Republicans for Environmental Protection re: Heartland

UPDATE: Although released on “Press Release” paper, apparently REP claims that this is just a “backgrounder” wherein they encourage the press to look into these matters, not wherein they intended to make public assertions.

Planet3.0 would like to maintain cordial relations with REP, and strongly believes that a responsible conservative voice for realistic policies regarding climate change is needed in the US.

Per their request we have removed the text of this article.

Comments:

  1. The simple fact that you are still talking as those there was ANY truth to the 'key' piece of 'evidence' from Heartland, two days after it was proven to be a fraud, is why I skip even clicking the link on an article, when I see it comes from here.

    [ Not us. We take no position on the question of the disputed memo, no longer quote the disputed memo, and have noted where we did so at first with strikethroughs. But we don't believe that the job of the press is to regurgitate press releases. We think they should just be taken as public statements, and when they are of interest to us we will repeat them verbatim rather than doing the sort of pretend reporting that the press is so fond of. So, you see, it didn't "come from here" at all. ]

  2. I like that you cite "submission" as the duty of conservatives to the massive climate godzilla that has been created and sustained via politicians diverting taxpayer money, hedge funds, investment banks, and organized crime manipulating carbon trading and land theft over something that isn't even about climate according to 3 top UN climate officials. ... [elided, see borehole]

    [ Dude, "submission" wasn't us, it was William F Buckley quoted by a Republican interest group. -mt ]

  3. Your last paragraph is inane. Let's try it this way - If Jim Dipeso doesn't beat his wife as some claim, and that rumor is not authentic, then Dipeso should be willing and able to provide solid proof.

    I hope he never runs for office. His powers of reason are ridiculously inept.

    • Theirs, not ours.

      I thought it was insupportable as well, at least regarding the strategy document.

      If nobody else has a copy and is willing to part with it, there is no way to prove or disprove its reality.

      Regarding the other documents, they are formal documents and some version of them exists. Heartland just has to cough them up if there is any discrepancy.

  4. As bigcitylib points out,

    Meanwhile, two days into scandal, [Heartland Institute's] CEO Joe Bast and the other players at HI have had time to write any number of blog posts, and a fund-raising letter but still...STILL!...haven't had time to go through the documents and determine, as per their repeated claims, that they have been altered or are otherwise inauthentic.

    True 'skeptics' should ask why Heartland is still hemming and hawing over the integrity of the documents other than the disputed "Climate Strategy".

    Can it be because -- horrors -- the documents were actually totally genuine and unaltered?

    * * *

    I also doubt Heartland's claim that the social engineering attack, as does rumleyfips. Does Otter, or chilipalmer, or mikegeo, or Willis Eschenbach think that they just need to think 'aha, OK, tomorrow I'll launch a social engineering attack against this organization and get some of their secret stuff', and hey presto, mission accomplished? If they think so, then they should try a social engineering attack themselves.

    Right now it seems that Heartland's "social engineering" story is just a quick excuse they dreamt up at the spur of the moment, to cover up the real causes of the documents' release and to create a pretext for smearing certain people.

    * * *

    Anyway, in my mind, the most actionable piece of evidence isn't even in the "Climate Strategy" document. It's the mention of "Operation Angry Badger", where apparently Heartland is actively lobbying for a specific piece of legislation -- a no-no for their type of non-profit group.

    -- frank

    • It's a particularly contemptible piece of legislation, in my opinion, but I suppose that is not really relevant.

      I am inclined to agree with all of what Frank says here.

  5. Oh look. Michael Tobis:
    "After a recent leak of internal Heartland Institute documents describing a purported campaign to sow doubt about climate change science, Heartland claimed one of the documents might be fake"
    MIGHT be fake? Michael, you distort what Heartland says.

    "Now the shoe is on the other foot, and if the leaked Heartland documents are authentic, they leave no room for interpretation."
    You give a "leaker" credibility that adds a faked juicy pamphlet to some dull bookkeeping authentic docs? You don't question the motivation of this concoction?

    "They even go so far as to gin up a science curriculum designed to “dissuade” public schoolteachers from teaching science—a shocking plan to undermine education and turn our public schools into mouthpieces for agenda-driven propaganda."
    So you are treating the fake part of the documents as authentic.

    "Jim DiPeso
    Policy Director
    Republicans for Environmental Protection"

    Ah. So it wasn't your writing at all. You have just copied the text, without any comment. Sorry. I should have interpreted the two tiny words "Press release:" at the top as meaning "We haven't written this, we're only copying it", right?

    Now, Michael Tobis, your entire post consists of this press release, so excuse me, I treat it as YOUR MESSAGE. You have added NO CONTENT OF YOUR OWN.

    So you picked your side.

    [ So when I, in an Amazon review, attributed something on Watts Up to Watts that was written by Tom Nelson, and posted by Anthony Watts, I was right to do so? Please take this up with Watts. Because he certainly didn't think so.

    Now, in addition to "press release" the article was boldly titled "Republicans for Environmental Protection re: Heartland". Much as I encourage somebody actually coming up with a conservative plan for dealing with climate disruption, I make no pretense to being or leaning Republican. There are things I like about some fringe republicans like these guys, or Ron Paul or Buddy Roemer, but I personally would not support any of them. Planet3.0 endeavors to be politically neutral though. I realize it sometimes looks like my blog renamed, but I'm really hoping we get a whole lot of different voices, and get away from the polarization trap as a venue. But speaking for myself, no, these people certainly don't speak for me.

    You may note that the article appeared in a section called "Beyond Planet 3". This means calling attention to stuff happening elsewhere on the web that our readership may find of value.

    Watts had none of these things going for him. But you should have seen the blistering contempt in the email when he called me on my error. And he didn't have a section called "beyond". Go figure. Perhaps it is a good guys/bad guys worldview that you guys can't seem to shake?

    Anyway, I suppose that we should include this disclaimer with press releases from other organizations:

    "We don't believe that the job of the press is to repackage press releases. We think they should just be taken as public statements, and so the media would provide the best service by simply quoting them in full. When we come across press releases that are of interest to us we will do just that." -mt ]

  6. Michael - Where did this press release come from. When I went to the Republicans for Environmental Protection website, I couldn't find it there even though there was another press release on a different topic that was posted on Feb 17. In no way suggesting it isn't geniune, just wondering where you found it.

    • On an email list.

      I have some confirmation that it is real, from a source I trust.

      Apparently THEY didn't think somebody would be motivated to just repeat it verbatim. The confirmation I have at second hand is:

      Dear *****,

      Yes, this did come from us. It is not on the website because we intended more as a press backgrounder than a release. Our goal is simply to encourage an appropriate level of media attention to the tactics and plans of Heartland’s climate operation in order to balance the scales a bit in light of the misinformation that is being spread about the so called “climategate” emails. Those who have heard that misinformation (and unfortunately continue to hear it from some outlets) need to hear about this as well in order to have a more complete understanding of the game that is being played.

      Thanks for checking.

      Dave

      ===

      I will attempt to reconfirm. I apologize to REP - I did not think this was on background; I thought it was public. (sheepish grin) I guess it is now. I have emailed an apology and a request for advice as to whether I should alter or take down this article.

      Learning stuff about journalism the hard way this week. Will try to confirm matters in future.

  7. Michael - Thanks for checking into that. Like I indicated, I wasn't doubting it's veracity but I went to the REP site as much to find out what they were about as anything else and when I didn't see it under the press release section, i didn't want another "issue" to arise.

    Also, I agree with your assessment of REP

  8. Pingback: Finding new stories for climate science | through the looking glass


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>