Join 3,431 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin
February 15, 2012 7:56 AM   Subscribe

Reported in Discover Magazine online, The Heartland Institute — a self-described "think tank" that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

The comments are just as good as the blog post - and indicate some interest in determining if the whole thing is accurate.
posted by Man with Lantern (86 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm sure this will get as much coverage in the media as so-called "Climategate".

Fat chance
posted by Skeptic at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2012 [11 favorites]


I want to believe so badly that my "things you really want to believe need extra scrutiny" alarms are going off.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2012 [28 favorites]


...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.

How does a person write that sentence intending to put it into practice and then not immediately kill themselves with guilt is beyond me.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on February 15, 2012 [28 favorites]


Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

This kind of intellectual dishonesty and amoral disregard for reality is endemic to the establishment. Wherever you dig, this you shall find. This is the disease.

Hopefully hackers and insiders will keep putting this out there, until the pile of shit is so high and smells so bad that not even god himself can ignore it.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 8:10 AM on February 15, 2012 [6 favorites]


How does a person write that sentence intending to put it into practice and then not immediately kill themselves with guilt is beyond me.

"How do you sleep at night?"
"On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies."
"Just asking."
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:13 AM on February 15, 2012 [13 favorites]


Oh. How unfortunate for them. Still, I'm sure they are all honest straightforwards folks, not like those duplicitous scientists.
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm actually surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. For instance, there have to be a few people working at FOX News who hate the shit they do and can also get their hands on internal memos and the like.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


This is delicious.
posted by Lord Force Crater at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2012


From Joe Romm at ClimateProgress (who apparently is mentioned in a non-complimentary fashion).
posted by jhandey at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2012


They try and show how this is different from climategate but to me the only difference appears to be which side they're on. If anything, by their anti-intellectualism, they have an excuse that scientist don't have. We expect people with their point of view to be stupid and misspeak and surprise, they did.
posted by Obscure Reference at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2012


Today is some day: How bigpharma cooked data on Vioxx.
posted by elpapacito at 8:19 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


...but to me the only difference appears to be which side they're on.

Did you follow any of the links about that in the main article? Like to here?
posted by DU at 8:20 AM on February 15, 2012


I like that they apparently use the phrase "anti-climate" to refer to their position. It seems very appropriate.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:20 AM on February 15, 2012 [4 favorites]


Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.

This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep
opposing voices out
"Reliable anti-climate"? Oh, man, so that's who is planning to move to Newt Gingrich's moon colony.
posted by griphus at 8:20 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


NOT WARMIST-IST
posted by griphus at 8:22 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Somebody needs to make me a "warmist" t-shirt immediately
posted by ook at 8:22 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


"warmist science"
posted by mwhybark at 8:23 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


According to Think Progress, the Heartland Institute isn't exactly secretive about their attempts to develop a curriculum which denies climate change.

My friend is a high school biology and chemistry teacher, and based on her description of her fellow science teachers, they are already dissuaded from teaching science when it comes to evolution (although it is still on high school exams so it has to be taught). I'm not going to be surprised when the Heartland Institute is successful in branding climate change the same way.

They try and show how this is different from climategate but to me the only difference appears to be which side they're on.

By that logic every scandal is exactly the same, regardless of facts. The difference here is that climategate took casual emails and tried to spin the contents to show mishandling of data even though there was no evidence that data (which was freely published) was mishandled. In this case, we have a memo which states that Heartland has hired a policy analyst who is not an expert in climatology to develop anti-climate-change curriculum, and they admit that they are doing so.
posted by muddgirl at 8:24 AM on February 15, 2012 [10 favorites]


Alternatively, an Anonymous Donor t-shirt would do just as well:

We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.

In my head Anonymous Donor is Uncle Pennybags, though in reality it's probably just some Koch
posted by ook at 8:31 AM on February 15, 2012


Bad Astronomer has some interesting analysis and links to a lot of discussion taking place about the leak.

That is the first link of this post.
posted by Pendragon at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


If this is true, I wonder who is the "Anonymous Donor", mentioned in several of the documents, who on his own is bankrolling one quarter of the Heartland Institute's budget. Koch Bros.?
posted by Skeptic at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Uh, speaking as someone who was working for Searle at the time, you need a narrower brush. I mean, I'm sure our upper management would have liked to cook Vioxx, but not in the way you're describing.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:33 AM on February 15, 2012


@ook - Were I not at work I'd go to Cafepress now and start work on one. I'll have to give some thought as to what kind of design to use.
posted by Man with Lantern at 8:40 AM on February 15, 2012


We expect people with their point of view to be stupid and misspeak and surprise, they did.

You have a different definition of misspeak than most people. Usually it doesn't mean actively conspired to distort facts and hide information.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:42 AM on February 15, 2012 [8 favorites]


WARMIST???
posted by Theta States at 9:06 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I was relating the anecdote about Adam McKay (film director of some renown) recently, about how he was allowed to pick his own title at SNL, and he chose "Director of Falconry." It occurred to me that I need a title like that.

I think I might go with "Warmist."
posted by gern at 9:08 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Koch Bros.?

Maybe not this time. But usually, yeah.
"We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies."
posted by argonauta at 9:13 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wasn't it so much easier when everything was aggregated under the banner of the Catholic Church when it came to what would fund/enforce anti-science? Now it's all fractured and shit and harder to keep track of.
posted by symbioid at 9:16 AM on February 15, 2012


I made T-shirts. Now this is officially a Thing.

incidentally cafepress's user interface is in need of improvement
posted by ook at 9:22 AM on February 15, 2012


WARMIST?

It's a blog for mammals.
posted by condour75 at 9:24 AM on February 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


cafepress could use an overhaul, indeed. i'd take better templates, and a nice good way to integrate w/one's website. it's so late 90s, it's sad.
posted by symbioid at 9:25 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm anti-climate. It's caused us nothing but trouble, and once we get rid of climate things will be a lot calmer around here.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:29 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


If they want to really get to the kids, they should take a lesson from other groups that lost the anti tag and went with something pro. So instead of being anti-climate, they could be pro-summer. Kids love summer!
posted by perhapses at 9:30 AM on February 15, 2012 [10 favorites]


Sigh. When I see a group with the word Heartland, Liberty, or even Freedom in their name, I'm 90% sure they're going to be ignorant fools. How depressing.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:41 AM on February 15, 2012 [13 favorites]


When I see a group with the word Heartland, Liberty, or even Freedom in their name, I'm 90% sure they're going to be ignorant fools.

I'm actually pretty sure this bunch are neither ignorant nor fools. Have you seen their budget? Selfish, greedy bastards seems to be more accurate.
posted by Skeptic at 9:45 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Sigh. When I see a group with the word Heartland, Liberty, or even Freedom in their name, I'm 90% sure they're going to be ignorant fools. How depressing.

You're forgetting Taxpayer and Family.

But, yeah. Close-minded, self important idiots.
posted by Sphinx at 9:48 AM on February 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


Wow, this allows me to unload my entire day's dose of cynicism in one comment. Two kinds of projects that can't lose (in terms of accessing funds) in our current "green" reality:

1. projects that deny the need for any change in our current behavior
2. "green" projects that don't have a hope of succeeding (ie: scams)

And now a Van Morrison song.
posted by philip-random at 9:55 AM on February 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


They try and show how this is different from climategate but to me the only difference appears to be which side they're on.

The maddening thing about this sentiment is not just that it's so baldly wrong - the "sides" in this Climategate vs. Heartland "debate" are science and ideologically blinkered industry propaganda - but that it's so pervasive.

I've been on the climate beat as a journalist for more than ten years, and since about 2005 I've been writing, researching and speaking about climate and energy issues almost exclusively. At probably half the talks I give, someone asks during the Q&A or afterward about how they heard that climate scientists were caught fudging data, so isn't it possible the whole problem is just bad science?

This is the echo part of an echo chamber - even if you aren't a Fox News junkie, you've heard vaguely about this. The words bias and hoax and Climategate clang through but little else. People sometimes tell me to my face that I'm wrong when I tell them the climate scientists in the Climategate fiasco were completely exonerated (I've intentionally chosen a link there to a prominent right-wing source). They seem not to even listen when I mention that the Koch Brothers themselves - the chief financiers of denialism - funded a UC-Berkeley study by a widely quoted skeptic that confirmed everything climate scientists had been saying. The study's summary reads: "Global warming is real."

Gonna go boldface on that: A massive study funded by the most intransigent wing of the fossil fuel industry has established unequivocally that global warming is happening and that human activity is causing it.

But what's most maddening about the echo chamber is none of this resonates within it, and so even the people who stand up to fire off their chin-scratchingly skeptical questions - who generally are not zealots, just reasonable, moderately conservative people who've learned over the years to distrust "environmentalism" - don't hear the news that their skepticism is unfounded. My best explanation for why is that as societies - from the mainstream of politics and media discourse on down - we have a status quo bias so intense that it simply filters out and marginalizes any news that would require fundamental change. It's not just the fraudulent work of partisan think tanks, not just the right-wing media or a few unhinged Senators. It's all of the above, creating a white-noise roar of such volume that it only allows messages that reinforce the status quo to rise above it.
posted by gompa at 10:03 AM on February 15, 2012 [63 favorites]


Hey, I just saw the same thing reported on Fox News!

/irony
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 10:37 AM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


In a way this reminds me of a comment I read in a blog yesterday about effective protesting against Nazi/KKK rallies.

"You guys are just biased against the KKK!"
posted by edgeways at 11:39 AM on February 15, 2012


By that logic every scandal is exactly the same, regardless of facts.

Well, scandal is usually not about logic, but about opinion/outrage. E.g. Fox can win a case using the argument that they do entertainment, not news but only the left seems to care. Similarly, you can abuse drugs while being pro-drug war. Maybe I underestimate the public's ability to use logic but I don't see the climate change deniers losing support over this.
posted by Obscure Reference at 11:54 AM on February 15, 2012


Phil Plait's article on this made the "What's Hot" spot in Google+. In the comment stream I've been seeing exactly the sort of echo chamber of "Skepticism" that Gompa talks about. I;d suspect a concerted effort by climate change deniers to obfuscate the issue, but that's not even needed- there's too many people comforting themselves with the idea that both sides are lying, so no changes have to be made.

It's depressing, really. The damage has been done to climate change science, so any move to deal with climate change will meet great resistance, not only by the paid deniers, but from common people who are "too smart to get caught by the lies".
posted by happyroach at 11:57 AM on February 15, 2012


On metapreview, what gompa said. I wasn't arguing the truth value of my "wrong sentiment" but the effect it will have. And, yes, it's sad that this is the case and it's good that this information got out, but something else needs to be done to make a political difference.
posted by Obscure Reference at 11:59 AM on February 15, 2012


No one actually thought these people were legitimate scientists following the tenets of scientific inquiry and honest debate, did they?
posted by mrnutty at 12:11 PM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Sigh. When I see a group with the word Heartland, Liberty, or even Freedom in their name, I'm 90% sure they're going to be ignorant fools. How depressing.

You're forgetting Taxpayer and Family.


I'm really tempted to set up a "Family Freedom Institute of Heartland Taxpayer Liberty," start accepting donations, and see how far I can run with this.
posted by Amanojaku at 12:19 PM on February 15, 2012 [10 favorites]


No one actually thought these people were legitimate scientists .....?

Sadly, that's not the right question. It's whether or not they could be presented as legitimate scientists in the popular mind.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:20 PM on February 15, 2012


I'm sure this will get as much coverage in the media as so-called "Climategate".

This got pretty prominent coverage in today's (centre-leftist) Sydney Morning Herald, although I haven't seen the hard copy newspaper yet.
posted by bystander at 12:43 PM on February 15, 2012


The Great Carbon Bubble: Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Fights So Hard
posted by homunculus at 1:20 PM on February 15, 2012


Trench warfare rages over Keystone pipeline: The GOP tries every which way to undo the Greens' modest victory
posted by homunculus at 1:22 PM on February 15, 2012


Hey, I just saw the same thing reported on Fox News!

Has Fox News gotten to liberal?
posted by drezdn at 1:31 PM on February 15, 2012



Heartland has responded that some of the documents are real, while others - including the one about educational efforts - is a forgery.

I remember last year when a snowstorm in February was proof that Al Gore is fat and AGW is fake.

It was 66 today in Madison, WI. I'm sure it's a coincidence.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 5:30 PM on February 15, 2012


Yak yak yak. Meanwhile, not a goddamn thing is being done.

Guess the answer to the old question is: Whimper.
posted by Twang at 10:10 PM on February 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm doing plenty. What are you doing?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:09 PM on February 15, 2012


Heartland has responded that some of the documents are real, while others - including the one about educational efforts - is a forgery.


Given that some of the real documents are evidence prima facie of tax fraud, I'm going to put out the theory that their denial here is a flat out lie and all the documents are real.
posted by ocschwar at 5:53 AM on February 16, 2012


Heartland has responded that some of the documents are real, while others - including the one about educational efforts - is a forgery.

The educational efforts are also included in the Heartland Budget (pg 18), which has not been claimed to be a forgery (yet). I imagine that they will come out soon and say that the document was altered to include damning line items, and will release their 'real budget' which does not include those expenses.
posted by muddgirl at 7:05 AM on February 16, 2012


I'm sure this will get as much coverage in the media as so-called "Climategate".

Fat chance
posted by Skeptic at 11:04 AM on February 15

Eponysterical!

But also, spot on.
posted by Gelatin at 7:25 AM on February 16, 2012


Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake?

The author's arguments are plausible, IMHO.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:17 PM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]


Well, some of them. #2 is a tautology.

Every single verifiable fact that's in the memo is found in another one of the documents, or available in a public source;

Of course this is true; if those facts were not found elsewhere, they'd not be verifiable!
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:57 AM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fake. Warmers gonna warm.
posted by republican at 6:46 AM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


The inside story on climate scientists under siege: Michael Mann reveals his account of attacks by entrenched interests seeking to undermine his 'hockey stick' graph
posted by homunculus at 7:46 PM on February 17, 2012


In other news: Canadian government is 'muzzling its scientists'
posted by homunculus at 10:34 AM on February 18, 2012


Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents
posted by jeffburdges at 10:46 AM on February 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


From Andy Revkin: Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files
posted by plastic_animals at 8:32 PM on February 20, 2012


The Heartland Institute can't have it both ways - if the documents were obtained by Gleick when he fraudulently presented himself as a board member, then they are real.

Yes, it was wrong to get these documents with social engineering, but it's not like it's unprecedented.
posted by muddgirl at 8:50 PM on February 20, 2012


Yeah, predictably the spin is all about how immoral Gleick was, and how his credibility is so horribly impugned by straightforwardly admitting his trick.

Anything to distract from the actual Heartland documents and strategies.

Deception might be 'wrong', but it's irrelevant.
posted by anthill at 9:40 PM on February 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Peter Gleick maintains documents' authenticity

Ain't much chance this guy lied about anything honestly. We can be confident the Heartland Institute wrote that "effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science" line.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:03 PM on February 21, 2012


Yes but by SAYING it is false, non-warmists can now just dismiss him and the papers outright LALALALANOTLISTENING.
posted by Theta States at 12:32 PM on February 21, 2012


Jeffburdges was being sarcastic. I think it's pretty clear that the "strategy memo" was false.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:40 PM on February 21, 2012


I wonder how Fox will frame this story...
posted by Theta States at 2:16 PM on February 21, 2012


I'm convinced the Heartland Institute wrote that "dissuading teachers from teaching science" line, Joe in Australia, no sarcasm here.   Peter Gleick is a well respected expert on water resources.  The Heartland Institute gained their fame lobbying against government regulation of secondhand smoke for Philip Morris. And the Heartland Institute has threatened to sue bloggers who post about these documents.  Who do you believe?
posted by jeffburdges at 3:02 PM on February 21, 2012


Who do you believe?

False choice. I don't believe the guy that just openly admitted lying publicly to promote his agenda. That doesn't mean I have to believe Heartland. This with-us-or-against-us is not helping convince people.
posted by TheFlamingoKing at 6:11 PM on February 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jeffburdges, I'm sorry I thought you were being sarcastic. It's just such an obvious comic caricature of an evil minion's memo. Look at the line you quoted -
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.
You can see that the putative author and his audience believe that global warming is real; they are merely trying to keep people ignorant. One almost expects it to be followed by "Mwuahahaha!"

And who was the memo written for, by whom was it written, and why? This "as you know, Bob," style goes over financial details that are not only obvious to the management but are actually contained in other documents prepared for the same meeting! It says it is "useful to set priorities" - I suppose it would be! - but it doesn't actually identify these supposed priorities. It's all "considering", "pursuing", "seeking". There's no substance to it at all. I would fire an assistant who wasted my time with pablum like "we will consider expanding these efforts further, or developing new ones, if funding can be obtained."

This memo is an obvious forgery and it is very much to be regretted that anyone would poison the well this way. If Gleick is the author (and he hasn't fingered anyone but himself) then he has ruined his career and cast a shadow over everything he has been involved with. It is so stupid and so damaging that he may as well have been an agent provocateur.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:33 PM on February 21, 2012


Gleick indicated that he received it from an anonymous source, no? And that he sought confirming documents from Heartland (which he received).

When we're looking at just the suspect memo, it comes down to how trustworthy one finds Gleick. But all the other documents are real, and they confirm many if not all of the items in the memo (including the educational campaign). If the memo is fake (and I trend towards believing that it is) then it is a strange one.
posted by muddgirl at 7:12 PM on February 21, 2012


I meant 'When we're looking at just the source of the suspect memo.'
posted by muddgirl at 7:18 PM on February 21, 2012


I don't think anyone is surprised to hear that the Heartland Institute has an "educational" campaign; that's its raison d'être. The reason the memo is quoted is because of its juicy cynicism about AGW denialism and because it imputes bad faith to anti-AGW scientists. It's much more exciting than the other documents.

Gleick's story doesn't really make sense. He says he didn't forge the memo; that he received it from someone else and then sought the other documents in order to confirm its accuracy. But the memo is clearly dependent on the other documents. So his story implies that the original documents were obtained by the anonymous stranger, who forged the memo and then sent the forgery (but not the original documents) to Gleick, who verified the memo by also obtaining the original documents, and then posted all of them without wondering why the forgery was not among the documents he had received from the Heartland Institute.

In other words, these highly secret memos were not leaked once but twice, and the person who obtained them the first time just happened to contact someone who was willing and able to trick the Heartland Institute into sending them out again. I suppose his story is possible, but surely it's more probable that the documents were only leaked once and that the forgery was created by the same person who obtained the originals.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:54 PM on February 21, 2012


I hadn't realised this, but Gleick was apparently the inaugural chair of the AGU's Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which was formed less than two months ago. They asked him to resign, and no wonder.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:00 PM on February 21, 2012


Well, the simplest story (Occam's razor) is that the memo is real, but we're discounting that for reasons like 'the tone is wrong.'
posted by muddgirl at 6:05 AM on February 22, 2012


There is afaik no evidence of forgeries among these any documents at present, Joe in Australia.

In fact, the "dissuading teachers from teaching science" memo frequently, but understandably not always, agrees with their proposed budget, which Heartland hasn't disputed.

And obviously Heartland has strengthened each document's credibility by threatening legal action against bloggers.

I'm comfortable with his engaging in "social engineering" like this, certainly that's reporter behavior, not ethics board behavior, but exposing lobbyist schemes helps everyone.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:13 AM on February 22, 2012


For those of you who still think what Gleick has done is ok. Please read this. Anyone who is still defending him runs the risk of revealing themselves as the same kind of ideologue as the right wingers they so forcefully oppose.
posted by spaceviking at 7:35 AM on February 22, 2012


Isn't Megan McArdle known for being a bit of a Randroid, spaceviking? She apparently moved into clime change denial after arguing against nationalized healthcare.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:40 AM on February 22, 2012


Do you disagree with her actual arguments? The most telling is that the memo in question actually draws on the set of documents that Gleick apparently obtained to verify the memo. This requires that whoever sent Gleick the memo had to have the documents as well - thus two leaks are needed.

Not to mention the fact that several people fingered Gleick just based on writing style and content before he even admitted to being the source of the document dump.

All of this, to a reasonable person, adds up to the likely conclusion that the memo is fake and that Heartland is telling the truth about the documents.
posted by spaceviking at 9:43 AM on February 22, 2012


All her textual arguments sound like ordinary inconsistencies within any organization's internal documents that weren't produced simultaneously. I noticed Dr. Wojick paid $25k per quarter for 3 vs. 4 quarters myself, exactly the sort of error one might expect. Are there too many such errors? I donno, maybe, but probably not.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:35 AM on February 22, 2012


Jeffburdges, what evidence would persuade you? Megan McArdle's arguments seem absolutely conclusive to me.

Incidentally, I couldn't agree with her more when she says
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:52 PM on February 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


Peter Gleick on leave from Pacific Institute over Heartland leak
posted by homunculus at 11:48 AM on February 25, 2012


Amusingly albeit vaguely related : Michigan Tea Partiers Share Rick Santorum’s Fears Over Obama’s College Push
posted by jeffburdges at 5:03 PM on February 25, 2012


Looks like Canada's Capital University is hosting some denialist education (luckily, at least it's only a grad course)
posted by anthill at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2012


« Older Outtakes from the Beatles' Abbey Road photo shoot...  |  Golden Goal is a Norwegian spo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments