a Charles Dickens nightmare. Dr. John

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/koch-brothers-sue-cato-institute-president/2012/03/01/gIQAUoHMkR_blog.html

Koches are fighting for control. I thought Cato is non-profit? How can they be talking about shareholder interest?  

I don’t have any time to look at this further..


 

Just ask anyone who lives in Hawaii about the Bishop foundation.

Lady Slipper writes:

“Koches are fighting for control. I thought Cato is non-profit? How can they be talking about shareholder interest?”

I don’t know much about these things, but maybe they are trying to show they are a corporation so the corporation can be blamed if they get in trouble.

This is just a guess. 

 

 

Nonprofits can be(and to the best of my knowledge, usually are) set up with shares to determine who has control of it. Look at the Green Bay Packers, for example - they’ve never paid a dividend, but they still do share sales every couple decades to fund stadium improvements, and have more owners than Green Bay has people. 

So much for Ron Paul being anything close to resembling liberal.

Conservatarians is what they are.

My friends, who are gaga over Ron Paul, deny that they are right or left.

Ron Paul is and always has been a libertarian - and on that scale, I would even say he is a right-wing libertarian, edging towards the anarchists.

Their school imagines that a federal government is only for military, immigration and trade purposes. Virtually no regulations, no fines, no incentives, taxes from tariffs. And all disputes are handled by the courts.

In Ron Pau’s world, if your doctor kills you, sue him!

 

I’m always confused by Libertarians. I just can’t imagine it working.

“Their school imagines that a federal government is only for military”

Isn’t that socialism?

“Virtually no regulations”

Yet, the same people will whine when there is no regulations to enforce quality of food, medicine, hospitals, building practices, police misconduct, banking practices etc etc.

“no fines”

Just law suits.

“no incentives”

Communism?

“And all disputes are handled by the courts.”

May the wealthier man win.

Sounds like they never read about Feudalism or Mafia.

Socialism generally vests vastly more powers in the government than just the military. The idea of libertarianism is that you protect people from outside interference, and then let them do their thing from there - in practice, this usually results in a government that has a military(to protect against invasion), police(to protect against crime), courts(to protect against torts, and enforce the actions of the police), and some sort of administration to make the above work. And nothing else. And in my experience, they actually believe it - I’ve seen far more libertarians get pissed off at food inspectors or bank regulations than the lack thereof. 

Personally, I think it’s rather a silly system, even if I was enamoured of it when I was 16. But it’s quite a long way from socialism or communism, and its advocates will claim that it’s less prone to corruption by wealth than the current system(since a government that doesn’t regulate isn’t subject to regulatory capture). 

“Socialism generally vests vastly more powers in the government than just the military.”

I didn’t say that it didn’t. I’m just pointing out the military is not privately owned. The costs are socialised. Libertarian and Conservatives like to rail against “big government” and “tax payer funded” and “socialism”…..because the government owns or runs something.

They like to forget just how much of our society is and has to be run by the government, so as to avoid corruption by private ownership, or neglect. What private companies are going to invest in national highways, or parks, or research into our planet, solar system or health without expecting a return?

“in practice, this usually results in a government that has a military(to protect against invasion), police(to protect against crime), courts(to protect against torts, and enforce the actions of the police), and some sort of administration to make the above work.”

Sounds like big governemt to me. Lots of tax payer funded teat sucking. What about ambulance, fire, hospitals, welfare, parks, water, sewer, libraries,bin collection etc etc?

“I’ve seen far more libertarians get pissed off at food inspectors”

People want less control over their food quality? They want food imorted from countries where they use night soil as fertiliser because it’s $2 cheaper?

“or bank regulations than the lack thereof.”

They want more GFC’s?

“But it’s quite a long way from socialism”

Not if the public are paying for anything.



 

Like I said, I’m not a big believer in the merits of the philosophy, but I do know it well enough to know that they disagree with you about the consequences of their beliefs. I won’t spend much time defending it, though. Nonetheless, you ought to recognize that there’s some middle ground between socialism and anarchism. 

“ Nonetheless, you ought to recognize that there’s some middle ground between socialism and anarchism. “

So if there is common ground on such things, why are they so militant in opposition to it on blogs, marches, papers etc When, in the end they would be forced to adopt many of the aspects of socialism? E.g. Police, federal police, fire, Ambulance, garbage collection, parks, national parks, libraries, judges, ombudsman, street sweepers etc.

They are all government controlled. 

In all the Atlas shrugging and John Galt praising, they didnt realise that Ayn Rand sought treatment from the public health system for her lung cancer.

So much for existentialism.

 

Standard libertarian ideology would not have public fire, ambulance, garbage collection, parks, libraries, street sweepers, or “etc.”. They may all be government controlled today, and we may agree that they ought to be government controlled/financed(well, except garbage - I’d have no objection to that being private), but a libertarian would not agree with us. 

And while I agree that Ayn Rand was a pretty messed-up human being in a lot of ways, her explanation for it does make some sense - “I have to pay for it, I might as well at least try to get my money back out”. 

“And while I agree that Ayn Rand was a pretty messed-up human being in a lot of ways, her explanation for it does make some sense - “I have to pay for it, I might as well at least try to get my money back out”.”

Which is simply a cop out, because she surreptitiously changed her name to enter the public health system because she realised the costs of treating her cancer could have wiped out all the funds she earned from her books.

She denied the consequences of smoking & when faced with the costs of treating that private choice, she chose to make it a public cost. Complete hypocrite.

http://www.good.is/post/conservative-darling-ayn-rand-died-loving-government-handouts/

 

She probably changed her name because she knew how much crap she’d get for it. But then, she was never a lady endowed with a great belief in acting decently(just look at the way she treated her husband), so I’m not surpised that she did what was best for her. 

 Ron Paul says we can handle environmental problems by using property rights to sue whoever else’s property pollutes our property.  So go buy your own army of lobbyists and lawyers and take on the oil industry, I guess is what it means.  And if you have no property?  Well I guess you’re out of luck, if you want clean air, food and water, and a liveable planet.

 

“So go buy your own army of lobbyists and lawyers and take on the oil industry, I guess is what it means.  And if you have no property?  Well I guess you’re out of luck”

Exactly, freedom and liberty………..for billionaires.

Yes, if a Gleicktavist like hack on Cato were to happen, the benefits to humanity would be immense.

Deniers like to forget that Cato also spreads misinformation and defends big tobacco. They quiet that voice that tells them, if Cato defend$ big tobacco and we know they are wrong….then what else are they being paid to lie about?

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blowing-smoke-about-tobaccorelated-deaths

Is it really that hard to join the dots for some?

 

some don’t have any dot-joiners.

There’s an excellent and quite thoughtful piece over at the Pointman blog about the Climate wars and why the alarmists have lost the battle. Chris Mooney may want to read the whole thing. An excerp;

“    The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. They had the equivalents of the big guns and the massive air support but there never was a skeptic HQ to be pounded, no big central organization, no massed ranks of skeptic soldiers or even any third-party backing the resistance.

    Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerrilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organization orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerrillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.”

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/

This is why attacking the “Heartlands” of the world will never advance anything for the warm side. It’s just plain ordinary people that don’t buy in to the hype, not some big monster lurking in the shadows.

Took a look at that article and it doesn’t seem to do much except fan the flames of those who buy into the religion of doubt.

The article claims that there are no large organizations behind the “skeptics” who call themselves “realists.” But we now know that there is a wide web of oil and coal money funding disinformation campaigns.

The article claims that “skeptical” bloggers are unpaid. But now we know that Idso, Watts and others have been on the Heartland payroll.

The article claims that careers of “skeptics” have been ruined, without saying who. But we now the names of climate scientists who have received death threats from “skeptics” who may have been incited by the likes of Heartland’s paid bloggers.

The article claims that the material on Heartland was published with no concern for its accuracy. But we have read that Heartland was contacted, the files were checked, and Heartland did not respond. Heartland still has not verified the content of the documents or pointed out even one false statement.

It really does not deal with….. reality.

 

What oil and coal money? We got Heartland’s donors list, there wasn’t an oil company on there who gave to climate issues. Frankly, I was stunned by that, but it’s nonetheless true. 

Koch owns a lot of oil and coal properties.

Exxon contributed to Heartland in prior years.

There are many more and you can research at ExxonSecrets, SourceWatch, or just look up the 990 filings for the various tax-exempt think tanks.

Oh, there is the case in Australia now where the owner of the largest coal mining company is purchasing the most popular television and radio stations.

So, actually, there is a lot of oil and coal money in the climate denial machine (in addition to individuals who’ve been snookered).

Koch’s money was for health, not climate stuff. 

“Koch’s money was for health, not climate stuff.”

Really? What document, what page? What part of Koch industries has investment in “health”?

What would you say their core business is?

 

Koch’s response: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/confrontingfalsehoodsheartland/

And if you look at the Fundraising Plan, page 22, you can see the Koch donation has the code “HCN”. This is the same code that was used for donations from Bayer, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and several other health-related groups. I don’t see a legend to specify exactly what “HCN” stands for, but I somehow doubt that a bunch of drug companies kicked in for “Hate Climate Now”. As much as Koch is best-known for its political donations, they do give quite a lot of money to more conventional charitable causes, healthcare issues chief among them. 

“Koch’s response: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/confrontingfalsehoodsheartland/”

Seriously? Going to the Koch website as evidence? It’s a pretty rare thing these days for companies or individuals to admit fault/liability/guilt. Only when dragged before a court does the ultimate truth come out. Sometimes it doesnt for years after.

Naturally, if you were a denier or supporter of Koch, you would be more prone to believe their statement. Their involvement in the climate denial machine is wel documented.

“I don’t see a legend to specify exactly what “HCN” stands for, but I somehow doubt that a bunch of drug companies kicked in for “Hate Climate Now”.”

No, but you are willing to believe the alternate scenario, considering a) The Koch’s long history of climate denial b) The fact that their core business is fossil fuels & c) They have no health services in their business portfolio.

“As much as Koch is best-known for its political donations, they do give quite a lot of money to more conventional charitable causes, .”

Its drawing a long bow to assume their philanthropic donations which are outside of Heartland, are somehow aligned with the services the Heartland Institute provide as an industry think tank.

healthcare issues chief among them”

Wait………you know that the bulk of their donations goes to Healthcare?

“And if you look at the Fundraising Plan, page 22, you can see the Koch donation has the code “HCN”.”

If you look at the strategy doc, it quite plainly says:


January 2012
Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy
Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to
prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global
warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012. This document offers such a set of
priorities. I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of
Institute Board and senior staff. More details can be found in our 2012 Proposed Budget
document and 2012 Fundraising Strategy memo. In 2012 our efforts will focus in the following
areas:
Increased climate project fundraising
Our climate work is attractive to flinders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose
contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total
2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012 - see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial
Report. We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They
returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up
their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus
continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work,
especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.

Hmmm, not a mention of health anywhere.

 

I wouldn’t have cited the Koch site on its own as evidence, but with the corroboration from the fundraising document, I think their story makes more sense than any alternative. I’m aware that he Koch family is heavily invested in oil, and not in healthcare, but they nonetheless provide funding to several health projects:

As a prostate cancer survivor, David Koch’s gift of $100 million in 2007 created the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, which opened March 3, 2011. Other cancer-fighting gifts include:

  • $20 million to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore
  • $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
    in New York City
  • $25 million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston
  • $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell 
    Medical Center
  • $25 million to The Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City

I think that “chief among them” is a fair characterization of giving almost a quarter of a billion dollars to medical research. 

And while the strategy doc does say that, it’s also in direct factual conflict with what the fundraising doc says - fundraising says $25k to “HCN“(which is apparently “Health Care News”, a newsletter), with a fundraising target of $200k next year, strategy memo says $200k this year and lists it under climate. The authenticity of the fundraising plan is unquestioned, so I’d much rather go by what it says than the heavily disputed strategy memo. A strategy memo that was written by someone who made an amateurish mistake based on being unfamiliar with the actual fundraising done by Heartland, at that. If you believe it’s a Heartland staff member who made that mistake, I won’t argue, but it’s still an obvious mistake that you shouldn’t be using to bolster your argument. 

“but with the corroboration from the fundraising document, I think their story makes more sense than any alternative.”

There is no corroboration from the fundraising doc. In all the documents there is no mention of the Koch’s involvement in any health or medical projects, only climate change denial projects.

Secondly lets look at their story:

“The documents presented by the blog indicate “[the Foundation] returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000.  We expect to push up their level of support in 2012…if our focus continues to align with their interests.”  But this is not so.  The Foundation gave just $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (the only such donation to that organization in more than 10 years) and that funding was specifically directed to a healthcare research program, and not climate change research, as was erroneously reported.”

Ok, so who is lying, Heartland or the Koch’s? You yourself said “The authenticity of the fundraising plan is unquestioned”. So who is lying? Even if they did actually donate $25k  in 2011 (which is doubtful) , they have pledged $200k in 2012, otherwise Heartland wouldn’t have added those figures.

“David Koch’s gift of $100 million in 2007 created the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, which opened March 3, 2011. Other cancer-fighting gifts include:

  • $20 million to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore
  • $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
    in New York City
  • $25 million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston
  • $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell 
    Medical Center
  • $25 million to The Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City”

Ok, so why didnt they just donate more money directly to health related issues as you have bullet pointed above? Why donate to a right wing think tank for “health related issues”? Seems a long way to go about making donations to health.

“And while the strategy doc does say that, it’s also in direct factual conflict with what the fundraising doc says - fundraising says $25k to “HCN””

Right, so one doc says in plain english that they are donating to climate denial and another says “HCN”. I dont see a conflict, it plainly says climate change denial.

It plainly says :

Increased climate project fundraising
Our climate work is attractive to flinders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose
contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total
2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012 - see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial
Report. We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They
returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000

“A strategy memo that was written by someone who made an amateurish mistake based on being unfamiliar with the actual fundraising done by Heartland, at that.”

Really? Has someone admitted that? Or is that an assumption?

“The authenticity of the fundraising plan is unquestioned, so I’d much rather go by what it says than the heavily disputed strategy memo.”

Fair enough, lets do that.

For starters, the “project” column your point to “HCN” in starts in 2012.

Secondly, there are 10 projects listed :

1) Free To Choose Medicine - FTCM

2) Climate Change - NIPCC

3) Operation Angry Badger - Anti Unions & Schools

4) Center for Transforming Schools - Attacking the public school system

5) Chicago Fire Outreach - Finance.Insurance.Real Estate

6) David H Padden Internship Program - Spreading Libertarian ideals

7) Cook Country Public Debt Project - Opposing social justice

8) Global Warming for K-12 Schools - Spreading climate change denial

9) Hydraulic Fracking Project - Defending Fracking

10) Weather Stations Project - WUWT bogus stations project

11) General Operating - GO

Listed project acronyms in Table 8 are

1) FIRE

2) BTN

3) HCN

4) GO

5) ITTN

6) SRN

7) LEGAL

Considering Heartlands long history of climate change denial. Which one of those acronyms cover climate change denial?

Also considering table 12. Which says :

Budget From New
Donors
Project
$1,000,000 $500,000 Free To Choose Medicine project
$200,000 $100,000 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
$610,000 $305,000 Operation Angry Badger
$250,000 $125,000 Center for Transforming Education
$100,000 $100,000 Chicago FIRE Outreach
$235,000 $117,500 David H. Padden Intern Program
$210,000 $105,000 Cook County Public Debt project
$200,000 $100,000 Global Warming Curriculum project
$100,000 $50,000 Hydraulic Fracturing project
$88,000 $44,000 Weather Station project
$2,905,000 $1,546,500 Total

Sooooo, the money for those projects just comes from nowhere? The “anonymous donor” funds some of it, but not all of it, so who funds the rest?

Do you even admit Heartland funds climate change denial? If so, who funds it?





 

Again, the fundraising doc says $25k for HCN, which is Health Care News. The only mention of that money being for climate is from the strategy memo, which got the amount wrong by a factor of eight. I don’t think that’s a reliable source. The $200k was Heartland’s goal for 2012, not any sort of pledge - it’s listed as “projected”, and “expect[ed]”, but nowhere in the fundraising doc does it actually say it’s pledged, and it specifically says that it was not given. And the strategy memo also listed them as “returning”, when the fundraising doc specifically says $0 for 2010. And I’m not relying on press releases here, I’m going by the leaked Heartland docs. Why do you claim these figures are “doubtful”? Simply because it’s less flattering to your preconceptions?

In order to believe your story, you have to think that Heartland is actively lying to their own board members about their fundraising sources, goals, and plans, in a document that was never intended for public consumption. Why would they do that? And if you think HCN is a fake acronym used to hide climate advocacy in their internal documents, then please explain to me why most of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies donated so generously. One I could imagine, but GSK and Pfizer and Bayer and Eli Lilly and PhRMA? Also, how is it that they’re publishing their healthcare newsletter if all the money is being diverted to climate? 

As for why they’d donate to Heartland, I can’t say for sure, but I will point out that “right-wing think tank” is likely to be much less of a dirty term in a Koch’s mind than yours. 

As for where Heartland gets their money, remember that they don’t just have a handful of big corporate/foundation donors - they’re going to get smaller sums from individuals, as well as unallocated donations that can be used whereever. They’re spending almost half a million on direct mail fundarising, which given usual ratios implies they’ll probably raise a couple million that way - that alone is enough to cover the difference between those columns. 

I’d want to know more about what Koch is peddling before I’d even consider it.

There was some (small?) controversy about Koch pharmaceuticals.

Here… last page, top.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

 

“I don’t think that’s a reliable source.”

I don’t understand what the hangup is with the memo. It mirrors almost exactly what is discussed in other Heartland documents. It matches up nicely with the fundraising doc. I think deniers are keen to have this one dissapear because it names names. Particularly the Koch’s & Watts. There is no evidence it is faked, no one has admitted its faked and it matches up with the fundraising plan.

“The $200k was Heartland’s goal for 2012, not any sort of pledge - it’s listed as “projected”, and “expect[ed]”, but nowhere in the fundraising doc does it actually say it’s pledged, and it specifically says that it was not given.”

So why not put $0? They must have a reason for putting that figure. It doesnt just come out of the air. If you do a projected budget for your coming household budget. Do you put down an income figure that is totaly beyond your means?

“And the strategy memo also listed them as “returning”, when the fundraising doc specifically says $0 for 2010.”

It actually says:

“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They
returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up
their level of support in 2012”

It doesnt mention 2010. I take returned as, they were once a donor in the past, they have lapsed, but have returned as a donor.

Why do you claim these figures are “doubtful”?”

Because there are many other projects that don’t match up with what is in Table 8 and there is serious funding for those climate denial projects. Somehone is paying for them.

“And if you think HCN is a fake acronym used to hide climate advocacy in their internal documents, then please explain to me why most of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies donated so generously.”

So where do the 3 climate denial projects fit into those 8 acronyms?

“Also, how is it that they’re publishing their healthcare newsletter if all the money is being diverted to climate?”

How is it they are funding climate denial programs when no one is listed under those categories? We know the programs exist. They have been verified. So do you expect me to believe that only corporate money goes into the 8 acronym projects and the climate denial projects are funded entirely by anonymous donors?




 

The hangup with the memo is that, on the particular issue of Koch donations, it’s completely at odds with what the fundraising information says. When there’s an internal contradiction that egregious, I’ll stick to the one that isn’t being denounced as a fraud over the one that is. 

The reason for $200k - no idea. I’ve never done fundraising for an advocacy group, I have no idea how one would go about making projections of that sort. Probably something as simple as “Koch has money coming out their ears, and they’re giving to us again, so hopefully they’ll be good for more this time”. 

The source of the money for the climate stuff? Mr. Anon seems to be the primary one, with a lot of the unallocated money probably filling in the difference. There’s not many companies around that would risk the bad PR for donating to AGW skeptics, and even the coal and oil folks seem to have learned that their money does more harm than good. Most of the skepticism comes from ideological grounds these days, not economical. And frankly, even if the Koch money was for climate change, they’ve given enough cash to enough groups for ideological reasons that it wouldn’t be obviously connected to their oil business. Other than them, do you see any other fossil fuel companies on the donor list anywhere? 

And those climate projects exist, but their comnbined 2012 budget is $388k. Half that is projected to come from new donors, who aren’t listed in the donor list(because it’s a chart of returning donors). After that, Mr. Anon has pledged over a million, and he’s generally been gung-ho about climate in past. They don’t need returning corporate donors to contribute to those projects in order for them to be funded. 

You claim that the ‘Climate Strategy’ document is fake.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

When it correlates nicely with everything else in the documents that Heartland kindly sent to Gleick.

http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic

Who said the “Climate Strategy” document was fake… Heartland?  Heartland also said some or all of the rest were as well.

So… did they lie then, or are they lying now?  Which lie is true or not true?  Can you tell me?

Personally, I can’t tell which Heartland statement is true.  (But I do know they are paid to lie.)

So either clear that up… or let the courts sort it out.

While I look forward to the PR entertainment flowing from Heartland, I am really curious to know more about the actual time line regarding the ‘Climate Strategy’ document.

Except for the part about Koch, where it’s completely at odds with the genuine Heartland memos. I mean, it’s got the same numbers, but they’re in the wrong places - almost like it was written who only looked briefly, didn’t really understand Heartland’s finances, and was looking to make a cheap shot against a popular villain. Also, the other part I find telling is that plenty of folks were able to pick Gleick out as being the author days before he came forward - I’d never heard of the fellow before this whole mess, but if the people who have can name him out of the whole universe of “pro-climate” activists and be correct, I’d say there’s something to their theory. (Also, which other documents did Heartland say were fake? Their initial response was here, and it mentions only the strategy memo as fake. None of their subsequent press releases mention any others, and one specifically mentions that “one document was a forgery”.)

I hope this goes to court, where I’m sure the discovery process will settle it one way or the other. Either way, both Heartland and Gleick acted like assholes(scorched-earth Streisand Effect lawyering on one hand and false-flag theft on the other), but I feel quite confident about which way it wil turn out. And it’s a damned shame - I genuinely do believe in AGW, so it always makes me very sad to see its most prominent advocates be figures who illegally dodge FOI requests, make obvious fakes to slur their enemies, and talk about how the planet will burn up to a cinder if we don’t all stop breathing out CO2 by this time tomorrow. If the truth is really on our side in this, we shouldn’t have to act like bigger dicks than our opponents in an attempt to hammer them under. Obvious lies about one thing just make people think we’re lying about less obvious things too, which does nobody any good. 

“me very sad to see its most prominent advocates be figures who illegally dodge FOI requests,”

That’s just rubbish. The data that Eschenbach and his army of orcs were complaining about was avaialble online the whole time. Deniers orchestrated a campaign of FOI spam to simply hold up science and bog Jones down in needless paperwork for years, instead of carrying out important research.

This came out in the many subsequent investigations and Jones et al, were exonerated. It was quite clear what the FOI requests were aimed at.

“and talk about how the planet will burn up to a cinder if we don’t all stop breathing out CO2 by this time tomorrow.”

Another denier strawman and hyperbole.

 

If memory serves me right, the FOIA requests to U Penn were only for every single email that was either sent or received by Michael Mann. They were not looking for anything specific.

Within the past week, this request was thrown out by a judge, who rightfully called it “a fishing expedition.”

So yes, Phil, it certainly looks like the purpose is just to distract, delay, and look for chewy bits of conversation to wrench from its context to distort for the purposes of the denial machine.

Would any of us agree to make public every single email we sent or received at our work?

There is a huge difference between a legitimate FOIA request and this. A legitimate request is focused on a particular incident or event.

“Except for the part about Koch, where it’s completely at odds with the genuine Heartland memos.”

Well that is yours and the denialospheres interpretation of it isn’t it?

The funding for the climate denial program has to come from somewhere  and the fundraising plan says:

“Approximately 80% of Heartland’s income each year historically has come from past donors
who renew at their current level or increase their giving.”

So it stands to reason that at least some of the donors actually listed are also donors of the climate denial projects.

“I genuinely do believe in AGW,”

I think you are the only one you are kidding here with statements like that. Your account started here when the heartland stories started. You have gone out of your way to defend the Koch’s. You have tried to downplay or ignore the climate change denial programs. You seem almost desperate to separate the memo from the fundraiser doc. You have now changed tack to incorporate the “climategate” witch-hunt into the mix, while taking the denier side. You have never once mentioned the role of climate change deniers in undermining science or acknowledging the Koch’s vast role in regards to climate change denial.

I’m thinking you are either a Heartland employee, or someone employed to come here to desmog to downplay the Heartland docs or Koch’s role in climate change denial.

Please provide evidence that you do “genuinely believe in AGW” by providing another blog where you have a history of AGW support.


 

The money mostly comes from the Anonymous Donor - most of the climate projects Heartland runs these days are comparatively cheap, and he’s both generous and a climate fanatic. I’d love to see some historical data on it, though - what were they spending four million a year on? 

And re whether I’m a liar, I came to this blog from a link on Megan McArdle’s site, where I’m a long-time reader. That crowd leans quite the opposite way from this one, and I’ve said the same things about global warming there that I have here. Got a fair bit of stick for it too. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/#comment-441316456 - arguing that short-term temperature drops do not falsify the AGW thesis

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/#comment-441374530 - endorsing a carbon tax

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/#comment-442442163 - taking on the “water matters more than CO2” theory

I’m a soft libertarian who places a much bigger emphasis on fiscal and social policy than climate, so I mostly hang out with deniers. But I have enough of a science education that I’m not one myself - I’ve taken spectroscopy classes and I understand blackbody radiation, I know damned well that CO2 exerts a warming influence on the planet. The short-term unfalsifiability of the models bothers me, but this is a theory a quarter-century old, and well…the planet’s definitely warmer now than it was then, you know? Just because I think Gleick is a liar(and not a very good one) doesn’t mean that I disagree on the science. I do get pissed off when people argue in bad faith, and that applies just as much to “hide the decline” as “anti-climate”. 

I get shit about this on every single forum I visit, left or right, but I try to debate in actual good faith, to understand what my opponents are actually arguing, and to beat up on my own side when it does wrong. I’m not a partisan hack who circles the wagons against a justified attack, and I hope that I never will be. Just because we’re on the same side of the science doesn’t mean that I’m going to let tribal loyalties to Gleick take precedence over the fairly obvious fact of his fraud. He lied, he made me and his whole movement look stupid, and he can hang for it as far as I’m concerned. 

Alsadius, I would suggest you take a look at the Skeptical Science section on the “hide the decline” argument.

It is found here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

I looked at the emails myself and quickly determined (based on my previous reading of climate science on NASA and other sites)  that there was nothing nefarious going on. It was just a technique devised to calibrate one temperature record (tree ring analog) with another (weather instruments). The first I saw of the AGW theory was before 1980 in Science News. When the 2nd IPCC report came out, I became convinced that it was happening and hopeful that action would begin. By 2010, it was clear that the situation was becoming critically important.

Pages

[x]
High-speed train

Aggressively tackling global warming through better public transportation and increased energy efficiencies could increase global GDP by between $1.8 trillion and $2.6 trillion annually, a new report has found.

Released on Monday, the report by the World Bank and the ClimateWorks Foundation said tackling global warming now would also save as many as 94,000 lives a year from pollution-related diseases and reduce crop losses.

The report —...

read more