Image: Flickr/lorenabuena
An internationally recognized water and climate change expert admitted yesterday that he lied about his identity to obtain internal funding and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute.
Writing in The Huffington Post, Pacific Institute President Peter H. Gleick apologized and called his actions "a serious lapse of my own professional ethics and judgment." But he also said his decision to fraudulently acquire and then leak a set of explosive documents from the conservative, climate skeptic think tank was prompted by sustained attacks from climate deniers.
"My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved," he wrote.
The leak of the Heartland memos -- including a disputed one purporting to outline a strategy to pay a Department of Energy contractor to prepare school curriculum teaching children that the science behind man-made global warming is unsettled -- rocked the climate world last week when they were released to bloggers.
Heartland officials early on acknowledged that it accidentally released several of the memos to someone claiming to be a member of its board of directors. It maintains the "climate strategy" memo is a fraud, calling it "totally fake and intended to defame and discredit the Heartland Institute."
Gleick yesterday denied authorship of that memo. He said he received it in the mail in 2012. "I do not know the source of that original document, but I assume it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it," said the scientist who has sparred often with Heartland and others who do not believe in the scientific underpinnings of man-made global warming.
He maintained the quest to verify it led him to trick the Heartland Institute into giving out more information.
Denies altering document
"I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget," he added.
"I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication," he said.
Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast released a statement late last night saying Gleick's "mere apology is not enough to undo the damage," and indicated likely legal action. He cast doubt on Gleick's claim that he distributed but did not write the disputed strategy memo.
"We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days," he said in the statement. "We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps."
Meanwhile, opinion in the blogosphere last night was sharply divided, even among environmentalists. Scott Mandia, founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund spent the morning tweeting that Gleick "has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights."
Others called Gleick a hero for his deception, noting that no one has yet come forward to acknowledge a role in the 2009 theft of climate scientist emails in an incident now widely referred to as 'Climategate.' The blog that published the Heartland Institute memos obtained by Gleick said he "deserves our gratitude" for stealing them.
See what we're tweeting about
52 Comments
Add CommentWhether you are warmist or denier, shame on both sides. When the dust settles (as it will) over this debate once and for all (and it will probably be an outcome the warmists will love)the legacy will be the rancor and political detritus that will fuel non-compliance with whatever measures come in to being. Add to that resistance from China and the developing world towards anything that seems to restrict them from fossil fuel use and any coherent climate policy will be just a straw-man for people to point at and gabble about while our planet has no choice but to react . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse the pessimism, but I find myself feeling very old and tired all of a sudden.
And I suppose documents obtained in Watergate/Iran-Contra which were not meant to see the light of day means there should never have been investigations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut a fake think tank defrauding federal and state governments by disseminating false information to schools/the media deserves more protection?
Shouldn't this be seen more as a sting operation than a fraud? If you want to address Gleick it seems that the appropriate argument is that he has no legal authority to conduct a sting operation. In the case of Heartland it is criminal to take money for something known to be false i.e 'to defraud'. Unless everyone is agreeing crime is what you make it. This is also not what Gleick did.
False argument that deniers have gained ground because of a supposed ethics violation by Gleick. Ethics does not equate to climate measurements. Also false argument comparing to 'climate-gate' [sic] when the internals of the memos were about how and how much *not* if it was true.
The entire Human produced CO2 causes global warming dogma is based entirely on scientists with personal bias and convictions setting out to prove their pet theories instead of actually determining what is happening and the actual cause. So is it any surprise this guy resorted to this action? It is entirely in line with the mandate of the warmist religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the difference between this and climategate? Simple, the lack of any actual fraud. A private think tank can certainly spend money and time on a campaign to have textbooks updated to describe the "science" behind global warming is in question. Because this is a fact. The entire warmist theory is based on statistical analysis using data from a fantasy earth built inside a computer model, so to state the results are still debatable is in fact true.
Climate-gate on the other hand were scientists exaggerating favored results and minimizing or even hiding any results that proved their theory wrong and the active campaign to basically promote their theory on favored facts. No where is there evidence the think tank performed experiments and effectively falsified or spun the results to favor no warming.
As to the theft, it is theft. Climate-gate as well though there is an argument that tax payer funded projects and companies cant actually hide any information, in the end, in both cases, we have theft occurring but I am not going to complain. If you are a scientist or an institution researching something like global warming, you should not have a problem with providing access to all of your information pertaining to such an activity. The fact that both the think tank and the climate-gate scientists felt they needed to bury information and hide it, indicates whatever they are publishing may not be accurate.
Peter H. Gleick did good and should not be ashamed for exposing denier-gate. These morally bankrupt, politically mislead people, are claiming scientists from all over the world have been doing the very thing they are actually doing: committing fraud. Scientists are just too nice sometimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you lie to a group that lies all the time is it really a lie or are you just trying to fit in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlieck drank the AGW flavored Kool-Aid. Professional suicide was the result. And don't give me an garbage about his "suicide" being noble; he lied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will be interesting to see how Desmogblog responds to legal demands that they remove false information from their website.
Maybe SCIAM will get a letter in the mail too.
I find it hilarious that AGW websites are petrified when they lose "control of the message". One thing they have yet to figure out is that Skeptics could care less about the message.
We just want to see facts, not opinions, not conjecture, not projections, not computer models, not pretty polar bears, not frogs, not calving glaciers. Just facts.
Present facts and skeptics will fall in line. Don't present facts and skeptics will hound you until the facts come out.
Gleick lied and was freely given the data under a false name, definately an act of compromised ethics. But he did at least admit to his deception and shows regret for his actions. The people that instituted climagate by illegally hacking into and stealing e-mails, a serious felony, was never admitted to and there are numerous people involved that have knowledge of the felony and have failed to report it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really hope the Heartland folks are dumb enough to file suit over this. The discovery phase of hte trial will make their internal documenation public record and bring their actions into the light.
If Gliek is lieing in the written word and verbally with the intent to harm the reputation of Heartland then he would loose in court. The affirmative legal defense for slander and libel is if the claims you are making are factual and the truth.
If I was Gliek I would pubicly challenge Heartland to "bring it on" and see where chips fall. In my opinion that would restore his honor.
We also have to look at how Heartland is conducting "business" compared to peer reviewed science. A great analogy would be VIetnam with Heartland being the guerilla insurgents that fight a convential army that operates with rules and laws while heartland is stiking in hit an runs under the cover of darkness and hiding out in camodia at night going nanny nanny boo boo. The DEniers are not operating by rules or ethics yet expect the same scientists they attack day and night to follow rules and operate in the open. I can certainly understasnd how Gleik's frustration of facing chronic professional and well paid liars day in and day out could cause such a lapse in judgement. I do not claim it is right, but he at least admits it and shows a serious amount of regret. Where are the illegal hackers that stole e-mails? Where is their "reget" or "apologies" for lack in judgement. A lot of climate change supporters are jsutifying the action and are being understanding, as am I, but are expressing their dissappointment in Gleik's actions. The Climate Denier side hailed the deception of the hackers, commiters of a major FELONY, as heroes an dapplaud their action. What I see is hypocrisy beyond belief from that side.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth.
It is facts like this that AGW supporters wish to repress.
Give us the facts. What exactly do you object to with reference to Heartland? Is it simply that they wish to allow students to look at the discrepancy between the AGW models & real life evidence? What exactly is your objection? Is it something more basic like free speach perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is absurd. If AGW was conspiring to create and distribute textbooks fraudulently claiming climatologists are deeply divided on the issue of climate change (they are not), they were trying to defraud the public, pure and simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that researchers had to resort to fraud to obtain evidence that this group was in fact conspiring to defraud the public with baseless claims that their is no scientific consensus on this issue is the real tragedy.
The actual blog with the memos can be found at http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey show a well coordinated machine aimed at knowingly lying to the public, attempting to create a curriculum for kindergartens to spread those lies and attempts to block climate change scientists from being able to respond to those lies in magazines like Forbes.
Funny how they put up hackers who stole emails as 'heroes' and then scream when someone simply uses a fake name to get documents from them. It's obvious the memos are real. It also makes obvious what most us knew already: that those denying climate change are intentionally lying with a well funded and well connected campaign. They aren't just espousing a point of view or being 'skeptics.' They are flat out lying and these documents show that.
Considering the danger that climate change, supported by almost every climate scientist and study conducted in the world, presents to our world, Heartland and the so-called 'deniers' are breathtakingly sickening and disgusting.
A legal demand to remove the information from the bloggers website would be great. A demand like that would lead to a lawsuit, a lawsuit would lead to subpoenas and discovery, which would certainly lead to a lot more damaging material being made public. Please oh please Heartland, sue!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch this video. Sciam & some of the posters above have a severe alergy to the truth. Now why would that be?
Seriously?!?! I guess it is lying to attempt to point out that the data may not support the models and their conclusions if you are on one side of the argument and excusable behavior to repress dissenting opinions if it is for our own good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could care less what 'almost every climate scientist' in the world thinks because if they cannot: (1) provide their data and methods for critique and (2) answer the legitimate challenges to their work then they are the ones not being honest. If other non climate scientists have legitimate points it is not a viable argument to claim that because they have degrees in geology or chemistry or physics or any other science that their opinion is meaningless and can be dismissed because they are not the so called experts.
Here is a little nugget of knowledge: all of the sciences rely on the same principals with different applications and therefore if there is someone doing work that flies in the face of logic then other scientists are ethically obligated to point the issues. It is then the ethical obligation of the scientists doing the work to address those criticisms and prove that the work that they have done is in fact correct. This does not just mean that they have to prove it to their peers but to the scientific community at large.
The real issues is that the 'climate scientists' sit in university or government positions where they are not held financially accountable for their work. The problem with this is that if you do not have to prove that your work is valid out there in what I like to call the real world (which is where those of us that have science degrees and are working in the private sector live). Our paycheck is dependent upon our ability to produce results that are correct, verifiable and have appropriate uncertainty applied to them. If we fail we don't eat whereas the climate scientists seem to be living off of the sweat of the populace with no real consequence if their work is proven to be flawed.
Whether or not mankind is doing something reckless is not the point to my post. The point is that the 'science' that is used to 'prove' AGW is far from complete or settled or even correct. If the climate scientists were brave enough to admit that their work is just one possible outcome and that their work is by no means definitive then maybe us 'deniers' would have a bit more respect for their work.
Climate science only processes the observed data to draw results. It is claimed that temperature is rising due to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is also claimed that sea levels are rising due to this global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe recommendations are highily biased in favor of 'haves'. 'Have nots' are expected restrict any increase in energy use for a stand still effect.
Increased CO2 levels are called 'Green house effect'. The global green house could be used to increase production of biomass for food and fuel.
Daily variations of sea level are a meter or more. A few cm in a century can be tolerated by most people.
One of the single most troubling fallacies is that mankind can stop climate change. This is just about the most ludicrous statement that I have ever heard. Even if we are causing significant climate change and we were to stop right now the climate would still go on changing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely agree. The strongest supporters of the AGW hypothesis are also the strongest supporters of actions that will not only impoverish the global economy but by ruling out the use of nuclear energy will perpetuate the growth in consumption of carbon based fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrevent debate? It's the warmers who say it's settled science...he lied about his ID and lies about global warming...dude is totally discredited!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing is telling, that Gleick is being praised by anyone on his side of the issue tells you about the "facts of his side of the issue. Besides that, let's see if I understand Gleick. He is upset that others disagree with his conclusions about "climate change, (aka 'man-made global warming')" and believes that the issue is "settled" even though it obviously isn't. One of the complaints against the global warming crowd is that it is political and Gleick, being upset that he hasn't convinced everybody to vote for him, pulls a Watergate, which reasonable people would conclude is not very scientific, but is very political.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Gleick admits that he is a liar and possibly has committed some form of identity theft, which may be a crime, one of "moral turpitude" at that. Seems to me that he would have better spent his time doing real scientific research that supports his position.
Conclusion? He has totally destroyed his credibility and all government funding to him should be halted pronto. Of course, this won't detract left because their motto is "never let the facts get in the way of a good yarn (and the power that can result therefrom)."
It is not just the theft. He also falsified a document to lend weight to his cause when the documents he obtained, failed to give him the incriminating information he longed for. It did not exist so he manufactured some yet there are those who defend him. Including SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos to Gleick! Go for it!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGleick is a hero in my book. The campaign of misinformation is losing so the next step is to try and indoctrinate our children. Human caused climate change theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence, in multiple fields which has been objectively scrutinized, probably more than any other theory in recent history, so as to actually make it stronger and more compelling. The irony is that the campaign of misinformation has in some way actually help the precision of the theory of human caused climate change research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBehind Climate Contrarianism and other curious maladies unique to the US – first and foremost, Creationism - lies an essential flaw in US culture vis-à -vis other developed Western nations. In the effort to foster an alternative to (rather grayish) European culture, could US culture have swerved too far from the Illuminist ideals (reason, science, democracy) that are still the only true North western civilization has (old and in need of refreshing as it is).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn no other Western nation (nor in imperial Rome, which some like to compare with) would schools be allowed to teach non-fact in the name of freedom of religion or whatever. Religion is the realm of values and of how we want things to be; science, of fact and what is. Both facts and values are equally indispensable, but it is profoundly erroneous to allow any one of them to replace the other.
The very internal radicalization of US politics are a consequence of this. Enough already. Facts are facts, period; valid debate may be over interpretation of fact, not dispute of clearly established fact. Creationism has no place on school. Climate contrarianism as mere denial of established fact has no place in politics.
Instead of Creationism, schools could teach a simple Christian Values course, emphasizing doing one’s best before our innermost consciousness and active love and support for fellow man. Instead of funding utter atrocities such as Heartland, big business could be investing in green power sources, which is where the money will be in a few decades.
Americans who believe in global warming: 83% (up from 75% in 2010).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepublicans who believe in global warming: 72%
Democrats who believe in global warming: 92%
Americans who believe humans are causing global warming: 71%
Americans who believe global warming is naturally caused: 27%
Information obtained by recent Reuters/Stanford/Ipsos poll - Ipsos is a leading global survey-based market research company.
"Absolutely agree. The strongest supporters of the AGW hypothesis are also the strongest supporters of actions that will not only impoverish the global economy but by ruling out the use of nuclear energy will perpetuate the growth in consumption of carbon based fuels"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronically, you can say much the same for the strongest opponents.
I guess that shows that damaging society has more to do with an extreme point of view than holding a particular belief.
Now, I'm curious, do you really think that this particular action be Gleick is fundamentally much different than the climategate hack resulting in stolen emails?
I'm not saying either is good or bad; I can see arguments from both sides (and frankly, I'm more concerned with what people DO with that information than where they get it), but either way, it seems these two things should sink or swim together.
I have a new hero! We need more warriors like Mr. Gleick to defend us, our descendants and our planet against the relentless assaults from the industrialists and right-wing talk radio hosts!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, public opinion isn't quite overwhelming enough to do anything, especially given competing fears over our economic situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if it was, there still needs to be consensus on actions to take.
What I think is going to happen is that eventually there will simply be compromise solutions. We'll take actions that alleviate the possible threat from climate, while helping other problems at the same time, with solutions we can all agree should be done for various reasons, things like cutting down black carbon emissions which cause gross human health problems in the developing world, and account for something like a third of global warming (just through sheer albedo change), and adoption of nuclear fission, and later perhaps thorium and fusion -Polywell?- power. Other actions could be attempts at adapting, as Roger Pielke Jr has suggested, which, in combination with blunting some of the warming, might achieve at least good enough results for the remaining problems to be manageable.
Then, once we've already implemented the solutions, and the political pressure to oppose AGW goes away, climate change deniers will simply fade away, much the same way it happened with opponents of the basic chemistry behind ozone depletion.
These people already don't have any real scientific arguments against the basic tenets of the science. They can't explain the interglacial periods, or the past 40 years of climate change. Every potential explanation, the sun, cosmic rays (in other words: THE SUN), the PDO, garden gnomes, they've all fallen apart, just like arguments against the basic strength of the CO2 forcing (within the admittedly large margin of error of estimation), but they'll trot out every red herring and distortion possible for some time to come.
And maybe that's for the best. I mean, if we all run around agreeing with absolute certainty that humans were warming the Earth, and all worrying about worst case scenarios, we'd probably take the most alarmist approaches to solving the problem. Skeptics do serve a purpose there. If there's skepticism over the science, or particular solutions (Carlyle isn't wrong about the potential for economic damage), then we'll be more likely to develop better solutions, that are more easily agreed upon. In addition, and dishonesty from AGW proponents is more readily spotted out, so it keeps the science healthier.
Once they've done their job, self-proclaimed skeptics will just fade, and no one will care that they once existed.
There's no consensus?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why does every random sample of scientists who actually study this issue, or papers they publish, show the exact opposite?
How do you explain the Doran 2009, or Oreskes 2004 results?
What you're effectively offering is anecdotal evidence, or a case of the Law of Large Numbers, depending on how you want to look at it. "I can find X scientist/engineer who disagrees" isn't much of an argument.
I could list biologists who disagree with evolution, a fairly decent list of them, in fact. Does that mean there's no consensus by biologists on evolution? Of course not. It just means that if you're talking about a group of thousands, then statistically, it's almost guaranteed that you'll find at least dozens who disagree with any position, no matter how well-backed or generally agreed upon.
It maintains the "climate strategy" memo is a fraud, calling it "totally fake and intended to defame and discredit the Heartland Institute."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------
Jeez...and here I thought the Heartland Institute had discredited themselves back in the 1990's, when they worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris in order to show that there were no negative effects from tobacco.
They lost even more credibility when it was discovered that Exxon/Mobil had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars for a misinformation campaign, and now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are.
Besides, anyone who's actually bothered to read the NIPCC report would see what Heartland thinks is "science"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe document is literally 600 pages of "This is skeptical argument number 437, and it's correct, and THIS is #384, and it's correct", and it basically just runs down the line through bad argument after bad argument giving a brief blanket endorsement for all of them, uncritically, without ever discussing any other literature.
So if you read the NIPCC report, you'll see where they make statements about Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis, acting like it's a credible explanation for recent observed warming, but won't take even two seconds to discuss the cosmic rays haven't trended downward in recent decades, or trended anywhere. They won't discuss that even Svensmark himself is only able to get a statistical match between temperature and CRs if he removes the overall trend from the temperature, which is basically an admission by Svensmark that CRs don't cause that trend.
600 pages, and the NIPCC report didn't include the nuance that I just gave in that the above two-sentence paragraph, because it's basically just a bulleted list, with blanket endorsement, of every argument ever made again AGW, without any discussion, whatsoever, as to why it might be right or wrong. When you do get that discussion, it's usually to commit strawmans or red herrings, like when then discuss Friis-Christensen 1991, and act like climate scientists are being dismissive because the solar/temp relationship "only" breaks down after 1980, which is both of the aforementioned fallacies, because scientists acknowledge the historical role of the sun, and because it's irrelevant, since it means there's no explanation for 1980-present temperature trends.
How about how their climate summits work?
When Heartland holds a climate summit, they don't do it like a real science summit. Instead, they send out letters offering to pay anyone money to stand up on a stage and declare AGW a hoax. Guess what kind of people showed up and what kind of opinions they had...
History of science denialism for Heartland aside, their present activities in regards to science are just dishonest, plain and simple.
Interestingly, all the damning evidence against Heartland comes from the single obviously faked memo. The other documents seem to show an organization doing routine and pretty uncontroversial business. So those calling Gleick a hero do it based on one falsified memo. It says something pretty compelling and uncomplimentary about those who hold Gleick up as a hero for a lie that they willingly believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could argue that since the e-mails released in Climategate are from publicly funded institutions subject to Freedom of Information Requests, the "crime" doesn't rise to the same level as the fraud committed by Gleick on a private organization.
Remember, the Climategate e-mails show the use of public funds by a group of scientists to censor publication of scientific studies that contradict their narrative, as well as their active efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Requests with which they are legally required to comply.
The Heartland documents--the ones that aren't fake--show an organization committed to funding and promoting science that the scientists involved in Climategate and their collaborators have actively attempted to quash.
Keep this in mind if you're going to ruminate on Gleick's heroism versus his villainy.
Copy your posts to files before you post them if you are going to express opinions like this. Sciam has deleted two of mine in the last week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah.. SCIAM is censoring things they disagree with big time lately. Several of my posts and entire stories have disappeared. Disgusting really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisANTI-SCIENTIFIC ANTI-AMERICAN .... unless you agree with the ECO-Corporate views of Greedpeace, World Wealth Fund or the $ierra Club. If so, then you get your say.
The editors must think they are DESMOGBLOG or REALCLIMATE the way they soup-nazi the message.
OK, so you're obviously a denier. Let me ask you this: if the whole dogma is based on scientists with a grudge, how do you explain ice cores that are over 400,000 years old CLEARLY showing the correlation between CO2 concentrations and weather ... and that the current levels (380 ppm) is over 100 ppm higher than the highest levels EVER RECORDED? How do you explain the loss of the Ross Ice Shelf? How do you explain the loss of glaciers that were over 12,000 years old? You don't correlate CO2 concentrations with deforestation. You are oblivious to the facts as well as the science. Go back to listening to Rush; that appears to be your sole source of information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour information on The Ross Ice Shelf is false. Your claim about the highest levels of Co2 is false. Historic correlation between temperature & Co2 shows temperature increase came first, then Co2 increases so that claim is false. Your belief system is running on empty. Another fact free zone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe your post #26.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask: “Now, I'm curious, do you really think that this particular action be Gleick is fundamentally much different than the climategate hack resulting in stolen emails?”
The fundamental difference is the fake memo. Without the fake email what does he expose? It is a blatant attempt to intimidate people with an opposing view.
By contrast, of the thousands of emails released, have any been shown to be fabricated?
If the science is so strong that supports AGW, why all the lies?
"Interestingly, all the damning evidence against Heartland comes from the single obviously faked memo."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------
Hardly....all one needs to do is FOLLOW THE MONEY when it comes to the huge disinformation campaign for decades, first by BIG TOBACCO and then by BIG OIL.
The Heartland Institute has been caught right in the middle of this nasty disinformation campaign for years, long before Gleick pulled the curtain back exposing the wizard. The only "science" they do is political science.
Follow the money you say? Yes let us. I posted this first at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group&posted=1#comments Post #24
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUPDATE: Heartland Documents Stolen and key one is Fake. No insider leak.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Also same site: The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement. It painful to watch grown men drool.
Poor things, they were really wounded by Climategate, and theyve been waiting, praying that some day someone would level the playing field and show that skeptics were just as petty, shameless, and money-grubbing as their team turned out to be (not to mention hypocritical, deceptive and incompetent). In their dreams.
Instead the hyped non-denier-gate shows just how incredibly successful the Heartland Institute is. Look at the numbers. The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.
&
Entity USD
Greenpeace $300m 2010 Annual Report
WWF $700m ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust $360m 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club $56m 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) $750m NSW Gov (A$700m)
Heartland Institute $6.4m
US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m Climate Money 2009
US government funding for climate related appropriations $1,300m USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m 2010 BNEF
US government
My Kudos to Mr. Gliek, fight fire with fire I say. Heartland are have been less than honest in all of their endeavors from the start and still are. Good going Mr. Gliek!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly was heartland trying to defraud? Unlike you warmists, who claim your fantasy computer models and statistical math is proven reality, all heartland was doing was promoting the fact that the warmist theory still questioned by some. You are an ignorant fool if you actually believe your statement that all climatologists believe the warmist religion, there are some who don't believe this theory is proven and by the way a "consensus" of scientists believing something is completely irrelevant. A theory becomes fact when it is proven, not believed in. There was at one time a consensus that the world was flat and those scientists "believed" this "fact" even to go as far as executing non-believers. So today, when you warmists can actually show proof that CO2 produced by humans is the sole and only cause of global warming and this warming will destroy the planet, then we can talk about your theory. As long as your proof is cherry picked data, total assumptions on "facts" like you know how much CO2 "should" be in the air or what the "average global temperature" should be and only statistical analysis of fantasy planets built in computer models is the only place your theory works, then you have nothing but a religion you believe in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich was the lie exactly? That the warmist theory is not actually proven and might be wrong? Considering your "predictions" on warmth for the last decade was not even remotely close to reality and you have no actual proof outside your statistical math and computer created fantasy atmosphere, I hardly think it is a lie to question the legitimacy of your theory. The real lie is for you warmists to tell 8 year olds the planet is warming and it is all because of CO2 and to claim the planet will be destroyed as a result, even though there is Zero evidence for that. The planet has been far hotter and had far more CO2 than any prediction of your model and life thrived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on evosburgh. I will add to your well written comment that the Government and parasite think tanks, universities and institutions only consider a person a real scientist when a scientist has had government grants. If you have not had a government grant, then you are not a scientist. This was a mandate put out by the Obama administration a couple of years ago. So not only are you right, the government has created a regulation that forces this nonsense you describe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me know when you warmists have moved from belief in a theory to that theory becoming proven correct by real world experiments and measurements. Your warmists statistical math and computer created fantasy atmospheres are not proof of anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet religion maintain its claim on belief and get belief out of science.
You might want to check your facts. The PETM of 56 million years ago had CO2 levels at 1500 PPM, which far higher than today and any prediction you warmists make, in addition that same PETM had a global temp also far higher producing average polar temperatures near 80 degrees every day for thousands of years and when you look at that data, it appears the temperature rises before the CO2 but unlike warmists I wont state that as fact because the data like ice cores is not that accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd thank you for making my point. The atmosphere has had CO2 really high in the past when it was completely impossible for it to be human caused and considering the number of times this has happened in the past, logic says this is most likely natural.
But unlike you warmists who believe only your dogma, I can accept warming exists and it might even be human caused, CO2 though is not the sole and only cause because if it was, the planet never would have survived the PETM. A theory that should be tested is the mere presence of 7 billion humans and their billions more of domesticated animals all with body temps of 98 degrees or so, the billions of homes, buildings and etc... all heated, the billions of cook fires or stoves, millions of car engines that produce heat, steel mills, heat produced by coal plants, heat produced by damn near everything humans do I would think is more likely the source of the extra heat in the atmosphere. When you find a source of the heat(since you warmists state it is absolutely impossible for the sun to be hotter and cause this) then the human produced heat could in fact be the problem and maybe then you get more water vapor, methane, soot which are all green house gasses on steroids compared to CO2 but yes even more CO2. This theory is also in line with the observations of reality, which is the "warming" does not appear to have taken real effect until the late 80s, when it most of the midwest and etc... started seeing green Christmases and all the other issues you claim. The 80s, when the world population was 5 billion or so.
Which leads to my last point, the planet is warming either naturally or due to the fact there are 7 billion people and growing, which means we better learn to mitigate the effects not waste time and resources on your fantasy CO2 only caused problem. Because if I am wrong, the mitigation affects any cause of warming, if you are wrong, we still have warming and will have wasted all this time on solutions for the wrong problem and then humans really will suffer your Armageddon.
Yeah buddy follow the money. The entire leadership if your warmist religion such as your posterboy Al Gore all have investments in or own the companies that stand to reap massive amounts of money from the warmist theory. The politicians who push ridiculous laws like carbon taxes or carbon permits all stand to reap massive amounts of money from this nonsense and both groups of parasites will gain incredible amounts of political power over people. SO yeah follow the money and I agree when money and power is involved like this, then whoever is involved should be ignored as con artists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The politicians who push ridiculous laws like carbon taxes or carbon permits all stand to reap massive amounts of money from this nonsense"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------
Sorry, but I wasn't aware of any current "carbon tax" making anyone one red cent in the USA today!
Maybe you can post a link to this new law in effect, or just understand your hot air is just FEARmongering!
Have a look at what is happening in Australia. The U.S is not the whole world you know. Have a look at what is going on in Europe while you are at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI 100% understand Mr. Gleik's curiosity and he's not trying to cover up anything. I also WANT to know what the Creationists and ClimateDeniers do with their money. In Europe it isn't even a question, only in the USA and other energy guzzling countries do they try to rationalize that the billions of tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere isn't keeping heat in. It's much easier than becoming energy efficient and innovating alternative energy sources! But the oil WILL run out eventually...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you have not heard of the laws in Europe already affecting airlines, the California laws and the entire carbon tax or carbon permit process. It is the government demanding money for the right to pollute CO2. Considering how humans act in such a situation, all that will happen is the people and companies who can afford it will pay the racketeers in the government their carbon protection money and those who cant afford it will either go out of business or have to live a lifestyle where they get carbon credits based on government subsidy paid for by taxpayers. NO where in any of this carbon taxing scheme is an actual reduction in carbon output, only money and power going to politicians. This scheme is one of the primary reasons your entire warming hysteria is a dogma like a religion. You people are no better than medieval priests telling everyone god is going to send you to hell unless you pay up some money, land and service to the local cathedral and bishop who has the only cure for getting to heaven. Your carbon crap is the same. You have declared Armageddon using your computer model created bible to make predictions and you have declared you are the only source of the cure, so here is a carbon tax system to make sure you pay the warmist bishops to save everyone from an apocalypse. A great plan, invent a problem, caused by something that cant be measured but is part of the biosphere, declare you are the only source, knowing it is not true and you have no actual ways to prevent it from happening but make sure you get paid money and power for it. You do realize there is a reason Al Gore promotes global warming while at the same time being a major stock holder in the companies that would benefit? And imagine the EPA increase in their tyranny over personal property once a carbon based pollution permit is available to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs soon as you warmists get out of your computer model fantasy atmosphere and you stop tying money to your so called solutions, them maybe you will have a story to talk about. As long as the only mitigation steps you have are tied directly to money being taken or forcing lifestyle changes on everyone and have no actual viable technical solution to your so called problem, you are just passing snake oil to solve non-existent problems and using the government to force everyone to buy your scam.
Nelly Bly had to lie about her identity to obtain the shocking "Ten Days in a Mad-House," story. Deception is commonly accepted practice if there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow would you have obtained her story? Attend medical school, obtain a degree in 1887, and become the first woman to apply for a position at the Women's Lunatic Asylum at Blackwell's Island?
Bly exposed the staff's criminal abuses of mental patients, beatings, rotten food, rats, and conditions now defined as torture. Her story resulted in a Grand Jury investigation and significant reforms as well as embarrassment for the doctors who had declared her "hopelessly insane."
If the Heartland Institute had been forthcoming about their role in the criminal theft of the "Climategate" emails, and their pro-oil agenda, there would have been no need for subterfuge. But since Heartland continues to lie and obfuscate, stronger means were necessary.
Gleick was not acting as a scientist in his deception. He was acting in the highest traditions of investigative journalism and should be nominated for a citizen's journalism award for his exposure of the oil industry's hidden agenda in denial of science.
Do you think for a nanosecond that supporting & excusing the lies, including the false document he tried to pass off as being from Heartland, will help to convince anyone that the other pronouncements by AGW supporters are honest? How do we tell the lies from the facts if those who tell us they have the facts are admitted liars or support admitted liars. It does not compute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, Nellie Bligh did not falsify evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this