Total Pageviews

Friday, August 2, 2013

Penn State's Office of General Counsel covered up child sex and not trusted by Pappa Joe

I have said this from day one and I am not the least bit surprised by it now. You can't have a cover up without your lawyers being deeply involved in this case is no different except she is not getting indicted. (YET) I smelled OGC from day one. How anyone can aid and hide a pedofile and stand by and cover up little boys being raped is beyond me. She is a disgrace to the legal profession if this is true, and should be disbarred, and spend the rest of her life in jail.

This is heinous, outrageous,and  inexcusable. Sadly it is  not the least bit unusual.

McQueary: Paterno admitted Penn State fumbled sex scandal

Published Tuesday, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:54 am EDT


HARRISBURG, Pa.—Longtime Penn State head coach Joe Paterno said that the university mishandled its response to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, a former assistant coach testified Monday during a hearing for three top school officials accused of a cover-up.
Star witness Mike McQueary appeared in a courtroom for the third time since Sandusky's November 2011 arrest and told the court that top school officials knew that he had seen Sandusky molesting a boy in a locker room shower. (Does anyone alive except their families really doubt this?) 
Mike McQueary testified that Joe Paterno admitted that: 'Old Main screwed up.' (AP Photo)
But the former Penn State assistant coach and quarterback also delivered some unexpected testimony: that the late Hall of Fame coach had told him over the years that "Old Main screwed up"—referring to university administrators—in how it responded to McQueary's allegation against Sandusky. (We can all agree here too right)
Pressed by defense lawyers on his discussions of the subject, McQueary brought up a specific exchange at football practice in the hours before Paterno's firing on Nov. 9, 2011—four days after Sandusky's arrest.
He recalled the head coach saying the school would come down hard on McQueary and try to make him a scapegoat. Paterno also advised McQueary not to trust the administration or then-university counsel Cynthia Baldwin, the former assistant testified.  (Alas here it is the University Lawyer behind the scenes making sure little boys are sex toys) Former Penn State president Graham Spanier, retired university vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley are accused of failing to tell police about a sexual abuse allegation involving Sandusky and then trying to cover up what they knew. The men say they are innocent.
Paterno died in January 2012. He has never been charged, though former FBI Director Louis Freeh said in a university-sanctioned report that Paterno conspired with the three school officials to conceal accusations against Sandusky.
Paterno's family has vehemently denied those allegations. The former coach was "respectful of the process ... and wanted to know the truth from the beginning," and the latest testimony raised more questions about the credibility of Freeh's report, Paterno family spokesman Dan McGinn said.
"Joe Paterno believed the issue would be and should be handled properly," McGinn said. "That's been true since the beginning here."
The judge must determine whether there's enough evidence against the ex-officials to send the case to trial. They face charges including perjury, conspiracy and endangering the welfare of children.
The core of McQueary's testimony is that he saw Sandusky and a boy engaged in a sex act in the locker room shower in 2001 and within days reported it to Paterno, Curley and Schultz.
Curley and Schultz "definitely knew it was a sexual act, a molestation act between Jerry Sandusky and a boy in the showers," McQueary testified.
Curley and Schultz have said McQueary never reported that the encounter was sexual in nature, while Spanier has said Curley and Schultz never told him about any sort of sex abuse. They said they believed that Sandusky and the boy were engaged in nothing more than horseplay.
Sandusky is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence after being convicted last year of sexually abusing 10 boys. He maintains his innocence.
The hearing adjourned after about five hours of testimony and is scheduled to resume Tuesday morning in a Harrisburg courtroom with testimony from two more witnesses.
Much of the testimony Monday revolved around prosecutors trying to show that Penn State officials should have known to report Sandusky to police in 2001 after complaints in 1998 that he had been showering with boys in university locker rooms.
Lawyers for the defendants tried to show they never tried to hide evidence, never destroyed evidence or asked school employees to hide evidence.
McQueary last year sued the university, claiming defamation and misrepresentation and seeking millions of dollars in damages. His contract with the school wasn't renewed after the 2011 season.

Why is Cindy Baldwin not sitting right next to these people? Has she cut a deal? In my opinion, I hope she has to rot in hell. 



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-07-30/penn-state-mike-mcqueary-jerry-sandusky-child-sex-abuse-scandal-court-old-main-s?eadid=EM/GRA/sportingnews.com

Monday, July 23, 2012

The Freeh Report on Pedofile State

Before you dare to make one comment on the sanctions read or scan this report as well as grand jury info etc in this blog. Yeah they are getting raped just like those little boys did, but they will recover.

Get it here:
http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Drivers Beware: Texas Supreme Court tells drivers to driver unloaded trucks with no brakes



Only in Texas, Only in Texas. I guess that report saying you are more likely to get justice in Mexico than Texas is correct after all. The corporate court of the nation of Texas has declared in its recent opinion that employees can be told to break the law, endanger the public, and presumably kill innocent people, or fired. What a Country! No if we can get these trucks on the Mississippi roads with bridges out they don't have to warn you about what a mess we can make! Clearly life has no value in the Texas Court system. As these Justice are elected we can conclude that life has no value in Texas or the voters are either very gullible are just plan stupid. Make no bones, about it this decision will kill people just as quickly as a loaded gun left on a play ground in the projects. These justices will soon have blood on their hands. The only problem is that these death trap trucks are unlikely to stay in Texas. I had an unpleasant encounter with one two years ago, and drive I-10 daily. And we know life has value in Mississippi, about $200,000 with the caps but at least something. I didn't vote for these guys, but damn if they didn't increase the chance of me being killed by an 18 wheeler. Thanks guys, I wonder if your judicial immunity works in my state. (LOL) I will be sure to give you full credit for this when talking with my state trooper buddies about all the problems they are having with overloaded poorly maintained trucks. (Good for about three wrecks a week on the 50 miles of 1-10 i drive. Guess where most of the trucks are from...........
From Texas Statsman
Supreme Court tosses $200,000 award for improperly fired trucker
By Chuck Lindell
Posted:  04/20/2012 12:39 PM
  
Under a Texas Supreme Court ruling delivered today, a trucker fired for refusing to drive an unsafe vehicle — he feared for himself and other drivers — may have fared better in the courts had he followed his employer’s demand, driven the truck and had an accident.
Trucker Louis Martinez III filed suit for wrongful termination in 2007 after he was fired for refusing to drive a truck carrying a load of steel shelving that was stacked higher than permitted and was improperly secured with broken straps, court records show.
It was the fifth time the company, Safeshred Inc., had asked him to drive an improperly loaded or permitted truck, the Supreme Court acknowledged. After pointing out the safety concerns, Martinez agreed to drive the truck but soon returned after feeling the load shift, the court said, adding that he was fired after refusing an order to return to the road.
A jury  determined that Martinez, whose route for Safeshred included Austin, was improperly fired for refusing to perform an illegal act and awarded him $7,569 in lost wages (he found a new job within two months), $10,000 in mental anguish damages and $200,000 in punitive damages.
A lower appeals court later threw out the $10,000 award, ruling that such damages were not allowed in Martinez’s claim.
Today, the Supreme Court also tossed out the $200,000 award, ruling that Martinez did not qualify for punitive damages, either.
To receive punitive damages, Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote for the unanimous court, Martinez had to show he was fired with malice.
The court, however, rejected Martinez’s argument that malice could be shown by Safeshred’s indifference to the risk facing Martinez or the public had he driven an improperly loaded truck.
In cases involving workers terminated for refusing to perform an illegal act, the court said, malice can apply only to the act of firing, such as circulating untrue rumors about employees, interfering with their ability to find a new job or post-firing harassment.
“A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business,” Lehrmann wrote.
The court acknowledged a certain Catch-22 in its reasoning.
Had Martinez chosen to drive the truck and been hurt, he could have sued Safeshred and sought punitive damages based on “the employer’s malicious intent in ordering the illegal act,” the ruling stated.
But by refusing to drive, Martinez never performed the illegal, and potentially dangerous, act he was ordered to perform. “Thus, allowing punitive damages based on the unrealized consequences of the illegal directive would amount to impermissibly punishing the employer for harm the plaintiff never actually endures,” Lehrmann wrote.
Today’s opinion was based on previous rulings affirming Texas as an employment-at-will state, allowing employers wide latitude to fire workers “for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all,” the court said.
Expanding punitive damages to actions beyond the act of firing an employee “would be an improper expansion” of the employment-at-will doctrine, the court said.
The case is Safeshred v. Martinez, 10-0426.


Here are some excerpts from the case...

See 49 C.F.R. § 393.106(b) (2011) (requiring proper cargo placement and restraint to  The cut straps that ad prompted a citation by the DPS officer on October 8th remained, the load was unsafely stacked higher than the top of the truck’s cab, and there was no dunnage main rows of the steel shelving. For a third time, Martinez complied with Safeshred’s order to drivethe truck anyway. Finally, on October 17th Safeshred again asked Martinez to drive an improperly secured load. In addition to the cut straps, highly stacked load, and lack of dunnage, the steel shelving extended off the back of the trailer. This time, Safeshred managers called DPS and confirmed the legality of the shelving extending off the back. But Martinez continued to warn Safeshred about the other safety hazards (straps, height, and dunnage) despite conceding the legality of the overhang. Martinez began to drive the truck, but turned around after a few miles when he felt the cargo shifting and feared for his safety. After again urging his concerns over the legality of the load all the way up Safeshred’s chain of  command, he was told to either drive the truck or go home. He went home and was fired......
Facts:

Martinez worked for Safeshred in October of 2007 as a commercial truck driver, hauling
loads of cargo between Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Austin. Prior to each haul, he was
required to perform a pre-trip inspection of the truck to confirm its compliance with relevant safety regulations. Martinez repeatedly discovered safety violations in the vehicle he was asked to drive throughout the beginning of October, but was consistently ordered to drive the truck anyway. The first incident occurred on October 1st, when Martinez was asked to drive a truck despite his pointing out a missing Texas Department of Transportation identification number and expired dealer’s tag (both violations of relevant regulations). The same defects remained in the truck he was ordered to drive on October 8th, and on that trip Martinez was pulled over and cited by a Department of Public Safety officer for numerous violations of state and federal regulations. Among the citations was one for improperly secured cargo, due in part to substantial cuts in straps used to secure the load to the truck bed.  protect against shifting and falling cargo). Martinez testified that he showed the citation and described the problems to Safeshred management. Having been told by the DPS officer not to drive the truck again until the defects had been remedied, Martinez refused to drive the truck when asked by Safeshred to do so again on October 9th. After a week of administrative duties during which time Safeshred supposedly sought to bring the truck into compliance with state and federal regulations, Martinez was again asked to drive the truck on October 15th. But while Safeshred had apparently corrected some of the defects on the truck (like the missing and expired tags), Martinez’s concerns about the load’s legality persisted.

As the court exaimines the case...

The type of malice necessary to support punitive damages varies with the nature of the
wrongful act at issue in any given category or particular type of case.”
Even when using the statutory malice definition that was used in this case (intent to cause or
conscious indifference to serious potential harm), the application of that definition will depend on
the nature of the underlying tort. In a typical negligence case like medical malpractice, to recover
exemplary damages a plaintiff must simply prove that the defendant was not merely negligent, but
was grossly negligent or acted intentionally in causing the serious harm that is the subject of the
cause of action.
2008). But when a tort requires willful harm as a necessary element of liability, that willfulness
alone cannot also justify a punitive damages award.
1962) (“The fact that an act is [tortious] is not itself ground for an award of exemplary or punitive
damages.”). More is required.
cause of action itself required intentional wrongdoing).
A
that an employer intentionally fired them for the sole reason that they refused to perform an illegal
act.
(Tex. 2004) (O’Neill, J., concurring) (“Every act of retaliation . . . is inherently willful—the act is
motivated by the employer’s conscious desire to ‘get back’ at the employee for exercising her
Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 453.See Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238, 248 (Tex.See Ware v. Paxton, 359 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.Cf. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 454 (requiring “actual malice” where theSabine Pilot claim falls into the latter category, since plaintiffs will always have to proveSabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d at 735; see also Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza, 164 S.W.3d 607, 636
9
protected rights.” (quoting
A malice finding must require more than Safeshred’s mere intent to fire Martinez, or else every
Sabine Pilot claim would warrant punitive damages.
punitive damages are only appropriate in the most egregious cases).
Therefore, in evaluating whether Safeshred officials specifically intended or were consciously
indifferent to the prospect of substantial injury to Louis Martinez,
to in the charge must be something “independent and qualitatively different from the . . .
compensable harms associated with [the cause of action].”
this type of malice might exist “‘where the employer circulates false or malicious rumors about the
employee before or after the discharge . . . or actively interferes with the employee’s ability to find
other employment.’”
Nat’l Bank
Winters
where nursing home made employee’s conduct look worse than it was before state nursing board,
Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208 F.3d 928, 936 (11th Cir. 2000))).See Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 454 (noting that4 the “substantial injury” referredMoriel, 879 S.W.2d at 19. For example,Garza, 164 S.W.3d at 636 (O’Neill, J., concurring) (quoting Harless v. First, 289 S.E.2d 692, 703 n.19 (W. Va. 1982));5 see also Town Hall Estates-Whitney, Inc. v., 220 S.W.3d 71, 89 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (finding sufficient evidence of malice
4
But our cases hold, and Martinez concedes, that, while potential harm to the public at large may be relevant to the
reprehensibility of Safeshred’s conduct for purposes of evaluating the constitutionality of the amount of punitive damages
awarded, only potential harm to Martinez himself is relevant to the availability of punitive damages in the first place.
The jury charge included, in part (b) of the malice definition, “the potential harm to others” (emphasis added).
See Bennett v. Reynolds
(2007)).
, 315 S.W.3d 867, 876 (Tex. 2010) (citing Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 355
5
164 S.W.3d at 618 (“‘Actual malice’ means ill will, spite, evil motive, or purpose to injure another.” (citing
937 S.W.2d at 452–54)). Nevertheless, the example is still applicable here because “purpose to injure another” in the
The jury charge in Garza used the “actual malice” definition of malice, rather than the definition used here.Cazarez,
Garza
this case. The only difference between the evidentiary analysis in
are bound by in this case, we may consider not just intentional actions by Safeshred, but also grossly negligent ones (per
part (b) of the definition).
charge tracks the “specific intent . . . to cause substantial injury” language in part (a) of the malice definition inGarza and here is that, because of the jury charge we
10
resulting in plaintiff’s two-year probation). Damage to the employee’s reputation or future
employment prospects is a qualitatively different injury from the firing itself, and conscious
indifference to a risk of that injury might warrant punitive damages.
Courts have also recognized malice where an employer engages in harassment in connection
with a wrongful firing.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (forcing an employee to sign a false confession);
See Whole Foods Mkt. Sw., L.P. v. Tijerina, 979 S.W.2d 768, 779 (Tex.
Lubbock Cnty. v. Strube
an employee out for unfavorable work assignments and conducting an unfair disciplinary hearing
prior to the firing). And malice might also exist when an employer knows the retaliatory firing is
unlawful and does it anyway.
App.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (asking, in a Texas Commission on Human Rights Act case, whether
an employer “retaliated against [the plaintiff] with specific intent . . . or gross negligence regarding
[the plaintiff]’s right to be free from such practices”); T
may recover punitive damages against a respondent . . . if the complainant demonstrates that the
respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the stateprotected
rights of an aggrieved individual.”).
could be shown in this
, 953 S.W.2d 847, 859–60 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. denied) (singlingSee Ancira Enters., Inc. v. Fischer, 178 S.W.3d 82, 94 (Tex.EX. LAB. CODE § 21.2585(b) (“A complainant6 In keeping with these examples, we hold that maliceSabine Pilot case by evidence that Safeshred, in firing Martinez, consciously
6
and not just whether the employer knew the underlying conduct was illegal or not. Thus, in a
not be sufficient to just show that the employer knew the activity it asked the employee to do was illegal. To constitute
this type of malice, the employer would have to be aware, when firing the employee, that the law does not permit
employers to fire employees for refusing to perform illegal acts.
We note that this type of malice involves the employer’s knowledge that the actionable retaliation is unlawful,Sabine Pilot claim it would
11
ignored a risk of some additional serious harm, such as interference with his future employment,
harassment, or terminating his employment knowing the reason for doing so is unlawful.
But while both parties agree that malicious circumstances surrounding the firing, like those
described above, would constitute malice in this case, Martinez suggests that we must also consider
the dangerousness of the illegal acts he was asked to perform. We disagree. “The legal justification
for punitive damages is similar to that for criminal punishment, and like criminal punishment,
punitive damages require appropriate substantive and procedural safeguards to minimize the risk of
unjust punishment.”
is the basis for a punitive damages award must have a “nexus to the specific harm suffered by the
plaintiff” in that case.
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell
Farm
A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for
being an unsavory individual or business. Due process does not permit courts, in the
calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties’
hypothetical claims against a defendant . . . . Punishment on these bases creates the
possibility of multiple punitive damages awards for the same conduct . . . .
538 U.S. at 423.
Applying these principles to a
directive to the employee (and any malice that might have accompanied that directive) cannot form
the basis for a punitive damages award. Although the encouraged illegal activity has a connection
to the cause of action in a general sense, it does not have a sufficient nexus to the harm actually
caused to a
Moriel, 879 S.W.2d at 16–17. One of those safeguards is that the conduct thatSee Bennett v. Reynolds, 315 S.W.3d 867, 875 (Tex. 2010) (quoting State, 538 U.S. 408, 422 (2003)). The Supreme Court in Stateexplained:Sabine Pilot claim, we hold that the employer’s illegalSabine Pilot plaintiff, for several reasons.......
...........

1 between the two

Ok, I have tortured logic, good sense, and justice enough, it is easier just to say

REALLY,  REALLY GUYS. 


I suggest for the safety of your family you should just try to avoid ever driving there and any 18 wheeler with Texas tags. Good luck, the Texas Supremos have just made the roads a lot more dangerous.



Tuesday, April 24, 2012

No BP Claims for recreational fisherman ...according to me (LOL)

No BP oil spill settlement for recreational fishermen

Published: Saturday, April 21, 2012, 4:39 AM     Updated: Monday, April 23, 2012, 7:57 AM
OIL SPILL DAUPHIN ISLANDView full sizeFILE - Bags of oil collected by clean up crews that washed up on the coastline of Dauphin Island, Ala. Tuesday June 1, 2010 as oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead continues to spread in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, a disaster scenario has emerged with millions of gallons of crude oil spewing unchecked into the Gulf and moving inexorably northward to the coast. (Press-Register, John David Mercer)
MOBILE, Alabama -- The new Gulf oil spill settlement offer released this week provides a way for nearly every group affected by the BP spill to receive a monetary award for losses attributed to the spill.
Everybody except recreational fishermen.
In the settlement, provisions are made to compensate businesses, commercial fishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, people who lost the use of waterfront property, people who lost wages, and a group described as “subsistence fishermen.”
While the document does not clearly define subsistence fishermen, it specifically excludes the majority of people who buy saltwater fishing licenses in the Gulf states.
“Those who fish or hunt solely for pleasure or sport are not eligible to make claims for subsistence, regardless of whether or not they consume their catch,” reads the settlement.
Case law associated with previous oil spill settlements suggests that only fishermen whose annual income is near the poverty line or Native Americans in coastal tribes will qualify, said Steve Mullins, a Mississippi attorney and the former head of the Mississippi chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association.
“Think of it this way: the guy that sells you the bait, he’s covered. The guy that sells you fuel, he’s covered. The tackle guy is covered. The state that sold you the license is covered. The fishing guides are covered. The charter boat guys are covered. The rod and reel repair guy is covered. Everybody in this process is covered but the recreational fisherman,” Mullins said.
“Is that equitable? No. Everybody has a legitimate claim in the process except the recreational fishermen.”
For those who qualify as subsistence fishermen, the settlement offers 2.25 times the retail value of the lost catch during 2010. With flounder, redfish and black drum commanding prices up to $10 per pound at seafood markets, the settlement could generate thousands of dollars for those who qualify.
No settlement money for people owning 2010 fishing license
More than 700 people flocked to the New Birth Community Church in west Mobile on Friday for an “informational meeting” on the settlement. Many were carrying copies of their 2010 fishing licenses, drawn by a rumor that BP was offering a $10,000 settlement to anyone who purchased a saltwater license the year of the oil spill.
Hundreds of people turned out for a similar meeting at a Citronelle church last week, also clutching licenses, and state officials reported a large uptick in the number of people requesting copies of their 2010 permits in the past three weeks.
“I’ve heard it, but it is obviously not true,” attorney Mike Espy said Friday of the rumor. “There is no $10,000 for producing a fishing license.”
Espy, a former member of the U.S. Congress, was one of 15 plaintiffs’ attorneys chosen by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to help craft the new settlement document. At the Friday meeting, he explained the claims process to people, and offered to sign them up as clients of his firm, Orlando-based Morgan and Morgan.
Asked to explain the distinction between subsistence fishermen and the rest of the license holders, Espy described it as “technical” and said he was unsure how to answer the question.
“Clearly, you have to fish to feed your family,” Espy said. “There are only two types of fishermen involved in this settlement, commercial fishermen and subsistence fishermen. I’m not aware of any claim for recreational fishermen. That’s a hobby and it is not included in this particular economic loss agreement.”
Jerome Henderson stood in line outside the church Friday holding his fishing license and three rejection letters for damage claims he submitted to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility when Ken Fineberg was in charge.
Henderson said he doesn’t have a boat but counts on the fish he catches from the Causeway to feed himself. He was afraid to eat those fish during the spill, he said.
“I catch speckled trout, flounder, croaker. That spill about ended my fishing. I didn’t have anywhere to fish,” Henderson said. “See, this is a city of fish-eaters. Fish and grits, that’s us. That’s Mobile. They took that from us.”
Ted Eicher said he’s purchased an Alabama fishing license every year for the past 35 years. A former fishing guide, he said the fish he catches represent a significant portion of what he eats each week. He called the idea that BP would only offer settlements to fishermen below a certain income level outrageous.
“I’m a fish-eater. I bought a license that year and didn’t get to use it. No fresh fish. No fish fries. I’ve been feeding the family that way for 35 years,” Eicher said. “Why wouldn’t we get compensated like everybody else? Just because we weren’t reaping a profit from it? There’s value in being able to put food on your table, being able to feed your family.”
Mullins said the subsistence fishermen class in the settlement appeared to be designed to exclude the bulk of the Gulf’s recreational fishermen, regardless of how much fish they caught or ate each year.
“If you were selling your catch, you’d be protected. In the end, everybody is going to have a BP claim except the recreational fishermen,” Mullins said. “Maybe they can put together enough people to rattle their sabers or some fishing rods together and get some attention.” 
 

Friday, April 20, 2012

ALLSTATE DOESN"T REALLY PROTECT YOU FROM MAYHAM AT ALL, AT LEAST NOT RACCOONS

Raccoons 1
Allstate Policy Holder 0
 

Although this should come as no surprise to anyone who has had the great misfortune to be forced to file a claim with them, (At least 100,000 Coast resident from Katrina  agree with me on this btw regardless of politcal persion), that despite its commercial to the contary Allstate a/k/a Allsnake is refusing to cover a claim in Mississippi for damages due to  a racoon infestion. (See actual sumary below) I guess Allstate is the cut rate company, just with 5 times the premiums.
A Family of raccoons nest up in an attic, and does what a raccoon does in Mississippi. (Just like the commercial) Allstate policy holder calls his agent as he thinks he has coverage as this exact issue is featured in AllState Mayhem commercial. (See Below) But instead of getting the "good hands" of its neighbor the get the full force of a punch to the stomach. 
Allstate sent them a  denial letter refusing to pay for (1) removal and replacement of "contaminated" insulation and (2) cleanup of the mess caused by raccoons in her attic because Allstate says there is the following exclusion language:
"Losses We Do Not Cover under Coverages A & B: Vapors, Fumes, acids, toxic chemicals, toxic gages, toxic liquids, toxic solids, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants."
All they are willing to pay for is the elimination of the animals and repairing the fan.  They denied the rest of the work based on the fact that the policy does not cover toxic fumes, which is totally bogus.
Anybody heard of this before?I thought there was a "Mayhem" commercial involving raccoons!!!
And here's the damn commercial!!!
Pollution exclusion, for Raccoon sh*t and damage. REALLY ALLSNAKE REALLY.?  Well in my book that is complete BullSh*t under my you guys are idiots clause.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Rotten Science in the Heartland: continued

If you believe that this one document is fake, then I have an island off the coast of Ocean Springs, Mississippi foe sale, really cheap. They are just doing damage control 101.




From the huffington post:
Shawn Lawrence Otto

Posted: 02/15/2012 9:18 am
Update 5:25PM CT Feb 15, 2012: I contacted Jim Lakely, the communications director for the Heartland Institute, to follow up on the leak. Lakely reiterated a statement that appeared on the Heartland Institute website earlier this afternoon, stating that the "strategy document" identified in the below article is a fake. Here is what Lakely told me later this afternoon:
The "strategy" memo is a complete fabrication. No one who works for The Heartland Institute or is associated with our organization produced that document. It is a fake produced, presumably, by the person who stole the identity of one of our board members.
The Heartland Institute has not said this about the other documents in the leak. This lends credibility to the belief that the other documents are real, as does Heartland's characterization of them as not "fake" but "stolen."
It is important to note that although Lakely made the above statement, he did not respond to a separate, repeated inquiry about whether Heartland has spoken to David Wojick about preparing a K-12 global warming curriculum. Wojick didn't return an email inquiry either as of this writing. But a $75,000 expenditure for a "K-12 Climate Education Project" to be developed by Wojick appears on page 19 of the leaked budget document (PDF), which is among the documents Heartland says were "stolen," with quarterly payments of $25,000 slated for June, September, and December. The group's Fundraising Plan says that:
Dr. Wojick has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the Department of Energy. In the course of this research, he has identified what subjects and concepts teachers must teach, and in what order (year by year), in order to harmonize with national test requirements. He has contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in producing, certifying, and promoting science curricula.
Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on "modules" for grades 10-12 on climate change ("whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy"), climate models ("models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial"), and air pollution ("whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions").
Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact ("environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather"), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.
We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 a quarter, starting in the second quarter of 2012, for this work. The Anonymous Donor has pledged the first $100,000 for this project, and we will circulate a proposal to match and then expand upon that investment.

But Jen Stuntsman, a DOE spokesperson, gave me the following statement about Wojick, who the Heartland Institute lists as one of their experts:
David Wojick has been a part-time support contractor for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information since 2003, working to help the office manage and organize its electronic databases. He has never advised or conducted research for the Department on climate change or any other scientific topic, and the office he works for is not a research organization. As would be the case for any of the Department's roughly 100,000 contractors, his collaboration with the Heartland Institute is outside of any consulting work he has done with the Department, and any comments he makes on the subject matter of climate change are made as a public citizen and are not reflective of any Energy Department policies or research.
Also notable among the other documents is the Fundraising Plan (PDF), which notes current contributions from major U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, State Farm and GM, as well as the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which Heartland expects to increase its contribution by 800 percent in this election year.
The Fundraising Plan also details Heartland's intent on using its pro-fracking communications efforts to raise funds in 2012:
We have not, however, yet attempted to raise funds from businesses with a financial interest in fracking. In 2012 we intend to correct that oversight and approach dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle.
Once again, this approach is not based on science, but on doing the dirty work of vested interests to make rhetorical arguments to protect those interests regardless of what the science may say.
Thus while Heartland has expressly denied the authenticity of the Strategy document, it does nevertheless seem to be essentially in line with the strategy as actually put forth in their undisputed budget and fundraising documents.

___________________________________________________________________

A major event in the U.S. political battle over climate change happened this week with the unauthorized release of secret internal documents that reveal the finances and truly Machiavellian strategy of the Heartland Institute, a leading oil-industry-funded disinformation machine designed to spread propaganda and cast doubt on the settled science of anthropogenic global warming.
Tuesday morning, an anonymous person set up a Gmail account and used it to send incriminating internal strategy and budget documents to the email inboxes of bloggers who write about science denialism and climate change, then immediately cancelled the gmail account. The documents appear to be genuine and have been checked against other sources, which confirm their authenticity. If true, they show a pattern of breathtaking mendacity.
Take, for instance, the Heartland Institute's strategy of promoting climate science disinformation and propaganda in America's K-12 science classes, among the children who will be most impacted by it. The group is "pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools." According to the Heartland Institute, 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. Fair enough, except when you read on.

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.

There, in black and white in the group's strategy document, is the truly nefarious, unAmerican, bald-faced goal: to dissuade American science teachers from teaching science. The group plans to pay Wojick $100,000 do develop a 20-module curriculum of obfuscation.
In an American science education crisis, where American students are ranking far down in international science rankings, this strategy should be inviting calls from congress for an investigation. Who is this Heartland Institute, who are their funders, what schools are adopting this curricula, and who is the mysterious "Anonymous donor" who is funding much of the miseducation of America's students? What other misinformation for political ends is being pushed into American science classrooms?

PISA rankings


But the disinformation being played on the American people doesn't stop there. Heartland brags about how it has worked

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.

This statement alone is enough to cast withering scientific doubt on anything and everything the Heartland Institute has ever produced. At the time, the Heartland Institute said of its Reconsidered report, "This isn't 'denial,' it's just common sense."
Any organization whose stated goal is not the discovery or communication of knowledge, but the political goal to "undermine" official reports is by definition not doing anything remotely like either science or common sense, but is instead using the language of science to work toward a predetermined ideological objective.
In other words, rhetoric. Any reporter who now quotes or sources from a Heartland Institute report should realize that they are, by the Heartland Institute's own admission, printing ideologically-driven propaganda, not measurement-driven knowledge.
If you thought that was bad enough, consider the Heartland Institute's true objective, as evidenced by their "increased climate project fundraising" goals.
Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.
And this is where it is laid bare. In my book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, I show why science is never partisan, but science is always political. That is because whenever it creates new knowledge, that knowledge either confirms or challenges somebody's vested interests -- and those vested interests fight back.
In 1633, the seat of world political and economic power was the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church went to absurd lengths to indict the scientist Galileo and cast doubt on his simple observations:
1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and
immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and
formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor
immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also
absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least
erroneous in faith.
Today, the seat of world political and economic power is the U.S. energy industry. Koch Industries, for example, is the second largest private held company in America, and a major donor to the Heartland Institute. With a market cap of $407 billion, Exxon-Mobil is the world's most valuable company, period.
It's no wonder energy companies find the simple, repeatable measurements of climate scientists threatening. But now we see just how nefarious are the lengths of disinformation to which some of them will go.
BEST global temperatures

Anyone who is on the fence about whether climate change is really happening should consider the breathtaking, unAmerican manipulation of their minds and the minds of their children that makes up the core strategy of one of America's leading voices putting out supposedly "scientific" reports that question climate change.
The Heartland Institute has shown it has no credibility -- but worse, it has no heart.


Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com/. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Other stories on the Heartland documents

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-leaked-documents_b_1278059.html?ref=science&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D136517

Environment Canada and NRTEE versus the Fraser Institute: An issue of quality



(I dont think this anynonmous donor id Ted Danson or Larry David)

Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed

[Update Feb. 15.  John Mashey has released a very timely report on Heartland and SEPP, Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, at Desmogblog (PDF 5Mb) with  summaries from Richard Littlemore,  and Mashey himself.]
[Update Feb. 15. Several news outles (e.g. the Guardian) are reporting that Heartland  has branded one of the Heartland documents, the 2012 Climate Strategy, to be a forgery. (See also the Heartland press release).  Since its authenticity is in question, I have decided to remove quotes from it as well as the link to that particular document. The Heartland projects discussed remain the same. I have removed one paragraph quoting the "expanded communication strategy".]
DesmogBlog today released an archive of Heartland Institute budget and  strategy documents apparently leaked by someone with high level access.
An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.
The documents give a clear picture of Heartland money flows, showing exact amounts being paid to Heartland employees, and more importantly, the scientists involved in the ongoing NIPCC effort to disrupt the forthcoming IPCC AR5.
Heartland’s  list of  major projects also includes a new K-12 “global warming curriculum”.   The curriculum will promote the idea  that anthropogenic climate change is  a “major scientific controversy”, and seems to steer clear of the actual science.
Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).
This “teach the controversy” approach (as opposed to teaching the actual science)  seems similar to  the anti-science effort of the Fraser Institute a couple of years back.
And most of Heartland’s funding sources have now been laid bare, with the notable exception of the  tightly guarded identity of a single “anonymous donor” who has given $13 million over the last five years. Other donors range from the Charles Koch foundation down through several recognizable tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, and even Microsoft.
Here are three  two of the most important released documents, with some highlights from each.

2012 Fundraising Plan (includes project descriptions)
Here are key excerpts from the Heartland’s the fund raising plan document, featuring two of 10 new and relaunched projects, and speak for themselves.
A major new project is the Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.
Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education.
… Dr. [David] Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is
controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”). Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.
The strategy also calls for continued support for the so-called Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and its contributors. A major new edition is planned to counter the real IPCC’s Ar5, to be released in 2013.
Heartland sponsors the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of scientists who write and speak out on climate change. Heartland pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered, the most comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. Another $88,000 is earmarked for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.
NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity. In 2012 we plan to solicit gifts from other donors to add to what these two donors are giving in order to cover more of our fixed costs for promoting the first two Climate Change Reconsidered volumes and writing and editing the volume scheduled for release in 2013. We hope to raise $200,000 in 2012.
(For those interested, Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt delivered a devastating critique of an earlier edition of the NIPCC back in 2008).
The 2012 budget document (see below) calls for monthly stipends to NIPCC editors Craig Idso ($11,600), Fred Singer ($5,000) and Robert Carter ($1,667).
Canadian NIPCC chapter authors listed as receiving ongoing Heartland support in the form of monthly stipends include:
  • MadhavKhandekar (Chapter 1.3, Extreme Events, Environment Canada)
  • Mitch Taylor (Chapter 2.2, Terrestrial Animals, Lakehead University)
Khandekar is best known as long time science advisor to the Alberta-based Friends of Science (and he’s long gone from Environment Canada, by the way). Taylor has been explaining to all who will listen (such as the Frontier Centre for Public Policy) that polar bears are thriving and not threatened by climate change.
[Discussion of the expanded communication strategy removed. ]
Heartland is planning a major boost in its fundraising efforts in 2012. But the document also shows the recent and projected donations of donors big and small.
Table 4 on p. 9 lists some fundraising events planned for 2012, including a lunch with John Stossel and an “Emerging Issues Forum” targeting state legislators that will piggyback on this year’s National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) meeting in Chicago. Heartland will even pay travel and hotel expenses for 70 legislators to attend the Forum.
But the document focuses on the prospects for tapping existing and new donors. By far the biggest donor is the revered “anonymous donor” who gave  a disappointing $979,000 in 2011 after giving more than $12 million over 2007-2010. Heartland is hoping to up that to $1.25 million this year. That donor appears to have helped Heartland “ramp up” and was apparently a strong supporter of Heartland’s global warming conferences. No doubt, the identity of this deep-pocketed backer will give rise to much speculation.
The extensive list of existing donors to be targeted include (with previous donation year and amount in parentheses):
  • Allied World Assurance Company Holdings (2011: $40,000)
  • Altria Client Services, Inc. [Philip Morris parent] (2011: $50,000)
  • AT&T for IT&T News (2010: $70,000)
  • Charles Koch Foundation (2011: $25,000)
  • Credit Union National Association (2011: $30,000) [not to be confused with the National Credit Union Association]
  • Eli Lilly & Company (2010: $25,000)
  • General Motors Foundation (2011: $15,000)
  • Microsoft Corporation (2010: $0, 2011: $60,908)
  • Nucor [Steel production & recycling] (2010: $400,000)
  • Reynolds American Inc. (2011: $110,000)
The lists even name the main project of interest for each donor (although the acronyms are not evident at present). [These acronyms have been decoded below, and correspond mostly to various Heartland serial publications, along with some projects.]
2012 Heartland Budget
Heartland is projecting a boost in revenues from $4.6 million in 2011, to $7.7 million in 2012. That will enable an operating budget of $6.5 million, as well as topping up the fund balance a further $1.2 million. The new emphasis on fundraising is reflected in the more than doubling of that item from $338K in 2011 to $800K in 2012. Management and administration take $478K while”government relations” will have an eye-opening $539,158 (up from $$423.319 in 2011).
That last number especially will make it hard for Heartland to evade charges of carrying on in effect lobbying activities.

http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/14/heartland-insider-releases-budget-and-strategy-documents/

 

A little more conservative approach......

Is Turnabout Fair Play?


It’s hard to resist looking at the newly leaked documents from the contemptible Heartland Institute.
I was actually most shocked by their hand in trying to protect Governor Walker’s putsch in Wisconsin. “Angry Badger” indeed…
But shouldn’t people, no matter how nasty, get to keep their secrets? Is this ethically all that different from the CRU hacking? I’m serious. Those who think the CRU hacking was a perfectly fine thing need not respond.
UPDATE: The bit about “dissuading teachers from teaching science” was presumably just a sloppy edit, right? But then again, an embarrassing choice of words in a document intended to be private is not something that these guys would harp on for years on end, say if it came from a real scientist, right? So we surely shouldn’t make a fuss about this, right?
“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.”
- from the Climate Strategy document. (emphasisadded)
UPDATE – regardless of this revealing slip, (and of what the revealed documents imply about Heartland’s legitimacy as a 501c3 charitable organization, a topic that John Mashey has been pursuing assiduously),
Chris Mooney (in email, quoted with permission) spots perhaps the most surprising and most disturbing aspect of the documents in what is NOT there.
most of our ideological opponents think they’re actually right about the science, which means they would not want to prevent science from being taught, but rather prevent what they view as biased environmentalist science being taught. That there is no indication of this here is very, very striking.
UPDATE Feb 15: As is often the case with climate blogstorms, Adam Siegel is doing a good job of keeping up with fresh links at Get Energy Smart Now.
UPDATE Feb 15: Not a peep out of Watts yet. This morning he is featuring an especially clueless rant about El Nino instead. “It is infeasible that El NiƱo can arise from atmosphere and sun alone by warming this mass of water. Neither air temp or solar radiance change enough to cause this phenomena.” Well, yeah. “This phenomena” [sic] is caused by an anomalous strengthening or weakening of the trade winds, leading to warm water increasingly sloshing over and piling up in the west Pacific, or the pile sloshing back over to the east, meanwhile reinforcing the trade wind anomaly so it becomes sticky. The system is reset when the positive El Nino phase (warm in the east) radiates extra heat into space. These vertical cross sections along the equator should give the idea. The “atmosphere and sun” are not alleged by anyone to “warm this mass of water” on the oscillation’s time scale. The denier explanation? Volcanoes.

UPDATE Feb 15: Bishop Hill seems to have had the response delegated to him. “Nothing to see here,” is of course what they are saying. Given the context, that wears a little thin.
dissuade teachers from teaching science”? “we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”?(see below) “This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”
Hmmm… Interesting positions for a non-profit to take.
Pity we don’t have ten years of emails to trawl through. Perhaps they’d release those?
UPDATE Feb 15: Watts finally replies. My response:
1) I do not begrudge anyone funding for publicly exposing data in an honest and even-handed way. The general incapacity of the scientific institutions for doing so in a reasonable, up-to-date, convenient way is quite a legitimate point of complaint. And Watts may well do this honestly, because unlike Heartland in general, he appears to “buy his own dog food”. I can imagine how this could be mishandled, but I’m not one for prior restraint.
2) Watts has a very good point that Gore purportedly has $300 million (total) compared with Heartland’s 5 to 10 million per year. Is Gore’s counter-campaign ineffective, and if so why?
Both are good topics for further discussion, unlike the silliness that usually passes for science over at Watts’. But both of the above are clearly intended to deflect interest from Heartland’s obviously revealed indifference to the facts of the matter, and its as-suspected dubious status as a 501c3.
UPDATE Feb 15: Heartland Press Release:
Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.
The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.
Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.
Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.
Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.
But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.
Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.
===
RESPONSE: Heartland is challenging the veracity of the document containing all three of the most damning statements. I have no information about the provenance of these documents. Again, people who ought to know are saying that they are plausible, but that is hardly a proof of authenticity.
Heartland’s aggressive approach is interesting given their past position on the CRU hacking.
My main interest here is in trying to establish some good for the goose and good for the gander rules. Some people on both “sides” are reluctant to see any equivalence. Heartland, not surprisingly, is among them.
===
Borehole item(s).

http://planet3.org/2012/02/14/is-turnabout-fair-play/


My favorite post on this, tell it brother Peter. You are an angry fighter for the truth, and my friend now.

How is Joe Bast Like Joe Camel? Looks Like We’re Going to Find Out…..

February 15, 2012


How is Joe Bast like Joe Camel?
Well, let’s see –  they both promote the sale of addictive poisons to children, they both are funded by the tobacco industry, and they both are leading proponents of the anti-science movement that threatens to cripple our education system and our economy.
Joe Bast is the  President and CEO of the Heartland Institute, a right wing “think” tank in Chicago that has been the prime mover behind major disinformation initiatives on both global climate and tobacco dangers.
Mr. Bast is well known for insisting that the science of climate change is “science is very sketchy, very uncertain..”, as well as famously asserting that  “No victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can “prove” his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.” 
Not surprisingly, the Heartland has been the recipient of major funding from both tobacco and fossil fuel interests over the years.
We’re going to be finding out a lot more about the Heartland Institute and their operations in coming weeks and months, thanks to an anonymous whistleblower who, on Valentine’s Day, opened a gmail account, sent a bundle of damning internal documents to key climate bloggers and researchers around the country, then closed the account and disappeared.
Now, in a statement, Heartland is admitting that the budget and donor documents are genuine, but claiming that an alleged “Policy” paper is a forgery.
See the Documents here
Desmogblog:
It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and “other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.” Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
Heartland also continues to collect money from Philip Morris parent company Altria as well as from the tobacco giant Reynolds American, while maintaining ongoing advocacy against policies related to smoking and health.
Heartland’s policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a “think tank” – it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.
Among the documents were tantalizing clues as to where major funding for the climate denial movement is coming from, and who it’s going to.
The information is flying faster than any one person can keep up.
As stated above, Heartland has now released a statement claiming that one of the alleged internal documents is a fake. It’s worth noting that several credible sources have pronounced the material genuine.  I will keep updating the situation as best I can.

Joe Romm at ClimateProgress:
Racing around the internet are some internal documents that appear to be from the Heartland Institute, a relatively obscure hard-core anti-science think tank. As DeSmogBlog explains, “An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self ‘Heartland Insider’ has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan… and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.”
Personally, I was skeptical of these docs, at least until I read the 2012 Fundraising Plan, which attacks the temperature station data of the “the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).” That kind of error is classic Heartland.
And here’s another apparent blunder: “The Charles G. Koch Foundation returned as a Heartland donor in 2011. We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with.”
Those Heartland folks are such satirists.  Philanthropy “etymologically means the love of humanity,” whereas funding climate denial and inaction, as the Kochs do, is perhaps the cruelest thing you could possibly do to humanity.
My colleague Brad Johnson has just blogged on Heartland’s “Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax,” which I’ll excerpt at the end. It’s funny in the way that The Shining was funny.
These documents just make no sense, kind of like climate science denial itself.  Perhaps this is a spoof put out by The Onion.
An alleged document that is being examined, and which Heartland now states is a fake –  describes a plan to pay a consultant 100,000 dollars to prepare a program designed for  ”dissuading teachers from teaching science”.
Earlier today, ThinkProgress reported that a Heartland insider had confirmed the document and explained its rationale:
James M. Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, told ThinkProgress Green in an e-mail why the group is developing its denier curriculum:
We are concerned that schools are teaching climate change issues in a manner that is not consistent with sound science and that is designed to lead students to the erroneous belief that humans are causing a global warming crisis. We hope that our efforts will restore sound science to climate change education and discourage the political propaganda that too often passes as “education”.
In Heartland’s statement, it is acknowledged that that budget and donor information are genuine, and apologizes for the security breach.
Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.
Ironically, Heartland’s position seems to be that stealing electronic documents from right wing think tanks are viewed as a serious crime, while stealing emails from climate scientists and University labs are considered behavior to be lauded and encouraged.
How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.
UPDATES: More good takes sprouting up all over -

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/15/how-is-joe-bast-like-joe-camel-looks-like-were-going-to-find-out/

We now live in an Orwellian world where up is down and left is right and one's science is more concerned with one's finances and political leanings than lab results. The results, instead of applying American creativity and ingenuity to solve problems we spend all our resources fighting over whether they really exist, and the rest of the world passes up by like a crazy man on the sidewalk looking in the sky, and crying out the sky is falling, no wait it isnt, it is falling over and over again. We have become non competitive in many fields, with alternative energy being one of them because of this garbage. All to jeep the status quo, which is impossible to do in a chnaging world.

I had some concerns over global warming theory. I know the earth is getting warmer and the climate more viotile, and that our carbon emissions can not be helping the issue. My question is how much impact do we really have and  can we really do anything about it.  We know that the earth's climate is really very unstable and the last 1000 years are the most stable in history with the last 100 the most stable and predictable century. So my question was what is that is all just coming to an end anyway as part of a natural cycle. Then a show a show on NOVA on PBS  (Where I try to get real science) about global dimming, or how the sun is actually less bright now.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/


This leaves no doubt that we are screwing up the climate and causing global warming  even though it is not about global warming. Just watch it, iy is scarier than Friday the 13th to me. By the way, who funded this show and NOVA?

Funding for NOVA is provided by ExxonMobil, David H. Koch, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and public television viewers.

ExxonMobil, David H. Koch, HHMI, CPB

Makes you go, hummmmmmm. Maybe the oil industry isnt really the total villian here.