The billionaire Charles Koch...
The guy has a billion dollars to throw around lying his ass off to deny the obvious fact of global warming, but he can't even buy a decent haircut.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Simulist » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:20 pm
The billionaire Charles Koch...
by wintler2 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:51 pm
Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status
Whistleblower made complaint to IRS over climate science attack machine's tax-exempt status
John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.
Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.
Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.
Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show.
"I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3)," Mashey said. "My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities."
Mashey later published his audit of Heartland finances in Desmogblog, which was the first outlet to run the trove of Heartland documents. ..
by seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:51 pm
Research confirms warming for yellow cedar death
By DAN JOLING, Associated Press
Saturday, February 18, 2012
(02-18) 09:01 PST Anchorage, Alaska (AP) --
U.S. Forest Service researchers have confirmed what has long been suspected about a valuable tree in Alaska's Panhandle: climate warming is killing off yellow cedar.
The mighty trees can live more than 1,000 years, resisting bugs and rot and even defending themselves against injury, but their shallow roots are vulnerable to freezing if soil is not insulated by snow. And for more than a century, with less snow on the ground, frozen roots have killed yellow cedar on nearly a half-million acres in southeast Alaska, plus another 123,000 acres in adjacent British Columbia.
The detective work on the tree deaths will help forest managers decide where yellow cedar is likely to thrive in the future. But the yellow cedar experience also underscores the increasing importance that climate change will play in managing forests, said Paul Schaberg, a USFS plant pathologist from Burlington, Vt., one of five authors of a paper on the tree that appeared this month in the journal Bioscience.
"As time goes on and climates change even more, other species, other locations, are likely to experience similar kinds of progressions, so you might do well to understand this one so you can address those future things," Schaberg said.
Yellow cedar and western red cedar are not the most common trees found in Alaska's coastal rainforest, but they were high-value commodities long before loggers arrived.
Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people used the rot-resistant wood for canoe paddles and totem poles. They could remove a lengthwise strip of bark from a living tree to use for weaving baskets and hats, and as backing in blankets. The remarkable tree could compartmentalize the injury and continue growing.
Yellow cedar is still valued for boat-building, but the bulk of the Alaska commercial harvest is sold in Asian markets, said Paul Hennon, a USFS forest pathologist from Juneau and one of the lead authors of the research paper. In Japan, it's valued for its age, tight grain and light color, Hennon said.
The slow-growing yellow cedar has trouble competing with western hemlock or Sitka spruce on well-drained, nutrient-rich soils. However, it was found a niche in soils with poor or moderate drainage — as long as its shallow, fine roots were covered by snow.
Those roots turned into an Achilles heel as snow patterns changed. Elevated mortality began around 1880-1890 and peaked in the 1970s and 1980s, according to the USFS study.
The yellow cedar's durability allowed dead trees to stand 100 years after they died but the cause of death was perplexing for years. Tree pathologists eliminated organisms or fungi as the primary cause and turned to physical factors such as hydrology and soil temperature, eventually linking yellow cedar decline to snow accumulation and duplicating results with seedlings.
"It's ironic that a species might be dying due to freeze-induced mortality when the climate signal is warming," Schaberg said. "So the world is getting warmer and these things are freezing? What's up with that?"
The conclusions have important implications for forest managers. They can predict where yellow cedar will thrive and the areas with poor drainage where yellow cedar has little chance to survive as snow patterns shift.
"That may seem counterintuitive to some folks, but one response is, you see a tree dying, you say, `Oh, let's plant more,' without necessarily analyzing, well, why is it dying?" Schaberg said. "And if it really is a site that won't sustain the species, does it make any sense to put it there anymore?"
On the other hand, planting yellow cedar in areas that have good drainage, which would allow for deeper root growth, also would make sense. That would take some traditional forest management by eliminating competitors until yellow cedar had established itself.
"We can plant the tree on those sites, and also thin for it," Hennon said. "This is a place where active management can give yellow cedar a little bit of competitive edge, and then it does very well there."
Researchers also know that yellow cedar may thrive in areas where it has not yet migrated, leading to the possibility of "assisted migration."
"That gets some people pretty nervous, the idea of planting a species outside its range," Hennon said, because the tree could be considered an invasive species. The Forest Service conducted a trial planting near Yakutat, a coastal community northwest of Juneau, and saw a first-year survival rate of more than 90 percent. Since yellow cedar has already been found farther to the northwest in Prince William Sound, he doesn't consider the trial planting to be assisted migration.
In any case, climate change is likely to be more of a consideration for forest managers.
"I'm looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best," Schaberg said from his Vermont office. "And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all. So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs, its influence on soils and the things that are living in soils, like roots — that is not limited to the yellow cedar story and Alaska. That's pertinent to many locations."
by Ben D » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:04 am
BREAKING: Gleick Confesses
As many of us had surmised, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is the Heartland document leaker. He has issued this statement:
Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick
by Iamwhomiam » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:44 am
by Ben D » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:29 am
Iamwhomiam wrote:Well, they could lose their status as a tax exempt 'charity,' but they'd just establish another, with a similar name though probably with different principals (officers, Directors).
That would screw-up their donors tax filings and they (the donors) would lose their tax write-offs, meaning that portion of their income they intended to donate would now become taxable. But it's a time consuming process, and tax filings can be amended, after all.
by compared2what? » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:49 am
Iamwhomiam wrote:Well, they could lose their status as a tax exempt 'charity,' but they'd just establish another, with a similar name though probably with different principals (officers, Directors).
That would screw-up their donors tax filings and they (the donors) would lose their tax write-offs, meaning that portion of their income they intended to donate would now become taxable. But it's a time consuming process, and tax filings can be amended, after all.
by compared2what? » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:52 am
Ben D wrote:Iamwhomiam wrote:Well, they could lose their status as a tax exempt 'charity,' but they'd just establish another, with a similar name though probably with different principals (officers, Directors).
That would screw-up their donors tax filings and they (the donors) would lose their tax write-offs, meaning that portion of their income they intended to donate would now become taxable. But it's a time consuming process, and tax filings can be amended, after all.
Something tells me you didn't read my post Iam. Try it, it works better that way...
And by the way, I don't know how well you follow the ever changing landscape of AGW politics, it does now seem that it's only a matter of time before it becomes clear to both sides that the 'Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy' you quoted from in an earlier post , is a fake....
Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession
Rigorous intuition in deed!
by Ben D » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:02 am
compared2what? wrote:He's got some. However, if I were advising Heartland, I'd advise them to accept his apology along with some token gesture of recompense and call it a day. Because honestly, they'd look pretty bad if they went after a guy who'd already destroyed the impeccable repute that the numerous valuable contributions he's made to his field had earned him over the course of his now permanently tainted career. Especially given that most people would probably be a lot more sympathetic to what he did and his reasons for doing it than they would to Heartland's SOP and motives. Which any kind of litigation would be sure to keep very much in the public eye.
So they'd be better off letting it drop, imo.
I have no idea if they will, though. I mean, they don't have any ethics. So who knows?
Well, there you go. Sabre-rattling. So they'll exact some humiliating concession from him, it looks like. And maybe some kind of settlement. But they probably won't take him to court.
by Iamwhomiam » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:48 am
by Ben D » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:27 am
by Ben D » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:46 am
The Fake Confidential Strategy Memo
On or before Feb 13, the “unknown person” or an associate (who subsequently called himself Heartland Insider), fabricated a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo”. Its pdf version was created on Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time.
Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.
1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.
2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)
3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.
4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.
5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.
6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.
7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.
8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.
by compared2what? » Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:01 am
by norton ash » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:28 pm
I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.
by Luther Blissett » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:52 pm
norton ash wrote:I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.
You must be so proud. Now they can focus more on consumer goods and burning cut-rate gas in shitty, disposable cars with a clean conscience. Your truth goes marching on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests