Category Archives: Heartland Institute

Down the memory hole: Heartland disappears fake claim about Chinese Academy of Science


Remember the claim by Heartland Institute about the Chinese Academy of Science’s turning to climate scepticism?

Sceptics across the world crowed this development as an important turning point. Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart breathlessly reported the claim on

Lakely said that this could mark the turning point in the climate change debate, and that a global consensus was beginning to form against regulation of emissions. “The latest observable climate data, new studies from scientific academies around the globe, the peer-reviewed studies one can find in Climate Change Reconsidered, and its translation and publication by the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences is making life difficult for those who declare with certainty that man is causing catastrophic global warming,” he explained. “That’s the way it should be. No scientific discipline is ever ‘settled’ — especially a discipline as young, as complicated, and as diffuse as climate science. The Heartland Institute is proud to support and promote the pursuit of the classic scientific method that follows the data and continually asks questions about what is happening to the climate of our planet.

In case people try to claim it was all a simple misunderstanding, let’s have a look at how climate sceptics tried to spin the story:


In response the Chinese Academy of Science came out with what is perhaps the most strongly worded rebuttal from a professional body I’ve ever seen.

The not only demanded Heartland apologise, but called them out for their lack of “academic integrity.”

In response, Heartland Institute have tried to disappear their false claim down the memory hole be removing it from their site (see above).

Speaks volumes.


Operation Heartland: The Economist politely sinks the boot into the dying think tank

Good article from The Economist on the Heartland Institute’s death spiral:

Mr Bast decries double standards: those who accept global warming routinely call their opponents Nazis, he argues. He admits that the billboard was in “poor taste” but says it was designed to get attention, and was good value at $200.

To which The Economist dryly notes:

The real price is proving rather higher


Heartland’s death spiral: loses $1m in sponsorship, and how Gleick taught us the need to capture the commanding heights

 Polluter Watch reports that more corporate sponsors have abandoned Heartland:

Pharmaceutical giants Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline, along with Verizon, Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, and Credit Union National Association, have announced that they will not fund the climate change denying Heartland Institute in 2012.  According to the Heartland Institute’s own fundraising document, it hoped to receive $130,000 from these potential funders this year.  Today’s announcement brings the total number of corporate sponsors to drop Heartland to 15, representing $955,000 of Heartland’s projected $7.7 million budget this year.

In a matter of weeks, Heartland has managed to lose almost $1 million in funding and – from a PR perspective – become toxic to sponsors.

As Climate Progress notes, this is a victory but not the end of the war:

While the dissolution of Heartland’s conference may be considered a “win” for those concerned about the spread of junk science and disinformation, there are still plenty of allies in industry and the halls of Congress willing to take up the denial cause.

To which I say “Whose next”.

Heartland: we do not forgive; we do not forget; expect us

Thanks to Michael Tobis over at Planet 3.0 supporting the point I’ve been trying to make:

  • The faux sceptic movement withers under the harsh light of truth. The more light we shine on Heartland, its methods and sources of funding the more it likely it will implode or be reduced to utter irrelevance
  • Focus fire tactics (i.e. putting one target under the microscope) works
  • “We” can be tenacious and shouldn’t apologise for using the tactics of civil disobedience.

Heartland is still open for business: our business it to put Heartland out of business. Let’s be brave; let’s tear them down.

Heartland: a teaching moment for think tanks

Heartland is entering its own death spiral (did you catch the reference dear reader?) and it is truly a thing of beauty. The only people left who take Heartland seriously are eccentric billionaires and the “hard-core” segment of the denial movement.

However, I’m sure we’re not the only ones watching either.

Heartland’s implosion and dramatic loss of funding is a teaching moment for other think tanks – continue to follow the Heartland into the fantasy land of climate change denial and you may end up an international embarrassment.

More importantly, you will lose money.

Think about it: climate change denial resulted in Heartland losing money.

For several decades climate change denial was a money spinner for the PR hacks at think tanks around the globe. Denial used to guarantee a generous flow of cash from fossil fuel interests, but now it’s looking increasingly like a fringe belief

Frankly that’s how we should be framing climate change denial: the preserve of cranks.

Climate change and the battle for the commanding heights

Peter Gleick taught has something important: fight for the “commanding heights“.

We need to consider strategic targets and focus on them, rather than swarming in disgust over the latest op-ed pieces in the Washington Post or yet another bout of idiocy from The Australian.

I’ll be honest, I don’t give a fuck about the latest Monckton speech or what garbage Andrew Bolt blogs. They operate in that magic zone where facts have little relevance; their adoring fan boys will cheer them on even if they walked into the middle of Times Square and took a dump.

What I do give a fuck about is:

  • How News Corporation has misled citizens across three continents on climate change for the past two decades. That’s a crime against humanity
  • Politicians in Australia (and around the globe) have failed the act in the national interest on climate change. Our children and their descendents will have to clean up the environmental disaster these “business as usual” fucktards have helped usher in
  • Think tanks like the Institute of Public Affairs has distorted the debate on the “carbon tax” and climate change in Australia at the behest of anonymous donors. Who are those donors? Let’s rip open that nest of denial and see what juicy little secrets they’ve got tucked away.

Contrary to what some people think, the battle is not to persuade public opinion by refuting every denier claim line by line.


The social cost of climate change denial needs to be made prohibitively high so that every think tank, conservative politician and global media corporation under the control of a doddering geriatric billionaire will walk away from it.

That’s what Peter Gleick did: he made the social cost of associating with Heartland and climate change denial prohibitively high for the think tanks one-time sponsors. Oh, Heartland didn’t help themselves either – but Gleick’s actions set the scene.

Sponsors dropped Heartland the same way corporations do when a celebrity spokesperson misbehaves: i.e. think Tiger Woods, Charlie Sheen.

No one wants to be associated with an idiot.

We have the tools and numbers globally to do this: if the Arab Spring taught us anything, a critical mass of people co-ordinating there efforts via social media and the internet is a powerful force.

Looking for sugar daddies: Heartland Institute announces the end of its “annual” conference, begs for cash from “rich uncles”

[Hat tip Climate Progress and DeSmogBlog]


Spot the difference: one preys on wealthy billionaires, the other is a former Playboy bunny

Some encouraging news with the Heartland Institute (HI) announcing they are going to discontinue their annual International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC). The ICCC was the big event for denial movement, an important venue to help co-ordinate efforts, generate talking points and create the impression there was opposition to the science.

This year less than 300 people turned up.

After losing major sponsors for this years ICCC, HI turned to coal lobby groups and fringe bloggers for “sponsorship”. Their “Unabomber” bill board campaign was so offensive that speakers deserted the conference and staff from the Washington office resigned in protest.

Lets not forget HI lied to the world’s media about the authenticity of the leaked strategy document (Fakegate, Fakegate, Fakegate)

Conservative think-tank seeks SW billionaire

DeSmogBlog reports on just how desperate Heartland has become after losing sponsors and suffer crippling blows to its “credibility”. Closing the conference, Heartland’s President Jo Bast is begging for cash from “rich uncles”:

Please consider supporting the Heartland Institute. These conferences are expensive, and I’m not a good fundraiser so as a result I don’t raise enough money to cover them, we really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses. If you can afford to make a contribution, please do. If you know someone, if you’ve got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductable contribution to the Heartland Institute.”

Source: Desmogblog

So that’s HI’s strategy for the future: hope some geriatric rich white guy with more money than sense will splash some cash.

Maybe they should place an advertisement on Craig’s List?

Conservative think tank seeks SW billionaire for discreet conversations about reduced government, climate change. Strictly SB/SD relationship

When you’re funding strategy mimic’s that of Anna-Nicole Smith’s I think you might – just might – have a problem.

Heartland isn’t dead yet.

But they’re close.

Prediction: Jo Bast will resign within the next six months. I’m sure an exit strategy and financial handshake to soften the blow for him is currently being negotiated as we speak. 

Note: article cleaned up, a few typos!

Heartland documents not forged, exposing Bast and the think tank as cynical liars

The article from The Guardian is back up in a fuller form, seems they had a place holder article go up only for it to be replaced by a more detailed piece:

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the right-wing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.

Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.

So let’s review:

  • When the documents exposed their cynical tactics, Heartland lied about the authenticity of the strategy document
  • When exposed they threatened to get medieval on anyone even commentating on the documents
  • They lied to the world’s media.

Yeah, Heartland sound’s like a wonderful bunch of folks!

I wonder if Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Senator Cory Bernardi are going to continue associating themselves with the likes of Heartland?

Let’s remind ourselves what kind of organisation Heartland is. To quote the strategy document:

Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered. Expenses will be about the same in 2012. NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity.

Heartland is part of a network that seeks to undermine the IPCC reports, an effort underwritten by anonymous donors.

Does that sound like “science” or a “debate” to you?

The real deal: Peter Gleick cleared?

Some confusing reports coming in, it would appear that Peter Gleick has been cleared of “forging’ the infamous Heartland “strategy memo”.

The story was first reported on The Guardian website, but the article in question appears to have been removed.

Of course the odious Marc Morano over at Climate Depot is doing his best to confuse things.

Before either side starts crowing about the documents being real/faked we need solid evidence.

The Pacific Institute – which Gleick is associated with – has nothing on its site.

I await with interest.

Operation Heartland: the place for electronic civil disobedience, protest, and activism in the climate debate

A quick post to capture some reflections on Heartland – so this is pretty raw in terms of thinking/expression.

Heartland in terminal decline: weep for thee I do not

More sponsors and corporates are dropping their association (State Farm the latest). Insurance firms who once funded Heartland express “disgust and shock” at their tactics:

Growing unease among insurers crystallized late last week when Heartland purchased the first billboard in a campaign that likened climate advocacy to murder, terrorism and despotism. The electronic highway-side ad displayed a picture of Ted Kaczynski, who killed three people, next to the words “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”

“It was disgusting. It was revolting,” Brad Kading, president of the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, said of the ad in an interview over the weekend. “It was a terrible mistake.”

Which has led to a “mutiny” within Heartland, with senior people leaving:

Other insurers are also cutting ties in a major upheaval that coincides, sources say, with the departure of Eli Lehrer from Heartland’s Washington-based center, known by its acronym, FIRE. Lehrer and his staff were shocked by the billboard campaign, which they learned about in an emailed press release from Heartland headquarters Thursday, said Ray Lehmann, deputy director of the center.

“I don’t know what the goal was,” Lehmann said of the ad, which he called an “ad hominem attack” on climate advocates. “But it certainly was outside our project, and it did reflect badly.”

There is now way to spin this: Heartland is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

When Heartland becomes the news, it loses its value to sponsors

Heartland isn’t a “think tank”, it’s a glorified PR firm. The role of such organisations is to shape the news…but what happens when the spin machine is the news?

Heartland is now in terminal decline – really, it’s a disaster – because they have become the news. Its corporate donors and anonymous donors will no doubt be losing confidence in its ability to “shape” the public perception on climate change.

Call it the “Heartland effect”: associating your company or brand with this odious spin factory is now fast becoming “toxic”.

Here’s a prediction: Jo Bast, Heartland’s CEO won’t be there for very much longer.

Peter Gleick and the value civil disobedience

But it wasn’t just Heartland’s massive “own goal” in putting up that revolting and cynical billboard.

It was the actions of Peter Gleick in sourcing the Heartland documents; the guys over at Planet 3.0 articulate exactly what I thought:

This is an unforced error on Heartland’s part, of course. But consider that, had Peter Gleick not revealed the contributors to the group, the pressure on State Farm would never have materialized and the contribution of State Farm to those ignorant, self-serving fools would never have been challenged.

We live in the post-Anonymous world, where “hackertivism” and “electronic civil disobedience” are the most effective tools in challenging power.

How possible would the “Arab Spring” would have been without Facebook and Twitter?

I tacitly supported Gleick’s actions in the following post. I wish I’d been more firm in my support.

In the weeks since then I’ve been researching the issue of electronic civil disobedience and its possible role in the climate changes debate (disclaimer: I’m not advocating illegal activities such as Denial of Service, LOIC etc.)

Focus fire: Operation #takedownHeartland?

The climate blogging community have the tools, experience and knowledge to make a concentrated effort to expose Heartland’s – an “operation” of blog posts, exposé, political humour, tweets, media outreach, querying its tax exempt status with the IRS, a virtual protest or sit in of Heartland discussion boards? but all at once.

Online gamers (yes I’m one) call this exercise “focus firing” – when you throw the combined fire power of group at a single target to take it down in fast.

What is possible if we combine the efforts of dozens, hundreds if not thousands with the tactics of civil disobedience in the online world?

The Twitter hash tag (#) must proceed what is the objective and what is possible: the # symbolises the collective change “we” can make using the tools of the online world:


And perhaps:


Make Heartland the news, they lose their value to sponsors and thus their influence.

Once we may have used the rallying cry “Give me liberty or give me death” or “We shall over come”.

Today, the rallying cry is the crowd-sourced phrase of Anonymous.

We do not forget. We do not forgive. Expect us.

Release the SLAPP hounds: how the Heartland Institute and the denial movement abuse the strategic lawsuit

Above: Heartland takes on the interwebz

The reputation of the Heartland Institute has clearly suffered in the wake of “Denialgate”.

Not only are they threatening to get medieval on anyone who reposts said documents, but they’ve threatened anyone who even comments on them. The less charitable may interpret such a threat as the heavy-handed response of right-wing authoritarian ideologues (sotto voce: a perfectly understandable interpretation).

DeSmogBlog reproduces their threatening letter:

“…we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.”

Heartland vs. the internet

Heartland’s demands to remove comments about the document are chilling.

However, it is doubtful that Heartland believes they can make them disappear from the web. What Heartland does hope to achieve is a symbolic victory  over DeSmogBlog, websites, news services and bloggers. It would also empower them – and other think tanks – to shut down their critics through use of legal threats.

There is a name for such tactic, the “strategic law suit against public participation” (SLAPP):

“…The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics.”

Kudos to DeSmogBlog for standing up their bullying attempts to silence criticism and debate. Heartland is engaged in a classic case of SLAPP’ing one of its critics and hoping fear will silence others.

Heartland’s motto is “ideas that empower people”.

But just in case you get an idea they don’t like, Heartland has a team of lawyers to stop you expressing it.

Crying wolf: when you’ve been caught red-handed, threaten to sue!

It is worth noting that such tactics are par for the course for the denial movement. For all the denier’s talk of “free ideas” and the “censorship” they suffer, they are without doubt some of the most thin-skinned bullies I’ve come across.

Indeed, the more famous amongst the deniers – Lord Monckton – has turned the threat of law suits into an art form. Outside of denying climate change and claiming he has found a universal cure, Monckton’s other favorite pastime is threatening legal action:

“…Climate change denier Lord Christopher Monckton has threatened to sue the ABC and described its chairman Maurice Newman as a “shrimp-like wet little individual”.

Lord Monckton, who is towards the end of a near month-long tour of Australia, told a Melbourne audience he had met with Newman at a breakfast and requested he intervene in the broadcast of the Radio National documentary Background Briefing.

Experienced ABC journalist Wendy Carlisle interviewed Lord Monckton and several of his supporters for the documentary, which first aired on Sunday. The documentary also highlighted links between Lord Monckton and mining magnate and supporter Gina Rinehart, chairman of Hancock Prospecting.

During the program, Lord Monckton was recorded telling an audience: “So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up.”

Monckton is very fond of the SLAPP tactic, but how many of these threats have eventuated?

None to date.

Operating on the premise that a good offence is the best defence, groups like Heartland leap to attack and threats of lawsuits in order to silence their critics.

In many respects, the Heartland Institute mirrors the Church of Scientology (CoS) in its aggressive attempts to silence critics via the threat of litigation. I would suggest Heartland’s threat of legal action mimic those of the CoS when they attempted to have the infamous Tom Cruise “indoctrination” video taken of the web.

Heartland faces the same dilemma as the CoS: exposed for what are, they resort to aggressive legal threats.

But more often than not such ham-fisted threats have the opposite effect: the CoS threats sparked the formation of the “hacktivist” collective Anonymous.

It is often a case of reaping what you sow. And if Heartland continues its war on the internet and its critics, it may be in for some nasty surprises.

Heartland, leaked documents and the Streisand effect.

I’m placing all documents in the Watching the Deniers evidence library and will continue to comment on what is clearly an important public interest issue (see Streisand effect).

I have no doubt someone else will repost them.

And then some else will…

(Hat tip Dan M @ Planet 3.0)

DeSmogBlog v Heartland: threats of legal action, fake documents, counter claims and the battle for authenticity

Claims and counter-claims are racing through the interwebz as a good old fashioned blogging war/storm has erupted. The DeSmogBlog claims the documents leaked are authentic. Heartland have stated that at least one document – the incendiary 2012 Strategy Paper – is a “fake”.

Andy Revkin over at Dot.Earth comments on the battle for credibility currently being waged:

A blog storm began building Tuesday and broke on Wednesday as environmental groups posted a batch of documents — ranging from tax forms to lists of donors to a 2012 Heartland “climate strategy” — that appeared to expose the group’s game plan, budgets and backers in remarkable detail.

Late on Wednesday, Heartland posted a statement asserting that the strategy document was a “total fake” and the others, while appearing to be authentic, might have been altered and were, in any case, obtained through criminal means:

Steve Zwick over at Forbes comments:

Among those alleged misstatements is a paragraph that appears to corroborate the ThinkProgress report (which Heartland already confirmed), and another that identifies Forbes as a target of Heartland propaganda.  We have chosen to remove excerpts from that report until further information comes to light, but DeSmogBlog is keeping them up until they’re proven wrong.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, for DeSmogBlog has proven not only credible over the past six years, but adept at rolling out its message – something that the scientific community has generally failed to do. The blog was started by PR-man Jim Hoggan and journalist Richard Littlemore to address “the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media” rather than the actual science of climate change, which it leaves to sites like RealClimate.

The DeSmogBlog stand by the documents:

The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material we have in hand. It addresses five elements:

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland’s own budget.

The “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.

The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.

At this point I am going to trust the claims of DeSmogBlog. As Zwick notes, they have proven to be a reliable source over the years with a strong track record in exposing the machinations and inner workings of the denial machine. If the document proves to be fake, then the comments should be retracted and The DeSmogBlog should  apologise.

The credibility of both DeSmogBlog of the Heartland Institute is very much on the line. It will be worth watching how it plays out.

The Heartland Institute throws out legal threats against journalists and websites

No doubt the people at the Heartland Institute understand the ramifications if these documents prove to be authentic: their “brand” will be forever compromised. Funding from wealthy benefactors and corporations will dry up. The “message” of the deniers will be severely tainted.

Via come reports that Heartland is threatening to sue journalists and websites that reproduce the documents (or even sections of them):

“…The threat was spelled out in an email sent to media outlets (including by Jim Lakely, Communications Director at the Heartland Institute. The group said it will “pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation” from “individuals who have commented so far on these documents”, prior to the Heartland Institute’s official response. It also states that one of the documents is “a total fake.”

High stakes indeed.

Updates posted as they come to hand

12.53pm – ThinkProgress Green puts together the pieces that support the authenticity of the documents:

Questions about the authenticity of the leaked Heartland Institute documents are fading, as projects described therein are confirmed. Heartland’s senior fellow James Taylor confirmed the existence of the climate-denier classroom curriculum project to ThinkProgress Green yesterday. Now, anti-science blogger Anthony Watts has confirmed that Heartland is funding his project to display weather station data, detailed in the leaked fundraising plan.

Heartland admit the existence of the classroom project. Watts confirms he receives funding… recall Watts has repeatedly claimed he has never received a “dime”!

Follow the money: Bob Carter’s $1600 a month from Heartland Institute to help undermine the IPCC

Hat tip DeSmogBlog for bringing to light a leaked memo from the Heartland Institute – a libertarian think tank at the forefront of denial – that details its strategy for 2012.

The memo outlines the need to raise funding programs for climate change denial it intends to support.

Australia’s very own Bob Carter is named:

Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland.
Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

The irony of course is Carter bleating about the “corruption” of science and how “climate change” is simply a form of “propaganda”.

To quote Cater:

The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM computer gamesmanship.

And yet receiving an expected $20,000 this year from a think tank – funded by donors who prefer to remain anonymous – to counter the scientific consensus is not propaganda?  

For those who don’t know Carter, he is an Adjunct Professor at James Cook University and notorious for questioning the scientific consensus on climate change.

The memo also makes explicit the role of Heartland to “undermine the credibility the IPCC:

Funding for parallel organizations.
Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered. Expenses will be about the same in 2012. NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity.

Carter is paid to support this initiative, as noted in the Heartland 2012 budget that was also leaked. Over $300,000 is earmarked to the project to undermine the IPCC of which Carter is a “team member” (see pages 7-8).

I don’t think the connection between the denial of climate change, industry think tanks and “anonymous” funders could be made any clearer.

The memo also details attempt to deter teachers from teaching the science by making it “controversial”

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.

Dr. Wojick can expect $100,000 to undermine the teaching of science to children. Nice work if you can get it…

The memo is here, but I’ve also reproduced the section mentioning Carter’s name:


%d bloggers like this: