Heartland Funding Disinformation Echo Chamber

authordefault
on

The Heartland Institute has been using its corporate funding to create an echo chamber of experts-for-hire, subsidiary think tanks and websites which all work together to rebroadcast information in Heartland’s manufactured controversy about climateย change.

In the last week, Heartland has been able to rely on this network – and on its own considerable skill as a propaganda machine – to deflect responsibility for the recent revelations of its ownย improprieties.

The Heartland Valentine’s Day document dump included Budget and Fundraising documents that confirm, for example, that in addition to keeping a stable of pseudo experts on retainer to challenge the world’s foremost authorities on climate change, Heartland also makes large and regular investments in other organizations, such as the web-based climate-change denier (and weather man) Anthony Watts.

Watts, in turn, has stepped up this week as the Heartland public relations department, putting his WUWT site at Heartland’s disposal for the release of statements and generally defending his benefactor and attacking itsย detractors.

Heartland’s documents show that its largest regular payment to a single individual goes to Craig Idso, whose oil-funded Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) is, like Heartland’s own institute, a tax dodge masquerading as an educational or researchย organization.

Given that donations to Heartland count as โ€œcharitableโ€ deductions, it would be interesting to know if anyone is claiming a second deduction on Heartland’s follow-on โ€œdonationโ€ to Idso’s CSCDGC. For that matter, is there a third potential deduction when Idso passes the money along to Robert Ferguson at the Science and Public Policy Institute – another policy hothouse whose โ€œeducationalโ€ output appears to be exclusively PR that aligns closely to the interests of Heartland’s majorย funders.

Neither Idso nor Ferguson (who set up his SPPInstitute with foundational funding from Exxon) have taken a prominent role in defending Heartland in the past week, although Christopher Monckton, the SPPInstitute’s Chief Policy Advisor and arguably the most discredited climate change denier in the English language, penned a guest post that ran on the Heartland PR site, WUWT.

Most impressive, however, in Heartland’s campaign to spin this reputational catastrophe was its creation of the website www.fakegate.org.

Here is an organization that, after 10 days has still not found time to authenticate the documents that it broadcast (stupidly) to Dr. Peter Gleick. (Check the emails on the Fakegate lsite; Gleick wrote and said, โ€œCould you please add โ€ฆ this personal email address to to the Board mailing list for all future Board communications?โ€ and the credulous staff at Heartland said, sure. Say what you will about the ethical questions surrounding Gleick’s actions, this was not exactly a sophisticatedย hack.)

Yet, in less than a week, it picked the its favourite meme โ€œfakegate,โ€ and ran up an entire website inlcuding everything from a section dedicated to inciting people to harass Heartland critics to a solicitation for funding for Heartland’s โ€œlegalย defence.โ€

Funny, people usually only need a legal defence is someone has sued them – or if they have done something illegal. Is there something we’reย missing?

Related Posts

Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.
on

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.
on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?