And then as the evening progressed I found out more detail from the internal documents of the Heartland Institute that are even more disturbing:
The ultimate to me is in this leaked document:
Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
Let me repeat one part:
His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
UPDATE: Some additional news stories and posts of relevance
- Heartland Institute documents leaked
- Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate …
- “..dissuading teachers from teaching science..” – right wing think tank papers …
- Heartland Documents Reveal Fringe Denial Group Plans to Pursue Koch Money …
- HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute’s Insider Reveals Secrets
- The new anti-science assault on US schools
- Heartland Institute takes money from Kochs, gives it to deniers | Grist
- Brendan DeMelle: Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents …
http://storify.com/phylogenomics/scholarly-kitchen-bloggers-response-to-questions.js?template=slideshow[&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=”http://storify.com/phylogenomics/scholarly-kitchen-bloggers-response-to-questions” target=”_blank”&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;View the story “Scholarly Kitchen Bloggers response to questions” on Storify&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;]
UPDATE 4: More stories
- Climate sceptics – who gets paid what?
- Leaked: a plan to teach climate change skepticism in schools
- Climate Denial Bombshell
- Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think tank
- Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate’
- The REAL Climategate: Blog Busts Anti-Science Warchest
- Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate skepticism
UPDATE 6: 2-15 8 PM More stories
- Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science NY Times
- Climate science attack machine took donations from major corporations The Guardian
- Climate change sceptic body’s donor list leaked Financial Times
- The Heartland Files and the Climate Fight Andrew Revkin
- Heartland And DeSmogBlog Square Off Over Incendiary Documents Forbes
- The Heartland Institute Responds to Stolen and Fake Documents Forbes
- Openness: A Heartland-warming tale BBC
- Heartland burned by ‘DenialGate’ memos – Politico
- Leaked docs: Heartland Institute think tank pays climate contrarians very well Ars Technica
- CONFIRMED: Anti-Science Blogger Admits Heartland Institute’s ‘Special Project’ To Distort Temperature Data
- Who’s the Anonymous Donor keeping a climate sceptic think tank afloat?
- Why Is Microsoft Paying Climate Change Denialists?
- INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group’s climate efforts
- Leaked docs provide insight into how climate-skeptic groups operate
- How Corporate Lobbyists Stole the Conservative Brand
- Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake?
- Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents
- Climate Expert Peter Gleick Admits Deception in Obtaining Heartland Institute …
- The Origin of the Heartland Documents (by Gleick)
- Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files
- What does Peter Gleick’s Heartland Institute admission do to his …
7 thoughts on “Leaked insider docs from Heartland Institute goal: "dissuading teachers from teaching science" (ps hey Scholarly Kitchen do you support this?)”
*And* he gets $100,000 for it? Huh. Crime really does pay.
Ah, you are finally realizing that America has a 五毛党 too. But of course, this being America, we spare no expense for our Fifty Cent Warriors, and the anatomy of our misrule is somewhat different.
A comment from David Crotty who is one of the people who blogs at The Scholarly Kitchen
Wanted to drop you a line. I tried to leave a comment on your recent blog entry but I don't seem to have any of the proper accounts to do so (it won't seem to accept my Google account). Please feel free to post this on your blog:
I can't speak as an official spokesman for The Scholarly Kitchen as no such thing exists. We are deliberately a diverse group, from a variety of backgrounds and holding a variety of opinions. To me, that's what makes it an interesting place. I regularly disagree with the opinions of the other authors, and they with mine. I often learn something new, or am forced to clarify my own thinking on a subject to better defend it.
We are unpaid volunteers, and not connected in any meaningful way, other than playing some role in the scholarly communication landscape. Please don't fall prey to “guilt by association” (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html) and please don't take anything one author says as representative of other members of the group.
Though I made my feelings on climate science pretty clear in a recent comment thread (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/02/02/mysteries-of-the-elsevier-boycott/#comment-43299) it seems a bit of a dodge here. If you wish to take David Wojick to task for his stance in this area, you'll get no objection from me. But it shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss an argument about open access mandates with which you disagree, particularly since it was someone else entirely who made that argument.
There's a compelling set of reasons for increasing access to the scholarly literature that is quite capable of standing on its own without relying on red herrings.
I wrote back:
Thanks for the email.
I will post this – sorry that you could not do it directly,
A few things to note
1. I think my post (I assume you mean this one) is quite balanced.
2. I stand by the statement:
“So, in a way I think it is not a stretch to interpret his involvement
in the Scholarly Kitchen as a way to boost his “authority” in academic
circles even in the absence of any expertise in climate science.”
3. I ended the post with a question
Wow. Not anything else to say here. I wonder if any of the other
writers at the Scholarly Kitchen will comment about this.
I would still like to see this
4. I have tried (but maybe failed) to not accuse individuals at TSK of
anything. However given the history of fraud, deception, fronts and
bribery in some of the anti-science movements out there I think it is
entirely reasonable to ask for those at TSK to clarify their conflicts
of interest, their sources of funding and whether or not they support
Follow up response to David (with some edits from what I emailed him)
I think this has nothing to do with open access or not. And it
really has nothing to do with climate per se (I think my thoughts on climate science are someone in the moderate camp). This is about
Heartland and Wojick purposefully deceiving the public about
scientific work that has been done. And I will not stand for it. I
note – though I am clearly a pro-open access person, I am unlike many others in the arena in that I am also more than willing to
go after inane activities of supporters of OA – from the spammy new
journals, to PLOSs not so good commenting system, to inappropriate behavior anywhere. I still want to see OA spread, but I am open to the
difficulties of doing it well …
The “2012 Climate Strategy” document (which Heartland says is a forgery) is the one that the shocking quotes come from. I noticed several suspicious things about it:
1. It uses the term “anti-climate” to refer to Heartland's position — a derogatory term which neither Heartland nor any other climate skeptic outfit ever uses to describe their own position.
2. It is written in the first person, yet there's no indication of who wrote it. (Have you ever seen a memo like that?)
3. The PDF is time-stamped with a Pacific Standard Time timestamp: 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 But Heartland is in Chicago (two timezones away), and none of its directors are in the Pacific Time Zone. Most are in Illinois, and none are in or near the Pacific Time Zone.
So it appears likely that, as Heartland claims, the document really is a forgery, and a clumsy one, at that.
Thanks — that doc does have some anomalous, suspicious qualities. But I note the NY Times article on the topic says
“Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.”
So I am not so sure.