Josh from CartoonsbyJosh.com writes:
Another ‘Gate’ – but this one turned round and bit the owner.
Leo Hickman and co at the Guardian thought they had a bona fide leak of incriminating
information on the funding of climate skeptics by the Heartland Institute.
Two problems, the funding turns out to be rather small beer, especially in comparison to the vast sums of money paid to promote Climate Change Alarmism. Secondly it looked like the funds were going to fund scientists and with another trenche for a website to explain climate science research.
Hardly a surprise, and not exactly incriminating. It is what the Heartland does after all.
Third problem. The most incriminating document was a fake.
So now it has become know as Fakegate. Ouch.
Great comment by Lucia here, summary and comment by Judith here and lots at
BishopHill, here, here and here, and WUWT, here and here, and even one at Roy Spencers.
And here is the cartoon:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who amoung you will cast the first hocky stick is broken joke.
Sites like SkS already have abandoned the HeartlandGate story to cover a science-first story. And that (IMHO) is what WUWT should do too.
Because at the end of the day, it sure ain’t the quibbling and the “gotchas” that count … what counts is the strongest skeptical critiques of the strongest science.
I can never tell Black from Mann from Schmidt. In real life, I mean 😎
Nice Josh. We need to see you syndicated in the Sunday Comic Strips. Right above or in replacement of Doonesbury.
I hope that the BBC sack Richard Black. He is a competent advocate who could write for the Guardian, but an impartial, truth seeking, honest journalist worthy of the BBC? Not even close!
Leo Hickman can give it but can’t take it. Question his ridiculous assertions regarding Global Warming and in steps the censor.
Comment is Free if You Agree.
Thanks Josh, humour is the best way to deal with this nonsense.
‘what counts is the strongest skeptical critiques of the strongest science.’ ~A Fizz
‘what counts is the strongest skeptical critiques of politicized, Weak science.’
There. Fixed it for you.
“The problem with Mr Black is he is a campaigning journalist who does not understand that if he wantshe to campaign and assist the green gravy trainers then The BBC is not the place. With regard to funding has not the BBC just apologised for broadcasting environmental programmes sponsored by members of the green gravy trainers.”
I have just posted this on Black’s propaganda blog at the BBC. Just thought I would remind him of the corruption at the BBC which they have recently apologised for.
James Delingpole has pitched in too with a supporting article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100137840/fakegate/
Look what happens when you aren’t paying attention. I have been busy the last few days and missed the continuity of the the Faked heartland document….. I don’t quite get it yet., but it looks like the BBC used faked evidence?… catching up on the thread here….A summary would be helpful…. not sure who faked it…
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I can never tell Black from Mann from Schmidt. In real life, I mean 😎
————————-
I have tried to get people to post Mr Mann pictures upside down 🙂
Good cartoon, Josh!
“Ken Hall says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I hope that the BBC sack Richard Black. He is a competent advocate who could write for the Guardian, but an impartial, truth seeking, honest journalist worthy of the BBC? Not even close!
Ahhhhhhhhh Ken. Could you please leave a link to ONE impartial,truth seeking,honest journalist worthy of the BBC? (and if ur post is sarc,sorry for missing it.long day)
A physicist says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Sites like SkS already have abandoned the HeartlandGate story …
Now, that is funny!
When the information is too phoney for SkS, you know it’s bad.
Magoo says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm
————————————–
Thanks for the Delingpole link. I love the way he writes:
“I know this is going to come as a major shock to the kind of foam-flecked, cerebrally-deficient eco-zealots who scrawl in red crayons for DeSmog blog or earn lavish salaries as propaganda shills for the Grantham Institute or fester at the Guardian’s environment pages…”
“£234 million in Britain alone? And still these junk-scientist doom-mongers can’t manage to amass sufficient evidence to win an argument against a handful of ill-funded bloggers. Says it all, really.”
Remember “Fake but Accurate”?
All this free and extensive publicity for WUWT and the Heartland Institute.
It’ll Be interesting to see how the site visit numbers pan out. Tipping point…………..
A Phys is right when he says we should ignore the ‘gotchas’, but….
…this is more than that. This whole incident shows up three things that are core to the whole debate. Namely:
1) eco-zealots are not afraid to fake things when it suits them
2) the AGW media are quite happy to jump on anything that supports ‘The Cause’ before they have checked any real facts
3) The Heartland documents demonstrate how tiny sceptic funding is compared to the billions thrown at the AGW camp. It gives a lie to the ‘Big Oil Funding’ claim that is so central to the Greenies attempts at smearing sceptics.
The biggest thing that annoyed me was the outrage over companies trying to fend off climate change legislation. What did the hippies expect them to do?
“Any political effort to address climate change, cap and trade for example, is going to result in higher costs for businesses. It is only reasonable that the affected industries would lobby to fend off climate legislation. If I ran a business and the federal government wanted to restrict my output and charge me for their labor, I’d fight back, too.”
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4290/not-problematic-that-climate-change-skeptic-heartland-institute-took-donations-from-microsoft-and-gm
Black of the BBC is already trying to bury the story under others on his BBC blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/
A physicist says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Sites like SkS already have abandoned the HeartlandGate story to cover a science-first story. And that (IMHO) is what WUWT should do too. Because at the end of the day, it sure ain’t the quibbling and the “gotchas” that count … what counts is the strongest skeptical critiques of the strongest science.””
Gotcha, your strong science over at SkS says;
“So when you hear or read anywhere or are told by anyone that ‘warming stopped in (insert preferred date)’ the simple, observed fact is that it hasn’t stopped warming! It’s just that much of the warming has been happening somewhere else recently.””
Their strong science says, we can’t find heat in the Atmosphere where Co2 is the driver of warming, so it must have gone into the Oceans, where there is no Co2.
Ha Ha Ha. How do you expect sceptics to critique such nonsense.
Paul, Quick summary —
1. Evidently someone (the Hoaxster) called Heartland claiming to be a boardmember and got a secretary to email copies of board meeting documents. It appears 8 documents were sent. The documents were mundane meeting items like funding and budgeting.
2. The Hoaxster pulled out certain projects in the budget and forged a 9th document about Heartland Strategy. Embedded amongst the true parts were rather funny items like convincing teachers not to “teach science” and “undermining” science.
3. The Hoaxster sent all nine documents to DeSmog blog amongst others. Leftist news agencies (Guardian, BBC, NYT) ran with the story without verifying authenticity, zeroing in on the more fanastic parts of the Heartland Strategy document. And of course a gaggle of CAGW hoax blogs have run with it.
4. Heartland reviewed the documents and stated the Heartland Strategy document is a fraud.
5. Review of the fake document shows it was scanned, thus removing pertinent meta data which the other 8 documents contain (creation date, author, file location) as they are still in their electronic format. The scanned fake document has its own metadata showing it was scanned at a location on the West Coast where Heartland has no offices.
6. One budgetary item (confirmed by Watts) shows that they have worked with Anthony to fund his project to create a new web service to present in graphical form data from the NOAA database. So far $44,000 has been raised from a donor to fund his project. Watts states he initiated this project and contacted Heartland for help in funding. Total estimate cost for the project is $88K.
7. Some blogs are insinuating that Heartland is funding the WUWT blog, but review of the leaked budget does not show any money allocated to WUWT.
This appears to be blowing up in the hoaxsters faces and is getting the name “FakeGate”, though I prefer “Protocals of the Elders of Heartland Institute”.
“A physicist says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Sites like SkS already have abandoned the HeartlandGate story to cover a science-first story. And that (IMHO) is what WUWT should do too.
Because at the end of the day, it sure ain’t the quibbling and the “gotchas” that count … what counts is the strongest skeptical critiques of the strongest science.”
I don’t agree. If WUWT and others don’t rebutt this stuff then those who push the lies will claim that it is all true. Sometimes you’ve got to fight back as well as covering the science stories. Look at the flak Anthony had from the visiting trolls, who, I am glad to say, seem to have been chased back under the bridge, tails between their legs (do trolls have tails?). And if Anthony et al don’t fight back then Black of the BBC gets away with the rubbish he spouts, misleading those people who do not follow this and other sites as avidly.
I am appalled at the treatment Anthony has received. The poor guy hasn’t even got started on the project, a simple project to display the data that the US taxpayer funded mob can’t be bothered to do. Keep going Anthony – I’m sure they’re just trying to grind you down – remember the popularity of your site!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says: February 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I can never tell Black from Mann from Schmidt. In real life, I mean 😎
MannBlackSmith.
Explains a lot.
I agree with biddyb. You can’t let blatant falsehoods go unchallenged, because the media routinely uses them to fool people, or at least promote their agenda with one-sided reporting.