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

Read time: 3 mins

S. Fred Singer Lied to the IRS about identity of his chair

The new report by computer scientist, researcher and DeSmogBlog contributor John Mashey (next post), completely corroborates the authenticity of leaked Heartland Institute budget, planning and fundraising documents released on the DeSmogBlog earlier today.

Mashey's report also produces evidence that Dr. S. Fred Singer, who Heartland keeps on a $5,000-a-month retainer to spread disinformation about climate change, claimed Dr. Frederick Seitz as the chair of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) for two full years AFTER Seitz died.

As always when Mashey is involved, this new report is painstakingly detailed and carefully referenced throughout. It both corroborates and is corroborated by the leaked Heartland documents, which reinforce Mashey's conclusion that Heartland is a for-profit public relations and lobbying firm that is operating with non-profit status by misrepresenting the nature of its activities in its own tax filings.

Specifically, Mashey's report, Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, documents the following conclusions:

1. Fred Singer committed perjury in his tax filings to the IRS by claiming that Fred Seitz continued to chair Singer's own tax-protected SEPP for two years after Seitz death in 2008.

2. Singer made other representations in his 990 tax filings that either skirted the rules or, at the very least, let him shelter his own investments from taxation.

3. Singer is a lobbyist, not a scientist (at least, he has not produced any significant work of science in several decades) and is therefore in violation of limits to undeclared lobbying activity.

4. The Heartland Institute has a long-established reputation as an organization dedicated to providing legitimacy to industries that want to confuse the public about science. For example, Heartland's President Joe Bast has been a leading defender of such things as the “Joe Camel” campaign to encourage children to take up smoking - even while the tobacco industry was funding Heartland's operations. This was corroborated by the Heartland budget documents which show that both Phillip Morris and Reynolds American continue as Heartland donors.

7. Heartland's publication, Environment and Climate News, is rife with “science” stories that are demonstrably untruthful or misleading.

8. Heartland has spent lavishly on conferences whose only apparent function was to sow confusion about climate science. It also has paid government employees and politicians to attend these events.

9. Heartland has sponsored Fred Singer and Craig Idso to produce the so-called Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change s a regular and organized attack on the legitimate reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This too was corroborated in the Heartland budget documents, which show that both Idso and Singer on on retainer at Heartland.

10. While insisting in its tax filings that it is a think tank, Heartland constantly advertises among potential donors its ability to reach and influence US legislators in apparent violation of lobbying rules.

Mashey's report, on its own, made a devastating case that Heartland and several other purported “think tanks” are taking an unfair subsidy from the American taxpayer, while lobbying for some of the world's most profitable industries. Mashey also demonstrates that Heartland, Singer's SEPP, Craig Idso's Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and its subsidiary front group, Robert Ferguson's Science and Public Policy Institute, are not primarily research institutions, but rather advocacy organizations. As “think tanks” they sponsor very little “thinking” (in the form of scientific or even social research) and instead serve as weapons in a communications war against policy on issues such as climate change.

All of this is, again, corroborated by the Heartland documents leaked earlier today. This, for example, is Heartland's description of its Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms Project, which it is paying Dr. David Wojick to Develop:

“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.”

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


Could you guys write just one more article about this exposé?

Somehow 4 articles in a row just doesn’t seem like enough.


Mr Fraud Singer lives up to his name… no surprises here.  At least there’s evidence.

At least we don’t have to be truthy about it.

Hank_, nice you liked them… some days just are like this :-)

BTW it should be clear that John Mashey’s contribution and the Heartland insider leak are two different stories that just happened to land on top of each other. And very much related…

I’m me, the other “Hank_” isn’t, just to be clear.

Check Wojick’s Blogger profile, while it lasts.

56 views as of this moment.

“…. We offer services related to grade level stratification of content, based on our detailed analysis of state standards of learning.These services include consulting, research, analysis, design and training. I also work part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. I writes frequently for the OSTIblog about the future of scientific communication, including science education….”

Yeah, his bio really does say  “… I writes frequently …”

I wonder if he’s got someone watching here.

“My educational background is as follows: Ph.D., Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 1972. MA, Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, 1969. BS, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 1964. Please see the links provided for more detailed information about me personally and what the team is doing.”

I went to OSTI website and searched for papers authored by Wojick. There has been only one in the last six years. Not much for “the Senior Consultant for Innovation”.

His one paper in those last six years was a short solo effort that is filled with jargon and basically explains how only he understands “information” and everyone else is clueless. Really hard to believe he couldn’t get any co-authors on such a stunning intellectual “breakthrough”.

Best of all, at the end he hints that it might have been his insights that Tim Berners-Lee borrowed to create the world wide web.

What stands out to me from reading the Heartland and Singer exposes is how few people are involved and how mediocre the quality of thought and effort is…and yet how easily these tiny efforts derail actual science and public policy that would benefit nearly everyone. Shows how much people want to be deceived.

‘Best of all, at the end he hints that it might have been his insights that Tim Berners-Lee borrowed to create the world wide web.

Yes, of course a certain Christopher Monkton almost got a Nobel prize for services to BS.

which Wojick paper did you find?

I came across one blog post:

that ought to be run through a plagiarism detector; it’s cliche piled on cliche; whatever’s left after removing those could be original.

Hm. Wojick has a recognizable style, anyhow:

“… when a scientific community embraces new idea.  See …”;

And this is his plan for grade school education.  It’s aiming, well, quite low.  ‘Readability’:


> Wojick will receive $5,000 per module, with twenty modules produced
> a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv ….

and yet

“ClimateChangeDebate.Org needs your DONATIONS. We are not funded by anyone and you can help keep the debate alive by donating ….”
— David Wojick (wojicklist at
Owner of the list

Where also is the Conservative outrage over tax payer funded, public purse teat sucking, oil subsidies? They get so easily offended over a couple of million here & there for renewables , while blindly accepting billions for oil.

Despite multi billion $$ profits, the public are still conned into believing the fossil fuel industry need subsidies and other new cleaner sources of energy do not. Now that is a well trained public. It is good that this is turning around somewhat & that the public see how senseless funding private companies that already have billions in profit.

The sad thing is……..why do so many still support subsies for these companies? It would be interesting to see who the 2-4% that “strongly support “  oil subsidies are.


These revelations about the Heartland Institute can’t be true, because they don’t even get a mention at Fox “we report, you decide” News or the (keep bringing up climategate) GWPF.

Keep up the good work!