Global Warming Dirty Tricks

February 22nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

wattsup with that blogs:

Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists,  policy experts, and organizations we work with.

A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

What is it with the left in the US and forged memos.  You think they would have learnt from the forged documents about Bush during the Vietnam War. It is not hard to detect forgeries, and often to work out who the author is.

Both software and other language experts have said that the forged memo resembles strongly Gleick’s normal writing style. Add on motive and the fact he is the only person who claims to have been sent a copy of it, and you do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.

Tags:

92 Responses to “Global Warming Dirty Tricks”

  1. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    I look forward to Campbell Live’s coverage of this…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wreck1080 (3,864 comments) says:

    Wow, surely a criminal offence has been committed if true?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    I suppose faking it just had became natural.

    Putting apples and oranges in the temperature record, filling IPCC reports full of GreenPeace claims, passing it off as peer-reviewed, lying about emails that were supposedly destroyed, and the toll of making wild and wilder claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    wreck1080: obtaining private documents under illegal pretences, yes, that’s a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    I eagerly await the sanctimonious input of “True or not who cares” Griff.
    I haven’t laughed so hard since I watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfkO1dfc1lk (not safe for work unless you’re wearing headphones)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    If Gleick forged the memo, that’s appalling.

    But Heartland appears to have been giving out the other material on request. I’m somewhat at a loss as to how obtaining it under such circumstances is much, much worse than the hacking and wholesale (if highly selective) publication of the thousands of so-called Climategate emails.

    If a disinterested journalist had obtained the material in such a way it would’ve been a straight-up scoop.

    [DPF: I don't think it is ever on to claim to be someone you are not, so that you are sent documents in error.

    With climategate, we don't know how they were obtained. If they were obtained illegally then those responsible should face legal consequences.

    The difference here is an actual senior scientist has admitted to breaking the law]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    [repost] Regardless of what people may think of the way in which the Heartland Documents were obtained, the Heartland Institute has been unequivocally exposed as just another Dirty Washington Lobby Group funded by self-interested corporates seeking to undermine Science and misinform the public to serve their own nefarious ends.

    The irony that they of all people should cry foul over Gleick’s unethical albeit well-intentioned behaviour appears to be lost the likes of Public Enemy and Arch-Denier Anthony Watts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. exile (34 comments) says:

    So where was the outrage at the hacking of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit email server?

    Zero tolerance for crime, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Russell Brown: 1. there has never been any proof of hacking, or do you know more? 2. The climategate emails should be in the public domain anyway as they were part of a FOIA request. 3. The documents were not obtained upon request, but under “false pretences”. Better look that up in your criminal law book, as you seem to have a notion that that’s ok.

    But it’s unsurprising to see a leftie defending stealing and lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    If they were hacked, Russell, then perhaps you may have some sort of a point, although bear in mind that Heartland is a private organisation. Police have been investigating climategate for some time now and yet no charges have been laid, so the likelihood of the emails having been obtained by hacking is pretty low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. DJP6-25 (1,355 comments) says:

    SOP for our oh so caring socialist friends. On a more serious note, an incoming Republican administration should investigate the US end of the ‘global warming’ scam. It would help restore public confidence in the integrity of scientific investigation. No doubt, some indictments would be issued.

    cheers

    David Prossr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    Hmm…

    http://pathteacheroneword.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/heartland-institute-more-lobbyists-with.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    exile: please give your source that the climategate emails were obtained by hacking.

    And you miss the most important point: not only did he obtain his documents under false pretences, he forged one too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    But hey, the science is settled says toad, faithful, blind, and loyal disciple of Al “Conman” Gore.
    Let’s move on and pay even higher ETS taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Andrew Bolt writes: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/every_time_the_warmists_get_it_wrong_conclusion/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    cha: Heartland has a total budget of 4 million. That’s about 5 minutes of what the US government annually spends on climate research. If you can be that effective against the “consensus” there’s something wrong with the consensus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Mark (497 comments) says:

    If you had the facts on your side you dont need to fake documents and slander people.

    Another leftie liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    People not involved in a scam have no reason to resort to such tricks. No leading climate skeptic has ever stooped to such underhand tactics.

    Another unbelievable aspect of this debate is that the global warming movement, having received $billions in funding, still plays itself as the underdog. As one commentator noted, the main thing to come out of this Heartland fakery is that a multi billion dollar industry is seeing its credibility ripped to shreds by institutes working on shoestrings. Hell Steve McIntyre, the retired mining engineer who finally took down the hockey stick five years after it became famous (scientists: SHAME), was paid approximately $0 for his efforts AFAIK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    Just saying berend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    Russell Brown

    I’m somewhat at a loss as to how obtaining it under such circumstances is much, much worse than the hacking and wholesale (if highly selective) publication of the thousands of so-called Climategate emails.

    If a disinterested journalist had obtained the material in such a way it would’ve been a straight-up scoop.

    There’s two important differences from Climategate. One, the Climategate emails were from public institutions receiving taxpayer funding. There is therefore a public interest in their content. Heartland is a private institution. Two, the emails were obtained by deception by impersonating a board member, which is a criminal offense in the United States. Climategate emails were not obtained by such deception and were most likely the work of an insider, although that is not established.

    No disinterested journalist would publish without checking it was genuine, and no disinterested journalist would continue to cite the documents in their editorials after a claim by the alleged author, Heartland Institute, of fakery without evidence it is in fact genuine. Shame on LA Times, NY Times and the Guardian for not doing these basic checks and for continuing to cite the documents after forgery was alleged by Heartland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sonny Blount (1,848 comments) says:

    The information released also looks pretty good for Heartland. No significant big oil money, that is all going to the warmists to help them swing generous government help for renewable projects.

    I think a might find a few dollars to swing their way now considering the budgets they are working on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    What exactly does Anthony Watts deny? Not that the world has warmed. Not that humans probably have something to do with it. What exactly is he supposed to be denying? Or are you just using the term to compare him to a certain other kind of denier? Childish and sad, if so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    Sonny Blount: yes. I suspect that if one looked at where all the big oil money goes in allocating to pro- or skeptic organisations, more than half would be to pro-warming institutes and research. The people I know in the industry in NZ are all pro-AGW, and for good reason – for big oil, even the hint of skepticism or (and I hate this word) denial very quickly destroys any sympathy with big government. And so big oil is right on board with the AGW scam as a matter of self-preservation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tom hunter (4,671 comments) says:

    Shame on LA Times, NY Times and the Guardian …

    Wonderful piece of humor. I laughed heartily at the absurdity of trying to induce shame in these institutions of the Left.

    Wait! You were joking, weren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Big Oil is on board the gravy train, Big Coal are the real losers.

    Big Hamburger have been awfully quiet though, they must know something!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Brian Smaller (4,037 comments) says:

    I look forward to Campbell Live’s coverage of this…

    {Sound of crickets chirpping}

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    One interesting angle on this latest fiasco is that the blogosphere had looked very hard at the faked memo and the behaviour of various CAGW commentators after the release and Gleick had come out of that combined analysis as probably the top suspect, on the basis of getting the most mentions. The combination of the language used in the forgery and the relative silence of Gleick in commenting on the matter had aroused suspicions. A likely win for the wisdom of the crowd (Gleick has not admitted writing it but everyone seems to think he did).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I follow this climate thing daily. the two good websites I follow are http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ and http://climateaudit.org/
    Bishophill follows news releases and OIA requests and such like. the otherone is one that looks very deeply at times at how some of the tree ring studies have been done (eg: it seems that all the papers on historical temperatures were actually based on what seems to be just one tree somewhere in the russian artic, and it seems that it was a rather unusual tree…)

    One thing that is obvious is that these guys at these two sites and many others are absolutely scrupulous about getting it accurate. there have been no funny stuff and it all seems to be checked out well in advance.

    One thing that is very obvious from the faction that thinks CO2 is the evil one, is that the communications are full of underhand and nefarious comments and activity.

    One recent example is that a study in NZ shows that Kauri trees grow most in cool dry years – and less in warm wet years.
    ( http://www.science.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/news/template/news_item.jsp?cid=464089) Yet the tree ring studies assume the opposite – ie: warm gives bigger rings.

    There is so much unknown about climate studies that its unbelievable that so many scientists have jumped onto the CO2 band wagon. One can only assume that the $billions involved make it worth doing anything to make sure the money keeps coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    ben says:- “What exactly does Anthony Watts deny?”

    He constantly undermines the work of genuine climate scientists with his populist posts pandering to his denier devotees. He has had to moderate his denial in recent years as the science has become clearer, but like all stubborn self interested people, he continues to snipe and cast aspersions upon the mainstream scientific community, just as religious wackos like Rick Santorum do.

    And it’s such an easy sell because most people simply believe what they want to hear. The truth in the AGW debate is a very hard sell indeed, because most people are not capable of understanding the explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    barry, I recommend you add Tallbloke’s Talkshop. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    scotty, you didn’t answer ben’s question at all. What does Anthony Watts deny?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Reading this post and the replies it is readily apparent that few have gone to the documents and at least had a look at them and the debate on the side of science

    Joe Bast says the document is a fake, a statement I take with a grain of salt given the Heartland Institute’s previous lieing on the subject of climate change and its discredited position on teh safety of second hand smoke. In the circumstances if the Heartland Institute can offer any specific criticism of the Climate Strategy or any evidence that it was faked and not actuall written on Joe Bast’s laptop, printed out and scanned, I would love to hear it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – so he denies nothing, then, and is guilty perhaps of being, er, inconvenient or a gadfly to the establishment?

    I happen to be a semi-regular reader of his blog (like Barry I prefer the lower volume, higher quality of BH and CA) and I have to say I can’t recall many comments denying either the world has warmed or that man is likely causing some of that.

    The view most commenters there take, like Watts and BH and CA, is that climate science appears corrupted, is producing unreliable results from bad data, uses secrecy with varying success to cover these problems up, and has engaged in unscientific advocacy that not justified by the evidence. Now you may disagree with some or all of this, but ‘denial’ is simply the wrong label for these views, even if it wasn’t intended as a slur (which it usually and shamefully is).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Don the Kiwi (1,684 comments) says:

    Scott.

    ……… just as religious whackos like Rick Santorum do.”

    Any opportunity to bag people of religious beliefs, eh Scott.

    Tell you what – I would much rather follow someone like Santorum whose beliefs are based on conservative moral ethics and reason that have been the things that made America great, than that whacko lying, communist, totallitarian demagogue that’s currently infesting the White House.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    Griff – you want Heartland Institute to prove a negative? I see you’re applying the usual standards of rigour in your analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ben (2,418 comments) says:

    What Barry said.

    There is so much unknown about climate studies that its unbelievable that so many scientists have jumped onto the CO2 band wagon. One can only assume that the $billions involved make it worth doing anything to make sure the money keeps coming.

    Yes. And this highlights the central trick by Al Gore et al, which is to pass off consensus on the most basic fact in climate (temperate is increasing in atmospheric CO2 concentration, something almost nobody “denies”) for consensus on the risk of catastrophe and consensus on a need to do something about it. There is no consensus at all on these latter two points, and the Gore trick is a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Watts
    Read the Berkley earth science project review of the temperature record they point out that Watts incessant attempts to discredit the figures is unwarranted as those most in question are reading low not high.

    sorry I can not link please look it up your self
    I am on vodafone. no g3 only one bar on gprs!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    The truth was inconvenient, so faked a convenient one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Read the documents not the one memo.
    i love the quote bla bla bla teachers and all .
    However the real meat is in the rest.
    They have been confirmed by independent sources including the communication expert that he developed the curriculum. Watts on his little lie on the source of his funding and Microsoft etc
    Are they an interdependent think tank that deserves charitable status or are they infact paid lobbyists.

    Of further interest is the anonymous doner and his contribution towards the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Griff “if the Heartland Institute can offer any specific criticism of the Climate Strategy or any evidence that it was faked and not actuall written on Joe Bast’s laptop, printed out and scanned, I would love to hear it”

    By which you mean you will studiously ignore it, as per the last several times anyone has pointed you to that information.

    “True or not who cares” eh Griff?
    “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Simon Arnold (107 comments) says:

    For those like Scott Chris who actively follow this area a couple of NZers (Micheal Kelly and Kevin Trenberth) are slogging it out (with others) at the WSJ. Latest contribution from the dark side at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hj (6,815 comments) says:

    “What may be surprising about Demographia’s analysis is not that it reflects a property developer’s ultimate fantasy, but that the Government is buying its message. ”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10554387

    by Hugh Pavletich | 01 Oct 11, 11:49am

    ENVIRO BLATHER OF THE HUMAN HATERS

    “I find much of the enviro blather sort of amusing. People such as Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource) dealt with all this nonsense of Paul Ehrlich of The Population Bomb infamy decades ago.

    The reality of course is that people are our greatest resource. And for most people, life is getting better and better all the time. The human progress over the short span of the past 200 years (only about 8 generations) has been truly remarkable.”
    http://www.interest.co.nz/property/55704/acts-brash-slams-aucklands-plan-replace-metropolitan-urban-limit-rural-urban-boundary

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. hj (6,815 comments) says:

    Mombiot blogs here:
    http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/20/plutocracy-pure-and-simple/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi

    I don’t bag all religious people. I simply bag the dangerous ones. Religious introspection is mainly a good thing imo, but when it is mixed with politics the consequences are generally disastrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. hj (6,815 comments) says:

    David Farrar needs to read this
    http://polesapart.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. tom hunter (4,671 comments) says:

    Religious introspection is mainly a good thing imo, but when it is mixed with politics the consequences are generally disastrous.

    Wow. You must have been truly terrified when Obama became president after sitting for twenty years listening to the diatribes of a jew-hating, white-hating religious nutter, especially when you found that Obama had handed his two little girls over to said nutcase for religious instruction, not to mention getting the title of one of his autobiographies from the same religious nutter.

    And now I see he’s on his knees praying for higher taxes. That doesn’t sound like a rational economic argument to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    They have been confirmed by independent sources including the communication expert that he developed the curriculum.

    Er, Griff, that’s not actually a secret. It’s what lobby organisations do. It’s what Greenpeaces does. Any materials would have been openly published.

    Did you ever stop to think that if you just once behaved with a little honesty and integrity then you might gain some credibility? Imagine someone reading your shameful and ludicrous excuses for this forgery scandal. Do you think they’d be anything but disgusted by your display?

    Andy Revkin for example, a loyal supporter of the alarmist cause, writes: “Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    ben
    heartland is funded by the government it has tax exempt status
    Why don’t you go to universities and government agencies for your information
    One big conspiracy on behalf of the whole legitimate science and government communitys
    Or a pile of spin from a small group of known co conspirators?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    heartland is funded by the government it has tax exempt status

    So, not funded by the government then.

    Why don’t you go to universities and government agencies for your information

    Like NASA? Except they have been deliberately corrupting the data for years. Here’s just one example:

    http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-giss

    I feel very old when I tell people that I remember when NASA was a respected institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. pete (428 comments) says:

    @dpf:

    Both software and other language experts have said that the forged memo resembles strongly Gleick’s normal writing style.

    If this were actually true, you’d be able to back up this claim with a link.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    So you link to one of the network
    To prove NASA is corrupt
    Honestly you can not do any better?
    Of course all government and scientific organizations are corrupt and misdirected and A interlink group of websites funded by heartland cato and a few other”instatutes” is obviously totally right

    Pick your god

    its happening but its good
    the sun does it
    there is so little co2 that it does not count
    its just a normal cycle
    The numbers are wrong
    yaweh would not allow it..
    ..
    ad infinitum

    Not one reason or argument Many little lies
    Not one of which beers up to scientific scrutiny or is a scientific valid argument against AGW
    The proof against automatically disallowed because it comes from science.

    Just doubt any way it can be spun

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    Griff,

    Perhaps you should just re-read your last post.

    Sometimes it’s better to post nothing at all mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. billr (21 comments) says:

    if it;s a forged document, it’s up to the heartland institute to prove it. what seems to have happened is that Peter Gleick received a paper copy, that was PDF’d. ALso, i think that it is particularly annoying that those who plundered the climategate emails, are now whinging about the same thing that happened to them. stunning hypocrisy. Also, it’s about time that the tables were being turned and that a more aggressive position was taken against the spin merchants at HI. also, the HI have been rorting their tax free charity status, see http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax, all of the information was gleaned from the various tobacco industry exposes etc. and are all public doman docs. read and weep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    If it’s a forged document, it’s up to the heartland institute to prove it.

    Tell us, bill, how would they go about doing that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Yeah, I’m almost happy with your summary there Griff, try this:

    It’s been happening for a long time,
    a warmer climate would be good,
    the sun has a major influence on us,
    CO2 less so,
    it is mostly natural variation, just like previous climate change before CO2 could be blamed,
    some of the numbers are/were wrong.

    You’re a rich vein of irony Griff. Did you know that DeSmogBlog (the home for “true or not who cares” types), is funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    billr – I think they have a fair chance of being able to prove it. I also think they’ll be staunchly litigious over this affair.
    I’d like to say it’s popcorn time but I think it will be more of a slow roast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Another interesting story to do with heartland and industry
    lord microjoule was recently uncovered on u tube
    Selling the same set up for the mining industry except buying into existing media to influence the populous
    His Friend is the very rich lady in the mining industry who recently acquired for a significant stake in a tv network

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Good to hear news of our forces amassing on the battle front there Griff. I see it has you pissing your panties ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mister nui (1,017 comments) says:

    I was sitting on the big-bird flying from Honkers -> London overnight and reading yesterdays copy of the FT. In it there was a half-page ad, sponsored by all the eco-nazis, from 8 nobel laureates imploring EU leaders to ban the use of oil from tar sands in the EU.

    Some of the language in the ad was pretty hysterical, such as; “Climate Change is the gravest threat to our planet”… and other lefty nonsense/sensationalism.

    Funny thing was, of the 8 nobel laureates, only 2 of them were European (both Irish), the rest were from all over the place.

    Why is it always leftys telling other people how to live?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Joe Bast of Heartland Institute outright accuses Peter Gleick of faking the document. I guess we’re going to see soon who is telling the truth.

    He says (about 1 min in) Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo

    http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    May I just note that we haven’t received any proof from the Russell Brown’s of this world that the climategate email were obtained by hacking? And they were not faked, and contained real smoking guns (“it’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming”).

    And more: I’m somewhat at a loss as to how obtaining it under such circumstances is much, much worse than the hacking and wholesale

    You really think obtaining a document under false pretences us much much worse than hacking? It’s stealing in both cases. I don’t think any judge will make the distinction you would like to see.

    Fakegate shows the global warming crowd for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    May I also note that there is not a word in the NZ Herald about Peter Gleick? But they had the supposed Heartland expose the same hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    David,

    A trifle disingenuous to post Anthony Watts take on this issue without noting that Watts is a key part of the Heartland climate network, and the leaked documents reveal that he is budgeted to receive US$88,000 funding from them this year.

    You might as well ask the Pope for his opinion on the merits of different kinds of birth control.

    [DPF: Gareth - you do better when you debate the science, rather than people's motives. Do you have no comment at all on a scientist forging a memo to discredit his opponents and then stealing documents under false pretences?

    But as you raised money, how much money in total do sceptics receive each year and how much money in total do advocates of AGW receive? Would the former not receive 100 times as much the latter?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Gareth, did you mean to be a truffle disingenuous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    David,

    And you do better when you get your climate news from the mainstream. You obviously missed my post on the subject.

    I’ll happily concede that Heartland has made efficient use of its funding, but it is a PR and lobby group using corporate and secret funding to delay action on this pressing issue, poking its nose in to NZ and Aussie politics by funding denial organisations here. We didn’t know who was paying for all this until the recent leak, whereas it’s easy to find the funding sources of most environmental organisations. The need for transparency cuts both ways.

    BTW: we only have Heartland’s word that one document was faked. Gleick says he received it anonymously and passed it on unaltered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. tom hunter (4,671 comments) says:

    … a PR and lobby group using corporate and secret funding to delay action on this pressing issue…

    I’ve always been amused by this conspiratorial take amongst the warmists on the reasons for the political failure of AGW solutions such as Kyoto, let alone the disaster that is wind and solar power in Europe and the US.

    The reason they have failed is simply that – whatever may be said at dinner parties where heads are nodded and sympathetic faces are pulled at the mention of the terrible dangers that AGW present to us – no more than a tiny percentage of people are willing to forgo their Western lifestyles or pay the price demanded by the warmists for their desired economic and energy changes.

    Whenever warmists began to talk excitedly about the next round of Kyoto I really did wonder what on earth they were smoking, since even that agreement was obviously failing even before the turn of the century for the reason I just cited. Yet they really did imagine that Copenhagen was going to go further. I still find that failure to understand human nature astounding, but then it may be that failure as well as the desire to change human nature, that lies at the heart of all this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    Gareth, try reading Gleick’s non-apology again. He quite specifically does not identify the document he received unequivocally. He does say that he was mentioned in the document he received, and the only released document with his name is that “confidential memo”. However that doesn’t preclude there being another document; he has obtained heavy duty legal advice and also PR advice from a specialist.

    The major reasons to suspect that the memo is faked and faked by Gleick are:

    1. Stylistically it looks a lot like Gleick’s style, using some key phrases that are almost exclusive to him (“anti-climate” being one of these). It was sufficiently distinctive for Gleick to be fingered well before he actually confessed.

    2. The framing of the document too, is almost classically “AGW fanatic” based. Example, the memo starts

    “Given the increasingly prominent role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012.”

    That doesn’t “look” right, at least to me, for the start to a strategy document. Then later, this:

    “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…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.”

    Wet leg liberal fantasy stuff, “dissuading teachers from teaching science”, the sort of thing that has Griff salivating, but completely unsupported elsewhere, and a very strange phrase unless you are talking to “teh evil”

    3. It has several quite specific mistakes that look quite out of place, in particular it says that the Koch’s contributed $200K in 2011 whereas the other documents all mention only $25K and that for a medical news release, not climate. That fact alone completely undermines Gleick’s (and others) contentions that the fraudulently obtained board papers completely backed up the meo, they didn’t (and there are other examples).

    4. The Gleick mention: “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmest science essays that counter our own.” With respect, Gleick isn’t a climate scientist, he has qualifications in hydrology and water use, but in climate he’s an advocate and lobbyist; and although I’m sure he thinks he is, he’s not all that prominent, so why would Heartland single him out ? Easily seen as a bit of vanity.

    None of the above are conclusive on their own I agree, but coupled with Heartlands absolute denial that the document is theirs I’d say that the evidence is pretty strong. Fanatics of course will deny that Heartland has any credibility and that the memo is real, but consider, a serious crime has been committed and indeed confessed to. Wire fraud has penalties including imprisonment not exceeding 20 years which is not chicken feed. And on the face of it, Heartland would be definitely expected to win a claim for Libel against Gleick (and probably others including blog owners), and the settlement could be expected to be significant. About the best chance for Gleick to escape the worst would be for Heartland to make a false claim against Gleick allowing a counterclaim, he will be allowed discovery; so unless Heartland are particularly stupid (and that is a possibility) they would not make a knowingly false claim about the provenance of the memo.

    So, Gleick, guilty of wire fraud, identity theft, and other related charges, Yes, by his own admission. Guilty of actually producing the (OK lets say allegedly) fake memo, not yet proven but a strong prima facie case exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    If you want to play parsing, read this about Heartland’s statement. Carefully worded, indeed.

    There has been nothing more than arm-waving about textual analysis. My reaction on reading the Alleged Fake Doc was that it was Joe Bast (Heartland head honcho) to a T. Until someone does it properly, or the author of the AFD is revealed, my opinion is no better than anyone else’s.

    Heartland has a long history of trying to influence science curricula in the US. Now they want to “teach the controversy”. Where have I heard that before…?

    PS: My bet is that Hearltand will bluster about legal action, but never bring a case to court. they would be liable to discovery on their internal workings, and I can’t see them (or their anonymous donors) being happy to allow that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Gareth – Joe Bast has outright accused Peter Gleick of forging the “AFD”. Where’s Gleick’s denial?
    If he didn’t forge it where’s the proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Gareth (I missed the edit) I looked at the scholarsandrogues post you linked to – Joe Bast’s outright accusation that Gleick forged the document makes it redundant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    It is not an issue about the proposed cure for the result of human endeavor
    It is the Destruction of the integrity of science

    Heartland and other lobbyist are involved in deception around contentious scientific findings, including AGW, evolution etc’ using manufactured controversy
    The Conservative right in American politics are happy for these projects to go ahead as it gives them a stronger mandate to action their agenda.
    The American political culture is being exported to the other Anglo sphere nations.
    Would We like a political landscape based around the faction with the most money ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    Joe Bast’s outright accusation that Gleick forged the document makes it redundant.

    Nope. Joe Bast is just prodding Gleick, playing to the PR echo chamber at Watts, Morano etc. You are not prepared to take Gleick’s word at face value. You can hardy complain if I apply the same standard to Bast.

    Gleick, by the way, has a long and prestigious record as a scientist, with numerous awards and fellowship of the National Academy of Science. Joe Bast has a long history of taking money from cigarette companies to lobby on their behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Gareth – regardless of whose word anyone is prepared to accept, the scholarsandrogues post is based on the analysis of a statement from Heartland that is superseded by Bast’s direct accusation that Gleick forged the “AFD”.

    The paragraph in question is reproduced below:

    An internal investigation by The Heartland Institute has confirmed that the “climate strategy” memo was not written by a staff member, did not originate in The Heartland Institute’s offices, and was not one of the stolen documents. We are still waiting for the report of a forensic investigation firm.

    Bast now says Gleick “read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”. If you have some argument that this doesn’t supersede the paragraph reproduced above I’m keen to read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    Griff, you’re quite correct about the destruction of integrity in science, Gleick’s done that pretty well. Remember, you’re theone supporting proven outright criminal behaviour, Gleik’s confessed OK ?

    As for “a political landscape based around the faction with the most money”, we have that already, the pro-AGW alarmists have many, many times the money available to “deniers” as you would call them. And yes, again you’re inference is correct, we don’t want that. So stop sending hundreds of millions to the likes of Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra, and others, and perhaps they won’t generate quite so much propaganda; remember the “No Pressure” video ?

    Gareth, yes, that link sure showed fancy footwork. But your opinion is not very good if you can’t show how it is related to other documents produced by Joe Bast, I doubt you’ve knowingly read one. At least I can show some specific likenesses and some specific errors (sexing up if you like) of the memo. Bast of course could be faking it deliberately, making it LOOK like Gleick’s work, but that’s a pretty high risk strategy. They’ve got Gleick stone cold on the wire fraud, it would undermine that to falsely claim that the document isn’t theirs. Could be a sting also, again unlikely but who knows.

    However, I guess the truth will out, or at least we can all hope so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Gareth: Gleick, by the way, has a long and prestigious record as a scientist

    He has not. Yep, he received a lot of taxpayers money, but the taxpayer has nothing to show for it. He produced nothing. He consumed only. But if contribution to science means he wrote a lot of papers, and got a lot of accolades, yep, then you’re right. But that’s not what scientists stood for, it’s just what they have become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    I think, berend, we’ll allow Gleick’s peers to judge his contribution to science, not an IT guy (however skilled) in NZ, OK?

    Bast is playing a high risk strategy, relying on Gleick being unable to demonstrate the provenance of the AFD. It’s his style to bluster. Count me unimpressed.

    Oh, and I’ve read plenty of Bast’s work. Hard not to, if you’ve been tracking the climate issue as long as I have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    I hope people do appreciate how Gareth is able to handle evidence. Clearly normal critical skills are absent. Another sign of an hysterical global warmist.

    The two page document is fake and forge by Peter Gleick:

    One could go on, but that is more than enough. Let me be perfectly clear: I think it is obvious that Peter Gleick fabricated this document–the only one he posted that makes the Heartland Institute look bad–because the real ones he stole from Heartland didn’t serve his partisan purpose. Or, if he didn’t make it up himself, he got it from an ally who fabricated it. No knowledgeable person could mistake Gleick’s hoax for a legitimate top-secret Heartland memo.

    So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me. If I am right, apologize for fabricating a document and attempting to perpetrate a hoax, and retire from public life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    Berend
    Ignore Gareth, hes a total fuckwit with his head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    ^^^^seconded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    Thanks for the kind thought, All_. Meanwhile, here’s a line-by-line analysis of the AFD that concludes it’s genuine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    If its real he wouldnt have resigned his positions with the AGU…..
    Its at the very least Wire Fraud and he is going to be prosecuted. And sued for damages.
    Yep, blinkers on and head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    I love it Gareth. Keep going. It’s just very helpful for people who are unsure what to believe with regards to human induced global warming. The gullibility, and culpability, of the true believers speak volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    That’s hilarious Gareth, linking to a blog that somehow cost $300,000 to set up (compare that to the smearing of Anthony Watts seeking $88,000 to set up a far more complex web service), was funded by a convicted money launderer and is run by a PR hack.

    Desmogblog, home for the “True or not who cares” types.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    Gareth, Desmog is on the hook for Libel as well, so I’d say that they’re pretty desperately hoping that it is genuine. Even more biased than usual. They published, private people’s details and all with zero checking for provenance, not very professional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Astro turfing the debate with the same pr rubbish focusing on one leaked memo and who to believe
    Ignores the fact that a lot of these so called interdependent blogs and “scientists”receive significant money from heartland
    How would you define that relationship they are there to forward heartlands aims or they are merely experts on a retainer?
    How many of them are going to revel their funding ?
    how many have been caught lying as to their funding. Watts for one has had to revise his list of funders

    Who is the anonymous donor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    Rightnow says:- “Joe Bast has outright accused Peter Gleick of forging the “AFD”. Where’s Gleick’s denial?”

    He states that he passed it on unaltered from an anonymous source.

    >>”If he didn’t forge it where’s the proof?”

    You want him to prove a negative? You want him to prove God doesn’t exist too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Griff (7,263 comments) says:

    Independent

    vodafone mobile BB anyone use telecoms Waipu Cove to Maungawai mobile broadband dies it work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    scotty, I don’t think it’s going to matter whether Gleick needs to ‘prove a negative’ or not, I suspect Bast had good reason to accuse him as forthrightly as he did.

    Has Gleick outright denied forging it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    edit – it seems Gleick has said he didn’t forge the “AFD”. I eagerly await his rebuttal to Bast’s accusation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    Griff, quit the misrepresentation, sure you’re not channelling Gleick ? The only blogger mentioned was Anthony Watts of WUWT, and the $88K was not for his blog, but for a separate website analyzing publicly available data. Now how about dealing with the sources of funding for Desmog, the blog, if you’re so keen (not that I care, particularly).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    I think it’s amazing that the “deniers” with so little money behind them have beaten the “alarmists” in so many battles and judging from opinion around the world are on the verge of winning the war. The science has moved on , especially in the ability to measure aspects of our climate. The information has got out and without Blogs it probably wouldn’t have happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.