Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[TimG]

I must admit, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in terms of a D-K effect.

It refers to the tendency of people with PhDs to make grandious demands for economic and energy policy changes despite the fact that they have absolutely no expertise in economics or engineering. Edited February 14, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Oh ok, so as usual, it has nothing to do with warming, or data.

that's right, cause you're all about the data, right Shady? The D-K effect is a pronouncement on your whole being within any/all manner of MLW climate change related threads.

about that data you're all about... still waiting for you to substantiate, with data, the recent nonsense you spewed ala your favourite British tabloid fake journalist. Is there a reason you favour your tabloid non-scientific aligned sources over the direct countering response from the British Met Office that you were provided with?

actually, with the other barker lukin's ongoing drive-by propensity, it looks like we have a pair of D-K bookends here

[waldo]

It refers to the tendency of people with PhDs to make grandious demands for economic and energy policy changes despite the fact that they have absolutely no expertise in economics or engineering.

good to read you have no qualms with or concerns over the actual science.

if there are, as you call them, "people with PhDs", making, as you say, "grandiose demands for economic and energy policy changes despite the fact that they have absolutely no expertise in economics or engineering", you should provide examples for scrutiny. I would prefer to avoid chalking this up to just another one of your standard running rhetorical diatribes... do you have a few representative examples where you, apparently, take exception?

[lukin]

that's right, cause you're all about the data, right Shady? The D-K effect is a pronouncement on your whole being within any/all manner of MLW climate change related threads.

about that data you're all about... still waiting for you to substantiate, with data, the recent nonsense you spewed ala your favourite British tabloid fake journalist. Is there a reason you favour your tabloid non-scientific aligned sources over the direct countering response from the British Met Office that you were provided with?

actually, with the other barker lukin's ongoing drive-by propensity, it looks like we have a pair of D-K bookends here

Waldo, do you believe humans are causing climate change? Why or why not?

Waldo, if humans continue to do what they are doing, how many degrees C do YOU(not a cut a paste option)think the temperature would rise by 2030?

Thank you for your time, waldo, and I look forward to your response, as you are the resident expert. Have a great day.

[waldo]

Waldo, your ship has sailed. Your cut and paste posts make little sense. You have zero credibility.

Thank you for your time, waldo, and I look forward to your response, as you are the resident expert. Have a great day.

such a miraculous shift in only one post... lukin, are you equally emboldened - have you run across a new denier website?

I've answered your first question many, many times through an assortment of the various MLW related CC/AGW... my position is very clear. I have no interest in setting up your latest "tee shot". If you feel you have something to say in terms of actually offering a counter alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2 being the principal cause of warming... step up, make your statement and support it. Of course, that actually assumes you accept warming has occurred, right lukin?

now, if you're prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred, I would be quite content to steer you to existing MLW threads that speak to climate sensitivity and related warming estimates. As I've obviously, many, many times over, attributed the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming to anthropogenic causal ties... if you are prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred... by how much has it warmed (in the last century; since 1950)... and what do you attribute that warming to? Of course, be prepared to support whatever you say, hey?

[lukin]

such a miraculous shift in only one post... lukin, are you equally emboldened - have you run across a new denier website?

I've answered your first question many, many times through an assortment of the various MLW related CC/AGW... my position is very clear. I have no interest in setting up your latest "tee shot". If you feel you have something to say in terms of actually offering a counter alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2 being the principal cause of warming... step up, make your statement and support it. Of course, that actually assumes you accept warming has occurred, right lukin?

now, if you're prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred, I would be quite content to steer you to existing MLW threads that speak to climate sensitivity and related warming estimates. As I've obviously, many, many times over, attributed the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming to anthropogenic causal ties... if you are prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred... by how much has it warmed (in the last century; since 1950)... and what do you attribute that warming to? Of course, be prepared to support whatever you say, hey?

Thanks for the spin, however, spin is not what was required. I see you have a hard time answering direct questions.

[waldo]

Waldo, your ship has sailed. Your cut and paste posts make little sense. You have zero credibility.

Thank you for your time, waldo, and I look forward to your response, as you are the resident expert. Have a great day.

such a miraculous shift in only one post... lukin, are you equally emboldened - have you run across a new denier website?

Thanks for the spin, however, spin is not what was required. I see you have a hard time answering direct questions.

no spin - I answered your first question and suggested I would steer you to existing MLW posts that answer your second question... it only takes you responding to the actual questions posed - to you!

again:

now, if you're prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred, I would be quite content to steer you to existing MLW threads that speak to climate sensitivity and related warming estimates. As I've obviously, many, many times over, attributed the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming to anthropogenic causal ties... if you are prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred... by how much has it warmed (in the last century; since 1950)... and

what do you

attribute that warming to? Of course, be prepared to support whatever you say, hey?

the above quote is quite 'matter of fact', hey lukin? You surely can't have difficulty in responding... or, is there a problem?

[lukin]

no spin - I answered your first question and suggested I would steer you to existing MLW posts that answer your second question... it only takes you responding to the actual questions posed - to you!

again:

the above quote is quite 'matter of fact', hey lukin? You surely can't have difficulty in responding... or, is there a problem?

I'm undecided. I would like for you to answer my two simple questions though....waldo.....waldo.....waldo???

[waldo]

I'm undecided. I would like for you to answer my two simple questions though....waldo.....waldo.....waldo???

you're undecided? No, you're quite obviously not - most certainly, your posting history belies your false undecided claim. Your posting history is a collective statement on your denial of both warming and CC/AGW. Your posting history shows a repeated pattern of misinformation, disinformation, fabrication and outright lies. Your posting history has shown a willingness to repeatedly link to denial websites, to quote the loudest howler statements of denial, to refuse to support or substantiate your overt denial when challenged, to cast aspersion at climate scientists and climate science, to denigrate official organizations and institutions that convey support for CC/AGW, to denigrate other MLW members statements/positions in support of CC/AGW... to troll and drive-by with the sole intent of insulting other MLW members statements/positions in support of CC/AGW.

I have answered both your questions many times over in various MLW related CC/AGW threads... you can, as you say, like for me to do whatever you want - given your past, any claim of your being "undecided" is bull. That you could have the audacity to post the following back-to-back posts just a few posts back in this thread, says everything about you and encapsulates everything you're about. More pointedly, it most certainly deserves to be in this, "Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation" thread - thank you, thank you very much!

Waldo, your ship has sailed. Your cut and paste posts make little sense. You have zero credibility.

Thank you for your time, waldo, and I look forward to your response, as you are the resident expert. Have a great day.

such a miraculous shift in only one post... lukin, are you equally emboldened - have you run across a new denier website?

I owe you nothing - I will give you nothing until you have the decency and intellectual honesty to stand forward and state your denial, loudly and proudly... to answer the most clear and matter-of-fact questions I have just laid down for you. I have a MLW history of, quite literally, hundreds of posts that most absolutely, most clearly and most certainly represent and state my position on CC/AGW - your questions have been answered many times previously. I will not engage you further to satisfy this, your circle-jerk false "undecided" claim... unless... again, you unequivocally state your denial, loudly and proudly:

now, if you're prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred, I would be quite content to steer you to existing MLW threads that speak to climate sensitivity and related warming estimates. As I've obviously, many, many times over, attributed the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming to anthropogenic causal ties... if you are prepared to state you actually accept warming has occurred... by how much has it warmed (in the last century; since 1950)... and

what do you

attribute that warming to? Of course, be prepared to support whatever you say, hey?

the above quote is quite 'matter of fact', hey lukin? You surely can't have difficulty in responding... or, is there a problem?

let's make the above questions clearer for you:

- has there been increased/accelerated warming in the relatively recent past? => YES or NO

- if YES, how much has it warmed in the relatively recent past?

- if NO, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you accept increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you do not accept the principal causal tie to the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that the principal causal tie for the relatively recent past increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions

- alternatively =>

State your attribution causal tie(s), those other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

- I have many times over stated agreement with the current IPCC consensus statement/position on (equilibrium) climate sensitivity - between 2 to 4.5 °C with a

best estimate of ~ 3 °C

of warming for a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2. If you are not in agreement with the consensus statement/position on climate sensitivity =>

State your position on how much warming you interpret and associate with a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

[lukin]

you're undecided? No, you're quite obviously not - most certainly, your posting history belies your false undecided claim. Your posting history is a collective statement on your denial of both warming and CC/AGW. Your posting history shows a repeated pattern of misinformation, disinformation, fabrication and outright lies. Your posting history has shown a willingness to repeatedly link to denial websites, to quote the loudest howler statements of denial, to refuse to support or substantiate your overt denial when challenged, to cast aspersion at climate scientists and climate science, to denigrate official organizations and institutions that convey support for CC/AGW, to denigrate other MLW members statements/positions in support of CC/AGW... to troll and drive-by with the sole intent of insulting other MLW members statements/positions in support of CC/AGW.

I have answered both your questions many times over in various MLW related CC/AGW threads... you can, as you say, like for me to do whatever you want - given your past, any claim of your being "undecided" is bull. That you could have the audacity to post the following back-to-back posts just a few posts back in this thread, says everything about you and encapsulates everything you're about. More pointedly, it most certainly deserves to be in this, "Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation" thread - thank you, thank you very much!

I owe you nothing - I will give you nothing until you have the decency and intellectual honesty to stand forward and state your denial, loudly and proudly... to answer the most clear and matter-of-fact questions I have just laid down for you. I have a MLW history of, quite literally, hundreds of posts that most absolutely, most clearly and most certainly represent and state my position on CC/AGW - your questions have been answered many times previously. I will not engage you further to satisfy this, your circle-jerk false "undecided" claim... unless... again, you unequivocally state your denial, loudly and proudly:

let's make the above questions clearer for you:

- has there been increased/accelerated warming in the relatively recent past? => YES or NO

- if YES, how much has it warmed in the relatively recent past?

- if NO, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you accept increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you do not accept the principal causal tie to the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that the principal causal tie for the relatively recent past increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions

- alternatively =>

State your attribution causal tie(s), those other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

- I have many times over stated agreement with the current IPCC consensus statement/position on (equilibrium) climate sensitivity - between 2 to 4.5 °C with a

best estimate of ~ 3 °C

of warming for a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2. If you are not in agreement with the consensus statement/position on climate sensitivity =>

State your position on how much warming you interpret and associate with a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

Again, you decide to go off the deep end. Simple questions, waldo. Try to answer them. Your refusal speaks volumes.

It seems to me you have a very weak understanding of true science.

Edited February 15, 2012 by lukin

[BubberMiley]

Try to answer them. Your refusal speaks volumes.

You quote the questions in full, but you're too chicken to answer them? And then criticize him for not answering questions he's answered a million times?

If I were you, I'd just stay silent. You make the deniers look even worse than usual.

[lukin]

You quote the questions in full, but you're too chicken to answer them? And then criticize him for not answering questions he's answered a million times?

If I were you, I'd just stay silent. You make the deniers look even worse than usual.

It's sad how little you understand about science.

[waldo]

a reflection upon the underbelly support of the Fake Skeptic movement has been ripped wide open - certainly we've discussed at length the many instruments of the denial-machine through an assortment of MLW threads... the reach of such organizations as the Competitive Enterprise Institute... or the American Enterprise Institute... or the George C. Marshall Institute... or the Exxon Mobil Foundation... or the Heritage Foundation... or the Cato Institute... or the Koch brothers, or etc., etc., etc. And, of course, the Heartland Institute, one of the most prominent of them all.

we've highlighted the parallels between the methodology followed by Big Tobacco... in that regard, facts are irrelevant to the Fake Skeptics - casting doubt and uncertainty is their sole aim. Best seller books have been written to document these ties between Big Tobacco and Fake Skeptics. And in that regard, the Heartland Institute has been a principle factor and outlet in casting doubt and uncertainty about climate science/climate change... in sponsoring formal gatherings of Fake Skeptics, of sponsoring the work of known profile Fake Skeptics... this was always a most recognized aspect of the influence the Heartland Institute held.

in recent days, following a whistleblower leak of the Heartland Institute's own mistakenly sent email, significant details of the planning and sponsoring aspects of the Heartland Institute has been revealed. Over the last days it's played itself out initially through the blogosphere and has just jumped to the mainstream.

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax

Mashey Report Confirms Heartland's Manipulation; Exposes Singer's Deception

Heartland Confirms that it Mistakenly Emailed Internal Documents

[lukin]

a reflection upon the underbelly support of the Fake Skeptic movement has been ripped wide open - certainly we've discussed at length the many instruments of the denial-machine through an assortment of MLW threads... the reach of such organizations as the Competitive Enterprise Institute... or the American Enterprise Institute... or the George C. Marshall Institute... or the Exxon Mobil Foundation... or the Heritage Foundation... or the Cato Institute... or the Koch brothers, or etc., etc., etc. And, of course, the Heartland Institute, one of the most prominent of them all.

we've highlighted the parallels between the methodology followed by Big Tobacco... in that regard, facts are irrelevant to the Fake Skeptics - casting doubt and uncertainty is their sole aim. Best seller books have been written to document these ties between Big Tobacco and Fake Skeptics. And in that regard, the Heartland Institute has been a principle factor and outlet in casting doubt and uncertainty about climate science/climate change... in sponsoring formal gatherings of Fake Skeptics, of sponsoring the work of known profile Fake Skeptics... this was always a most recognized aspect of the influence the Heartland Institute held.

in recent days, following a whistleblower leak of the Heartland Institute's own mistakenly sent email, significant details of the planning and sponsoring aspects of the Heartland Institute has been revealed. Over the last days it's played itself out initially through the blogosphere and has just jumped to the mainstream.

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax

Mashey Report Confirms Heartland's Manipulation; Exposes Singer's Deception

Heartland Confirms that it Mistakenly Emailed Internal Documents

Your links represent an impressive compilation of extreme alarmist bias. Brendan DeMelle, come now, waldo, your grasping lonely ole buddy.

[TimG]

following a whistleblower leak of the Heartland Institute's own mistakenly sent email, significant details of the planning and sponsoring aspects of the Heartland Institute has been revealed.

Alarmists are so deperate to deal with the damage caused by climategate they thought they would try to create their own by faking documents:

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.

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

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.

Pathetic and dishonest.

But quite typical of the alarmist crowd which has repeatedly shown they have the ethics of a slime mould.

Edited February 16, 2012 by TimG

[lukin]

Nice fraudulent links, wlado. :lol:

Remember, cliamtegate was not a myth. Your links reek of desperation. It's starting to slip away, waldo...slipping........... :lol:

[waldo]

Alarmists are so deperate to deal with the damage caused by climategate they thought they would try to create their own by faking documents:

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

Pathetic and dishonest.

But quite typical of the alarmist crowd which has repeatedly shown they have the ethics of a slime mould.

so... you're ok with everything stated, everything revealed, other than the 'strategy document'! You should really stop your hyperventilating and actually look at the links previously provided, particularly this one:

The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly emailed its board materials to an anonymous third party - confirming the source of the documents released here on the DeSmogBlog yesterday.

Heartland then goes on allege that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.

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

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is

reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.

The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms"

is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick

.

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

.

The DeSmogBlog has received no direct communications from the Heartland Institute identifying any misstatement of fact in the "Climate Strategy" document and is therefore leaving the material available to those who may judge their content and veracity based on these and other sources.

[waldo]

Alarmists are so deperate to deal with the damage caused by climategate they thought they would try to create their own by faking documents:

from your own Heartland link:

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.

so we Heartland confirming the documents... that include, supposedly, according to Heartland, a fake strategy document (although, per my previous post, aspects of the "strategy" have been confirmed via the Heartland's own budget document or their own beneficiaries of related strategy funding. Suggesting the documents were "stolen" is a nice touch given the criminal Hackergate undertaking... they skewed up and mistakenly sent an email to someone who, in turn, 'blew the whistle'. I look forward to Heartland printing the email inclusive of the obligatory 'eyes only' footnotes:

[TimG]

so we Heartland confirming the documents... that include, supposedly, according to Heartland, a fake strategy document

Obviously you will never acknowledge that the documents were fakes. Bold faced lies in the face of evidence to the countrary is your modus operandi. You figure that if you shout a lie loud enough some people will believe you.

In any case, more and more people are recognizing the slime ball tactics of alarmists for what they are - and tuning the alarmists out.

As for climategate: say what you will about the means used to get the emails, however, not one of those emails has been found to be faked or modified.

Edited February 16, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Obviously you will never acknowledge that the documents were fakes. Bold faced lies in the face of evidence to the countrary is your modus operandi. You figure that if you shout a lie loud enough some people will believe you.

no - Heartland itself confirmed all the documents... save their claim that a single document, their "strategy" document, is a fake. What evidence to the contrary... the word of Heartland? That we should accept the "word" of a serial disinformation machine... right!

stated again: aspects of the Heartland "strategy" document have been confirmed via the Heartland's own budget document or their own beneficiaries of related strategy funding. Quoted again:

The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly emailed its board materials to an anonymous third party - confirming the source of the documents released here on the DeSmogBlog yesterday.

Heartland then goes on allege that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.

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

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is

reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.

The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms"

is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick

.

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

.

oh... what's this? The New York Times - Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science. Oh, Timmay!!!

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.

sweet! The Heartland spill has been tagged as "DenierGate"!

[waldo]

yo baby... this one's really got the buzz going... going real good!... the Heartland Institute's coordinated effort to undermine the teaching of climate science in U.S. classrooms

Heartland is actively developing a "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms":

Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.

Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism

[lukin]

yo baby... this one's really got the buzz going... going real good!... the Heartland Institute's coordinated effort to undermine the teaching of climate science in U.S. classrooms

Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism

What's wrong with students being able to hear both sides of the debate, waldo. Your side shouldn't have the monopoly on spreading propaganda.

And do you honestly think anyone takes anything from the propaganda-driven Guardian? Your links, again, are useless.

Edited February 16, 2012 by lukin

[waldo]

What's wrong with students being able to hear both sides of the debate, waldo. Your side shouldn't have the monopoly on spreading propaganda.

And do you honestly think anyone takes anything from the propaganda-driven Guardian? Your links, again, are useless.

keep flapping... the same reference existed in the very preceding New York Times article; whether the Guardian or the New York Times... just keep flapping, hey?

this reference absolutely has nothing to do with K-12 classroom teaching U.S. students, "both sides"... this Heartland Institute stated intent wasn't to present alternative science... most certainly not, it was a strategy intent, as stated, to cast doubt on established climate science - deja vu as relates to the history of the teaching of evolution in public schools.

the Heartland money shot: "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."

dissuading teachers from teaching science! Wow - just... wow!

[waldo]

where are the fake skeptics expressing their concerns that the Heartland documents show efforts to politicize climate science... to politicize the K-12 classroom teaching of climate science to kids - think of the kids!

[waldo]

as a bit of an aside, more a reflection on Heartland, at large, another of their strategy intents:

"Operation Angry Badger"

Wisconsin was the focus of national attention due to recall campaigns waged in 2011, and campaigns are taking place in 2012 against Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and three Republican senators who voted for Act 10, the landmark collective bargaining reform legislation adopted in 2011. We have been following the Wisconsin debate closely, reporting on it in Budget & Tax News, commenting in op-eds and LTEs and on blogs, doing television and radio interviews, and sending research and commentary to elected officials in Wisconsin and nationally.

The recall elections of 2012 amount to a referenda on collective bargaining reform at the state level, making them of national interest. Successful recalls would be a major setback to the national effort to rein in public sector compensation and union power. Heartland is the largest and most influential national free-market think tank in the Midwest, so we are in the right place and with the right resources to help defend and secure Wisconsin’s recent gains.

We are contemplating five projects:

1. Recruit and promote superintendents who support Act 10

2. Explain the benefits of Act 10

3. Document the shortcomings of public schools in Wisconsin

4. Expose teacher pay in key districts

5. Create blogs that shadow small town newspaper coverage of the controversy