Up To $250k In Heinz-Kerry Money Went To So-Called Global Warming Expert

Amid unfounded and frivolous charges that the Bush administration and the American Enterprise Institute are involved in pay for play science on Global Warming, it seems Theresa Heinz Kerry previously directed an unrestricted cash gift of up to a quarter million dollars to a nuclear scientist become climatologist, now leading the charge of doom-sayers on Global Warming. Additionally, one scientist recently quoted by the New York Times now appears to be disagreeing with his own extensive research and an exclusive preview of a soon to be published research paper from another Harvard scientist raises serious questions about a key item Global Warming proponents have recently enlisted in their cause.

Al Gore: "The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act.

Yet, in a recent major article on the topic, the New York Times frequently quoted scientist John P. Holdren, formerly of Berkeley and seemingly more qualified for his previous stint as an anti-nuke expert and the paper failed to point out that Holdren received an unrestricted cash prize of up to $250,000 from Theresa Heinz-Kerry. The money came from her late husband's estate and appears to be prior to Holdren's taking the lead on Global Warming as a current political cause. His interests and area of expertise had been mostly nuclear disarmament.

Award recipients receive a medallion and an unrestricted cash prize of up to $250,000.

UPDATES SINCE RECEIVING THE HEINZ AWARD

July 2006 – Holdren co-writes article with Alan Leshner stating that there is no doubt about the reality of climate change and that the United States, “as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet, needs to become a leader in developing and deploying serious solutions.” – The San Francisco Chronicle

John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. Trained in aeronautics/astronautics and plasma physics at MIT and Stanford....

Had the New York Times been more thorough in reporting the previous research of another Global Warming authority it cited, Richard B. Alley, the story may have created more skeptics than believers in the purported threat.

This quote below is from Richard B. Alley in the recent New York Times piece:

“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have very high scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Pennsylvania State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”

Here's what Alley was writing for profit as recently as 2002:

From Publishers Weekly
Recent news reports about large holes in the ice and open waters at the Arctic Circle have prompted renewed concerns about the effects of global warming. In measured tones, however, geoscientist Alley reminds us that during the last 100,000 years or so the earth has experienced a wildly varied climate pattern. Using readings of ice cores taken from Greenland, where he participated for several years in the '90s in far-reaching research projects, Alley demonstrates that periods of slow cooling and centuries of cold have been punctuated by periods of sudden warming. In fact, he notes, climatic stability is the exception rather than the rule, and he contends that the unusually warm, stable climate we have experienced for the past 10,000 years is an anomaly. Through his study of the two-mile-long ice cores, Alley reveals a number of elements that contribute to global climatic changes: wind patterns, drifting continents and ocean currents.

Alley may now be speculating that man is causing Global Warming, but that theorizing would seem to fly in the face of his own extensive scientific research from the nineties.

Along with the now infamous and subsequently debunked image of polar bears that accompanied the NY Times article, I've been permitted to review and summarize a research paper from Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon is also receiving Editor for New Astronomy and author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection (March 2004) The paper, "Polar bears of Western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the 'ultimate' survival control factor?," appears to undermine one of the fundamental charges behind the latest Global Warming kerfluffle and is slated to appear in Ecological Complexity in April 2007.

As previously documented, scientists have already admitted using alleged threats to polar bear and seal populations in an effort to manipulate public perception of the reality of Global Warming. Soon found that relevant spring air temperatures claimed to be endangering the Polar Bear actually show no significant warming trend and are more likely the result of natural climatic cycles, as opposed to any activity of man. It also appears as though some Global Warming advocates may have intentionally, or unwittingly reduced the time line for their analysis thereby suggesting a significant differentiation when none truly exists over a longer term. Soon defines any notion that climate changes are endangering Polar Bears as highly premature.

In a bit of irony, along with many more significant factors possibly impacting the health of Polar Bear populations, one issue may be increased human interaction as a result of science itself. It seems the animals are often tagged and observed most heavily during already stressful periods due to normal feeding and mating patterns.

Another key item is that Polar Bear populations where hunted, or thinned for years. As that ended through the eighties, naturally the population increased. Factors sited today as a result of Global Warming, lower body mass, a possible decline in numbers, could just as easily be a sign that the population has grown and is subsequently being regulated by natural forces such as food supply and range.

While a full public copy of the paper will not be available until April, it will be interesting to observe the reaction, assuming the Global Warming crowd isn't successful in keeping it out of the press, given that that seems to be a tactic they embrace.

In just the last year White said he has noticed a significant shift in media coverage of the subject.

"The reporting is better because I don't see the 'other side' anymore."

As Mark Steyn points out in a recent column, we should be slow to alter the world economy because of a slight temperature rise and the unproven claims of scientists who have been parroting one cause or another for years.

"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

Comments

[templar knight]

Dan, don't you know it is just WRONG to point out the hypocrisy of the Left and its allies? Do you really expect them to have to abide by the same rules that apply to us? Where, Dan, is your sense of fair play?

[BobInStamford]

Good lord, you flat-earth rednecks are pathetic. You idiots are in the dark ages about EVERYTHING. Stem cells, Iraq, global warming etc. Thankfully, there are fewer of your kind every day. 28% and dropping. You fools have lost the congress and the white house for a generation.

[templar knight]

Rob, if you really believed "us fools" had "lost the congress and white house for a generation", you would be celebrating, and wouldn't be here whining. But whiners just can't help whining, so whine on, Bob. Wah..wah...wah! Crybaby.

[LOL]

theres a lot that's ignorant in that Steyn piece:

"And is nought-point-seven of an uptick worth wrecking the global economy over?"

Solutions don't have to involve "wrecking the global economy" and someone who suggests that is the only solution lacks any imagination.

"But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to"

Kyoto doesn't go into effect until 2008. So how is Canada and Europe "pretending to" comply with it?

"by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C"

The treaty expires in 2013, likely to be replaced by another treaty from the UNFCCC. Of course, doing his homework on this issue would have taken five minutes, but Steyn chose to shoot from the hip of ignorance instead. Does that mean his op-ed is garbage? You do the math.

[BobInStamford]

Who's whining? You idiots are entertainment. How's that surge going?

[LOL]

copy of the letter i wrote to the sun-times concerning mark steyn's writing:

Concerning the Mark Steyn piece "Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise":

There's a great deal of ignorance in this article, and it is shocking you would print it. I'm no climate expert, so I can't speak to the science part of the article, but just doing some simple research on the internet would have cleared up a few things for the writer.

Mr. Steyn wrote: "But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to". Kyoto doesn't bind countries until 2008. So how have these countries "pretended" to comply with Kyoto's standards when they don't go into effect until next year. Furthermore, as of 2004 Kyoto ratifiers have actually, on average, reduced their emissions about 12% below their 1990 levels, which is over twice the level Kyoto demands in 2008. This means that the Kyoto ratifiers, on average, are actually far ahead of schedule.

source: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_table_06.pdf

Mr Steyn continues: "by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C". The treaty expires in 2013, likely to be replaced by another treaty from the UNFCCC. Kyoto is only one in a series of treaties by this body.

source for Kyoto dates: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Mr Steyn has shown an unwillingness to write about the truth concerning something as simple as the Kyoto treaty, how are we to trust him for reporting on the more complex climate science? I fully support the Sun-Times reporting both sides of the global warming debate. However, by publishing the writing of someone as ignorant as Mr. Steyn, you do a disservice to those who are arguing that global warming is not anthropogenic.

[Zifnab]

"How's that surge going?"

Only a person who hates the troops would ask about the war's progress.

And, templar, weren't you just going on in the other thread about nuclear energy and biodesiel fuels and energy conservation to get us out of the Middle East? Even if you want to stick your head in the sand over Global Warming, surely you can see a little bit of the wisdom of cutting our oil dependencies in general?

Honestly, why object to the hybrid/electric car? Why object to wind, tidal, and solar power? Why object to a country that encourages energy efficency? "Polar Bears aren't really dieing so I'm gonna buy a Hummer!" is about the worst logic I've ever seen. "I hate Al Gore so I'm gonna pay $5 for a gallon of gas!" Really? Is that what capitalism is about? Millions in government handouts for oil discovery and not a penny for renewable energy? I just don't get why you object to a sensible energy policy, based on the grounds of GW Denial.

[templar knight]

Supporting the troops again I see, Bob. And if you are so entertained, then why whine? You should be supporting us if you are so sure we are going over the cliff. Why are you trying to get us to change direction?

[BobInStamford]

America voted to change direction on 11/4. You dinosaurs and that miserable failure that you call your leader only serve as reminders of the US' failed policies over the last 5 years. Mission accomplished! Good luck with that surge.

[templar knight]

Zifnab, where have I ever objected to the hybrid car, or wind, tidal and solar power? If you would closely read what I said on the other threads, you would know this. I am very much for conservation, and show me one place where I have come out against it.

[Darth Malice]

On Kerry's flights to Davos how much carbon impact is there?Anyone??

[Zifnab]

If you're truly for conservation in more than name, then stop playing trumpeteer for the oil industry. Don't prop up this empty rhetoric about he-said-she-said on greenhouse gases. And stop parroting the company line.

"There's no such thing as Global Warming" isn't about Global Warming, it's an excuse to get another billion dollars in oil exploration money out of the taxpayer's pocket. It's corporate welfare. "There is no threat, there is no alternative, you absolutely have to buy gasoline and you absolutely have to buy it from us." That's what the CEI is about. Proving to the people in power that if they want their constituents to be happy, they have to suck at the teet of big energy. Stop shilling for that crowd every time they put out a bullshit report telling us to go back and drive bigger trucks because energy efficency doesn't really matter.

[Darth Malice]

Z....if Kerry is serious he should have taken a row boat to Europe.

[Darth Malice]

Z....if Kerry is serious he should have taken a row boat to Europe.

[templar knight]

Uh, Zifnab, I work for an oil company.

[scarshapedstar]

Oh, god, not the infamous "Waves, bitches!" post. You really shouldn't bring that up ever again. And linking to it twice in the same post as an authoritative "debunking" of pretty much the entire science of climatology... words fail me.

[BjornL]

I dont understand Riehl's point regarding Richard Alley.

This seems rather basic. No one in the world is unaware of the fact that the Earth's climate has always been in flux, changing in one direction or the other. It shouldnt take a genius to figure out that before the industrial age, the drivers of those changes were "natural factors".
Nor should it be too difficult to figure out that these natural factors and cycles are still in play. They are fully accounted for in all climate models.

So Alley writes extensivly about natural drivers that operated in the past. And now he believes that the new human factors are significantly larger than the natural factors and the net effect of all factors is to increase temperature - at a rate that is unprecendented.

Where is the inconsistency Dan?
There isnt any.

[Purple Avenger]

"You fools have lost the congress and the white house for a generation."

Want to back that up with a friendly wager of say...$1,000?

[Cindi]

Good wager PA. I live in a Republican strong hold. This past election, the democrats held victory. What they fail to realize is our NOT turning out at the polls was, a message to republicans, not the support of democrats. After the November elections, the republican registration rate was still at 63%.

Now, how long was the ice age supposed to last? The world has be through warming stages before this, only difference is, we have never spent 2 billion dollars a year in trying to prove it.

If not for global warming, what do you suppose Al Gore would be doing for a living?

[Cindi]

BTW, NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK DAN!

[Jeff Fecke]

Oh, Dan, when will you ever learn?

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/02/when-riehl-provides-link-dont-trust.html

You might try actual honesty. I hear it's lovely this time of year.

[klyde]

So where is your proof that Therea Kerry directed anything to Profsesor Holdren or that the money came from her late husband's estate?

[Kite]

Well, in the course of the arguement you can see why the Enviromentalists are truly upset with the "Global Warming isnt man-made" crowd. The real reason lies NOT in the enviroment but the economy structure of the business.

CAPITALISM.

That is the reason why they push for the Global Warming man-made theory. Why? because those BIG EVIL COMPANIES made all that money and they wont SHARE THE WEALTH. Well? Guess what....they don't have too. They SHOULDN'T have too. Just because someone made alot of money and YOU didn't doesnt mean that they should have to give you some cause your less fortunate. This isn't socialism nor is it communism....we don't have a "social responsibility". So, how about we quit acting like we do.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Bob, even a vicious military hater like you shouldn't ask a question you don't know the answer to. In fact the surge is going quite well. Have you ever read anything from people in Iraq?

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/02/sunday-night-in-baghdad.html

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/roughnecks.htm

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[nick]

Darth, Zifnab?
Got a job?

[Darth Malice]

Yep Nick.....I support the teeming masses of liberals with my taxes.

[djangone]

Wow, what reporting!!!!! It's almost like breathlessly revealing that the Olin Foundation funds the Project for a New American Century, which, nudge nudge, then skews in a conservative direction, wink wink, follow the money, don'tchaknow. And newsflash, most of those PNACers recommending war after war don't have the slightest experience in the military!

Except what you're reporting is a long stretch from being even that newsworthy, because unlike, say, a PNAC shill, Holdren is an authority his field, despite what your dishonest shortening of his biography tries to conceal (23 years--that's 23 years--of work on the 'causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy').

I don't mean to confuse you, Dan, by including numbers as large as 23 and analogies as complicated as the PNAC thing, so here's a simpler rebuke: Polar Bears aren't the be-all and end-all of global warming bellweathers. They've survived incredible environmental stress, and they may survive this one. Meanwhile there are a million other species you, for reasons of sheer mental laziness and shill-tastic wingnuttery, can't be bothered to report on:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

Nope, let's just talk about those polar bears on the ice floe, eh? Danny boy, don't mischaracterize your opponents points to suit your argument. It's not, you know, honest. When you're up against thousands of scientists and researchers, each of whom run rings around you intellectually, holding up one shred of bad logic and bellowing to the wind just doesn't doesn't do much for your reputation. You're on about as weak a footing as an Intelligent Design goofball pushing an entertaining yarn about a god designing a flagellum, and be prepared to take just as embarrassing a smack-down as they took. I take great pleasure in saying about your election prospects when you lie about facts and evidence: this is why you people lose.

[nick]

Darth,
I think Dan has another post up.
Giddy up, Beeocth, before Mommy comes home and sees you on the computer!

[ZF]

It's becoming clear that Al Gore is the new Joe McCarthy.

[Barry]

Once again, explain global warming and cooling in the past. You can not. Your "scientists consensus" can not. If you are unable to understand the past warming and cooling, you can not understand the current trend. You can not even determine what the current trend is. All the ranting about the intelligence of those who find your views unsupportable do not cover up the fact. You do not know.

[smuggler]

Good Lord, you try to make a case that Holdren is not qualified when your own link (check it out folks) makes it clear that he is.
This is either stupidity or dishonesty--either way, don't think I'll be back here.

[smuggler]

Sorry--meant to specify the link:

http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/John_Holdren

[Boris]

Mark Steyn says:

"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

It tells me Mrak Steyn is a moron. The supporting research has been published in the peer reviewed literature. The IPCC overview of the research is what will be published.

[Barry]

"The supporting research has been published in the peer reviewed literature."

So, Boris, does the supporting research solve the puzzle - What caused global cooling and warming in the past?

Anyone else willing to answer the question? Try to do it without the name calling and see if you can actually write something of value.

[Dan Riehl]

(check it out folks) makes it clear that he is.

Based upon what? Titles and grants of unknown sums? I listed his education - there is nothing in it which qualifies him as a scientist on climate - which is foolish to start with. Climate is too complex.

[Stu]

I read recently that the statistics from the US government agency which compiles the annual average world temperature reflects NO statistically significant change in that figure since 1999. If that is the case, other than the desires of the socialists to gain more control over our lives and property, what is all the shouting about? Oh, that government agency must be run by some greedy capitalist.

[Boris]

"Climate is too complex."

Too complex to study? Huh? What a cop out.

"So, Boris, does the supporting research solve the puzzle - What caused global cooling and warming in the past?"

Well, Barry, Milankovicth forcings cause many glaciations. Solar forcings are considered responsible for some warmings and coolings. Some past climate change is not understood very well.

"If you are unable to understand the past warming and cooling, you can not understand the current trend."

Such poor logic stated so forecefully! But we now know thousands of times more about the current climate than we do about climate 1,000,000 years ago because, well, we're here now. Sometimes proxy evidence is not available for the factor we want to study.

"Once again, explain global warming and cooling in the past. You can not. Your "scientists consensus" can not."

Next time educate yourself before you post such nonsense.

[Boris]

"Alley may now be speculating that man is causing Global Warming, but that theorizing would seem to fly in the face of his own extensive scientific research from the nineties."

So, his research showing that cliamte has changed in the past shows that CO2 is not causing the warming now? I don't follow this argument. Past climate changes have had natural causes. That does not mean that nature must cause all changes. Further, with scant evidence we can determine the natural causes from pervious changes, but, despite our being here now and all of our measurement capabilities, there is no natural cause that explains current warming. However, there is a known increase in CO2, a known greenhouse gas, that nicely explains the warming. Am I missing your arguments? Are you?

[Barry]

Wow Boris, throw out a mis-spelled term and your an expert on past climate history. Sure, there is a great body of evidence regarding climate change, including Milankovitch cycles.

"Such poor logic stated so forecefully! But we now know thousands of times more about the current climate than we do about climate 1,000,000 years ago because, well, we're here now. Sometimes proxy evidence is not available for the factor we want to study."

Boris, according to those in your church, that "thousands of times more" is only that man causes (some) CO2, CO2 is responsible for global warming, therefore man is the culprit.

Of course, any study of the subject will produce the conclusion "Some past climate change is not understood very well." My point exactly, stated by you. And you are correct. Congratulations!

"Next time educate yourself before you post such nonsense."

I'll put my education in climatology, meteorology, and geology up against yours. Your only answer to the question is "we now know thousands of times more...because, well, we're here now." As I have made clear in the past, I do not know if the long term warming trend since the last "ice age" is still with us, has peaked, or, heaven forbid, is going in the other direction. And whatever the trend, it is poorly understood by the best experts in the field. Whatever your level of education and understanding, your post makes it quite clear, you cannot answer the question. Yes, we do have a great deal of understanding of natural forces that influence our climate. Forces that are, without question, greater than the consequences of mans paltry contribution of CO2.

That is the point of my question and comment. Pull your head up from the pulpit of your church and perhaps you will understand the extent to which you are being manipulated by the politicians.