Notes on the faked Heartland document

UPDATE: there’s even more evidence that the document was faked. The Koch Foundation and The Atlantic weighs in in update 3 below.

As a follow up to the post Notes on the Heartland Leak, I’ve prepared some notes on the PDF document “2012 Climate Strategy” that Heartland says in their press release is a fake among the other documents distributed. They say specifically that:

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

Here is a screencap of the top part of that document, which was printed, and then scanned, unlike any of the other documents which were direct to PDF from word processing programs:

There’s been a lot of scrutiny in comments on various blogs, and I’ve given some scrutiny to the document as well, comparing it with other documents in the set. I’m in agreement that this is a fake, here is why:

1. It is the only document in the set that appears to have been scanned rather than produced by a PDF document publisher such as Adobe Distiller 8.0 or 8.1 which were both in document properties on other documents. For example compare the two document properties side by side. I’ve placed arrows marking distinct differences:

2. The metadata in document properties in the document said to be faked have been sanitized. Why cover tracks? This could possibly be due to the leaker not knowing how to remove other metadata in standard PDF, but knows if he/she scans it on an Epson flatbed scanner and saves it to the scanner’s memory stick/flash drive port, there will be no personally identifiable information.

3. One of the first questions I asked Joe Bast of Heartland when I saw this printed then scanned document was “do you not shred your trash”?  His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”. That suggests a paper copy never existed in the Heartland office. The fact that none of the documents contains any personal signatures lends credence to this.

4. It doesn’t read like a strategy document, as it mixes strategy with operational details and commentary.

5. It gets the operational details ( budget) wrong – especially the points about my project, rounding up to $90,000 from a very specific budget number of $88,000. This suggests trying to inflate the number for a purpose. There’s no evidence of rounding budget numbers in any other document in the set.

6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense. This contrasts with purposeful language in the other documents. This one sentence in particular has gotten a lot of attention:

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.

I can’t imagine pitching “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.” to a board of directors at a meeting. It is a sure recipe for a public relations nightmare.

7. There are punctuation errors throughout it, suggesting it is not a professional document. There’s an overuse of commas for example. The formatting is different than other documents in the set, with a left justified title. All other Heartland documents have a center justified title. Fonts for titles don’t match either. The “2012 Climate Strategy” document has a different font.

8. The “2012 Climate Strategy” is the purported “smoking gun” that provides commentary and context missing from the other factual documents. Without this framing document, the other documents and what they contain, are rather bland. Without it, there’s not much red meat to dangle in front of people that would tear into it.

9. The document misrepresents the positions of Andrew Revkin and Dr. Judith Curry. This seems to come from a point of speculation, not from a point of certainty.

10. Most of the documents were prepared by Joe Bast, listed as author “jbast” in the PDF document metadata and done around 8AM on Monday, January 16th. One document, “Board Directory 01-18-12_0.pdf” has an author “ZMcElrath” ( a Heartland employee according to the Budget document) and was created on Wednesday January 25th at 1:04PM, within working hours just like all the others.

The document in question the “2012 Climate Strategy” has a timestamp of Monday, Feb 13th, at 12:41PM, just one day before “DeSmog Blog” released the documents on their website. The timeline disparity doesn’t make a lot of sense for documents that were supposedly mailed to a person posing as a board member (according to an alleged email snippet on Keith Kloor’s website) to trick someone at Heartland to email them the package of documents. Here it is:

Dear Friends (15 of you):
In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.

It would have had to have been sent sometime between 12:41PM Chicago time on Monday Feb13th and Tuesday Feb 14th 16:39 (Pacific Time) when the first comment appeared on DeSmog Blogs first post on the issue. According to David Appell’s blog, Keith Kloor says it was sent yesterday (Feb 14th), which is after the creation date for the “2012 Climate Strategy” memo of “2/13/2012 12:41:52 PM. Which means DeSmog blog had the documents only a short time.

Appell also writes: Desmogblog Had Leaked Docs For Only an Hour

I guess I’m behind on this, because this afternoon Politico reported that Desmogblog received the documents yesterday (2/14) and “The blog posted them about an hour later without contacting the Heartland Institute for confirmation.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5826D160-4705-4D72-A0BB-44C8C2EDA7DC

So they received them after the suspicious memo was scanned (according to its metadata). Which doesn’t prove its not fake, but at least the timeline isn’t inconsistent.

Appell also thinks the document makeup is suspicious and does his own metadata analysis.

Summary:

All the above evidence, plus Heartland’s statement saying it is a fake, taken in total suggest strongly that the “2012 Climate Strategy” document is a fake. From my perspective, it is almost if the person(s) looking at these said “we need more to get attention” and decided to create this document as the “red meat” needed to incite a response.

Indeed, the ploy worked, as there are now  216 instances (as of this writing) of this document title “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” on Google at various news outlets and websites.

The question to ask then is this: who benefits the most from the existence of such a document? A disgruntled employee? Hardly. Such things often backfire. And, who would know best how to craft such a document for maximum public impact? I think the answers are there, but the question needs to be asked. From what I hear, Heartland is going for criminal prosecution and/or civil liabilities on this one. They certainly have a case.

All of those news outlets and bloggers that regurgitated this document and the claims in it without checking for the veracity of it first are going to have some defending to do to. The Guardian seems particularly vulnerable for their “publish first, ask questions later” tactic.

UPDATE: At Lucia’s Blackboard, commenter Duke C. have been delving into the faked memo. What he has found is quite interesting:

Duke C. (Comment #89877)
February 15th, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815)
February 15th, 2012 at 4:31 pm

If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.

The Confidential Strategy Memo and the Form 990 were both scanned, possibly from the same source. There are similarities in the Metadata. Both were created under PDF Version 1.5, with the same Extensible Metadata Platform Core:

xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26

The other 6 pdfs show a different core version:

xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 4.0-c316 44.253921, Sun Oct 01 2006 17:14:39

The Form 990 linked at DeSmog shows August 02, 2011 as the last modified date. The 990 linked at Heartlandinstitute.org shows December 06, 2011. Scanning artifacts indicate that both are identical.

All of this is, of course, circumstantial evidence. but I’m not ready to rule out that the Strategy memo wasn’t scanned at Heartland.

================================================

Duke C. (Comment #89887)
February 15th, 2012 at 11:03 pm

More on the Strategy memo-

EPSON Scan

2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00

Hmmm……

That’s Pacific Standard Time, if I’m reading it right.

=================================================

Duke C. (Comment #89888)
February 15th, 2012 at 11:07 pm

Oops. with html tags removed:

rdf:Description rdf:about=””
xmlns:pdf=”http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/”
pdf:Producer EPSON Scan /pdf:Producer
/rdf:Description
rdf:Description rdf:about=””
xmlns:xmp=”http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/”
xmp:ModifyDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:ModifyDate
xmp:CreateDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:CreateDate
xmp:MetadataDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:MetadataDate

=================================================

According to the “contact” page at Heartland, they have no west coast offices:

The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312/377-4000
map
Telephone Phone: 312/377-4000
Fax: 312/377-5000
Other offices 1728 Connecticut Avenue NW #2B
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202/525-5717
AdministratorP.O. Box 10330
Tallahassee, FL 32302
Christian R. Camara3900 Pearce Road
Austin, TX 78730
Julie DrennerP.O. Box 361195
Columbus, Ohio 43236
Alan Smith

Now who do we know on the West Coast in the Pacific Time Zone? One major player in this mix is in the Pacific Time Zone according to their “contact” page.

In the Heartland budget document “(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf ” in section 3, there’s also reference made to an employee that was let go that works out of the west coast home office. These are places to start asking questions.

UPDATE2: It seems Andrew Revkin, one of the first to publicly post about the documents without checking the veracity first, now agrees to the possibility of a fake (h/t A.Scott) :

“looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.”

Source: http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/andrew-revkin-finds-journalism-religion-after-posting-fraudulent-document/

UPDATE3: 11:15AM 2/16/12 Megan McArdle at the Atlantic has even more evidence it is a fake. (h/t Bart)

It seems that the Koch Brothers had nothing to do with climate donations to Heartland, but they confirm they did donate for health care campaigns. Koch confirms in a press release that their contribution was for health care, not global warming:

The [Koch] Foundation gave just $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (the only such donation to that organization in more than 10 years) and that funding was specifically directed to a healthcare research program, and not climate change research, as was erroneously reported.

McArdle writes:

Unless there’s an explanation I’m missing, that seems to clinch it–why would health care donations show up in their climate strategy report?  Unless of course, it was written by someone who doesn’t know anything about facts of the donation, but does know that the Kochs make great copy.

About these ads

264 thoughts on “Notes on the faked Heartland document

  1. I believe this part is from the smogger, not the cover e-mail:
    It both corroborates and is corroborated by the leaked Heartland documents, which reinforce Mashey’s conclusion that Heartland is a for-profit public relations and lobbying firm that is operating with non-profit status by misrepresenting the nature of its activities in its own tax filings.

    REPLY: Yes correct, excess of the pasted text fixed, thanks, Anthony

  2. Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) said @ February 15, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Shall we start a fund to send Leo Hickman to some proper journalism classes?

    The Git commenced Journalism at UTas back in 2004 and lasted all of two lectures and one tutorial. It was, being kind, useless. The only classes where critical thinking was taught and practiced were Philosophy, History and Geology.

  3. Anthony, your points:

    6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense.
    7. There are punctuation errors throughout it, suggesting it is not a professional document. There’s an overuse of commas for example. The formatting is different than other documents in the set,

    Were the giveaways for me. It’s very amateurish.

  4. I think there is pretty much a consensus among climate skeptics that the term climate denialist/denier is used on purpose to draw parallels between skeptics and the Holocaust deniers.

    Now we have a document which is so fraudulent it instantly brings to mind The Protocols of Elders of Zion forgery.

    What is worse is that the climate doomsday cult and its followers expect people to believe the narrative is true even if the document itself is forged.

    This is like saying “just because the protocols proved to be forgery doesn’t mean Jews aren’t out to get you”.

    The hypocrisy, the duplicity, the ignorance, the gullibility, the hard-headedness, the closed-mindedness and the malevolence of the CAGW True Believer would put any anti-semite to shame.

  5. Also:

    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.

    Anyone who knows David Wojick’s writing would immediately know that there is no way he’d be involved in anything as silly as this.

  6. Duke C. over at Lucia’s seems to have found a time stamp on the strategy memo showing a Pacific coast creation time for the scan. Comments 89887-89888.

    Isn’t Heartland only located in D. C. and Chicago?

  7. I’m presuming this “memo” was not signed? It is inconceivable such a document would be circulated to a Board without an author, particularly since it uses the first person pronoun. However, it is equally unlikely that a forger would put a name on it since that could not only immediately reveal it as a fake but open those publicising it to defamation suits.

    This also supports the fake claim.

  8. In recent news – – –

    A bungling Iranian bomber blew off his own legs when he hurled a grenade at Thai police outside a Bangkok school – which bounced off a tree and then exploded at his feet.

    A bungling climate alarmist tried to spice up boring stolen documents from the Heartland Institute, but had their amateurish fake exposed, blowing off the story’s legs.

    – – –

    I don’t think the fools involved in this sordid affair are going to get a big thank you from their former friends at the Biased Broadcasting Cabal or the Leftardian.

  9. James Delingpole will almost certainly run with this. Supports his Watermelons book too.
    Should be most entertaining.

  10. This from Heartland:

    How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes

    Indicates that they know exactly when the theft occured. The time stamp on the email from the duped staffer to the theif would establish that. If that time is prior to 12:41PM on Feb 13, then the Strategy document clearly didn’t originate at Heartland.

    Also, check the PDF modified dates. They are all Feb 14, 2012. Span 3 hours from 11 am to 2 pm. What was changed vs. the originals as recieved?

  11. Is it not highly amusing that this mysterious Defender of the book-cookers, himself cooked the books? A liar telling lies in order to defend the Liars of Mann-kind? But this is of secondary importance: obviously the truth would have come out very quickly.

    Do not let the TRUE objective of all this be lost from view: firstly to try and strip the Heartland Institute itself of its financial backers, and secondarily but most importantly to make people more wary to back ANY similar group. This would be classical if the Defender where the CIA – there is a term for this exact thing, but I cannot recall it at the moment. In any case, all else is secondary to this purpose – the clear and obvious Goal, of this as-yet unidentified Defender of the Manns.

    I know this is all obvious, but I have yet to see this issue raised to the centrality it requires.

  12. It’s as authentic as the document purporting to show G. W. Bush shirked his Vietnam obligations,

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-papers-were-faked-admits-cbs-6161169.html

    and 0bama’s birth certificate (yeah, whatever, the one produced was a hastily re-issued copy).
    and 0bama’s Nobel. Wait, that was authentic. But… as useless as (insert simile here)

    Pretty much anyone can see the obvious things pointed out here (ie. different fonts, different style, different everything), and the “smoking gun” of “dissuading teachers from teaching science” is something that only exists in the warmists wettest of wet dreams.

    “WE” (ie. skeptics) actually WANT teachers to teach Science. Science is something completely different from anything to do with AGW doctrine, so fittingly championed by a divinity school dropout and his favorite hockey team.

    Science teaches us to question things, to adjust a hypothesis when observation no longer matches, that correlation is NOT causation, that an average is supposed to include current data, not just ideal data from some arbitrarily defined past dataset, that messing with real-world data to create a predetermined result is wrong, that adjusting historical data to match a hypothesis is criminal, and on and on.

  13. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for this to unwind. It doesn’t feel like it will have a long shelf life.

    Anthony have you setup a dedicated pay-pal donation for the funding of this project yet? I believe that quit a few people would like to donate to help “Free The Graphics”. Just a Thought.

    Good Luck, and know that faked documents vs real ones, is noticeable to the average person once they get a chance to see the story develop.

  14. Question: are there any facts in the faked memo which could not have been extracted from the other documents or otherwise publicly known?

  15. “The ”2012 Climate Strategy” is the purported “smoking gun” that provides commentary and context missing from the other factual documents.” – just like the “45 minutes” dossier issued by the Labour government here in the UK. They never learn. The poor writing also suggests a younger person, a result of the drop in educational standards in recent years.

  16. I agree that this is a fake. Leaving aside the technical stuff, it just doesn’t have the ‘look and feel’ that such a real document on such a topic would have, The other exhibits show that Heartland’s internal workings are pretty professional, that they have a house style, that they are used to being exact in their work and run their office in an organised way.

    It is (to me at least) inonceivable that a senior staff member would write such an important document (for if real it would be the strategic plan) for internal consumption in a style so far removed from the norm.

    But we must assume that the faker believed that their rather inept attempt at a forgery would be taken at face value. What can this tell us about his/her identity?

    1. They are not at all familiar with the ways, habits and mindset of senior staff in any institution. The ‘ambience’ is wrong, the phrasing is wrong, the general tone of the document is wrong for the way those guys work. Compare and contrast the fake with the thoroughly researched and argued real ‘Fundraising Plan’ to see the difference.

    2. We can rule out any of the established pro-AGW groups like Greenpeace or WWF or those sort of guys. They may be very misguided, but they are not naive. They would do a professional job that would last more than 24 hours of scrutiny.

    3. There is (I think) no factual detail in the fake that cannot be gleaned from the other released documents. No further supporting detail, no ‘mood music’. It is, in essence, just a rehash of the other documents with a supposedly disobliging commentary added to it. We can conclude that this is unlikely to come from a Heartland insider or disgruntled employee – unless at a very junior level like security staff, cleaner or janitor.

    4. The faker is familiar with the ‘Climate Wars’. And some of the phrasing betrays their own position ‘We pay to undermine the official UN IPCC reports’ is a tell. As is ‘other contributions….from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies’. And of course ‘two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science’.

    I’d guess (no surprises here) that the faker is to the far side of the pro green, anti corporation side of the debate.

    5. The wording and phrasing seems to be (though wrong for the supposed purpose) consistent throughout. This is not a document that has had multiple editors, or at least had had one overriding editor to impose the uniform style. But my feeling is that it was done by one individual

    6. The faker must have assumed that he would get away with it – that his fake would be accepted. He has a high regard for his own abilities, and probably little regard for those of others.

    7. This was an opportunistic fake, not a planned scam. Once he/she had obtained the real Heartland documents and found them to be thoroughly dull, they needed something to spice their adventure up a bit. And this is the result. I doubt that they spent more than a few hours constructing it, and the timeline shows that they were keen to get rid of the evidence asap. Not for them the patience of a two-year wait for Climategate 2.

    My best guess is that this was done by a bright individual working alone, with no actual experience in large institutions. A ‘greenie’ with a computer and a scanner. Not an insider. One with a high regard for himself, but not a mastermind planning their every move ten years ahead.

    I’ll leave others to consider what ‘profile’ this may fit, but my personal view is tending to the spotty youth working away alone in his bedroom. Or a disgruntled middle-aged loner.

    Time will tell.

  17. Heartland Institute Budget for 2013.

    Volunteer Donations: 2.1 million.
    Fund-Raising Donations: 3.7 million.
    Payments from news outlets after winning in courts: 92.4 million.

  18. Just wondering if the scanned image contains any incriminating information. Perhaps a lettermark?
    some image processing software might come in handy.

  19. A rational person would endorse someone only after they knew who the opponent was. Very strange, coming ftom Delingpole.

  20. Hi Anthony,

    Since the Heartland Institute emailed the documents to the false email-account, please try the HI to forward that email to you so you can compare the original documents with the published ones. The truth will come out very quickly!

  21. “Prepare for a shock, he’s endorsing Obama instead :”

    Seen why?
    We changed nothing with a ‘Conservative’ government, different faces at the trough is all.

  22. With climategate mails the assumption was they were fake until proven real. Tom fuller’s position on nov 18th was that they were fake until CRU admited they were real.

    We cant really say fake or not fake. The question is do we adopt the same rules for heartland as we did when we got the CRU mails.

    So, moshpit says, fake until proven real. fake until heartland owns up to it.

  23. The alternative explanation, Latimer, is that the fake is a quick and dirty job put together (eg within an hour) by somebody who knew that warmists would believe the thing anyways, and the scandal would occupy hundreds of web sites before being shown as a fake. Also, the net being the net, the fake news will never go away really.

  24. the monies involved are so puny in the CAGW scheme of things, it’s a bit farcical the Alarmist MSM can work themselves into such a lather. you would think they’d be too busy writing screeds of abuse over Obama giving loan guarantees for the first new nuclear reactor in the US in about 3 decades:

    15 Feb: Forbes: Steve Zwick: Heartland And DeSmogBlog Square Off Over Incendiary Documents
    Ever wonder how people who write things that don’t make sense can afford to pay their bills?…
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out, for DeSmogBlog has proven not only credible over the past six years, but adept at rolling out its message – something that the scientific community has generally failed to do. The blog was started by PR-man Jim Hoggan and journalist Richard Littlemore to address “the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media” rather than the actual science of climate change, which it leaves to sites like RealClimate.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/15/the-real-climategate-desmog-blog-outs-heartland-propaganda-machine/

    that’s as much as i can bear to excerpt from this guy.

  25. btw…the Forbes article was called “The Real Climategate” but, if u google it now – u will find a number of links about it. similarly, click on the link in Nelson’s blog below, and u will get the article i posted above instead:

    15 Feb: Tom Nelson: Forbes warmist Steve Zwick “sees” what he desperately wants to see: Heartland “spreading dangerous disinformation”; ClimateGate scientists “obsessing over getting things right ”
    (LINK) The REAL Climategate: Blog Busts Anti-Science Warchest – Forbes

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/forbes-warmist-steve-zwick-what-he.html

    don’t know if anyone has a screen capture of the original “real climategate” article.

  26. Desmogblog.com and boys all hang in Vancouver – Pacific Standard Time.
    John Lefebvre, Richard Littlemore, James Hoggan
    Brendan DeMelle lives in Seattle
    One of their close buds, John Mashey, lives in California.

  27. Anthony, several of your points are transparently false as can be determined by comparing the “strategy” document with the 990 form. The later is clearly an authentic document, containing, as it does, the signature of Bast. Equally clearly it is a scanned document, containing as it does hand written notation. Inspecting its properties shows that it lacks entries if the fields for Title, Author, Subject, Keywords, and Application, and PDF producer. As it is last modified in August 2011, it was not scanned by the releaser of the documents at the time of their release, and consequently there is no reason to think the missing fields were “sanitized”.

    The simplest assumption is that the scanner used simply did not enter the data in those fields when the document was made.

    Applying the same assumption to the strategy document, there is no reason to believe metadata was sanitized from that document either. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it was a paper document that was scanned on the day before it was released by desmog blog. That, by itself, provides no reason to think the document inauthentic. It does give reason to think its authenticity is inconsistent with the Heartland Institutes account of events. Specifically, had the document been received as an email, or email attachment from a phishing scam, then there would have been no reason to first print it out and then scan it. On the other hand, if the document is authentic, then some person had a paper copy of an authentic document which is inconsistent with the Heartland Institutes account of events.

    The Heartland Institute can clarify this point by the simple expedient of releasing the email from the person fraudulently pretending to be a board member, and the covering email sent to that purported board member. Simple checking of the times of creation will then show that these documents predate the release, and that their story is accurate, thereby confirming the fraudulent nature of the strategy document. Public release of the (already released) attachments would aid this process.

    As it stands, one piece of evidence strongly suggests that the leak was performed by an insider, not by an outsider conducting a phishing attack as suggested by the Heartland Institute. Specifically, the date of last modification of the 990 form differs between that released by the leaker, and that released by the Heartland Institute. Had the 990 document been obtained by a phishing attack, then the last modified date on the 990 document would have been the same as, or post dated that released by Heartland. Clearly the leaker already possessed a copy of the 990 form prior to its modification on December 6, 2011. It may be that the leaker already had the 990 form in their possession, and then phished for the other documents, but absent clear evidence to the contrary (ie, the release of the emails), the presumption must be that the leak was from a member of the Heartland Institute, and therefore that the “strategy” document is, as it purports to be, and internal document of restricted circulation rather than an official document.
    (Note, for the respective dates of the 990 modifications, I am relying or your quote of Dukes, and have not confirmed it for myself.

  28. What was it Anthony said about Climategate2 emails…’they’re real and they’re magnificent!’
    The natural response to this must surely be ‘they’re fake and slightly mis-shapen.’!
    Noted that even the Warmist UK Independent newspaper has left this story alone.
    Could it possibly have been a double bluff by that I mean a sting to draw out the rabid Warmists at the Guardian and BBC and reveal them to be…well rabid?

  29. Heartland has stated the “Strategy” document was forged. It is this document that contains the prejudicial comments – including the part about discouraging teachers from teaching science:

    His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

    This document as has been noted was a scan, created Monday of this week, by an Epson scanner. Scanning the document strips originating information from document properties as Anthony and others have showed.

    What is also revealed however, is that the writing style, both what and how it is phrased, and key punctuation, is different.

    Below is the section on the Climate Education initiative from the detailed 29 page “Fundraising Plan” document. That PDF has NOT been stripped of document properties, and shows it was created by Joseph Bast on 1/16/2012 at 10am.

    This commentary greatly expands on the alleged “Strategy” document, and the description of the education program shows they have engaged a professional, well connected and credentialed individual, to create a teaching program that meets the requirements and explores both sides – noting these items are controversial. There is nothing remotely similar to or whatsoever related to the alleged comment that the goal was to dissuade teachers from teaching this topic.

    Several other notes …

    First, the alleged “Strategy” doc author states “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain”. However, a read of the lengthier and more detailed education comments in the “Fundraising” document shows no mention of the term “uncertain” – only the word “controversial” was used … its use is an inflammatory embellishment.

    Second, I would note the author in the alleged “Strategy” document makes the comment about dissuading teachers from teaching after use of a dash. Here too the comment is an inflammatory embellishment, with no similar mention made in the longer and more detailed education section in the validated “Fundraising” document.

    Third – the author in the “Fundraising” document in all of its 29 pages – used the “dash” in a sentence a total of 3 times. Each of these times he used them in a pair – as I did in prior and this sentence – in place of comma’s. The “Strategy” author used dashes a like 3 times – in just two pages. And each time as a single dash, used in place of a comma or semi-colon – to add a modifier or extension to the sentence.

    Last – no other document in the group at desmog contains wording remotely similar to the inflammatory statements in the alleged “Strategy” document. Similarly none of the writings anywhere from Heartland – not even their “Response to Critics” page (which shows deSmog as a long time attacker) is anything other than straightforward.

    For example: the “Fundraising”, “Binder1″ and “Budget” PDF files (all validated as created by J. Bast) all have writing style that is similar in each and every one. Straightforward – free of inflammatory embellishments – exactly as one would expect from a professional organization. The “Strategy” document on the other hand has several inflammatory embellishments – both uncharacteristic of the writings of J. Bast – and not found in any of the other documents.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    It is sad that these people have so much hatred that they would attack Heartland, and those associated, in the first place – especially when it exposes their hypocrisy – exposes the huge, orders of magnitude, difference in funding for the AGW brigade vs the skeptical science side.

    Worse though, that they would be so desperate they would forge a document to make it seem worse.

    H. Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools

    Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education.

    Dr. David Wojick has presented Heartland a proposal to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools that appears to have great potential for success. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. He has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Tech. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon and the staffs of the U.S. Office
    of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.

    Dr. Wojick has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the Department of Energy. In the course of this research, he has identified what subjects and
    concepts teachers must teach, and in what order (year by year)
    , in order to harmonize with national test requirements. He has contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in
    producing, certifying, and promoting science curricula.

    Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models
    are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global
    food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

    Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not
    humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.

    We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 a quarter, starting in the second quarter of 2012, for this work. The Anonymous Donor has pledged the first $100,000 for this project, and we will circulate a proposal to match and then expand upon that investment.

  30. Delingpole should consider our Govt, which is spending/borrowing money faster than even the US Fed could print it, and much of it on CAGW schemes that are not only costly, but highly destructive – e.g. electricity and water prices are unaffordable to many because of this CAGW nonsense. the EU’s unilateral carbon tax hasn’t even kicked in as yet for Qantas:

    16 Feb: Australian Daily Telegraph: Phil Jacob: Qantas to cut 500 jobs as profits drop 83 per cent
    FIRST it was the banks, then it was Qantas – and today even more iconic brands announced job cuts in yet another blow for worried workers.
    Qantas kicked off a horror day by declaring it would slash 500 jobs, followed closely by oil refiner Caltex which ominously declared it would determine the fate of 800 workers within the next six months.
    Next was breads and spreads maker Goodman Fielder, which will axe 300 jobs, before Bonds joined the party with 100 workers on the chopping block.
    The timing couldn’t have been worse, with the news coming as the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported the unemployment rate fell from 5.2 per cent to 5.1 per cent in January – its lowest level in six months.
    Bizarrely, the statistics revealed there were 23 million fewer hours worked during January. The tally was also at odds with recent Roy Morgan figures that painted a very different picture of the “real economy”.
    Unemployment in January, as measured by Roy Morgan, was 10.3 per cent – up 2.4 per cent since January last year – suggesting about 1,278,000 Australians were jobless and looking for work.
    The Roy Morgan numbers are now more than double the official ABS mark.
    University of Western Sydney professor Steven Keen described the disparity as “remarkable”, adding: “Clearly there’s something wrong if one research is suggesting the economy is doing well and the other is very dire.”…

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/hundreds-face-sack-as-qantas-swings-the-axe/story-e6freuzr-1226272194851

    anyone who knows the real unemployment figures in the US will understand the discrepancies.

    Ron Paul for President.

  31. CodeTech says: February 16, 2012 at 12:32 am
    It’s as authentic as … and 0bama’s Nobel. Wait, that was authentic. …

    True. O’Bama’s anticipatory Nobel was authentic.
    The Nobel Committee was the hoax.

  32. Unfortunately, I have to be dispassionate and treat anything accredited to the Heartland institute with the same critical mind as e.g. the climategate emails.

    However reading the Guardian … well what a load of carp. What we see is that the heatland (or heartless as I sometime jokingly call them) who lobby pro-smoking (which I wouldn’t want anyone to promote, but I think its a step too far to ban) … they are amazingly, yes absolutely amazingly …being funded by tobacco companies.

    And they go on about Micro$oft … who are just a money grabbing bunch of useless software pushers … funding the heartless institute to promote some PR scheme to stop the world realising that Micro$oft are only in it for the money.

    So then I went to the biased broadcasting company … who appear to have whole departments set aside solely to push global warming. And I read:

    The next target appears to be schools. The plan is to fund a consultant, David Wojick, to develop modules for use in classrooms.

    The plan is to fund A consultant. Richard Black AKA Goebels black propaganda machine who seems to spend all his time as a public-paid PR consultant to the warmist industry trying to con the world (and everyone school child in Britain through the BBC) has the gall to complain that the single highest profile sceptic organisation is going to fund one person.

    In other words, it is just fine when the BBC, ABC and a host of other public funded organisations set out to brain wash our children into believing their nonsense. But when some tobacco funded think thank has the audacity to fund just one person to put the other side.

    That is why we have the BBC!!! … We have the BBC because it is supposed to put both sides and not leave that to tobacco funded think tanks who clearly aren’t the ideal people to be educating my kids

    The real point is that people like Black feel that so long as they are being supported by the government and the elite, they can say or do anything and No one should be allowed to oppose them … in other words, that is precisely what the Nazi propaganda machine did. I’ve no doubt that there were people just like Black in the Nazi propaganda machine who were pushing the great lie of the evil Jews … and of course anyone who rejected the “overwhelming consensus” was clearly an evil denier, etc.

    That is the real denier-gate. It is that publicly funded people like Black who have a legal requirment to be impartial wholly and and totally disgracefully deny their responsibility to be impartial … impartial even when they don’t personally like or support what the “other side” is saying.

  33. A rational person would endorse someone only after they knew who the opponent was. Very strange, coming ftom Delingpole.
    ==================
    Did you read the article? Very tongue in cheek. If you can call being compared with a tarantula in the bath an endorsement then, yes, he endorsed Obama. What he’s really saying is that, sadly, Mitt Romney is a clone of David Cameron. I can sympathise because, here in Australia, we have had the same experience with Kevin Rudd. As for our present PM, Julia Gillard, words can’t express how loathed she is.

  34. Keith Kloor claims to have been forwarded the original email accompanying the documents from the “insider/leaker”:

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/15/climate-skeptic-organization-feels-the-heat/

    He posts the wording from it:

    Dear Friends (15 of you):

    In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.

    What is MOST interesting is what they recommend be checked out – the “fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form”

    What seems MUCH more interesting is what it does the it does not say, or should I say reference.

  35. Just realised that I wrote a whole piece without commenting as to whether the paper was a fake.

    Let’s put it this way … I’ve got kids, if they had produced these documents … I would be quite proud of their ingenuity. But if these are produced by anyone old enough to vote.

    As for people like the BBC and Guardian thinking it was true. Come on!

    As my kid said (quoting the Beano) “Look, there’s gullible written on the ceiling”.

    p.s. …. and yes I did look …. but I claim I didn’t hear properly. Which my wife also did and also claimed. Which I suppose means we both like to see the evidence ourselves …. even if its evidence that we are gullible!

  36. I think that CodeTech nails the real give away, the idea that they would see themselves as trying to stop teachers from teaching science. This is not the perspective of any real sceptics that I know of. Real science is our friend. It is purely a warmist fantasy of how we think, and basically a projection of their attitude onto their adversaries.

  37. Are the cops involved yet? Presumably they are a bit more competent over there than our own blessed Norfolk constabulary, and can track the document source fairly quickly.

    Mmm, actually I base this only on US police TV series (CSI Heartland?). US citizens may have a different perspective?

  38. Alan Wilkinson says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:33 am

    Question: are there any facts in the faked memo which could not have been extracted from the other documents or otherwise publicly known?

    It seems to be spiced with a few facts but that doesn’t change much. Anyone with any experience knows that the best way to sell a lie is to mix a few bits of the truth in with it. It grants authenticity and creates a situation where one can then claim that people who point out the fake parts are attempting to deny The Facts, as exemplified by the little bits of truth and ignoring the mess of forgery in which they’re embedded.

  39. But who are the deSmogBlog?

    According to its website, its aim is to “clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.”
    The website says:
    “The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation…The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our founding benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.”

    This doesn’t sound too different to me to the Heartland institute as revealed by their own documents – a few rich backers, a PR team, money to worthy causes etc – where’s the scandal again?.

  40. I’ve just read the document at DeSmugBlog. The thing that leaped out at me was the description of certain potential Heartland sympathisers as anti-climate. Huh ! People who are against the climate !!?? I have only ever come across this sort of sloppy caricature in pro-CAGW propaganda.

  41. “…..two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
    This should heat up most people’s BS detectors. Why on Earth would Heartland attempt to dissuade teachers from teaching science?

    Just to remind commenters: Heartland is a private outfit. Anthony Watts is a private outfit. They are not accountable to the press or the public as long as they obey the laws of the land. CRU receives public funds and therefore should be publicly accountable.

  42. Anthony

    With regard to the BBC (Black) and Guardian (Hickman and others) is it worth you sending an advisory memo to the Leveson inquiry.

    http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/

    We’re interested in hearing from professionals and the public with
    information and examples in response to the specific questions below.
    Your answers may be considered as potential evidence to the inquiry.

    The issue of stories that attract a high degree of press attention but
    subsequently turn out to be false was raised at the seminars. The
    Inquiry would be interested in submissions from editors, reporters and
    subjects of such stories – why they occur (what are the pressures that
    drive press interest), and how they occur (what checks and balances
    are or should be in place to stop this happening and why do they
    sometimes not operate)?

  43. The package was worth far more to news agencies with the forged letter. Maybe the bad fake was added just to make a quick buck for the seller? If the seller was guananteed anonymity and the content was accepted on face value with no possibiity for repatation, the culprit may be smarter than we thought.

  44. This leak fake seems like another ten-ten red button moment.

    Comparison with Climategate:
    1a: CG emails were as Mosh says held to be fake until proven true
    1b: Heartland doco held to be true… but overwhelming evidence of fakery.
    2a: Anthony’s project is to make good basic info available for warmists as well as skeptics
    2b: CG emails confirm intent to rig the peer-review process
    3: Warmist funding is one or two orders of magnitude greater than skeptics funding

    News of WMC: as he says, up to his old tricks (reverts being his speciality)

    Mann’s report from the trenches @ Amazon:
    Two-tail reviews stats, 44@5, 7@4, 0@3, 2@2, 13@1 stars
    “Most helpful” 5-star liked by 165 out of 186
    “Most helpful” 1-star liked by 148 out of 405
    jonny old boy, maybe best @1-star but cannot spell and got 8 in 76 – one in nine
    most @1-star were short and dismissive, poor quality compared with the 5-star reviews
    No 1-star review took the 5-star reviews intelligently to the cleaners.

    Conclusions: there is still a lot of work to do, to re-establish good science, and it starts here with us. Also imho we need to clearly, continually distance ourselves from hate merchants that threaten life attack, such as Mann etc imply – and of course doesn’t say that this side has the same problem. IMHO a sidebar note at WUWT to this effect would help. It would be a kind of counterpoise to the kind of sidebar notes seen at SkSci

  45. Stephen says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Anthony, the key point in these emails is you are being paid a substantial amount of money to write a skeptic blog from an institution that receives a considerable amount of oil money. Is this true or not?

    You forgot to put SARC at the end? If not then not $44,000 is not a lot of money compared to M. Manns $1.9 million single grant. The money to Watts was not to write a skeptic blog but intended to scientific purposes.

  46. Stephen says: February 16, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Anthony, the key point in these emails is you are being paid a substantial amount of money to write a skeptic blog from an institution that receives a considerable amount of oil money. Is this true or not?

    Not true If you read here carefully you will discover that
    (1) Anthony has to date received zilch or near-zero from big oilers or their beneficiaries
    (2) the proposed funding from CEI was for a specific project ie making basic NOAA info comprehensible for both warmists and skeptics ie a public service that NOAA themselves should be giving
    (3) Anthony works hard to check his facts before publication, unlike his detractors here.

  47. I’ve worked in a number of large organisations, in middle-senior management positions.

    The fact is, any manager would be mortified to have this memo sent to Board members.

    This, quite simply is NOT how you address the Board of your employer.

    The technical stuff just seals the deal. :p

  48. A physicist posted:

    It seems to me that a primary duty of scientist and skeptic alike — a duty that we owe most especially to our children and grandchildren, who will inherit the planet that we are creating — is to provide the strongest skeptical analysis in regard to the strongest scientific theories and observations.

    That is why focusing weak skeptical “gotchas” on weak “not even wrong” science amounts to a dereliction of duty to future generations. And basing weak “gotchas” on illegally obtained, out-of-context, dubious-provenance documents is just plain disgraceful.

    No matter who does it, stolen-document “gotchas” are just plain wrong. Everyone should appreciate the harm that comes from this practice, condemn it absolutely, and foreswear it utterly, both scientist and skeptic alike.

    It is mighty dismaying (to me) that of many hundreds of WUWT posts on the ClimateGate/HeartlandGate affairs, not even one other WUWT poster has agreed with this common-sense principle.

    Abandoning the rational analysis of sobering scientific findings, and focusing instead on politics-first “gotchas”, is just plain foolish, plain wrong, and a plain dereliction of duty, no matter whether that “gotcha” focus comes from climate-change believers or from climate-change skeptics.

  49. Here is full meta info for file “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” as given by *N*X utility pdfinfo, version 0.12.4. The only major difference compared to Anthony’s analysis is it says PDF version was 1.4 (instead of 1.5). I reckon a plaintext command line utility is more reliable in this respect, than any fancy GUI thingy.

    However, we also have some more shards of info there. First we may notice time zone of “EPSON Scan” was “-08:00″, which is PST (Pacific Standard Time). From this we can guess the jurisdiction. We also know, that “Monday, February 13, 2012, 12:41:52 PM” is actually 2012-02-13 04:41:52 UTC (unixtime 1329108112). The file was posted on desmogblog at 2012-02-14 05:14:22 UTC.

    The other thing is uuid‘s (universally unique identifiers) found in meta info, which are supposed to be universally unique after all. I am talking about these codes:

    DocumentID: 0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c52
    InstanceID: 692440ef-d85e-4cec-afef-742d339ece7b

    A don’t really know if they had any forensic value or not. A PDF guy out there perhaps?

  50. Liars become very frustrated when people stop believing them so I expect more and more vile acts of desperation. On the bright side though, the fact that they are resorting to them is one more bellwether of the truth winning out, (and at a very small fraction of the cost of the lie as well).

    To the person who created this fake and might be reading these words, I’m sorry that maybe your mother and father never loved you or whatever but attempting to take it out on the rest of the world will never change that or comfort your tortured soul. Such things will only increase your burden of guilt to point that, hopefully, you realize there are only two possible outcomes, the guilt eventually crushes you or you cast it off before it can. The latter is your only way out but desiring to know how to do that is a first step that only you can decide to take. Such is the nature of free will.

  51. Aynsley Kellow said @ February 16, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Pompous Git: There are a few of us at UTas who celebrate scepticism. :-)

    Yes, I know. Sad isn’t it? The “just a few” qualifier I mean. From a very selfish POV, I thought getting rid of Phil Dow was an act of complete insanity.

  52. The 2012 climate strategy is a clear fake… to all the points above add that the one scanned document which is the IRS form wasn’t scanned by an Epson scanner.

    Desperate attempt to make a story where there isn’t one…

    The headline “Lobbying organisation raises money to lobby” is not so interesting

  53. In the text : “I propose that at this point it be kept confidential…”
    But the title of the document is:
    “Confidential Memo: …”

    It makes no sense to suggest in a confidential memo to keep it confidential. And when something is already classified as confidential, this is in general not just a suggestion. Also, you don’t write “confidential” in the title when it is NOT classified as confidential.

    It’s laughably incoherent.

    And besides, the text sounds like the forger dreams of writing the script for a James Bond movie, not like a memo.

  54. Rich Muller’s BEST project was partly funded by the Koch brothers. Where is the condemnation?????

    Does anyone know how much BEST got from Koch.

  55. Stephen on February 16, 2012 at 1:57 am said:
    Anthony, the key point in these emails is you are being paid a substantial amount of money to write a skeptic blog from an institution that receives a considerable amount of oil money. Is this true or not?

    typical of the mindless trolls – cannot be bothered to research the most basic facts before making silly attacks

    The answer is false- not that I imagine you truly care. It has been thoroughly noted that Anthony is NOT being paid to write a skeptic blog.

    He HAS successfully obtained a grant from an individual donor, arranged by Heartland, to fund a project to provide easy access to the public to new NOAA temp data.

    And if you actually read the Heartland documents before coming here and looking silly, perhaps you could share just where the alleged massive oil co funding for Heartland is shown in their budget?

  56. Apologies, had to open Firefox in order to place a comment, and put it on the wrong thread. But the sentiment is still valid!

  57. Well … that’s ruined my day. I thought I would have a fun day commenting on a few misguided blogs, but as far as I can see this “deniergate” has Richard Black (denialist in chief) so calls it has completely fizzled out … except for a few loan tweeters …. whose comments were so inspiring I spontaneously yawned.

    I suppose that is the benefit of being part of a multi-billion industry … you’ve got plenty of lawyers and PR consultants to rein in the idiot journalists.

  58. Nick Stokes says:
    February 16, 2012 at 2:09 am
    Heartland say all sorts of crimes have been committed, so presumably they’ll call in the police. Maybe that will get the answer.
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Nick, get over yourself. Your side obviously created the false “strategy” memo. They did so crudely and stupidly. Do you think the Biased Broadcasting Cabal or the Leftardian like being made to look stupider than they can reasonably avoid? The late Hunter S had a rule about misbehaviour in Vegas “Don’t burn the locals”. Your side just burnt the locals…..

  59. A. Scott says:

    And if you actually read the Heartland documents before coming here and looking silly, perhaps you could share just where the alleged massive oil co funding for Heartland is shown in their budget?

    Something tells me that in the long run, that is going to be the real story!

    Now as a sceptic, I will not discount the possibility that this was a put up job by the heartland institute to discredit both the journalists and their knee jerk printing of this kind of rubbish AND those who continually link scepticism with oil.

    But … well … deniergate now stands for black propaganda and poor journalism which blows up in the face of biased reporters leading people to precisely the opposite conclusion to that they intended … that far from being massively oil funded, the heartland institute is a rather modest affair with little if any oil money.

  60. Sierra Club $26,000,000 (from natural gas interests alone)

    The Sierra Club disclosed Thursday that it received over $26 million from natural-gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp. between 2007 and 2010 to help the group’s campaign against coal-fired power plants.

    This is indeed a well funded fossil fuel lobbying industry.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135534799299475.html

    What the Heartland story has revealed to many is the unequal funding. Warmists will wish they never promoted the story so hard.

  61. Along the lines of Lucy Skywalker, I give the faked document a two star review. For starters nobody starts with “Confidential Memo”. They would say Strategic Thrusts for 2012 (Confidential), or they would add “not for release” or “controlled release” if it is only sent to certain donors. The middle of the document is an uninspiring cribbing from the legit documents; poorly written and with obvious intent to blur the facts a little to make this document sound strategeric. The end of the document is a giveaway: name dropping like Curry who is hardly known or popular with anybody outside of the rabid geeks (on both sides) who post at her site. And Watts? With all due respect, nobody has any clue who Watts is. That ending just reeks of a hater who spends way too much time on the alarmist blogs.

  62. The “fake” document isn’t a fake per se, it is just taken out of context …
    /snort

    This is a badly orchestrated attempt of creating a “deniar-gate”, sad really, they have lost the plot.

  63. Fakegate.

    Its OK, but it does sound a bit like face-ache.

    Still, I’ve been laughing myself hoarse at the sight of Richard Black piling in with both smearing, sneering guns blazing, only to come up with vast piles of egg on his face. The irony is even greater in that he posted his hate-piece after the document was pronounced fake….

  64. Konrad says:
    … misbehaviour in Vegas “Don’t burn the locals”. Your side just burnt the locals…..

    Surely, if we are to be properly sceptical, we should consider the possibility that this was a put up job by the heartland institute? … Which would presuppose that they intended it to be shown to be a forgery … but with the intention of getting the rest of the information to be published by the gullibles.

    That tends to make me think there would be some smoking gun like a UK timezone inserted so as to ensure that no one could mistake it for a legitimate document …. but then that is what you would expect, so perhaps they might be cleaverer and just make it so blindingly obvious that its forged that anyone with an open mind would recognise it for such.

    Cock-up or conspiracy … looks to me that even when there are conspiracies, cock up seems to be the dominant force!

  65. Tom Curtis says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:29 am
    “On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it was a paper document that was scanned on the day before it was released by desmog blog.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————————-
    If the blagger requested the email & attachments to be sent to a new email address then there would have been no hard copies. So, a simple question for HI: find the resent email and ask the sender if they also sent hard copies & if so, which.

    It also occurs to me that once that email has been found the recipient’s address will give a trail via the domain back to the ISP to the recipient. Also, what about the incoming phone call: surely that, too, can be traced? In the UK this is an illegal act thus the police would have been informed immediately. I hope HI did just that.

    As to the money – well done, Anthony!

  66. The fact that the forged document was scanned by an Epson scanner configured for Pacific Standard Time, and was, by time stamp analysis, in the possession of the smoggers for only one hour is powerful circumstantial evidence that somebody among the smoggers hastily forged the document to provide spin and the cachet of a leaked “Confidential Memo” for the otherwise bland pilfered files.

    If there was justification for the way Tallbloke’s computers were treated, there is may times the justification for promptly treating all of DeSmog’s computers that way. I will go so far as to predict that the document forger will be caught. Noble cause corruption never covers its tracks, because they believe they have divine protection.

    The race is now on to see who will be the first alarmist to admit that the document in question is forged, but it nonetheless expresses an essential truthiness about the wickedness of climate skeptics.

  67. Two things are interesting to me:
    1-On the top of the Climate Strategy PDF, a series of pixels appear. A straight line also appears at the bottom. Something seems to have been hidden, especially at the top.
    2-Some of the files have (2) and (3) appended. Seems like copies of other files. Might it be possible to associate it with a specific operating system?

    Ecotretas

  68. Stephen says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Technically true, but misleading as heck.
    1) $88K is not a lot of money for what Anthony is doing.
    2) The work that Anthony is doing is neither sceptical or non-sceptical. He is taking existing data, and making it more user friendly. It never ceases to amaze me the reaction warmists have to real data. Reminds me of vampires and sunlight.
    3) Heartland institute has received some money from oil companies, but it is only a few percent of their budget. Why do you believe that funding from oil companies is somehow disqualifying? Do you believe that warmists who receive money from people who are making money off the AGW scam is also disqualifying?

  69. Jimbo says:
    February 16, 2012 at 4:05 am
    Sierra Club $26,000,000 (from natural gas interests alone)

    The Sierra Club disclosed Thursday that it received over $26 million from natural-gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp. between 2007 and 2010 to help the group’s campaign against coal-fired power plants.

    ===========

    This is the crux of it – it always was about anti-coal rather than ‘fossil fuels’. Hansen in the 70’s endorsed the meme ‘burning coal will cause a new ice age’ scare, Maggie set up CRU with oil, nuclear to be anti-coal. The greenies began with the ‘global warming due to coal’, pre Keeling era onto which he hitched his funding and finding mythical ‘well mixed background’ rises in carbon dioxide levels from man-made sources, even when these can’t be separated from volcanic, and to boot, a definite ‘trend’ with less than two years data.

    This is all about coal, the cheap energy source – all the shrill accusations against ‘fossil fuel funded sceptics’ is well orchestrated deflection from these particular fossil fuels, particularly oil’s, big funding of a whole movement to be anti-coal. Maggie ran with this, fighting the coal industry in Britain at the time her brilliant plan to garner the energy of the enviromentalists against coal – so the IPCC which she helped set up as well as CRU – and for the time being was willing to downplay nuclear to get them, the greenies, on board. She succeeded only too well. She stocked piled coal before taking on the miners.

    More, much more, should be made of the oil/nuclear industries support of the greenies – hopefully this would set up such a disjunct in their collective ‘mind’ that it would implode… :)

  70. Stephen says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Technically accurate, but very misleading.

    1) The amount of money Anthony recieved is not a lot for building a web site of the type he is talking about.
    2) THe work in question is not sceptical. He is taking real data and making it more user friendly. It never ceases to amaze me the way warmists react to any data that doesn’t support their fantasy world. Sort of like vampires and sunlight.
    3) While Heartland has received money from oil companies over the years, it is a very small part of their budget. Regardless, why do you believe that receiving money from oil companies to be disqualifying? Is the fact that the CRU receives substantially more money from oil companies also disqualifying? Is the fact that warmists receive money from people and groups who are profiting from the AGW scam also disqualifying?

    Or do you just grasp at any straw you can find in order to ignore those saying what you don’t wan to hear?

  71. Two posts, both disappearing into the ether? What gives?

    [Reply: Have some patience. They were in the spam bin due to the WordPress no-no word “scam”. Both resued & posted now. ~dbs, mod.]

  72. Only an alarmist would write:
    “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    It’s laughable, they are the only ones who label their little warmist cult as “science” or “the science”. To the non-believers of AGW (for lack of a better term), the term science would apply to legitimate areas of study not specifically global warming. FAKE

  73. Yea, there’s something wrong with that document. The clincher to me is “two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    I can’t imagine anyone actually writing such a strategy down and attempting to sell the idea to the leaders of an organization who reliy so much on science and scientists. That was definitely written by someone who actually believes the myth that conservatives are anti-science. Conservatives may lean toward anti-climate alarmism, but anti-science not a chance.

  74. Revkin implies all the core points in the fake strategy are supported in the real documents. I’d be willing to bet this is his way to keep alive the propaganda line about dissuading teachers from teaching science.

    All the believers need is Revkin’s “authority” to allow them to accept this as a valid takeaway reinforcing this important mainstay from the high level CAGW propaganda plan and mitigating any potential weakening of it.

  75. I will take all of this seriously when the CAGW “scientists” give up their addiction to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in government money. Until then…

    PS. Did Anthony get any taxpayer-funded “stimulus” grants in 2010? Didn’t think so… how about our CAGW “scientists”???

  76. 6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense.
    7. There are punctuation errors throughout it, suggesting it is not a professional document. There’s an overuse of commas for example. The formatting is different than other documents in the set,

    ===========

    I thought the near run on first sentence, written in passive voice (similar to the famous military == “It has been decided that”), followed by an active, 1st person sentence, was what, raised my eyebrows at the start.

    Not sure that I used enough commas there :)

  77. I suggest everyone who has concerns submit a complaint to the BBC

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

    Here is my submission

    What is your complaint about:
    Other BBC Online Website
    URL:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

    Complaint category:
    Factual error or inaccuracy
    Contacted us before:
    No
    Complaint title:
    Breach of Editorial Guidelines
    Complaint description:
    Richard Black’s reporting “Openness: A Heartland-warming tale” has failed to comply with the BBC editorial guidelines as below because he was not be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story. He had the contact details of Mr. Anthony Watts but failed to contact him to establish the truth of the story before publishing. This may well have left us license/taxpayers liable to a libel action. This story contrasts with Mr. Black’s reporting of the “climategate” emails and suggests Mr. Black has also breached the guidelines on bias.

    . “1.2.6 Serving the Public Interest We seek to report stories of significance to our audiences. We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live. We will ask searching questions of those who hold public office and others who are accountable, and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate. “

    Your Details
    Receive a reply:
    Yes

  78. Once upon a time, old What’s His Name over at Littlegreenfootballs would have been all over an obvious fake like this. Sadly, he’s gone full CO2, and is quoting the forgery as if it were gospel. There will never be another ‘throbbing’ memo from that guy.

  79. As a Brit I just submitted a complaint to the BBC about Richard Black’s article. It looks to me that there is another, less remarked upon, flaw in Black’s behaviour. He is a competitor of Antony Watts and therefore appears biased by way of personal interest.. I wrote,
    “The article was biased by way of selective reporting.

    Richard Black refused to report on Climategate until the story was cold as he was unsure of the providence of the leaked emails. This was quite justifiable.

    However, in this story the documents were stolen and at least one was fabricated. Again his established procedure would be proven to be justified. Yet he abandoned that practise.

    To avoid bias (and fulfil his duty as a journalist) he should have checked his sources and consulted with DeSmog Blog, Heartland Institute and Watts Up With That. He did not do those things.

    Instead he misled his readership in order to disparage a competitor’s website (Watts Up With That). This is a clear bias against the winner of the Science Blog of the Year. As a less lauded science and environment blogger himself the motivation is suspect.

    Of course the BBC will wave it away but one has to try.

  80. Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

  81. All the AGWer-gates exposed by the skeptics have turned out to be real and damning. The only _gate ‘exposed’ by the AGWers in their bid to discredit the climate skeptics turns out to be based on a fake letter. Surely this is another addition to the numerous climate*-gates exposed by the skeptics.
    The AGWers cannot even fake a letter, let alone a temperature statistic. They tried but failed miserably on all counts.

  82. The smoking gun: “I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.”

    Now, I am not a climate scientist, but I have been general counsel and secretary for a number of public companies. This single sentence is so poorly crafted and badly thought out that it is virtually impossible for the “Confidential Memo” to be genuine. To the contrary, it was almost certainly crafted by someone who has never served or interacted with a Board of Directors.

    1. No executive would ever put in writing that he was going to limit distribution to only a “subset” of directors. Any excluded director would instantly become an enemy. Board members are notoriously jealous of their position and authority. Moreover, selectively disseminating information only to certain Board members is a recipie for personal liability (for both the executive and the Board member who receives the selective distribution). It is not to say that selective distribution does not occur, it simply means that any person who had risen to a policy making level would know better than to put it in writing.
    2. Any person comfortable writing memos to a Board would have said either: “a subset of THE Institute Board” or “a subset of Institute Board MEMBERS.” Board members are not “staff,” and every Board with which I have been associated had at least one member who would take offense at terminology (and remember the person who made the error). Of course, it could be a typo, but it is as obvious to anyone versed in these sorts of memos as a wrong note is to a professional musician.
    3. “Senior staff” is an ill defined term and any person who wanted to keep something confidential, even if he were stupid enough to put the directive in writing, would carefully circumscribe the permissible recipients. The author might as well have said distribute only to you know who.
    4. No executive “proposes” to keep something confidential in the very document that he intends to keep confidential. It suggests an amateurishness so pronounced as to refute any claim that the author is an executive employee with experience communicting in writing with a Board. Kind of like your nerd friend who asks if it’s half time at a Bruins game.
    5. No executive “proposes” to keep a “Confidential Memo” confidential. It’s just silly, like proposing to keep water wet.

    I have written hundreds of Board memos and read hundreds more. I have seen and made many, many errors. But the number of errors in this one sentence (not to mention the numerous other errors in the memo documented at length in this thread) prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the Confidential Memo is a fake. If I am wrong, then the idiot who wrote it deserves everything he gets. But I’m not wrong.

  83. There should be no surprise at the behaviour of the BBC… but you can take action.

    MAKING COMPLAINTS TO THE BBC

    Do you want to make a complaint to the BBC?

    One thing to get straight from the start: – responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within their Editorial Guidlines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief. This may save complainants a great deal of frustration as the vast Kafka-like bureaucratic monster that the BBC has become will have you pushed from pillar to post as each department asserts that their department is not the one to deal with your complaint, and fobs you off to yet another department or the BBC’s “complaints” web page. Having had a long experience of dealing with BBC producers and editors, I can say with some authority that complaints are routinely ignored, dismissed, or, as in the case of emails, deleted by one of their army of “screeners” who filter out all averse comments from their boss’ Inbox.

    So write a letter to the man who is running the BBC:

    Mark Thompson, BBCDirector-General
    Broadcasting House
    Portland Place
    London
    W1A 1AA
    UK

    020 7580 4468
    Fax 020 7637 1630

    Contact the BBC directly
    The BBC Trust
    “Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
    – Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.

    Re. AGW bias:
    Alison Hastings, a member of the trust, has made this statement about bias:
    “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”

    Contacting her directly –

    Alison Hastings
    BBC Trust Unit
    180 Great Portland Street
    London
    W1W 5QZ
    UK

    Telephone: 03700 100 222
    Textphone: 03700 100 212
    Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    For the record, I have written to Alison Hastings myself about the BBC’s coverage of AGW, and I can tell you that she did not reply. Instead, I got a letter from her Correspondence Manager, Bruce Vander. He said that the Trust has no role in editorial matters, which are the domain of the BBC’s management. The Trust’s role is to set out the overall framework, known as the BBC’s Editorial Guidlines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. He also pointed me to the complaints page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints and said the Trust conducts regular impartiality reviews of BBC editorial content. The current impartiality review concerns science coverage, including global warming, and its findings are due to be published later this year.

    From all that, I conclude the way to complain is firstly via the complaints page, then to the management, then finally to the Director-General himself.

    The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get a regular avalanche of complaints from the public. They are an insulated, self-serving, arrogant, incestous bureaucracy which ignores the very public it proclaims itself to serve. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of AGW and the participants in their programs will invoke an avalanche of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.

    Also write to the BBC Complaints department
    BBC Complaints
    PO Box 1922
    Darlington
    DL3 0UT
    UK

    There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
    make a complaint via this website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code

    Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
    (UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)

    or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR

    There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/

    or write to –

    Feedback
    PO Box number 67234
    London
    SE1P 4AX
    telephone 03 333 444 544
    feedback@bbc.co.uk

    You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not about online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    BBC Statement:

    We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.

    Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?

    We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.

    If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.

    If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.

    Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?

    If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days

    If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.

    Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml

    Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?

    The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.

    Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.

    You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.

    We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Email other BBC programs directly:

    Storyville
    storyville@bbc.co.uk

    Broadcasting House
    broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight Investigations
    NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight
    newsnight@bbc.co.uk

    Horizon
    horizon@bbc.co.uk

    Emma Jay
    Producer/Director BBC Vision Productions (Horizon)
    emma.jay@bbc.co.uk

    The Today Program
    todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Commissioning Editors
    The British Broadcasting Corporation
    BBC White City
    201 Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7TS
    UK

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning

    Knowledge
    George Entwistle
    Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
    (Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)

    Emma Swain
    Head of Knowledge Commissioning
    emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
    Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.

    Krishan Arora
    Independents Executive
    krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
    Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.

    Mary FitzPatrick
    Executive Editor Diversity
    mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
    Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.

    Documentaries
    Charlotte Moore
    Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
    Room 6060
    BBC TV Centre
    Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7RJ
    UK
    charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk

    Emma Willis
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    emma.willis@bbc.co.uk

    Maxine Watson
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk

  84. Myrrh says:
    February 16, 2012 at 5:09 am

    and p.s. Anthony, these people are truly despicable, be strong.

    Yes, get up from that hysterical laughter on the floor … it’s not that funny … OK, it is! But be strong, calm down, take deep breaths … the laughing will stop!

  85. TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    Ha, ha, really !?

  86. You’d think Desmog would be smarter than that…

    I wonder if “2010/09/27-13:37:26″ is the install date, or the origination date, i.e., release date of the program itself? If the latter, doesn’t mean much. If the former, damning.

    Mark

  87. a physicist

    In answer to your post about why were people not upset about climategate:

    There may be subtle or not so subtle differences.

    1. If the climategate e-mails were hacked, then it is a form of theft and I don’t like it. However, in general I do like the release of information. I was ok with the whole Julian DeSands wikileaks in most cases. Once the information is leaked, it should be read and understood, not ignored. Sometimes the documents are released by a “whistelblower” for good reasons. So I did and will read the climategate e-mails.

    2. In the climategate case, it may have been a whistleblower at the CRU who was upset with people not following the law (or traditional scientific convention) and delivering information freely, particularly with regard to FOI requests. This changes my outlook considerably.

    3. After reading the e-mails, none of them are personal e-mails to family members that I know of and many of them show the participants in an unflattering light as they are dishonest about their true beliefs, and try to manipulate public opinion and hide data or obstruct others from seeing it. Some are vindictive and try to get others fired or journals shut down on the flimsiest of pretenses. They also show some behind the scenes things with the IPCC that indicate problems.

    4. In the case of Heartland, there were much more clear violations of the law. Impersonating someone to gain access (this may be similar to hacking or slightly worse depending on the situation) and then it seems the most “incriminating” document appears to be faked.
    Once they are released, I still read them (see 1. above) and I’m glad to note that they contain shocking information that the Koch Foundation gave money in 1999 and AGAIN in 2010 and gave the staggering sum of $200,000.

    I believe I use similar values/outlooks in all the cases above.

  88. Dear Private eye,

    I am writing to inform you of a particularly nasty episode where the BBC (Black) and Guardian went out of their way to hastily print information from what is now clearly a fraudulent document. Details of the scandal are on the WUWT site where the blog-owner was referred to in the fraudulent document. (See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document)

    However, those familiar with your coverage of climategate will be aware, despite your reputation to be: “a prominent critic and lampooner of public figures and entities that it deemed guilty of any of the sins of incompetence, inefficiency, corruption, pomposity or self-importance and it has become a self-styled “thorn in the side” of the British establishment” (Wikipedia), we all know that private eye is totally hypocritical when it comes to the catastrophic global warming scam.

    As the chances of you following this story are about as high as getting Richard Black to admit that he is ” guilty of all the sins of incompetence, inefficiency, corruption, pomposity or self-importance”, I will be posting this to WUWT for their amusement.

    regards,

    the true thorn in the establishment’s side,

    Scottish Sceptic.

  89. Well since Canada is about as free as Britain, and DeSmogBlog is founded (based?) is Canada….should we expect a Tallblokean Investigation? It’s both a comical, and serious question; as I reside in these United States.

    Remember: only Truth can stand up to Scrutiny

  90. Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Shall we start a fund to send Leo Hickman to some proper journalism classes?

    Don’t bother. It is a waste of money.

    Better to simply donate some money to the Heartland Institute …

    (By their actions you will know them.)

  91. Tom Curtis says:

    Anthony, several of your points are transparently false as can be determined by comparing the “strategy” document with the 990 form.

    Nope.

    The later is clearly an authentic document, containing, as it does, the signature of Bast.

    Yeah, because signatures can’t be faked. The 990 form likely is genuine (remains to be seen if it has been altered) but your “logic” is assinine.

    Equally clearly it is a scanned document, containing as it does hand written notation.

    You are missing the point. The Form 990 is a scan. Of course it is – it is a FORM. Forms come preprinted, and are filled out. And they are signed by hand. Then they are scanned as submitted for records. That is what one expects of a form.

    All of the rest of the documents are not forms. They are original creations. They were all made using word processing software (Word Perfect, suprisingly) and then converted directly to PDF for distribution. That is what one expects of an original document.

    The “Claimate Strategy” is not a form. It is an original creation. Yet instead of simply creating the that coPDF directly from the word processing software, whoever made that document printed it to paper, scanned the paper back to an image, and converted the image to PDF. That is not what one expects of an original document.

    Applying the same assumption to the strategy document, there is no reason to believe metadata was sanitized from that document either.

    Yes there is – the fact that it was printed then scanned in the first place. Why would someone do that? One reason is that the act of printing then scanning eliminates the metadata that a direct software conversion would maintain.

    On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it was a paper document that was scanned on the day before it was released by desmog blog.

    Yep, and that needs an explanation.

    As it stands, one piece of evidence strongly suggests that the leak was performed by an insider, not by an outsider conducting a phishing attack as suggested by the Heartland Institute. Specifically, the date of last modification of the 990 form differs between that released by the leaker, and that released by the Heartland Institute.

    The PDF modified date for the file on DeSmogblog is Feb 14, 2012.

  92. They give themselves away by buying too heavily into their own cartoon image of monstrous ‘deniers’. Someone in the comments recently described these CAGW activists (DeSmog, SS etc.) as pathological narcissists. This seems a fairly apt description to me. They are so convinced at their own manipulatory skill (fostered by a lazy, equally narcissistic press) that they cannot concieve of how it could possibly backfire. And it does. Every time. Spectacularly. It’s brilliant to watch..

  93. From the HI press release:

    “But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

    How highly moral of them.

    Then I did a search on their site using keyword “Climategate”.

    Nothing worse than the stench of putrid hypocrisy, eh?

  94. A physicker: “It is mighty dismaying (to me) …”

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever.

    Have the Japanese followed your advice and nuked themselves yet?

  95. Thanks to Michael Lowe above for quoting DeSmogBlog’s mission statement: “clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.”

    I took a look at their front page. It’s nothing *but* PR pollution.

    Mike.

  96. “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    That leaves about everything and anyone else on the internet community appart from the Heartland Institute and my Computer.

    Do a Google Search on it, this could be pirated version by the looks of it. Or someone who is trying to add his own meta-data to this file, wich would result in a question from my side in “Why then not use the Heartland meta-data?”

    Or would that be to criminal?

  97. TerryS/AdderW

    Paste the string Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 into Google

    You’ll find various pages relating to this string, most of which have nothing to do with climate change (the majority seem to be about programmimg since the string is usually hidden except during a program crash). So I don’t think it uniquely identifies a particular installation of Acrobat – just the version used.

  98. As to how this is different from ClimateGate: private organization vs. tax-payer funded organization.

  99. One other thing about the core’s

    The Form 990 was also scanned, and has I am told (I didn’t check) the same core as the fake document. Now Form 990s are available without leaking or social engineering hacks or whatever you want to call it

    Also a form 990 would also be an odd thing to include with board stuff like budgets.

    So I’m wondering if the process the documents was:

    – Hacker/leaker/social-engineer persuades HI to email them some documents
    – Hacker/leaker/social-engineer adds form 990, which they already have from another source
    – Hacker/leaker/social-engineers adds the fake document
    – This then gets forwarded as a package.

    The only way to know for sure would be to ask HI,if the 990 was included with the email bundle they were tricked into sending out. I’m betting it wasn’t.

    And if the 990 was obtained separately and added to the bundle, that could be start of the trail…

    If you’re looking for a suspect – my suggestion would be begin with: So who do we know in the Pacific time zone who likes checking 990s of climate skeptics?

  100. From the comments at Bishop Hill:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/15/heartland-says-key-memo-was-fake.html?currentPage=4#comments

    ——————

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:

    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:

    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    ———————–
    I have no idea if that means anything, or is even factually correct, just worth bringing to WUWT attention?

  101. I’m reminded of an experiment on another blog where a Turing test was set up: atheists and Christians were asked to write two pieces, one honest and one fake, explaining their viewpoint. Readers were asked to guess which pieces were true/fake atheists/Christians. The most interesting ones were the failures, where someone just wasn’t able to understand the opposing side’s viewpoint.

    This little episode here looks like a failed Turing test: a warmist writing a piece pretending to be a skeptic, clearly exposing his skewed view of how skeptics think.

  102. Ian Woolley says, February 16, 2012 at 5:40 am:

    Perhaps analysis of the rejected first draft might help? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22815239/RejectedDraftHIMemo.pdf
    ——————————————————————————————

    Thanks – that shows the mindset of the fabricators to a ‘T’.
    The last sentences of the last paragraph are especially illuminating – they could grace any warmist activist paper!

  103. Bill says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:31 am
    a physicist
    —————————————
    Bill, all f this and more has been presented to “A phycist” before. He does not engage, instead, troll like, he just repeats this tired false analogy equivacating the two as if they were the same, hoping to misinform some reader who does not read all the posts.

  104. This is payback for the Climate Gate leaks. Since they didn’t have real documents like in Climate Gate, they had to fake it.

    It’s pity the media ignored the real docs and pounced upon the fakes.

    BTW: Did Dan Rather recently changes jobs?

    ~More Soylent Green!

  105. Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    ============================================================
    Those don’t match. The fake Heartland scan was created with EPSON scan using that version of AdobeXMP DLL but the desmogblog document was created with Adobe InDesign CS5 (7.0.3) using that version of AdobeXMP DLL. Two different products.

  106. CodeTech says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:32 am

    It’s as authentic as the document purporting to show G. W. Bush shirked his Vietnam Viet Nam obligations,

    Fixed it for you, free of charge. ;)

  107. A good guess would be that this document was composed by an activist nitwit on advice by his nagging vegan girlfriend and between sessions with the bong. No one who’s been connected in any way to a board of any kind, or has ever held a job in an office (or a job, period) would write such a silly memo.

    And, hey, where’re our visiting warmista-propagandista muppets, the strident meisters of pseudoscience, the Green cartel apologistas? Time for some comedic interludes. Connolley? YO, CONNOLLEY!!!

  108. 1. A physicist posted:
    It seems to me that a primary duty of scientist and skeptic alike — a duty that we owe most especially to our children and grandchildren, who will inherit the planet that we are creating — is to provide the strongest skeptical analysis in regard to the strongest scientific theories and observations.
    That is why focusing weak skeptical “gotchas” on weak “not even wrong” science amounts to a dereliction of duty to future generations. And basing weak “gotchas” on illegally obtained, out-of-context, dubious-provenance documents is just plain disgraceful.
    No matter who does it, stolen-document “gotchas” are just plain wrong. Everyone should appreciate the harm that comes from this practice, condemn it absolutely, and foreswear it utterly, both scientist and skeptic alike.
    It is mighty dismaying (to me) that of many hundreds of WUWT posts on the Climate Gate/HeartlandGate affairs, not even one other WUWT poster has agreed with this common-sense principle.
    Abandoning the rational analysis of sobering scientific findings, and focusing instead on politics-first “gotchas”, is just plain foolish, plain wrong, and a plain dereliction of duty, no matter whether that “gotcha” focus comes from climate-change believers or from climate-change skeptics.
    Thanks for your interesting post. The original seemed too biased to deserve a response.
    I will try a little reflective listening and see what I get from your message.
    Is the first sentence your statement ‘scientist and skeptic alike’ is a very poor concept. It implies that skeptics are never scientist and that AWG supporters either are all scientists or don’t count. The false perception that the first sentence gives is quite offensive to me.
    I strongly agree with your point about the need for strong skeptical analysis. This point has been made my so many on this sight. However, applying this only to the ‘strongest theories and observations’ would be foolish. On old statement ‘the devil is in the details’ applies.
    Your point on taking care of the future is important. However, from my perspective taking care of the present is also critical. Radical destruction of the present is not a good way to take care of the future. Great care and extreme skepticism must be applied to anyone who suggests destruction of the present is wise. The reverend Jim Jones mentality is still healthy in some.
    In your second paragraph you seem only critical of the ‘skeptical’ side. It reads as if you are blind to the possibility that the CAGW side could ever get anything wrong. That is logically invalid and almost religious in perspective.
    I would rewrite it as follows:
    That is why focusing on “gotchas” or weak “not even wrong” science amounts to a dereliction of duty. The failure to acknowledge valid points on either side of the argument changes the focus from science to ego and religion. It is critical to take a careful look at the arguments and counter argument of both sides. When either side argues from a non-scientific perspective (ignoring facts, making personal attacks, insults, misinformation and outrageous overstatements) that side discredits itself. Is spite of such foolishness it is important that we maintain our focus on the facts and the scientific data. Our duty is to get at the truth. Our intelligence is wasted if we cannot accept new or different truths when we find them. It is equally wasted if we blindly accept claims from whatever source without making our best attempt to determine its validity.
    Basing “gotchas” on out-of-context, dubious-provenance documents is just plain disgraceful.
    Your next paragraph also disturbs me. Of course this is critical of the climate gate e-mails and identifies them as ‘stolen’ a common but unproven warmest assumption. I agree that the release of these documents does not appear to be proper in that the unethical failure of CRU to release this public information was overcome by unauthorized release from a person unknown. However as I understand the law these documents are public information and should have been released by CRU without resistance. As public information is not inappropriate for the public to review and discuss them. It has always been wrong to take the comments out of context and to fail to request clarification on sensitive issues from the originator. Regarding the ‘stolen’ Hartford documents and the fraudulently prepared document included in the release the same concepts apply. That information which belongs in the public domain is fair game. But, the private information should be ignored and the fraudulent document discredits not only the originator of this fraud, but anyone who made any comment in support of its contents.
    I have no problem with the remaining points which seem balanced and condemn inappropriate acts on both sides of this issue. Thanks for that.
    Thindad

  109. It’s telling that the warmists had to forge documents and FOIA did not.

    Gives some perspective on the seriousness of this wholly manufactured “scandal.”

  110. Thanks Anthony, excellent detective work!

    Isn’t it a pity that Global Warming (of any kind) stopped in 1998?
    Agriculture in high latitudes would suffer most.
    Please don’t take away my global warming!

  111. TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    Nothing to see here move along. ;>)

  112. There are a two specific details that would be extremely helpful in reconstructing the timeline:

    1. At what time was the email sent from the Heartland staff member to the individual posing as a board member?

    2. At what time did the anonymous “Heartland Insider” email out the documents to DeSmog and the other recipients?

    Does anybody have these details yet?

  113. The irony hear is that when the dust has settled, and the court cases are all done, the folks who posted these documents in such great haste, and without confirming with the source, will end up being the biggest financial contributors to the Heartland Institute in 2012.

    Some of the perpetrators will disappear (see ya desmogblog) because they can’t afford the penalties, but others have deep pockets.

  114. The silver lining – Heartland Institute is now on the International map….watch their fundraising numbers soar. Heartland should name their next fundraiser after the forger.

  115. If the strategy document is a fake, rather than something a Heartland staffer scanned to give to whoever appears to have impersonated a board member, it’s a clumsy mistake on the leakers’ part. The rest of the documents are more than enough to bring the Heartland Institute’s non-profit charitable organization status into question, and adding a fake to the mix has the potential of hugely diluting the impact.

    If Heartland were to release the email they sent to the phisher, they could (a) clearly demonstrate whether this particular document is a fake, and (b) show whether any of the other documents are modified – although the numbers in the various docs appear to match up with other sources and external confirmation, such as from Anthony, Carter, Wojicks, etc. They could also show it to the police, as part of any legal investigation into the leak.

    I’m a bit surprised they haven’t done so already.

  116. Brian H sums it up well. If you have had any dealings with a Board, this memo becomes an obvious fake after a few sentences. A “Confidential Memo” which contains a sentence that say he “proposes” to keep this confidential. A total laugher. If you believe this fake after that sentence, you are hopeless.

    Another detail is the discussion on the K-12 program. In the memo it looks like this is the first time the board is hearing about it. It talks about “considering”. In the budget, it looks like a lot of work has been done, even mentioning a website. Point being, the wording is off. And why have a confidential memo about a project that clearly has been ongoing, as in received previous board approval?

    And as the defenders of the validity of “The Protocals of the Elders of Heartland Institute” like to point out, all the info in the memo is available in the other documents. So tell me again why a director would consider this confidential information, available only to a subset of the board, which as Brian H says, basically starts a big sh*t storm with the other board members when they find out. Again, what part of this memo has Confidential Information in it? None.

  117. Eric wrote: “Those don’t match. The fake Heartland scan was created with EPSON scan using that version of AdobeXMP DLL but the desmogblog document was created with Adobe InDesign CS5 (7.0.3) using that version of AdobeXMP DLL. Two different products.”

    The DLLs are a match. It could be a coincidence, but it needs to be investigated.

  118. I see that over at Richard Black’s page the highest rated comment fill up the first page of comment. All of it! Each on lambasting Black on his journalistic ethics and double standards or pointing the huge discrepancy in funding, many backing Watts.

    I’m checking out page 2 and it has got off to a good start, first 3 comments pro Hartland and Watts. Bring out the popcorn. ;O)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

  119. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    February 16, 2012 at 5:15 am

    R. Gates? Your analysis? Don’t have one? My, My.

    Exactly! I was expecting half a dozen posts from R. screaming this was a “theft” but all I got was complete and total silence.

    How fitting.

  120. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:42 am

    They were all made using word processing software (Word Perfect, suprisingly)

    Word Perfect is favoured by the legal profession for a whole host of reasons but, suffice to say, if it was written in WP, it was probably written by a lawyer or someone trained as a legal secretary. That makes the “memo” even more laughable. No lawyer would write like that, no lawyer would approve anything like that and if such a memo had been circulated without being passed through the legal department, whoever wrote it would be fired. Instantly. No protests.

  121. Steve S says:
    February 16, 2012 at 5:43 am

    Once upon a time, old What’s His Name over at Littlegreenfootballs would have been all over an obvious fake like this. Sadly, he’s gone full CO2, and is quoting the forgery as if it were gospel. There will never be another ‘throbbing’ memo from that guy.
    _______________________________
    At this time, here’s Charles Johnson’s most recent take on the matter:
    _______________________________________
    28 Charles Johnson Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:32:16pm

    …”However, don’t assume that Heartland is telling the truth about how this happened, apart from it being emailed. I don’t see any reason to trust their “impersonation” story. They’re almost certainly lying when they claim that one of the docs is a fake.”
    ________________________________
    While Johnson’s blog initially attracted a large following of truth- seekers and libertarian types, it is now perhaps, more famous for censorship, both subtle and overt, of those not adhering to the screed.
    ——————————————————
    “Come writers and critics
    Who prophesize with your pen
    Keep your eyes wide
    The chance won’t come again

    Don’t speak too soon
    For the wheel’s still in spin
    And there’s no tellin’ who
    That it’s namin’
    from: Bob Dylan-The Times They Are A-Changin’

  122. From one of the commenter on Richard Black’s column:

    174. scientist_sceptic
    Richard, I have news for you – you are fighting a guerrilla war which you cannot win. Your side is extremely well funded, connected to the very top, armed with the latest tech in propaganda. One thing missing – Truth.

    And the reason for the effectiveness of sceptics is that propaganda is expensive, truth is cheap. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

  123. More Soylent Green! said, “This is payback for the Climate Gate leaks. Since they didn’t have real documents like in Climate Gate, they had to fake it.”

    Clearly. What a bunch of sorry numpties. I’m embarrassed that DeSmog and the law and PR firm that supports it are in my city, but it’ll fun watching them wriggle as our superb National Post daily drills them all a new one in the coming days and weeks.

    I’d add too that this is also a flopping fraudulent attepmt to reinforce the warmistas’ latest PR brainwave, namely the lame charge that skeptics are “anti-science.” Bet ya that when Connoley and the usual suspects appear here, they’ll be plugging and repeating that meme until someone gets around to issue a new set of orders for them. How do these people mess up time and time again with all that money behind them is one of the mysteries of our age.

  124. TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    —————————–

    Interesting!!

  125. Page 2 of Black’s ‘highest rated’ comments page is the same as page 1. Damning of Richard Black’s hypocrisy, double standards and peddling fake stories to the public.

  126. Eric (skeptic) says:
    February 16, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    ============================================================
    Those don’t match. The fake Heartland scan was created with EPSON scan using that version of AdobeXMP DLL but the desmogblog document was created with Adobe InDesign CS5 (7.0.3) using that version of AdobeXMP DLL. Two different products.

    It depends on which application assembled the PDF. CS5 Design Premium ships with InDesign and Acrobat X Pro among other products. If they are shipped together, they would use the same core version/patch level of the XMP engine. If the document was scanned on a scanner that was attached directly to a PC and then opened and saved using Acrobat Pro on the PC, then the metadata would would show the XMP core version of the application that saved the file (Acrobat Pro, in this case). If, on the other hand, the PDF is created by the scanner (newer scanners will do this) and then saved as a PDF to a flash drive on the local scanner, then the document would show the embedded XMP core version of the scanner.

    So its quite possible that these two documents were created using the same copy of CS5. Its not conclusive — I imagine thousands of copies of CS5 were shipped with that patch level. But it is certainly curious and a major clue.

  127. Good one, JamesD with your The Protocols of the Elders of Heartland Institute moniker for this sham.

    O yes, as many have noted, what great PR for the Heartland Institute and what a reminder that skeptics are up against vicious charlatans with deep pockets and absence of ethics.

  128. KR says:
    The rest of the documents are more than enough to bring the Heartland Institute’s non-profit charitable organization status into question, …

    On what grounds?

    I see this accusation bandied about quite a lot, but have yet to see anyone indicate what they think Heartland has done which violates the provisions of section 501(c)(3). I get the distinct impression that the people saying such things generally don’t have a clue as to what activities are covered under 501(c)(3) …

  129. I would invite Jo Nova to post her article about Climate Alarmism funding on WUWT …

    That’s what I would do.

  130. I love the irony here…Heartland want’s to get to the truth, and the real facts of the science of climate, where it has been shown the data has been manipulated and falsified.

    Now, in an effort to discredit Heartland, and all that it stands for, the data is….falsified.

    The most significant difference between Heartland and the AGW crowd? the AGW crowd had to falsify its data to prove its case…. Heartland didn’t.

  131. Fakegate?

    Fraudgate?

    More like Flubgate. So embarassing for certain ‘journalists’. Next thing you know they’ll be running with a story on a hidden herd of wolly mammoths in Siberia.

  132. Google “Yellow Dots of Mystery”. I am speculating that a scanned hard-copy document PDF contains forensic tracking features that law enforcement agencies mandated be automatically ‘printed’ on each scanned page of a document. You might be able to ‘see’ those features in the PDF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a bunch of webpages describing this for printers. There are also YouTube videos out there describing how you can find these features printed on printer hard-copy output

  133. AdderW
    February 16, 2012 at 4:10 am

    The “fake” document isn’t a fake per se, it is just taken out of context …
    /snort
    ###

    No no no, It wasn’t a lie it was just an attempt to demonstrate deeper truth!

    It pretty pathetic that the left loosers, even after they get a hold of some documents, can’t find anything useful in them so they have to make it up. And Revkin ought to be fired for his stupid spin. I will remember this one and bring it up every time this jokers name is brought up.

  134. A jury of their peers might not convict these folks, but I think there might be a few heading for the door.
    ————————–
    Several mentions have been made of the use of commas. There are instances where a few too many can be better than one too few. So to brighten your day:

  135. TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.
    **********************
    I believe that is pushing mere coincidence, into the category of…
    ” Your Honor, the Accused is… “

  136. This isn’t forgery if you are a Warmist, it is mere homogenization.
    Actually this again shows the length that Warmists will go push their POLITICAL agenda.

  137. I think this was created (as opposed to scanned) with the desktop program that is integral to the Epson Document Scanner. You just import any document created in any fashion, and it will convert it to .pdf format, or almost any format. I had one of these handy little gadgets for quite some time. I got rid of it and my separate printer in favour of an all-in-one scanner, fax and printer from Lexmark (which has the same capabilities) as the Epson had a problem handling Cyrillic fonts.

  138. Some of the perpetrators will disappear (see ya desmogblog)

    Desmog is backed by John Lefebvre who, even after pleading out with the US Attorney, is believed to have retained hundreds of millions of dollars from his NETeller days.

  139. Епсон скенер омогућава повезивање Ворд докумената у ПДФ докумената у формату, али не пише ћирилицу лако. Short example of what I mean.

  140. Its possible that additional information like an IP address can be found in the documents header using an EXIF Data Viewer.

    Also, is one of the Board of Directors located on the west coast and does he or she have any children. Huff Post commenters have brain washed most of the kids out here.

  141. Forget the MSM and blogospheres role in perpetuating the fraud and misinformation, Yahoo, in their fine tradition as uncritical megaphone for alarmist press release, are mangling the facts in this fiasco with Anthony’s name upfront and center.
    People may not realize that Yahoo is only surpassed in traffic by Facebook and Google.

  142. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Some dogs do catch their tails.
    _________________________
    Classic.

  143. mpaul said “If they are shipped together, they would use the same core version/patch level of the XMP engine.” Possible. I don’t know about those particular products, but in general products ship with their own DLLs in that product’s own directory. But if it is as you say, I agree it is a decent clue.

  144. Re: Jay Davis February 16, 2012 at 7:25 am: “I suspect Media Matters has a hand in it.”

    Then that would be serious, given the recent revelation that MM is coordinating weekly with the Obama WH. Cheers -

  145. > charge that skeptics are “anti-science.”

    Heartland certainly are; they are trying to mislead people into thinking that net natural fluxes of CO2 are greater than human fluxes.

  146. Aren’t we lucky that bad people are usually also stupid people. Makes them easier to catch.

    I looked at a couple of warmist blogs and was glad to see that they are attempting to be fair in their approach. Perhaps they realize this type of thing is detrimental to their causes, and that it could happen to them as well. However, the top story on DeSmogBlog does not acknowledge the fake, choosing instead to demonize Heartland again for providing any funding to anyone. At least they are consistent (wrong as usual).

    To KR:February 16, 2012 at 8:40 am: I see nothing in the real Heartland docs that would be an issue with their tax status. Perhaps you can explain. Here is a link to the code: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html.

  147. TerryS says:
    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    Try Googling for “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26″ and look at the pages that come up. That string appears to be the version number of a DLL in a recent version of the toolkit. It’s too widely distributed to imply or tell you anything.

  148. Eric (skeptic) says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:02 am
    ===========
    I think your original assessment was dead on target. The software installed for the Epson Printer simply uses the XMP engine version and millions of copies are in circulation. XMP is a very small part of the data that exists in the documents header. It would be interesting to see if a path to the host computer is also listed.

  149. Andrew Revkin, “looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.”

    So creating complete fabrications, not core points, is just an assembly of points to Revkin? I know some of you respect the guy, but I have yet to figure out why.

  150. Hey Anthony – Check This Out.

    Something is very peculiar about the “Climate Strategy” PDF file.

    It very much looks like a scan. The text is pixelated and lossy, and there are “scan artifacts” all over it, as if it were an image resulting from a scan of a printed page. And it is. But it isnt just an image. The text is selectable.

    Someone scanned a page, and then added invisible text on top of it. Hard to imagine why Heartland would have done such a goofy thing – type up a document, print it out, scan it back in, then retype the text over top. Easy to figure out why the miscreant forgers would: to make it easier for the useful idots to be able to copy and paste the “juicy parts” into their blogs.

  151. Whoever is funding Desmog is throwing good money after bad. But I’m happy to see them waste their money on an echo chamber populated by at most two dozen hard core head-nodders.

    . . .

    Next, as usual Connolley is being deceptive, this time by not admitting that the net annual human emissions are only ≈3% of the total, as reported by the IPCC.

    And the extra CO2 is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. There is no downside. More is better: CO2 is completely harmless at current and projected levels, where it is still just a tiny trace gas comprising only 0.00039 of the atmosphere. Therefore, the narrative demonizing “carbon” must be prompted by an ulterior motive: Cap&Trade, which would do absolutely nothing regarding global temperature, but which would be a massive tax on already hard-bitten taxpayers.

    Only the dishonest, and scientific illiterates support Cap&Tax. And only the dishonest, and scientific illiterates falsely claim that CO2 is a problem. Their own problem is that they cannot produce any verifiable examples of global harm caused by CO2. They are spreading a self-serving scare story.

    The best thing we can do for the biosphere is to produce more coal, oil, and natural gas. Because the CO2 that is currently being produced is clearly greening the planet. And we all want a greener planet, don’t we?

  152. DeSmog has been spinning a hilarious defense on their home page. Worth a guffaw for sure…although not enough to put a blip on their obviously pathetic traffic rank. I suspect the upcoming court cases will be far more entertaining. Anyhow, for further laughs, here’s the genius at DeSmog’s helm from the site’s own About page:

    Jim Hoggan is [was?] one of Canada’s most respected public-relations professionals and the president and owner of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates.

    A law school graduate with a longstanding passion for social justice, Jim also serves as chair of the David Suzuki Foundation—the nation’s most influential environmental organization [LOL!]….

    Jim is the co-founder of Stonehouse Standing Circle, an innovative public-engagement and communications think-tank, and the former chair of The Climate Project Canada—Al Gore’s global education and advocacy organization.

    So, DeSmog, a tacky, pseudo-trendy marketing firm concoction, well-connected to the deep pockets of the usual suspects, has the chutzbah to comment on Hartland Institute’s pitiful budget. How incompetent can these “PR gurus” get? How long and what will it take for this comical warmist scam to finally explode and spatter the walls with its feces? Hello out there! Any new spins ro keep the show going? Come on! Connoley? Hoggan? Speak up, boys! Might as well do it here, where the real action is.

  153. I think this quote from Desmog is telling.

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

    Desmog isn’t denying that the document isn’t a forgery, they are claiming that it is “Factually correct.” Where have we heard this before?

    The document is clearly a forgery.

  154. William Connolley, this is from Heartland: “We know enough about how the Earth’s climate works to know that biological and physical processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a faster rate when concentration levels are higher and release more heat into space when temperatures rise. These feedback factors and radiative forcings are poorly modeled or missing from the computer models that alarmists use to make their forecasts.”

    They don’t imply that the CO2 rise is natural in this overview doc: http://heartland.org/ideas/global-warming-not-crisis You may find some other doc that implies the current CO2 rise is natural, but if you look carefully it probably doesn’t really say that.

  155. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:35 am
    Hey Anthony – Check This Out.
    ==========
    Great catch, that’s very revealing. If the type aligns perfectly to the scanned image, then the same font and application would need to be used to achieve the effect. They must have constructed a document, scanned it, placed the scan in background, changed the text to no color, and then made a PDF. I suppose they could have added the text using Acrobat Pro but it would take a lot of effort.

    A bitmapped image doesn’t render selectable text in PDF so the document header information should be full of interesting information.

  156. The question I really would like to know is what happens from here. Is there sufficient in what the Guardian, BBC or those nameless bloggers wrote to instigate a libel case. Will the heartland institute raise an official complaint with the BBC and press complaints commission in the UK?

    If there is official action, where does e.g. Richard Black stand? Before this disclosure he was just able to use the excuse: “I base my opinion on well verified facts”. Now, it is very clear he does not verify his facts and it is also clear he was instrumental in trying to get this unsupportable smear of “deniergate” off the ground.

    In other words, we now see that Richard Black is using his position in a publicly paid job to run a pro-warmist smear campaign.

    In the normal course of events it would be impossible to see someone like Black keeping his job at the BBC … but this isn’t normal. This is an institutional wide smear campaign and it seems that he has guardian angels right at the top of the BBC.

    So, can the BBC squash this, or will it flare up in their face?

  157. JJ Wrote: “Someone scanned a page, and then added invisible text on top of it. Hard to imagine why Heartland would have done such a goofy thing – type up a document, print it out, scan it back in, then retype the text over top.”

    JJ, are you able to determine what part of the document has been altered?

  158. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:35 am
    Hey Anthony – Check This Out.
    Something is very peculiar about the “Climate Strategy” PDF file.

    Many PDF scanners will also OCR the scanned images, and embed the text into the PDF along with the image. Nothing to get worked up about.

  159. Megan McArdle has what appears to be a smoking gun. See “Update” near the bottom:

    Unless there’s an explanation I’m missing, that seems to clinch it–why would health care donations show up in their climate strategy report? Unless of course, it was written by someone who doesn’t know anything about facts of the donation, but does know that the Kochs make great copy.

  160. If a criminal investigation is pursued, whoever scanned the document may have done the authorities a big favor. This document, from Purdue University, describes techniques for determining what specific device that scanned a document “SOURCE SCANNER IDENTIFICATION FOR SCANNED DOCUMENTS” ( http://bit.ly/y8Z1Ur )

    I’m thinking somewhere, perhaps on the west coast, an epson scanner may be heading for a landfill soon… Pity, throwing away a perfectly good scanner! That’s not very “sustainable”.

  161. JamesD says:
    February 16, 2012 at 11:03 am
    JJ Wrote: “Someone scanned a page, and then added invisible text on top of it. Hard to imagine why Heartland would have done such a goofy thing – type up a document, print it out, scan it back in, then retype the text over top.”

    JJ, are you able to determine what part of the document has been altered?
    ========
    JJ is right, the text is selectable online but it looks like the version posted is a 3rd version of the original — note the (3) in the filename. Did desmog add the selectable text?

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20(3).pdf

    One would need the original to look at the original document header information. A save as PDF would introduce changes. Can we get a copy of the unaltered original?

  162. William M. Connolley says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:04 am

    > charge that skeptics are “anti-science.”

    Heartland certainly are; they are trying to mislead people into thinking that net natural fluxes of CO2 are greater than human fluxes.

    References?

  163. JonasM says:

    Many PDF scanners will also OCR the scanned images, and embed the text into the PDF along with the image. Nothing to get worked up about.

    I was not aware that OCR had been integrated like that. Seems like a reasonable explanation.

  164. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am
    JonasM says:

    Many PDF scanners will also OCR the scanned images, and embed the text into the PDF along with the image. Nothing to get worked up about.

    I was not aware that OCR had been integrated like that. Seems like a reasonable explanation.
    ========
    Just took a look at Epson printer/scanners that include OCR. The purpose of OCR is to convert an image to text for word processing. I didn’t see one that retains the image at the same time but it makes sense for proofing so it may be a feature.

  165. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am
    I was not aware that OCR had been integrated like that. Seems like a reasonable explanation.

    I used to write document imaging software for the legal profession. OCR software, even 10 years ago, could produce the image coordinates of each word. Easy to embed into PDFs – the PDF specification allows for it. Pretty cool.

  166. Jimbo says:
    February 16, 2012 at 11:23 am

    William M. Connolley says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:04 am

    “Heartland certainly are; they are trying to mislead people into thinking that net natural fluxes of CO2 are greater than human fluxes.”

    It depends on the meaning of the word “net”. Net incoming flux from nature is assuredly much greater than anthropogenic fluxes, to the tune of at least 32:1.

    This is a lower bound. Nobody really knows net incoming and outgoing natural fluxes to a high degree of accuracy. From rock weathering to microbes in the soil, we seem to find new sources and sinks everyday.

  167. The very possible faked document reminds me of the scheme where Dan Rather touted some fake documents on CBS news (or something like this…)

  168. The first clue to it being fake ought to have been seen in the fact that the smog hippies started whooping and throwing their crap, prematurely as usual, against the wind.

    It paints a hilariously nasty picture though. Butt naked hippie standing in the wind, covered all in crap, with an extra sticky hand going: That’ll show ‘em! O_o

  169. For posterity. All IDs are Version 4 (pseudo random) UUIDs and therefore do not contain MAC address information. But it may be worth Hartland checking the instance IDs of the files Emailed out.

    2012 Climate Strategy.pdf
    Document ID: 0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c5
    Instance ID: 692440ef-d85e-4cec-afef-742d339ece7

    Board Meeting Package January 17_0.pdf
    Document ID: 85ce398a-a426-4d5b-8fa3-350fd6cd49d
    Instance ID: 8e6d740c-c071-43b1-b410-f5ca7251b23

    Board Directory 01-18-12_0.pdf
    Document ID: 00a238ed-cb00-4ad1-bea9-ede3bc09308
    Instance ID: 3f30da0e-f56d-47b6-afb6-c50547f3c31

    2 Agenda for January 17 Meeting_0.pdf
    Document ID: 2b221201-69f5-41a5-9998-004d5825e9a
    Instance ID: 5b269c0f-0331-451d-a8ea-d0c4b44bb91

    Binder 1.pdf
    Document ID: e80b437b-df32-4841-ac42-509347e32c4
    Instance ID: e8a33bac-3fab-4030-9d39-77c32f97b4e

    (1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf
    Document ID: b206664b-abab-4e2e-a2b8-368e729112c
    Instance ID: 849f5ab3-0b54-453c-8f11-8d879653a02

    (1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan_0.pdf
    Document ID: 7f023130-ee81-4f05-aa90-fc2e64d15b6
    Instance ID: 09e87271-6ce7-47bd-be0d-ae42594ecaf

    2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf
    Document ID: bce2a27a-1d5a-4c6b-87e0-45f8938c95e
    Instance ID: 44003c4d-21b2-4cac-921b-715592a5a55

  170. Where was Connolley on the day in question?!

    [REPLY: Remarks like this are unfounded innuendo. Please refrain. -REP]

  171. William M. Connolley says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:04 am

    > charge that skeptics are “anti-science.”

    Heartland certainly are; they are trying to mislead people into thinking that net natural fluxes of CO2 are greater than human fluxes.
    ——————————————

    You shouldnt venture here willy ma boy, the truth isnt something youll like the taste of.
    Hows the wiki project going btw…..

  172. Who is this Billy Connolly that everyone keeps mentioning?

    Surely not the Billy connolly?

    [REPLY: No, you’re thinking of a different one. This is The CONNOLLEY. -REP]

  173. Tried to post a comment at Joe Joltin’ Romm’s blog warning them that the document is probably a fake and others might have been altered. I also attempted to demonstrate the massive disparity between pro-AGW funding and Heartland funding.
    Needless to say, my comment was deleted by the mods.
    So, having traded emails with Joe in the past, I decided to email the following to Joe directly. I hope he replies:

    “Hey Joe,
    It’s been a while since we exchanged emails. I wanted to get in touch again as I’m finding it nigh on impossible to post a comment on your site without it being moderated out.
    For instance, I tried to post the following on your article about the Heartland documents. Perhaps you’d like to read it yourself and pass comment:

    “I think you should be rather careful. Joe is right to be skeptical of at least some of these documents, as it turns out that one of the documents is a fake, and others may have been altered.
    One thing you have to admit about Climategate is that none of it was faked or altered.
    What some of the (allegedly) true documents show is how little funding is given to skeptics/deniers/call them what you want, when you compare it to how much money is piled into the AGW side of the debate (I hope the links work okay):
    Carbon Trading: In 2009 the global market for carbon credits was $144B (I kid you not) http://www.carbonflow.com/en/careers/senior-java-grails-engineers
    Exxon: paid more than 20 times as much for a single renewables research project than it did to skeptics http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/14/14greenwire-exxon-sinks-600m-into-algae-based-biofuels-in-33562.html
    Since 1990, Dr Jones and CRU have endowments of at least 22.6 million. This includes money from organisations attempting to make money from ‘renewables’, such as the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
    Greenpeace: total income of 58 million euros in 2010 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/greenpeace/2011/GPI_Annual_Report_2010.pdf
    The US govt is spending millions of dollars a day on global warming ‘research’. http://dailybail.com/home/4-billion-for-global-warming-research-in-2011-budget.html
    As you can see, I haven’t been rude and I’ve just tried to provide what I believe are reasonably solid facts.
    Why won’t you let my comments through? Surely you should allow at least a few comments through from the skeptic side of the debate, because if you don’t your blog will just turn into an echo-chamber of AGWers telling each other how wonderful they are.
    Are you afraid of debate?

    Regards,

    Andy Wilkins”

  174. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    February 16, 2012 at 5:15 am
    R. Gates? Your analysis? Don’t have one? My, My.

    Right, Mike.
    Too bad. I like R.Gates. I have a soft spot in my heart for R.Gates, due to an elder moment my wife and I experienced. Since new info is slow at this very moment, I’m going to try to sneak a folksy homily past the vigilance of the moderators.

    My wife (whose name for several decades has been Grammy) saw “the cutest puppy” which she wanted, and she wanted to name it R.Gates. I saw that yappy dog, an irritating little son-of-a-b*tch for sure, but it’s not in her character to think this way. I managed to talk her out of the purchase, so the puppy is peeing on someone else’s carpet now. I couldn’t help but ask about the name. She pointed out the black patch of fur surrounding one of the puppy’s eyes, like a furry buccaneer. You see, all the time I have been reading her what Anthony’s commentors have been writing, she just sits and does her needlepoint, listening. She wanted to name the dog after the guy pretending to be a pirate. She thought I was saying “Arrrgh!Gates”.

    [REPLY: OK. Cute story. Moderator approval…. but the rest of you lot, keep the gratuitous Gates-crashing to a minimum. Please. -REP]

  175. Jimbo says: February 16, 2012 at 8:51 am
    I see that over at Richard Black’s page…

    ha Jimbo, when I clicked your link, I first thought it was Michael Mann / Gavin Schmidt looking at me. Wait……….. it’s not ManBearPig, it’s MannBlackSmith.

    Ah, that explains everything.

  176. Alexander L. says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:47 am

    Heartland Institute Budget for 2013.

    Volunteer Donations: 2.1 million.
    Fund-Raising Donations: 3.7 million.
    Payments from news outlets after winning in courts: 92.4 million.

    Best comment yet on the affair!

  177. Re Heartland’s 501(c)(3) status. A public interest group can publicize their point of view all they want, hold conferences, write books, send out newsletters. They can not support particular candidates. Heartland does not violate this rule. Interestingly, many 501(c)(3) groups on the left DO violate this rule, but are never called out on it.

  178. A Physicist says: ” …. both scientist and skeptic alike.”

    Funny you should say it that way…. why didn’t you instead say “…both true- CAGW believer and scientist alike”? Are you implying that scientists cannot be skeptics… or perhaps insinuating that you believe that 97-98% of scientists believe in CAGW and therefore there are no scientists skeptical of CAGW?

  179. Hi Anthony,

    I have a question with the PDF image you used.

    How do you get to there to view properties of a PDF file?

    Thank you.

  180. JJ says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:35 am
    “Someone scanned a page, and then added invisible text on top of it.”

    No, this is what a scan of a document will do. The actual image with its poor quality fonts is held as a picture in one layer, and the scan software attempts to convert the image to text, and holds that text in a separate layer, in order to facilitate searching and copying of text. That has been done rather successfully. I can find only the two convert-to-text errors; they are as follows:

    “Our climate work is attractive to flinders,” (should be “funders”)

    “AVe have also pledged to help raise” (should be “We have”)

    Can somebody try opening the PDF in Photoshop and look at the layers? My old version of Photoshop says the file has errors.

  181. It’s another 10:10:10, isn’t it?

    Sniggering PR simpletons unable to recognise the Periodic Table if it slapped them in the face, think it awfully amusing to paint those evil deniers as actually being exactly like the warmist cognitive dissonance-created caricature. “See, here’s proof that they’re all anti-science, progress-hating zealots funded by Big Oil!”.

    Problem being, they know that little about The Enemy, the caricature bears so little resemblance to reality, that their fakery is exposed within hours. Still, the SkS devotees and their ilk, unable to look beyond the initial straw man, won’t even acknowledge the debunking of the exposé. To the true believers, this confirms everything they always knew, so they need never listen to anything that may ever lead them to doubt their faith.

    This is the kind of bull**** game that certain warmists play, knowing it works with a sizeable proportion of the populace. The useful idiots will pipe the message and the disinterested will be vaguely aware of MSM reports that all climate scepticism is bought-and-paid-for political chicanery.

    It takes an ever-more-concerted effort to demonstrate that there’s a series of principled, scientific arguments as to why CO2-fuelled CAGW is bunkum and that a number of climate-impacting factors are either underplayed, ignored or just don’t even appear on the radar of government-funded climate science.

  182. Jimbo says:
    February 16, 2012 at 11:23 am

    William M. Connolley says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:04 am

    > charge that skeptics are “anti-science.”

    Heartland certainly are; they are trying to mislead people into thinking that net natural fluxes of CO2 are greater than human fluxes.

    References?

    Wikipedia ;-)

  183. A physicist posted:

    It seems to me that a primary duty of scientist and skeptic alike —

    It is telling that you see these as mutually exclusive categories, rather than as occupation and prerequisite qualification. Or avocation and aptitude.

  184. A recap so far:

    A. Scott says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:46 am
    Keith Kloor claims to have been forwarded the original email accompanying the documents from the “insider/leaker”:

    He posts the wording from that “cover” email:

    Dear Friends (15 of you):

    In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.

    What is MOST interesting is what they recommend be checked out – the “fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form”

    What seems MUCH more interesting is what it does the it does not say, or should I say reference.

    What is missing is any mention by the emailer of the “Strategy” document – which is the KEY document in the bunch … yet he says nothing about it.

    Then comes the crowd sourced forensic evidence coming out

    1. The extensive and detailed “style” commentary of those like Megan McCardle

    2. The detailed document data, including, PDF version difference from other PDF’s, and the scanner time zone coding:

    Berényi Péter says:
    February 16, 2012 at 3:00 am
    Here is full meta info for file “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” as given by *N*X utility pdfinfo, version 0.12.4. The only major difference compared to Anthony’s analysis is it says PDF version was 1.4 (instead of 1.5). I reckon a plaintext command line utility is more reliable in this respect, than any fancy GUI thingy.

    However, we also have some more shards of info there. First we may notice time zone of “EPSON Scan” was “-08:00″, which is PST (Pacific Standard Time). From this we can guess the jurisdiction. We also know, that “Monday, February 13, 2012, 12:41:52 PM” is actually 2012-02-13 04:41:52 UTC (unixtime 1329108112). The file was posted on desmogblog at 2012-02-14 05:14:22 UTC.

    3. The “location” info for all of the deSmog blog participants being on the West Coast and in the Pacific time zone:

    Glenn says:
    February 16, 2012 at 1:27 am
    Desmogblog.com and boys all hang in Vancouver – Pacific Standard Time.
    John Lefebvre, Richard Littlemore, James Hoggan
    Brendan DeMelle lives in Seattle
    One of their close buds, John Mashey, lives in California.

    4. The PDF creator info comparing the Strategy document with another unrelated document created by deSmog blog and finding an exact match:

    TerryS says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am
    Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
    “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
    I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

    5. Perhaps the best/closest to the “smoking gun” – Megan McCardles discovery that the Koch contribution to Heartland was SPECIFICALLY for Health Care not CLIMATE – as clearly shown in the evidence

    Update: Koch says that their contribution was for health care, not global warming …And indeed, when you look at the fundraising document, the coding next to Koch’s donation is “HCN” which certainly seems to be their health care code–other donors with that code include Bayer, Amgen, EliLilly, and GlaxoSmithKline ….that seems to clinch it–why would health care donations show up in their climate strategy report? Unless of course, it was written by someone who doesn’t know anything about facts of the donation, but does know that the Kochs make great copy.

    6.The “unique identifier” meta info – which may yield further clues:

    Berényi Péter says:
    February 16, 2012 at 3:00 am
    Here is full meta info for file “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” as given by *N*X utility pdfinfo, version 0.12.4.

    The other thing is uuid‘s (universally unique identifiers) found in meta info, which are supposed to be universally unique after all. I am talking about these codes:

    DocumentID: 0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c52
    InstanceID: 692440ef-d85e-4cec-afef-742d339ece7b

  185. I think Delingpole has come up with the perfect moniker for this – “FakerGate” …

    I propose WUWT does NOT keep this confidential, and all here adopt this as the official name for this debacle and use it everywhere ;-)

  186. Brian H says:
    February 16, 2012 at 6:18 am

    The smoking gun: “I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.”

    … To the contrary, it was almost certainly crafted by someone who has never served or interacted with a Board of Directors.

    I completely agree with Brian. This memo was clearly written by someone who purposefully intends to set up an incendiary situation, a huge mistake that anyone with professional etiquette would not risk.

    I have several huge red flag issues with this memo. The first echoes what Brian states because it is so glaring. When writing a memo to the Board, one absolutely does not exclude any board member and have the arrogance to state so in writing. The legal ramifications for doing so are enormous. The act is even more egregious when the memo is also directed to senior staff, which is unusual because senior staff are not necessarily the Officers.

    Whoever wrote the memo doesn’t seem to understand an Institution’s organization, doesn’t realize the insult created, and ignorantly believes staff and Board members don’t talk with each other. The author intends that the reader believe that every member of the Board wouldn’t have the business sense to demand proper conduct of business. I find that impossible to believe given my experience serving on Non Profit and For Profit Boards. Boards exist to ensure proper conduct of business by virtue of their business experience and almost always include non-Institute members from the business community for unbiased balance. No Board would allow such grievous conduct.

    The memo is in the form of a poorly written narrative that is telling the Board what the Institute’s strategies are going to be. This is bass ackwards. The Board counsels on the Institution’s strategies and makes recommendations to its Officers (not senior staff). The Board would already know this information so there is no good reason why the information would be relayed to the board as a confidential disclosure unless the Board is routinely kept in the dark and exists only to play golf. Besides, a Board member already understands that he/she is legally bound to keep all information before the Board strictly confidential. The author doesn’t seem to know this. It appears the so-called confidentiality of the document is for dramatic punctuation and show.

    The statement “… and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.” is very problematic. It should say “to a subset of [Members of the] Institute[‘s] Board [of Directors] and Senior staff. This person is illiterate and hardly someone who would be communicating strategic information to the Board.

    The memo lacks proper structure. There’s no salutation and, from my perspective, crass beyond believability. Headers, numbering, indentation, proper paragraph breaks, bullets, and standard business conventions are all absent giving evidence that this person is ignorant about communicating this type of information at a management level.

    The author directs the reader to other documents without proper reference as to what details the reader is supposed to understand. There’s no context whatsoever to the direction other than to draw attention to other documents for no stated purpose. Plus, in the logical flow of the memo, it’s out of place giving the appearance that the author didn’t have the time to assemble his/her thoughts coherently.

    Seriously, if someone sent me a memo like this, I would be immediately on the phone asking what idiot wrote it and why do they feel it appropriate to blindside Board members over seemingly mundane matters that would normally fall under a Board’s counsel?

    This memo is clearly a fake.

  187. It has emerged overnight (my time) that Joseph Blast has claimed that he referred the matter to police in a letter seeking funding. If he referred the matter to police while believing no crime had been committed,he himself would have committed a crime. If he falsely claimed to have referred matter to police in a document seeking funding, he has committed fraud. Therefore the reasonable assumption is that he does have reason to think a crime was committed, and that therefore the Heartland Institute was the victim of a phishing scam. From that it follows with high probability from currently available evidence that the “strategy document” is indeed a fake, and that the other documents (excluding the 990 form) where obtained by criminal activity.

    Please further note that my reasoning in the last paragraph of my previous post was faulty. In particular, although I did not realize it at the time, the 990 form has been publicly available on the net since shortly after its submission to the IRS. There is, therefore, no evidence to my knowledge that this is in any way the work of somebody associated with the Heartland Institute.

    In passing I will note that JJ’s reasoning above is entirely spurious, but given new evidence that is hardly consequential.

  188. Mysteries abound everywhere! Here’s another: how is it Megan McArdle of the Atlantic could craft such a long detailed investigation of the memo, and yet still miss the obvious in her apparently unshakeable belief in AGW?

  189. Paul Coppin says:
    February 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm
    Mysteries abound everywhere! Here’s another: how is it Megan McArdle of the Atlantic could craft such a long detailed investigation of the memo, and yet still miss the obvious in her apparently unshakeable belief in AGW?

    Uh, because she is your typical MSM moron, or was that a rhetorical question?

  190. I commented on Desmogblog the following:

    “You really are scared, aren’t you? Scared stiff that the kids with $7 millions have managed to dismantle the $4 billion-a-year propaganda mounted by the warmist lobby. You are so scared that even confuse showing scientific facts with “attacking the science”. The skeptics are merely debunking flawed results of useless climate models –known as PlayStation-3® style video games- with impeccable scientific methodology.

    I guess it is natural to feel terrified. It is every time you are confronted with the truth and see your ignoble business in danger.

    BTW, when is Desmogblog’s alma mater, John Lefebvre getting paroled in his 24 year prison sentence?”

    It appeared briefly, and was soon deleted. I wonder why? ;-)

  191. Regarding tax status:

    * The “Operation Angry Badger” indicates involvement in politics, namely the Wisconsin recall efforts – HI may have to release the pamphlets they have produced to document whether this effort was or was not partisan. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html)

    * The “Government Relations” budget is a significant part of their budget, and is arguably lobbying – a violation of ‘charitable’ status. From IRS form 13903, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf), there are checkboxes for Organization is involved in a political campaign and Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities

    * As I understand it, payments to foreign interests/agents that are not directly related to work in the US or travel are an issue – the payments to Dr. Carter have been brought up by several blogs (I’m less clear on this one).

    However, I am certainly not a tax expert; I’m just noting what I’ve seen discussed so far. HI may be entirely in the clear. But the budget as released certainly looks much more like a lobbying effort than a charitable or research oriented organization, and that is something they should be very concerned about.

  192. KR,

    What is your opinion on the 501c(3) tax-exempt status of Media Matters, which meets weekly in the White House to coordinate strategy in attacking Obama’s political ‘enemies’, and strategizes regarding the Obama reelection campaign?

    See, I just want to know if you’re sincere, or a hypocrite.

  193. Point 3. One of the first questions I asked Joe Bast of Heartland when I saw this printed then scanned document was “do you not shred your trash”? His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”.
    As Harry Who would say “that present two possibility” either there is a mole inside Heartland or their computers have been hacked.

  194. Anthony, I am quite serious when I say that it is paramount that someone gives rational response to Yahoo. You ignore their traffic at your own peril. They are preceded by Facebook and Google alone in traffic. If you want your message to be heard, try there. But for now they are trashing you to no end while you absorb an audience of microscopic numbers.

  195. Antnee re

    Simply respond on Yahoo comments with clear,concise,accurate responses. There is an entire world waiting. Yahoo filters, yes, but for the time being they do allow most responses. For a subject of an article to give their side would simply be unique. I implore you and all other rational beings to avail yourselves of the third most prolific portal of information at your fingertips. Let us see what happens. Mind you they are not all that bright, they are a product of the current American curriculum, but damn they are the majority and they are (hell help us) our future.

    REPLY: WHAT Yahoo comments, where? Not a URL mind reader here. – Anthony

  196. Also check the Heartland page on wikipedia:

    “On February 14, 2012, a leak on the internet revealed internal documents from The Heartland Institute. The documents showed that the institute planned to provide climate sceptical materials to teachers in the USA to promote their ideas to school children. Furthermore, it can also be read, that climate sceptics were being paid by The Heartland Institute, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month) and a single pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts, all of whom are denying the data about man-made global warming. All the original documents can be viewed online.”

    Funny how the fraud and fakery isnt mentioned when wiki links to DeSmog for “All the original documents”.

  197. KR says:

    Regarding tax status:

    * The “Operation Angry Badger” indicates involvement in politics, namely the Wisconsin recall efforts – HI may have to release the pamphlets they have produced to document whether this effort was or was not partisan. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html)

    501(c)(3) organizations are not prohibited from “involvement in politics”. To the contrary, that is one of the more common activities undertaken by 501(c)(3) groups. They can do issue advocacy to their hearts content. They can advocate for specific legislation. They can do voter registration and voter education. They just can’t campaign for candidates. Don’t know about this pamphlet issue, but one wonders how pamphlets that have not been released, whatever they contain, could be considered a violation of anything.

    * The “Government Relations” budget is a significant part of their budget, and is arguably lobbying – a violation of ‘charitable’ status. From IRS form 13903, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf), there are checkboxes for “Organization is involved in a political campaign and Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities“

    501(c)(3) organizations are not prohibited from all lobbying activities, and not all “Government Relations” work would necessarily be lobbying. At any rate, the Government Relations buget is reported on Form 990. That is a public document. Heartland posts it on its website. No theft necessary.

  198. Over in the comments at Lucia’s, Mosher is posting some fascinating analysis of unusual words and odd punctuation habits in the faked document having a strong correlation to the same unusual words and similarly odd punctuation habits in the recent writing of a certain AGW activist, who coincidentally happens to be mentioned positively in that document, is based on the west coast, is linked to Forbes, has had recent blog battles with a Heartland staffer, is known to have special dislike for both Judith Curry and Andy Revkin, and last month joined the board of NCSE, an organization recently expanding its mission to include ‘defending’ global warming instruction in schools against perceived ‘oil-industry funded’ attacks.

    No smoking gun yet but very interesting circumstantial evidence. Crowd sourced investigation into the intriguing hypothesis continues…

  199. sorry Anthony I thought you were aware.
    Yea Yahoos been on our case for almost a decade, but then it’s kinda hard to argue with someone who can’t distinguish between then or than, their or there and a multitude of others that even appear in headlines and advertisements, Yea, stupid is the new smart but maybe, just maybe, if you show them what those color bands in the Grand Canyon really, really mean there may be some hope.

  200. Ant re Yahoo

    At your convenience, why is Yahoo taboo? No time constraints, no communication constraint, email or inline, I understand.

    REPLY: No taboo, you just seem incapable of communicating a URL to back up what you are saying. I can’t respond to what you don’t show me. – Anthony

  201. KR said “However, I am certainly not a tax expert; I’m just noting what I’ve seen discussed so far. HI may be entirely in the clear. But the budget as released certainly looks much more like a lobbying effort than a charitable or research oriented organization, and that is something they should be very concerned about.”

    The IRS says “If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3).”

    KR, why should we believe your concern about HI, and not about 501c3 actors like http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/RommJoseph.html ? Joe Romm certainly seems to be campaigning against specific candidates here: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/02/333846/west-virginia-anti-science-gubernatorial-candidates/ Why aren’t you concerned about that?

  202. Anthony Watts

    I am not about to waste any more of your time. You are up against an order of several magnitudes of funding against you. It was just that I never see any reference to the third largest portal on the internet. And it says nothing good about you. If you are not aware of the what is being said about you on Yahoo! then I am sorry. Do you understand the traffic at Yahoo or what they say or how to deal with it?
    I want more than anything in my entire existence for the scientific method to succeed in the evolution of our existence, to prevail above ignorance and superstition.
    How the hell am I supposed to hang on to this precarious precipice if you don’t even know what the hell is being said to hundreds of millions of people about yourself? Whether you like it or not you are now thrust into a position to respond or not. I did not put you there, you did not put you there. But you can now respond in a plethora of manor.
    All of us that care deeply for you would love to see you succeed in whatever you desire as our now useless constitution encompassed. For you to complete a surface station project that humans can actually use without the interpretation of the High Priest of Politically Correct.
    I wish you well but I can see that I am not in a position to help, but you have many friends with much better eyes than I.

    All my love to you and yours
    John Crane

  203. John another,

    OK, let’s have a look at this article you’re so excited about.

    Para 1. “Leaked documents…”
    This is incorrect. Much of the claimed science is not established (e.g. on feedbacks). No sceptic ever sets out to contradict science that has actually been properly established.

    Para 2. Reports are that Koch contributed for work on healthcare, not climate science. And listing funders has never been more than ad hominem conspiracy theorising. Climate scientists get funding from industry. Activists for AGW action like DeSmogBlog get funding. It’s meaningless, and if it wasn’t meaningless, the AGW-alarmist campaign would be discredited itself.

    Para 3. OK apart from the ad hominem reference to power companies, as if that was relevant. CRU are sponsored by power companies. The guy who officially investigated (and supposedly exonerated) the ClimateGate emails ran a windfarm company. Relevant?

    Para 4. Isn’t that from the fake document?

    Para 5. OK.

    Para 6. Everybody already knew that, apart from the last bit which isn’t exactly true.

    Para 7. Quotes from the faked document.

    Para 8. OK.

    Para 9. Sounds reasonable.

    Para 10. That’s the synthesis report, which is the one agreed by the politicians. The scientific report has a chapter on attribution which says proving humans did it can’t be done unequivocally (so anyone who claims to must be using equivocation) and that they only consider it ‘very likely’ that ‘most’ (more than 50%) of the warming between 1950 and 2000 was anthropogenic, conditional on their models being correct. That’s a lot weaker than the statement in the synthesis. But that’s how the IPCC reports work.

    Para 11. Some checks have been done, yes. And of course in many cases the models are found to disagree with reality. It is argued that these differences don’t matter, but they’re there.

    Para 12. This is fair enough. There are misleading statements on both sides on this issue. It’s true that natural flows are much bigger than manmade ones. It’s true that this doesn’t necessarily mean man is not the cause of the changed level. Although the science is a good deal more complicated and poorly understood than people generally think.

    Para 13. This statement is ridiculous. Everybody has always known that organisations like Heartland campaign on the issue. But they’ve also said that they have relatively little funding, they’re not orchestrating any huge movement, and the vast majority are entirely unfunded and doing it for the love of science and technology. These documents prove the first (and the document doing so was already public).

    Para 14. And the article closes by repeating the ad hominem conspiracy claim. If every time you mentioned the climate scientists at CRU, you also had to list all their industrial sponsors, this might be a little fairer. If you mentioned that the DeSmogBlog website being linked was a well-funded PR operation run by the PR agency Hoggan Associates, who do exactly what Heartland do, get funded and hand out funding to writers and campaigners in just the same way, it might have a bit less impact, yes?

    All in all, just another routine rubbish warmist article to go with the millions of others. Nobody has the time to respond to every one individually. I only did this one for fun.

  204. Maybe the memo wasn’t written by an institute of the Heartland, but by an institute of the Pacific, judging by the timestamp. [SNIP: Please, no speculation of this sort. -REP]

  205. JournoFraud Seth Borenstein has now jumped the shark, and is reporting from the faked document, verbatim.

    [Moderator’s Note: Links are always helpful in cases like this. -REP]

  206. So much fail in that article

    “A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed more than 1,300 most cited and published climate scientists and found that 97 percent of them said climate change was a man-made problem.”

    That statement is just an out and out, Jayson Blair like, fraud.

    “Scientifically there is no controversy.”

    And who does our fearless JournoLister get to make that statement?

    “said Harry Lambright, a Syracuse University public policy professor”

    Uh huh.

    “An environmental advocacy group, Forecast the Facts, on Thursday started a petition and social media campaign”

    I guess we shouldn’t look to JournoFraud Seth Borenstein to give the same anal exam to this “new” group that he just gave to Heartland, should we?

  207. Richard111 says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:03 am

    “I really, really would like to see the Guardian humbled.”

    For me they are second behind the BBC.

  208. Gary Mount says:
    February 16, 2012 at 12:45 am

    Sandy on February 16, 2012 at 12:24 am said:
    James Delingpole will almost certainly run with this. Supports his Watermelons book too.
    Should be most entertaining.
    ————
    Prepare for a shock, he’s endorsing Obama instead :

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100137740/why-im-rooting-for-barack-obama/

    I can see where he is coming from. None of the current crop of GOP canndidates exactly inspires great confidence.

  209. A physicist says:
    February 16, 2012 at 3:00 am

    “Abandoning the rational analysis of sobering scientific findings, and focusing instead on politics-first “gotchas”, is just plain foolish, plain wrong, and a plain dereliction of duty,…”

    However, the Climategate emails showed that the “warmist” so-called scientists were not solely discussing “sobering scientific findings” but ways they could “hide the decline,” how they could cherrypick which data series they would use, how they could “advance the cause,” how they could control (subvert) the “peer review” process and have fired the journal editors who did not play their game.

    Just remind me where Heartland Institute has been doing any of that here.

  210. Clearly this document is a creation of climate-deniers to embarrass their opponents by showing how gullible they are. Very clever.

  211. Regarding their tax-exempt status, Heartland may well be in the clear. After some research, I found that while the IRS will come done on those who they feel have violated the laws, the laws themselves are _extremely_ vague. Unless HI is _specifically_ endorsing a candidate, they shouldn’t be in violation.

    That holds for Media Matters and other organizations, too. The laws are just not terribly specific.

    That said, the documents that aren’t in question (budget, fundraising, etc) are really quite fascinating. I had not previously realized that the NIPCC reports were a product paid for by the Heartland Institute, or how much money they direct to SEPP.

  212. The blog articles I have seen insinuate that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to skeptical organizations or individuals, in some cases to challenge anthropogenic global warming dogmas in public education. Critics really should round the figure up to seven digits and compare it to the money fuelling the fully-institutionalized CAGW machine.

    I have some personal knowledge of that machine: my nephew, who is a private school science teacher, recently was awarded a full-tuition, two-year grant to study the causes and effects of manmade global warming in a graduate level geology program (probably worth $30,000 a year). If the preceding sounds like a tautology, one may begin to see why I call this movement an institutionalized “machine”. My niece (the geologist’s sister), a middle school educator, recently returned from Japan where she collaboratively developed Asian-American middle school curricula on the threats of global warming – funding provided by a Fulbright Scholarship (possibly worth $20,000). The university in question, and the Fulbright Foundation – need I say it? – do not fund skeptical science investigations, nor do they promulgate skeptical inquiry into CAGW in the public schools. It is canon. I love my niece and nephew, but I take no joy from their accomplishments, since they will unfortunately perpetuate a warped view of what science is, and how it should be taught and encouraged with easy money. They showcase the critical need for people who will question their assumptions.

    Hundreds of universities and dozens of other foundations are making similar grants routinely, many of which are simply carrying out their mandates from the government. That source of money is most certainly in the billions, and it is given with few stipulations other than a pledge of loyalty to the “cause”, as Phil Jones and Michael Mann liked to call their movement.

    So… the latest meme of the catastrophists is that their counterparts in the skeptical community have received some money – tens, or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. Considering the positive contribution of the skeptics – preserving trillions of dollars (more) from being wasted in chasing the CO2 chimera around the globe, and enhancing the science of true climate study and record-keeping – such reports are laughable. The main “capital” fuelling skeptics’ is a stubborn love of the truth and indignation at its perversion. It is interesting how many people believe that governments should be transparent, and that public data should be made public. It is truly astonishing how tenaciously some of these people have pursued that ideal. Journalists such as Suzanne Goldenberg of “The Guardian” have not yet tumbled to this.

    Ms. Goldenberg’s charge of skeptical funding is ludicrous and ironic. The money, and its corrupting influences have been almost exclusively on the side of the warmists; the real surprise is that proper science is being done without it by people want to know the truth. That instinct, perhaps, can yet be exploited to our benefit, and for the future of science. Meanwhile, funds in the real world are indeed part of the picture, and would help to sponsor legitimate fields of skeptical inquiry. But money alone will not save us from a wasted generation of students, notwithstanding the efforts of skeptics.

    When history examines what the skeptics did to bring down the global warming edifice, the only reference to their funding will be in acknowledgement of how little it really was.

  213. Bart – I’ve read various chapters of the NIPCC reports, but have never had the full document in hand. Individual chapters don’t include that information.

  214. Maurizio – I wasn’t complaining, just noting that I hadn’t dug into the funding sources for the NIPCC prior to this.

    I will note that I was more interested in the science presented, and evaluating the evidence, at the time.

  215. @John another says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm
    “Anthony, I am quite serious when I say that it is paramount that someone gives rational response to Yahoo. You ignore their traffic at your own peril. They are preceded by Facebook and Google alone in traffic.”

    “Yahoo earned $296 million in Q4 2011, down 5% from $312m a year earlier, this is just the latest in four years of disappointing financial results, which has seen the company hire its fourth chief executive in five years to try and stem its poor performance.” by Georgina Enzer at ITP January 25, 2012.

    Yahoo has pretty much always been irrational since they’ve always been trailing everybody else financially, hence they’re always struggling to catch up which is probably why a Yahoo search for heartland and anti-climate turns up a canadian telly show and the religious fundamentalist site of bickmore before any sort of yahoo news. ;-)

  216. I am not able to research much, so I hope you don’t mind my asking about an odd detail.

    In Megan McArdle’s Update regarding the Koch press release, she includes a screenshot from the “fundraising document”. The chart includes a line referring to Koch Foundation which has five columns which show “$0″, “$25,000″, “$200,000″, “800%” and “HCN”, in that order. According to the Foundation, they have only given $25,000 in 2011 and had not given previously and had no intention of giving more, and that was for Health Care Research, hence presumably the “HCN” designation. Ms. McArdle notes the “HCN” coding in her commentary.

    But where did the “$200,000″ and “800%” and those particular columns come from? Given that the Foundation states that they did not give the “$200,000″ cited in the “fake document”, it doesn’t make sense for those two columns to exist. I am sorry that I can’t access the “document” myself to see what the headers are. But if they only gave $25,000 in 2011, clearly the “$200,000″ number can’t represent the 2011 donation as reportedly falsely stated in the “fake document”. So where did the number come from? Is the percentage column perhaps there to emphasize the “return” as a donor and an “increase” from $25,000 to “$200,000”?

    Can someone tell if those two columns may have been falsified in some fashion? If they have, then it would appear that even the “apparently authenticated documents” are highly questionable and may have suffered manipulation to falsify other information as well.

  217. Steve S says:
    February 16, 2012 at 5:43 am
    Once upon a time, old What’s His Name over at Littlegreenfootballs would have been all over an obvious fake like this. Sadly, he’s gone full CO2, and is quoting the forgery as if it were gospel. There will never be another ‘throbbing’ memo from that guy.

    Good. Climate realists and uncorrupted scientists don’t need to be associated with the racist warmongers at that absurd site.

  218. Sue says:
    February 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “In Megan McArdle’s Update…
    But where did the “$200,000″ and “800%” and those particular columns come from?”

    From the “2012 Fundraising Plan” “Table 8 Anticipated Gifts,,,”
    The column header for the “$200,000″ is “2012 Projected” and the “800%” is “2012 as % of 2011″.

    Point is the so called “Climate Strategy” doc stated that Koch was a $200,000 donor in 2011, specifically for “climate projects” to address “interests” that are “threatened by climate policies”.

    Koch did not donate that amount, the other docs do not show that they did. Apparently Koch has donated in the past and was thinking about donating that amount in 2012, to healthcare, not climate projects.
    HTH

Comments are closed.