Some of the people pumping serious money into the Romney campaign believe, fundamentally, that Mitt Romney is lying (or, to be polite, misrepresenting himself) to Republican Party primary voters.
Simply put, there is no other reasonable conclusion to take from today’s Politico article entitled Green donors bet on Mitt Romney Flip-Flop than that Mitt Romney, in the eyes of key contributors, is a Super Gumby of flexibility when it comes to core policy arenas.
Julian Robertson, founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund, has given $1.25 million to Romney’s Restore our Future super PAC. In recent years, he has given $60 million to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) which certainly could help explain his position on the EDF Board. When asked about the contradiction between Robertson’s serious funding of efforts to support cap & trade as a path to tackle climate change, Robertson spokesman Fraser Seitel had this to say:
“The reasons he’s supporting Romney are very simple. In his view, Romney is smart enough, moral enough and fit enough to run the country.”
“In terms of the environment and climate-change controls, which he does believe is one of the most important issues the country and the world faces, he has confidence that Romney, once he’s in there, will do the right thing.”
Yes, according to Seitel, Romney’s demeaning of climate science and dismissal of the need to take serious action to mitigate against catastrophic climate chaos is to be ignored as pandering to the Republican primary voter because, once in the Oval office, “Romney … will do the right thing.”
“I really get the sense from him and the folks around him with whom I’ve spoken that as president he’d really look at each situation, gather the data and really make a decision that’s best for the country.”
“If that goes against the grain of how he’s campaigning now, so be it. He’s going to be driven by data and facts and not emotions and getting pushed into one corner by one faction of the party.”
Putting aside the research work that has shown that such ‘pandering’ typically flows into positions when in office, there are those who articulate that Mitt Romney will do and say anything to win the primary — and Mitt Romney will then flow into a different policy and political mode when the primary is done — and Mitt Romney will then shift into yet a different way of looking and dealing with things if he moves from debate podium to behind the desk in the Oval Office. While rigid inflexibility in the face of evidence is foolhardiness and the ability to deal with evidence and evolve one’s thinking is flexibility and adaptability, projecting this sort of shifting onto Mitt Romney is more appropriate to Gumby than what should be expected from serious political candidates for the most important political office on Earth.
Environmentalists (including EDF members): Climate Change is far from the only issue where Mitt Romney is at odds with science and at odds with ‘environmentalists’. Mitt Romney, the candidate, is bashing the Environmental Protection Agency and is a promoter of the false thematic putting environment against the economy. Do Robertson and other “green donors” believe that Mitt Romney, if elected President, will strengthen the Federal Government’s ability to foster energy efficiency (through, for example standard setting), protect America’s fetuses from fossil fuel pollution, improve food safety, protect National Parks, and … Or, would President Mitt Romney provide an open door to the Republican House members who have established perhaps the worst energy and environmental record of any Congress in the history of the Republic?
The Romney Campaign: Already besieged by challenges that Mitt Romney is a ‘say anything, do anything’ candidate pandering to the Republican right wing for the primary with an intent to govern differently, that key supporters (dastardly environmentalists, nonetheless) fundamentally believe this will reinforce this belief among many. Does candidate Mitt Romney gain from Republican primary voters believing that he will flip on core ideological issues if he wins the Republican nomination?
Fossil Foolish Romney Backers: The Romney campaign and associated PAC have received significant funds from oil, natural gas, and coal interests. Do these people believe their man is bought or do they need to worry that people Robertson have the inside track and that Mitt Romney will listen to scientists rather than lobbyists on core issues?
The problem with the Volt is just like all of Obama’s green energy, there’s no business there yet. There’s no solar energy business yet. There’s no wind energy yet. It’s not there yet. But we can’t have more oil. We can’t have cheaper gasoline prices.
Evidently putting solar panels on my roof had nothing to do with business.
Evidently the millions of American homes powered via wind turbines had nothing to do with “energy”.
Evidently the steel workers, installers, sales representatives, and the 100,000 plus in the wind and solar industries — in the United States alone — have nothing to do with business because “it’s not there yet”.
The best point made about Rush’s substantive abuse of truth on this issue:
“Solar is a $80 billion dollar global industry.
Put another way, that’s 32 times the 2008 US sales of OxyContin.”
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Seeks New President
——————————————————————————–
Date: 2012-02-29, 5:19PM EST
——————————————————————————–
Job Title: President, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Job Description:
Are you a motivated go-getter who hates to let facts stand in the way of profits? Are you good at making something out of nothing? Do you sleep soundly at night, no matter what you’ve done? Do you reject the global anti-capitalist “science” conspiracy? Are you comfortable around unicorns, centaurs, and other so-called “mythical” creatures? Do you have experience in the tobacco industry?
If you answered yes to those questions, we want to hear from you. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is seeking a new President of our trade association to continue our work promoting a product that doesn’t actually exist: clean coal electricity. The ideal candidate would be able to alter the long-standing ironclad laws of chemistry to create clean coal (through magic or otherwise), but we’ll settle for someone that can say it exists with a straight face.
Key Responsibilities:
Pretending Clean Coal exists during meetings with the media, government officials, and citizens
Denying climate change over and over again.
Really, really hating clean air and really, really loving making a few of your friends a lot of money
Wining and dining politicians
Spending lots of money lobbying politicians
Accurately filling out expense sheets and legal documents outlining our activities, expenditures and. . .ha, just kidding – we don’t have to do that. Thanks, Supreme Court!
Preferred Candidate Would Have the Following Attributes:
Willful or Natural Ignorance of Reality
Experience in various East European propaganda ministries, the Tobacco Industry, or sales of miracle cures and/or snake oil
Basically, we need you to be friends with a lot of politicians
Doesn’t hurt if you are rich
Ability to sleep soundly after helping poison air and water nationwide and undermining our Democracy
Benefits:
Compensation: A lot. Look, let’s just say you’ll be in that 1% those hippies are always talking about and Mitt Romney will not be uncomfortable around you.
Bonuses allocated as electricity rates go up.
Full health, dental, and vision.
Access to future beach front property in Nebraska
Special discounted inhaler program for ACCCE employees and their families
Compensation: See Above
Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
To be clear, the title of the report and the subtitle of Figure 1 is simply wrong. Science is not about belief. As Dr Vicky Hope put it so well
“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”
Look at the question: “Is there solid evidence that the … Earth has gotten warmer?” Isn’t that a yes/no question related to an understanding of fact and what is happening in the real world (“the scientific evidence”) rather than an affirmation of belief in, for example, God?
We need to remember that is is impressive that, by more than a two-to-one margin, Americans understand this basic fact about the planet in the face of flat-earth promoting political “leaders” like those named above.
The provides us the perspective by party affiliation and race and, well, yes, there is a serious political divide with the vast majority of self-identified Democrats residing in the warming reality-based world. Notable, however, with a presidential nominee choice between a denier … and a denier … and a confused science distorter/avoider … and a …, even a solid plurality of self-identified Republicans know that “there [is] solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warming.”
Understanding of evidence of climate change by selected demographic categories
Do you think schools should teach our children that climate change isn’t real?
Of course not. But the Heartland Institute, an organization well-known for giving a microphone to climate science deniers, now wants to bring this false message into America’s classrooms.
As their President and CEO just admitted, they are writing a “global warming curriculum” that would say climate science isn’t settled. They’d like our teachers to claim we just don’t know if humans are changing our climate.
This plan is outrageous on its face. As you well know, the science behind climate change is not controversial — it is a reality. Scientists know that climate change is happening, and we are beginning to see the impacts with our own eyes. It would be the height of irresponsibility to urge our schools to teach something known to be untrue.
As its own budget documents reveal (PDF), the Heartland Institute is funded by oil and coal companies with a financial interest in denying climate science. But I think you’ll agree this industry-funded propaganda has no place in our schools.
While scientific “debate” always continued and there are debates over many elements within and around climate science (How fast will the Arctic Ice melt? Is there a point of no-return where humanity will no longer be able to avert catastrophic climate chaos? Is Global Warming fostering more tornadoes? Etc …), the scientific community has a very solid understanding of and agreement about the basics. That strength of agreement, if truly understood by the political elite and public, creates serious challenge for those seeking to forestall action to mitigate climate change. Thus, when hearing of “consensus”, we often hear from self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” that there is great uncertainty and that we should teach the “scientific debate”. Here is a rather simple table to use to consider the extent of that “debate”.
Table 1: Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions on whether humanity is driving climate change
At the NWF’s Wildlife Promise, Kevin Coyle provides An Inside Look at the Extreme Right’s War on K-12 Climate and Environmental Education. Highlighting that the two-page document that the Heartland Institute claims didn’t originate with them is irrelevant, Coyle lays out “five common tactics that extreme right organizations, such as Heartland, use to keep children from being equipped with the knowledge they will need to cope with the future problems we “adults” are imposing on them.”
1. Create Controversy Where There is None
No matter how well-established a complex scientific subject is (human-caused climate change for example) it is still complex! There will always be fringe theories, factual inconsistencies, and even whacky ideas that run counter the mainstream scientific view. But, much as an attorney will strive to get a criminal off by planting “reasonable doubt” in a jury’s mind, the extreme right will seek to elevate these fringe theories and minor inconsistencies to the level of full credibility and parity. ….
This has been a core element of industry-backing “sound science” for decades: recruit scientists with credentials that will sound impressive (even if irrelevant for the issue at hand) and leverage their voices to cast doubt for forestall action … whether that action is to restrict the use of pesticides, put in employee safety rules, or to mitigate climate change.
2. Exploit the “Radical Media’s” Inherent Reasonableness
The American media loves to report stories that compare opposing viewpoints. This is mostly thought of as balanced journalism. … Even when a subject is largely without serious scientific controversy, journalists will often find a contrarian and give his or her viewpoint equal time. …. Climate change science suffers from a bad case of this problem. Studies done that compare scientific literature to media reports show there is zero disagreement over climate change’s causes in peer reviewed scientific literature but more than half of all news articles treat this same science as “in doubt.” It is highly ironic that, for all of the extreme right’s whining about liberal radicalism in the media, it is so completely skilled at capitalizing on the tendency of journalists to want to present both sides of an issue even when there is no real issue.
‘He says, she says’ invades the mainstream reporting on climate change. And, along with the serious anti-science syndrome sound machine efforts to forestall climate change mitigation, this is a key reason why the public’s confusion over climate change (and humanity’s role in driving it) is at such odds with the near unanimous accord among scientists with the relevant expertise over these key points:
The climate is warming.
Human activities are a major driver in this warming.
Global Warming is having impact on species and ecological systems.
Unchecked, climate change could have catastrophic impacts on human civilization.
With an acknowledgment of this as the best scientific understanding of our situation, the debate over “what’s the worst that can happen” shifts from (distorted) discussions of economic costs to decision-making about the best courses of action to mitigate humanity’s climate impacts and what investments are merited in climate adaptation.
3. Demonize the Nation’s Hardworking Educators
Principals and teachers are the extreme right’s favorite punching bags. Instead of seeing America’s 3.5 million educators and school administrators as hard working Americans to whom we have safely entrusted the future of our children for the past two centuries, the right describes them as agenda-driven radicals bent on filling students’ minds with politically loaded dogma. … they share … a desire to provide the most professionally delivered and helpful education possible to our children. … and, as such, are not inclined to even teach subjects deemed controversial in that community. It is true that schools do offer sex education and science teachers will indeed avoid treating creationism as a bonafide scientific subject, but this does not make them crazy radicals. America’s educators are real people, working in real places and doing the very best they can for our kids.
Scientists have been vilified with falsehood laden attacks of being in some sort of criminal cabal (across all of humanity’s leading relevant scientific institutions) to falsify data to get more grant money and in service to an imaginary Black-Helicopter-like conspiracy. Scientists face Spanish Inquisition like investigations and have received death threats. All of these even as scientists are among the most respected people and profession in American society. However, this vilification serves to undermine “experts” and opens the door for anyone to enter the (imaginary) climate science debate to sow doubt and undermine any impetus for positive action to reduce America’s risks from catastrophic climate chaos.
4. Play the Worried Parent Card
If you want to get American parents riled up, just tell them their kids are getting faulty information and flawed education at school. This favorite tactic by the extreme right is used to keep climate change or environmental education of any sort out of the classroom. It portays it as “junk science,” inaccurate, one-side or any of a dozen labels that translate to “bad education.” Truth is the environmental education community and science educators are rigorous and careful about the integrity of their teaching and the materials they provide. It has been a decades-long mission by environmental educators to have programs that are fair and accurate, scientifically sound and balanced. This has been proven, even in Congressional inquiries. What makes environmental education different from many classroom subjects, however, is a focus on skill development and that includes going beyond education on scientific principles and problems to having students actually learn about solutions. Most people think of education on problem solving as an educational breakthrough but the extreme right wants parents to think of this as brainwashing radicalism. The real question: is it kinder to hide information about environmental challenges from our children and keep them in the dark about climate change or to give them the tools to handle it as they takes the reins of society?
5. Paint with the Government Conspiracy Brush
When the extreme right gets really frustrated with a lack of traction for its campaigns to keep climate change and environmental education out of K-12 schools, it resorts to the old “loss of freedom” ploy and describes such educational efforts as signaling a government takeover. It is always interesting how the concept of providing our youngsters with the tools they need to fend for themselves in an uncertain environmental future is somehow cast as a government conspiracy. To most, developing self-help environmental skills is a very American idea steeped in the notion of free choice and individualism.
The Heartland Institute is not a lone participant in the extreme right’s war on climate change education and giving our kids a real understanding of what is happening and what can be done about it. It is unfortunate, but noteworthy, that the Institute and other combatants in the war on k-12 and climate change and environmental education have such deep roots in funding from the fossil fuel industry.
There are other tools beyond these five. For example:
Provide free educational material and other resources to cash-starved schools to influence the educational program (example and example)
Politicize the School Board election to embed anti-science syndrome sufferers in a majority role
Legislate ‘teaching the controversy’
Politicize the science (focus on “Al Gore” as spokesperson rather than the science)
In any event, as Coyle
Take a look at Coyle articulately lays out, Heartland’s statements about the two-page climate strategy document are irrelevant in the face of a long record of efforts to undermine the K-12 science education to promote industry-backed “sound science” above scientifically sound and accurate education.
In addition to the Coyle piece, here are two recent articles worth a read:
From the heartland, a group of Republicans have made an open call for a serious investigation of the leaked heartless Heartland Institute documents. In the press release (reproduced in full, absent specific contact information, after the fold), they emphasize the need for conservatives and conservative institutions to engage in truthful discussion of climate science issues and a move away from anti-science syndrome “as William F. Buckley once said, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.””
While Heartland Institute has threatened legal action against those who even comment on the material that Heartland emailed to an unknown recipient and the two pages (out of 100) that Heartland claims is not theirs, these Republicans emphasize that
Such heavy-handed posturing should not dissuade journalists and commentators from thoroughly covering the leaked documents and reporting on the efforts of Heartland and others to manufacture a scientific controversy about climate change where none exists.
Heartland’s moral outrage about leaked documents this past week was glaringly absent following the 2009 release of hacked climate scientists’ e-mails that was dubbed “climategate.” In fact, it fully participated in a media campaign that misrepresented the e-mails and raised unfounded questions about scientists’ integrity.
Note that these Republicans do not see Heartland Institute, who they do praise for some of its activities (“While Heartland has done commendable work in other policy areas, such as risk management …”), as a real think tank since as they state that “Heartland [is] a PR and lobbying organization”. This perspective, enlightened by the leaked documents, have led to complaints to the IRS about Heartland’s tax free status due to its lobbying activities.
They lay out how Heartland has worked to foster false uncertainty over climate science in the American public and how this merits attention in the public to the same extent that “ClimateGate” received (far) too much attention from Faux News to the front pages of the nation’s newspapers.
Heartland’s strategy, and its reliance on funding from individuals who have a vested interest in undermining climate science, must be brought to the public’s attention to at least the same degree as the so-called “climategate” emails were. The opinions and knowledge of far too many Americans remain influenced by erroneous reporting about the content of those e-mails.
The Heartland documents detail plans to prevent earnest scientific research and opinions other than their own from gaining public exposure. 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.
After complimenting Heartland (as above) for other issues, they lay out their problem with Heartland Institute’s climate science work
its climate operation has become a public relations servant of special interests—sowing confusion, misrepresenting science, and spreading distortions that pollute what should be a robust, fact-based debate about climate change.
Let’s have a public debate that is based on truth, not truthiness, with a sound basis in science rather than the propagation of skewed “sound science”. This is a perspective that the vast majority of Americans would likely support.
Honestly, I agree with these Republicans: conservation is inherently conservative. Conserve one’s options to the future — whether it be in terms of fiscal resources (avoiding budget deficits) or physical resources (emphasize efficiency over extraction, to keep those resources around to help meet future requirements). As they put it as to Heartland’s (and too many so-called conservatives’) approach to climate science:
That’s not conservative. As William F. Buckley once said, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.”
Climate change is an opportunity for conservative organizations to actually be conservative, by acknowledging facts and laying on the table conservative policies for dealing with the climate issue.
This is far from the first time that these Republicans have spoken out against efforts to deceive their fellow Americans and the need for reality-based policy discussions. Sadly, theirs is a voice that is ever more lost in the wilderness that is threatened by Republican anti-science syndrome suffering anti-environmentalism. We should hope for a return to a time when such thinking and voices are a serious element in the political discussions and policy constructs of one of the major American political parties.
As it comes to the heartless Heartland documents, these Republicans call on Heartland to prove their assertions about the documents and that, in the absence of such proof, journalists give serious attention to scrutinizing them with appropriate reporting.
If any of the released Heartland documents are not authentic, Heartland should be able and willing to provide solid proof. If, as the evidence seems to indicate, the documents are real, the media has an obligation to report on the plans they describe and their troubling implications for a democratic society.
As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week.
The sympathy is, however rather limited because of the (not that surprising) content of the Heartland documents.
However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.
While the specific “climate strategy” document might not be an actual Heartland Institute document and the words “dissuading the teaching of science” might not be a true quote from Heartland written documents, the substance of the climate strategy document stands up to scrutiny. As per LA Times reporting
Heartland says that a document in the recently released mix, entitled 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy is a fake. But several of the key points the document makes are backed up elsewhere. Most notably, in a fundraising document, Heartland identifies one of its priorities as reshaping the discussion of climate change in classrooms.
The embattled Heartland Institute has roundly condemned journalists for writing about or posting a climate change strategy memo earlier this week that, while attributed to the organization, Heartland says is a “total fake.”
But the memo was released late Tuesday night together with other budget and fundraising documents that the right-leaning think tank says appear to have been written by its president and mentions programs that are also detailed in the other documents.
E.g, while Heartland Institute might wish to spread confusion and distraction over whether two pages out 100+ originate in their computers, the basic truthfulness remains: Heartland seeks to undermine America’s K-12 science education when it comes to the critical issue of climate change.
Heartland intends to raise and spend $100,000 (and more) to promote an anti-science curriculum to help foster a false belief of major scientific controversy within climate science when there is very strong scientific and factual basis behind the basic points of climate science:
The climate is warming.
Human activities are a major driver in this warming.
Global Warming is having impact on species and ecological systems.
Unchecked, climate change could have catastrophic impacts on human civilization.
As the seven scientists phrase it
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.
Heartland, however, works assiduously to undermine understanding of these facts.
After all, it is hard to see how Heartland Institute’s intent is to foster a sound science education as opposed to fostering sound science in support of its policy concepts and ideological objectives.
The scientists letter lays out, however, their perspective on a critical distinction. They are challenging Heartland’s efforts to undermine science while stating, clearly, that they are not stating that Heartland cannot engage in the policy debate — even as urging that engagement to occur on the basis of truthful engagement with science. As they conclude:
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.
In what looks almost certainly to be backed by focused group testing, the made public K-12 climate disinformation strategy targets “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. Here is the key paragraph from the (now-disputed) heartless “climate education” plans
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…to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools…[this] 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.
Yes, the heartless Heartland Institute plans to spend significant sums of money to develop an anti-science curriculum to foster confusion about climate change in line with Luntz’ political guidance to use ‘climate change’ because it fosters uncertainty about the state of climate science and will undermine efforts to act to mitigate climate change to help us avoid catastrophic climate chaos. Let is be clear that Heartland isn’t interested in honest examination of science (after all, why would Heartland’s Climate Change wiki be closed to actual science if they were interested in truth?) or fostering an educational system that better prepares American students for the science-related challenges and opportunities that will dominate the 21st century. No, in support of polluting interests, the Heartland Institute’s climate strategy is targeted at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”.
“Dissuading teachers from teaching science …”
It is hard to imagine a worse objective or more heartless for anything claiming to be an educational initiative.
Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 – about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”
Yes, in addition to the significant Koch-otopus support ($100,000s per year plus access to Koch’s secret cabal of right-wing funders), Heartland’s heartless disinformation efforts targeting the undermining of America’s science education with promotion of anti-science syndrome are funded anonymously. Hmmm … Don’t you want to know who is trying to manipulate your child’s education to support their financial interests?
I can not prove that these documents are real or fake. As possible, I will pass on information that comes along about this. (DeSmogBlog has commented on this.) Have a look at the documents and make up your own mind.
Let us be clear, however, that the Heartland Institute has been engaged — systematically — in demeaning climate science and sowing confusion as to the science. This, sigh, fostered credibility as to the document release along with the delayed responsiveness to numerous media requests for comment.
And, for a moment, let us consider what The Heartland Institute argued related to the criminal theft of material from East Anglia University (e.g., re ClimateGate):
“The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.”
It’s worth noting that Heartland didn’t seem to mind when emails between climate scientists that were stolen from a server, made public, and lied about on the internet—either the first or second time it happened. It’s only now that that type of behavior is “just despicable,” a “violation of journalistic ethics,” and a criminal offense.
Now Heartland [is] using the incident to fundraise, according to an email to donors obtained by Mother Jones on Wednesday night. The email complains that “scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media” are posting and quoting the documents. It also asks for donations to the organization’s legal defense fund to fight “false and defamatory” stories. And it apologizes to funders whose names were made public by the incident: “We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you.”
A note
This situation clearly has some resonance and parallels with “ClimateGate“. Let’s explore, however, some differences:
1. Unlike the illegal breaking into East Anglia’s computers, the Heartless Valentine’s Day material does not look to have come from an outside theft but from an insider who has chosen, for whatever reason, to ‘leak’ the material (almost certainly without authorization) and be a(n anonymous) whistleblower.
2. Unlike the selective leaking of the stolen East Anglia’s email correspondance, the Heartless Valentine’s Day material has been, from the get go, put into public in its entirety — with any ‘cherry-picking’ of material that leads to misrepresentation easily discovered.
3. Unlike the stolen East Anglia’s email correspondance, the Heartless Valentine’s Day material are completed (formal) documents. This isn’t back and forth draft material between colleagues, engaged in what they saw as interactions with colleagues as they sought to figure out how to move forward, but the formalized results of drafts/etc … There is something quite different between one’s informal (midnight …) email and an institution’s formalized planning documents.
4. Sigh, unlike with the distorted coverage the stolen East Anglia correspondence with the RWSM machine (from bloggers to Hannity/Beck to Faux “News” to the RNC …) backing, we cannot expect that the nation’s “journalists” will give front page attention to this heartless effort advocating “dissuading teachers from teaching science”.
And, well, as for the motivation of the leaker — perhaps he (or she) was motivated, on Valentine’s Day 2012, by a love of the planet’s ability to support modern human civilization.
to win the primary — and Mitt Romney will then flow into a different policy and political mode when the primary is done — and Mitt Romney will then shift into yet a different way of looking and dealing with things if he moves from debate podium to behind the desk in the Oval Office. While rigid inflexibility in the face of evidence is foolhardiness and the ability to deal with evidence and evolve one’s thinking is flexibility and adaptability, projecting this sort of shifting onto Mitt Romney is more appropriate to Gumby than what should be expected from serious political candidates for the most important political office on Earth.
Climate Reality Project put up this 
terial to over 10,000 Canadian schools in 2008.