[John Mason]

This is creating a great deal of interest across the Blogosphere.

Read the story - and download Heartland internal documents if you want - here:

http://www.desmogblo...-denial-machine

Now you can see for yourselves what climate scientists have been up against.

Cheers - John

[John Mason]

More:

http://www.desmogblo...et-and-strategy

http://deepclimate.o...tegy-documents/

http://thinkprogress...ltivate-revkin/

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

John Mason, on 15 February 2012 - 11:14, said:

More:

http://www.desmogblo...et-and-strategy

http://deepclimate.o...tegy-documents/

http://thinkprogress...ltivate-revkin/

Cheers - John

Final nail - scam - world socialist government world capitalist triumph - Hansen Mann Koch - Heartland an insignificant trace lobbyist - 97% of lobbying not Heartland - compared to the effect of Watergate this leak is insignificant - prove it - it's only a theory - origin of leak natural not anthropogenic - etc etc

This post has been edited by Peter H: 15 February 2012 - 11:55

[John Mason]

Some interesting quotes from their 2012 Strategy document:

"Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

**********

"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."

**********

".......coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)..."

*********

It all goes to show - this was never about the science in the first place.

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

Odd, isn't it, that this damning stuff is completely absent from the media...Still, I expect truth seekers like WUWT and the rest will soon post about it...

[John Mason]

The Word document certainly appears to be authentic if you check out the properties.....

Peter - Leo Hickman has run a piece about it this morning, over at the Graun....

Cheers - John

[Dave W]

This is being modded very closely! I have my beagle eye on you all! Keep it polite & respectful please!

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 15 February 2012 - 13:07, said:

John - this what I don't get with you.

I don't buy into the polar extremes of AGW, so why should you.

I can have a perfectly good conversation about the subject without you or anyone else muddying the water by throwing in articles like this.

You don't need to do it John and I have highlighted this to you before.

You actually end up weakening your argument in the end because this is just mud slinging.

If the science is good enough John, that should be enough.

Indeed, but this is about exposing the mud slingers (in this case The Heartland Institute - read the document to see what they're up to!) so we can indeed see the science.

It's thus 180 degrees wrong to call this mud slinging.

[John Mason]

Will do, Dave W!

As I've said before, the battle isn't here at UKww as we are primarily a bunch of weather-enthusiasts, but there are some members who are active in the wider world for whom this item would be of much interest, just as there was when the Climategate story broke over two years ago. Chris, I did not suggest that following my links was compulsory: they were intended for those with an active interest in what has become the Climate Wars. You are more than welcome to scroll past them!

Cheers - John

[Dave W]

Everyone Chris.. that includes the exec, the managers and all !!

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 15 February 2012 - 13:18, said:

Presume you were talking to DC then

Hey Chris,

No, not at all you scamp... Though this may have been better examined in the media forum, IMHO. The main point is the main drivers here are of a political nature, not science! The science is being manipulated by both sides, where do truth seekers turn when everything is propaganda, Switzerland?

[Nigel Bolton]

Ding! Ding! End of Round One.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Chris,

Sorry you misunderstood, I was offering concurrence not criticism...

[John Mason]

The problem though, Chris, is that we do have propaganda - and I am as critical of that coming from some environmental activists (such as that completely stoooopid 10:10 movie) as I am of that coming from orgs like Heartland. However, that one cannot get to run as GOP Presidential candidate (and thus head of one of the biggest global superpowers) unless one dismisses a body of science that has built up for over 150 years tells me that this is something that cannot simply be ignored. This isn't the extreme end of the debate - it is THE debate that goes on out there daily. UKww is a quiet backwater in the grander scheme of things here - which IMO is good because where this site excels is not with climate but with weather-events, their prediction, reportage and analysis. I merely report back from the trenches out there on occasion. The alternative is not to, but I know that some members are very interested in this stuff. What to do: continue on working out there and not tell any of you, or to report developments as and when they may occur?

Cheers - John