## Josh’s Open letter to Heartland -vs- the original, now with extra karma

UPDATE2 10:45PM 2/18/12: This started as a humorous reply to the “Open Letter to Heartland” purportedly signed by several prominent climate scientists. That may be true, but it is now in doubt, as none of the signers wrote it. A PR hack from an NGO did. See below for who actually authored the letter for the Team, quite a surprise!

UPDATE: I was offline and used my cellphone to post the comic above, and wasn’t able to add more at the time.

If anyone is wondering what this is in response to, read this letter from The Team, plus my response below:

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said.

Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.

So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.

We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.

Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Source: this letter

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

Here’s a reminder to these scientists who signed the letter.

Heartland has invited many of you and others to Heartland Climate conferences. There’s always been a standing open invitation in addition to the direct personal ones offered. With the exception of one scientist not listed here, Dr. Scott Denning, none of you accepted. He had the integrity and courage to engage us where you do not.

You might be surprised to find that he was warmly welcomed.

Therefore, don’t lecture us on the need for “civil debate about climate change policy options” when you don’t even bother to engage when invited. Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were invited to the Heartland NYC Climate conferences, both times, and could not be bothered to make a short trip a few blocks in their offices to do so.

Hearing he had declined Heartland’s formal invitation in 2008, I made a personal appeal to Dr. James Hansen through a mutual contact for the first NYC conference, and even offered to send a car uptown for him. Of course that was declined as well.

Fellows, if you want open debate, lift a finger to make it happen when invited. Otherwise, please don’t presume to have the high ground and lecture us when you have no moral basis for doing so by your own inaction.

-Anthony Watts

UPDATE2:

Can’t you guys even write your own letters when you sign them? Or did you sign them at all?

Document properties of the open letter here:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf

Look who Aaron Huertas is: http://aaronhuertas.com/

This is a personal Web page for Aaron Huertas. I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. My interests include communicating science and the ongoing interaction between our genetic ancestry and our modern technological society. I also watch a ton of TV series.

Looks like UCS might have cooked this up and got the team to sign off on it. Or maybe just sent it as PR with no formal approval. Why else would UCS be involved if this was a letter from these scientists?

Maybe Gavin used his credit card to pay for this. Kenji is displeased, not only about his membership dues being used for this, but for the fact he still (months since Oct11) hasn’t received his UCS mousepad that he paid an extra $10 for. And they wonder why many in the world have trust issues with climate scientists? About these ads This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. ### 177 Responses to Josh’s Open letter to Heartland -vs- the original, now with extra karma 1. Simply Wow, Satire taken to a whole new level. Well Done. 2. clipe says: 3. dalyplanet says: Too Funny !! 4. suyts says: Lol, nice Josh…… 5. David, UK says: This about captures the mentality of those people. But what I also took from the open letter was a strong sense of needing to “go on the attack, as the best form of defence” knowing that they were morally allied to the crook in the middle of what we now know as Fakegate. There was something quite desperate and pathetic about it – quite horrible to read. 6. Joseph Thoma says: “Fill in the Blank” I love it! Taras 7. Jeff Alberts says: Mike says: February 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm Might as well read the real ting. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf Josh’s is more realistic. Seriously? They thought those emails were private?? 8. JohnWho says: I guess the request that Heartland destroy that memo was sent via email. :) 9. Nerd says: 10. A physicist says: Anthony, when I compared the WUWT (fantasy) open letter to today’s (real) Open Letter to the Heartland Institute (authored by Ray Bradley, David Karoly, Michael Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, and Kevin Trenberth), which appeared in The London Guardian earlier today, it was good to see that the scientists/signers regard this theft as a serious matter, to be condemned outright as “stealing” pure-and-simple … and rightly so. There are plenty of folks (me for one) who neither regard theft lightly, nor treat it as a joking matter, because theft threatens the polity that is essential to the responsible working of democracy. 11. Keith W. says: Mike says: February 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm Might as well read the real ting. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf Wow, is there a disconnect there or what. Heartland had private documents stolen, but none of those indicate any criminal or even questionable activities. Some of the documents were already in the public milieu. The only document in Fakegate that had a questionable content was rather obviously fraudulent. These guys compare this to the Climategate releases, all because the emails were “stolen”. They make no claim that any of the emails are fraudulent, and many emails call for illegal acts by the recipients. But it is the same type problem. Pull the other one, guys, its got bells on it. 12. Thanks Josh! Great smoggy fake! I have linked to the Heartland Institute forever, and reading the Heartlander has been good. Anthony, thanks and best of luck to you! 13. Alan Wilkinson says: I do hope Heartland have got a good legal team for damages litigation. The Guardian is just begging to be targeted. 14. Myrrh says: Josh, great fun cartoon. clipe says: February 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/ “Two weeks ago Time magazine revealed that, between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over$25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S… [backup link here]

In other words, what Time describes as the “biggest and oldest environmental group” in America felt morally justified in taking $25 million smackaroos from a fossil fuel company so that it could campaign against other fossil fuel companies – those that sell coal. A search of the BBC and the Guardian‘s website reveals absolutely no coverage of that news story. Not one word (see here and here).” Which makes the point that this is all about anti-coal, and always has been, from the beginnings with Keeling et al. As Maggie and the other ‘fossil fuel’ oil and nuke interests set up CRU and the IPCC, getting the greenies on board to speed up the processes a nice touch of irony because they were sooo anti nuke at the time – but the greens didn’t much care whether they blamed coal for global warming or cooling, they’ve changed between them through the 20th century. And now they’re screaming ‘death trains’ while raking in the money from ‘fossil’ fuels.. 15. banjo says: Josh`s cartoons, better than a big stick with a nail in it. 16. John Whitman says: Josh, You did much better in your wonderful open letter than whoever did the faked HI doc. You have great stuff and timely efforts. John PS – on another different train of thought, the CSRRT are probably envious of you. They have no capacity for humor. They could really use someone with your talents for brightening up their crude vigilante escapades against people who do not blindly follow their ’cause’. 17. Jan says: Well, enough about you, let’s talk about me. 18. RockyRoad says: Climate Realists should flood the CAGW blogosphere with bogus documents to teach ‘em all a lesson. The Warmist Crowd would be so cowed they wouldn’t dare comment on anything. Oh joy, oh rapture–what an oppotrunity! 19. Latitude says: sorry, only 97% of us signed…………. 20. Justthinkin says: Funny. I just gotta send a letter to the Old Wornout Grey Lady & the Brit BS Corpse and tell them to hire Josh for their political cartoons,like NOW! 21. Latitude says: Strange, when anyone tries to do science they don’t agree with, or doesn’t agree with the science they’ve produced…………that person/s is ‘attacking’ the science ..even funnier that people are supposed to get billions to do their science but the science that contradicts them should be done for free 22. DaveG says: Josh. The Fakegate-Warmers club letter to Heartland. This is the BEST yet and Oh so funny. As David,UK said they are a desperate and pathetic crowd. 23. ldd says: Don’t know how you can be so succinct with your political satire Josh, but you nail it every time. 24. H.R. says: Brilliant! Satire so sharp it could shave the whiskers off a Higg’s bosun, Josh. 25. Anything is possible says: With all due respect to Josh, he should have left this one alone. The original is even funnier than the spoof. 26. “…we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science…” http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html Translation: We object to those who criticize our work. Good to see that the Union of Concerned Scientists is always on hand to politic. (I fondly remember their proclamations back in the ’80’s that the Reagan’s missile defence system was a science fiction fantasy – “it would be like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet” – they would proclaim. Some decades later such anti-missile systems are now in active deployment.) 27. sergeimk says: How much research does HI pay for? How many satellites does it launch? How much data does it process from paper copies? How much does HI increaase the sum of human knowledge? How much do the directors make: e.g. Latreece Reed$91,164
Eli Lehrer $155,150 Vince Galbiati$125,000
Jim Lakely $81,113 Sam Karnick$92,700
Diane Bast $96,512 Joseph Bast$160,000
Kevin Fitzgerald $113300 How much do CRU employees make: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/ Academic, Teaching and Research Professor £54133 to £125000 Reader £45336 to £57431 Research and Analogous 9 £45336 to £57431 Research and Analogous 7 £29972 to £37990 Research and Analogous 6 £23661 to £31798 But their total Cost of Salaries and Employment Academic,teaching and research £231945 Research and analogous £298755 28. eyesonu says: I loved it! It’s a classic and may it be seen around the world many times over. 29. Otter says: Question for A Fizz~ Were you Sisyphus in a previous life? 30. A physicist says: Alan Wilkinson says: I do hope Heartland have got a good legal team for damages litigation. The Guardian is just begging to be targeted. Alan, very plausibly you are almost correct. Read sentence-by-sentence, the Open Letter to the Heartland Institute is a chain of carefully crafted factual assertions, such that each link in the chain can (if necessary) be proved-beyond-doubt as factual in a British libel court … and the seven signers of the letter are eager to present their proofs in a court-of-law. Indeed, online-copies of the Open Letter already include links to the factual evidence. Not wishing to be caught in the middle (as the sole defendant with deep pockets) it appears that the London Guardian has simply deleted the Open Letter from its web pages, and other news media have become exceedingly wary of printing the letter in its entirety … even WUWT has not done so. Why would the Heartland Institute elect to sue The London Guardian, in full knowledge that (after a long battle) they likely will lose on-the-facts? For one simple reason: when it comes to attracting wealthy donors, all publicity is good publicity. For this reason, it appears that the assertions in the Open Letter to the Heartland Institute have become the journalistic equivalent of a case of sweating dynamite … an unstable explosive that nobody wants stand near … or else (from the seven scientist-signers’ point-of-view) a genie of provable truth that is newly escaped from servitude to for-hire publicists. WUWT, indeed? 31. David Jones says: A physicist says: February 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm “it was good to see that the scientists/signers regard this theft as a serious matter, to be condemned outright as “stealing” pure-and-simple … and rightly so. There are plenty of folks (me for one) who neither regard theft lightly, nor treat it as a joking matter, because theft threatens the polity that is essential to the responsible working of democracy.” Let me get this quite clear. This theft is the information from HI (Heartland Institute) a privately funded organisation whose information is proprietory. Not a publiocly funded organisation whose funds come from the taxpayer and which should therefore be subject to public scrutinity. In that case I agree with them! 32. David Jones says: Keith W. says: February 18, 2012 at 3:45 pm “Wow, is there a disconnect there or what. Heartland had private documents stolen, but none of those indicate any criminal or even questionable activities. Some of the documents were already in the public milieu. The only document in Fakegate that had a questionable content was rather obviously fraudulent. These guys compare this to the Climategate releases, all because the emails were “stolen”. They make no claim that any of the emails are fraudulent, and many emails call for illegal acts by the recipients. But it is the same type problem. Pull the other one, guys, its got bells on it.” They can claim all they want that the Climategate emails were stolen. Give us, or even the Norfolk Constabulary, the evidence that they were stolen. UNDERSTAND, there is no evidence. Therefore that claim is FALSE.!! This is more BS. 33. neill says: Hilarious! OT, but talk about kicking a hornet’s nest. Look at this prog thought-leader’s piece in support of Mann’s new creation: 8 to 2 con in comments. I lurk there. nothin like this ever: http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video 34. David A. Evans says: The “London Guardian”? No it was the Manchester Guardian. Back then, it used to be a newspaper, sadly no more. It was also christened, the “Grauniad”, that well known anagram, by Private Eye, (I think actually Christopher Monckton,) because it usually had all the right letters but in the wrong order. It hasn’t been considered as a newspaper for quite a few years now. As I recall, since it moved to London. It’s still not the “London Guardian”, any more than the Times is the “London Times”! DaveE. 35. Alan Wilkinson says: physicist, the case would simply be based on the bad motives attributed in the faked document as being deliberately designed to denigrate Heartland and the Guardian’s dissemination of those without due care to verify the validity of the document and without subsequent correction and retraction when the document was both denied by Heartland and discredited by independent investigations. The slanted motives and wording are defamatory. The bare facts abstracted from the other documents are not relevant and anyway public. 36. David A. Evans says: Another thing I will probably never understand… Why is asking questions and wanting to know the answers to contrary evidence, attacking the science. I thought that was what science was all about! DaveE, 37. Gordon Ford says: How the mighty have fallen! Josh is so sensitive!!!! 38. A physicist says: Alan Wilkinson says: Physicist, the case would simply be based on the bad motives attributed in the faked document as being deliberately designed to denigrate Heartland and the Guardian’s dissemination of those without due care to verify the validity of the document Alan, the problem with *that* theory is that The Guardian’s reporters are taking scrupulous care to never quote from (or even mention) any of the purloined Heartland documents. Moreover, these same reporters describe the seven-scientist Open Letter to the Heartland Institute only obliquely, as “a letter made available exclusively to the Guardian” … the reporters thereby carefully disclaim any responsibility on the part of The Guardian for the Open Letter’s contents. Elevator Summary: The Guardian’s coverage of the Heartland kerfuffle is scrupulously founded upon facts that can be independently verified and defended in court … and is adequately juicy none-the-less. 39. HankH says: LOL – Thanks Josh! 40. dalyplanet says: A physicist says: February 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm And links to this Union of Concerned Scientists propaganda! http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html Laugh even harder. ! 41. “The Guardian’s coverage of the Heartland kerfuffle is scrupulously founded upon facts that can be independently verified and defended in court … and is adequately juicy none-the-less.” Oh really? 42. Alan Wilkinson says: Nice “Guardian in the bear trap” collection, Robert. A physicist, I guess I wouldn’t want you doing the research for my legal defense team. 43. DaveG says: A decent fine upstanding crowd. Ray Bradley, David Karoly, Michael Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, and Kevin Trenberth = The Climategate crowd! Enough said!!!!! 44. The seven people who signed this letter to the Heartland institute can be said, fairly I think, to have between them about the longest USA (and sometime Australian) history of ‘unhappy science’ in the sense that their writings are often quite negative and scarcely contain a kind word for the very many people who are right now beavering away at improvement of the science. Say a word against the concept of CAGW and this team leaps into action, attacking other scientists. Yet there is a phrase in the letter ‘…we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.’ On the topic of misinformation, there are fairly common reports that one or more of the signatories is profiting privately from the promotion of the type of climate science promoted by them in the letter. In the interests of openness, would each of the signatories be cooperative by signing an affirmation that, apart from their normal salaried incomes, none of them is making money by promoting man-made global warming scientific concepts? I can start by saying that after a few man-years of climate science work of my own, I have not received a cent for the effort, not even salary. Can you guys state along similar lines, in the spirit of openness? 45. Puckster says: Extremely well thought out, Anthony. In my simpler words….they appear to believe themselves above it all…Monarchs, Royalty. They deign to even send a Viceroy when invited. 46. So, Aaron Huertas wrote it but didn’t sign it. I wonder if any of the ostensible signatories were even aware they’d signed anything before it appeared in the Guardian? Maybe Mr. Huertas has their power of attorney… it would certainly simplify things when urgent action is required. 47. Skiphil says: I don’t expect “The Team” to write their own smear letters. They are much too busy and important, and why bother when they have eager lefty NGOs to handle much of the dirty work. “Progressive” lefty advocacy groups like UCS have operated like this for a great many years. As we have seen many times on climate and IPCC issues, the NGOs and the “climate scientists” are often joined hip to hip. I would not assume the initiative came from UCS, though. Any of the signatories is quite capable of have close working relations with UCS, such that it would seem natural to say “he we gotta send a letter, can your PR man cook one up for us?” 48. dalyplanet says: A physicist says: February 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm Thanks for the Union of Concerned Scientists link. I may have hurt myself laughing so hard. Anywhere that open letter can be found Aaron Huertas.appears as the author. Laugh ! 49. Skiphil says: It may be worth noting that the “created” and “modified” times are identical, suggesting that text (from an email, for instance) may simply have been copy-and-pasted into a fresh MS Word doc. It would be a rare letter of any length, especially for multiple signatories, that would not go through some amount of revision. Thus, I am guessing that one or more of the signatories may actually have drafted and circulated text (although of course it could have been Huertas), and then used the NGO simply as their PR agent to submit to the media. It still raises “interesting” questions about what the relationships are among the scientists, UCS, and the Guardian, and especially why the Guardian would not disclose the involvement of UCS if they received the letter via that route. Or if Huertas sent the MS Word file to one of the scientists for forwarding to the Guardian, why exactly was the UCS flack involved at all? It’s worth probing the cozy relations among UCS, these seven scientists, and the Guardian (a leftist publication by definition), but I would not assume that the scientists were not involved with drafting the letter. Presumably one drafts such a letter after some amount of email or phone discussion and then circulates it….. Still, it’s fun to know of the “hidden” undisclosed involvement of a politicized advocacy group such as UCS where pretensions of pure disinterested science were on such flagrant display. 50. Laurie says: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/ The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. If you register, you may see their form 990. They, too, are an NPO with tax exempt status. http://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding.html Exactly the same kind of organization as the Heartland Institute. Where does Mashey get the idea they will lose their tax exempt status? Anyone can be a “whistle blower” and send a report to the IRS and then announce their action to the media. Unfortunately, it will be months before anyone even looks at it, if ever. Meanwhile, the PR damage is done. Just tricks :( 51. Kozlowski says: So I suppose this is the one-two propaganda punch from the Union of Concerned Scientists… First, USC President Kevin Knobloch writes up a blog post and crows about it in a press release as follows: “Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted in a blog post today that while Heartland is demanding integrity and fairness in the treatment of this theft, the group was silent and in fact actively exploited the theft of these scientists’ emails in an effort to discredit their climate change research.” And then he has his PR flak, Aaron Huertas secretly author a supposed “open letter.” Great propagandizing. Too bad they forgot to remove Huertas’ name from the properties. We are just getting too lucky lately. Isn’t this rich… Knowing what we know, that Aaron Huertas of Union of Concerned Scientists, colleague of UCS President Kevin Knobloch was the author of the open letter. — But wait, there’s more — “WASHINGTON (Feb. 17, 2012) – Seven leading climate researchers who themselves were the victims of an email theft which was promoted by the Heartland Institute have written an open letter to the organization, calling on it to refrain from spreading inaccurate information about climate science and attacking climate researchers.” The paragraph above is the opening paragraph from a press release by UCS. They are lying when they say the seven researchers wrote the letter. They wrote the letter themselves. What a crazy charade… More propaganda brought to us by “The Team.” 52. TomB says: Will Nitschke says: February 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm “…we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science…” Let’s be REALLY careful here folks. You’re working diligently to answer a claim – that has only been made in the faked document. Whenever, wherever, the claim is made that we are attempting to discredit science should be vehemently rejected. We are NOT opposed to science. We are NOT opposed to climate science. We ARE opposed to the distortions of science that the “mainstream climate science” community has subjected us to. We’ve looked at the science. We are not alarmed by what it tells us. 53. Steve C says: A physicist says: “each link in the chain can (if necessary) be proved-beyond-doubt as factual in a British libel court.” Yeah? Okay … Claim: “These are the facts:” (1) Climate change is occurring. Really? Perhaps you could give us some proper scientific evidence to prove this beyond doubt? You know, something based on empirical observation, not just the usual, seriously inadequate “models”? Like old-time physicists used to work with, when they developed theories which actually made useful predictions in the field? (2) Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. See comment on (1). (3) Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. See comment on (1). (4) The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. See comment on (1). (5) Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points. We’d noticed that. So, all your choir can sing the same tune, great. Maybe they should make a record. No, scratch that. Everybody’s already heard it, over and over. Never mind British libel courts, renowned the world over as probably the easiest way for the offended to harass their detractors. It’s people who understand science you need to convince of your ‘facts’, and frankly, you have a very long way to go. If you truly are ‘a physicist’, then respect, but I make my criticism of the CO2 conjecture as ‘a technician’ – one of those people downstairs who can make most things work – if they’re serviceable in the first place. Nice cartoon, btw, Josh. As usual, that claim needs no proof. :-) 54. Martin Lewitt says: I don’t see how the “team” can think the Heartland revelations compare to climategate. The damage to Heartland comes from having failed to protect donor privacy. There don’t appear to be ethical issues at all. 55. SadButMadLad says: Too see what else Aaron Huertas has written follow this google link. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Aaron+Huertas+filetype%3Apdf&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images 56. John West says: A physicist says: “it appears that the assertions in the Open Letter to the Heartland Institute ….(from the seven scientist-signers’ point-of-view) a genie of provable truth that is newly escaped from servitude to for-hire publicists.” From the letter: “authoritative sources agree on these points” Appeal to authority is not proof. 57. Mydogsgotnonose says: In reply to A Physicist: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png How is it that one way GHG-AGW can apparently cause massive cooling in the N. Atlantic? My interpretation [professional engineer and applied physicist with 40 years' post-PhD experience] is that GHG-AGW << natural cooling and the existence of natural cooling implies that much 1990's heating [contributing most global OHC rise] was also natural. As for the explanation, once you correct the four major physics' errors in the IPCC 'consensus', two of which no professional should ever have made, net GHG-GW is near zero. 58. Funnier still One of the words in the fake memo that tipped me off was… ‘undermine’ thats warmist/leftist lingo 59. Also, looks like they are repeating a libel 60. A. Scott says: Could someone please total the payments and grants to these 7 “scientists” for climate research over the last year or few … would be extremely interesting to put a number to the total budgets of just these 7 and do some comparing Oh, and APhysicist – please get back to us after you’ve read those Guardian links so thoughtfully provided you – would love to hear your defense of your prior claims. 61. Gary Mount says: Here is some more funny writing, though I don’t mean funny as in ha ha kind of funny: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Hume+Fake+skeptics+climate+change+swayed+good+science/6174934/story.html 62. Doug UK says: Well done Josh – captures the mood!! 63. Charles.U.Farley says: One for The Team…..but will they “get it”? q_{ult} = 1.3 c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.4 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \ q_{ult} = c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.5 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \ q_{ult} = 1.3 c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.3 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \ where N_q = \frac{ e ^{ 2 \pi \left( 0.75 – \phi ‘/360 \right) \tan \phi ‘ } }{2 \cos ^2 \left( 45 + \phi ‘/2 \right) } N_c = 5.7 \ for φ’ = 0 N_c = \frac{ N_q – 1 }{ \tan \phi ‘} for φ’ > 0 N_\gamma = \frac{ \tan \phi ‘ }{2} \left( \frac{ K_{p \gamma} }{ \cos ^2 \phi ‘ } – 1 \right) 64. geoffchambers says: At last! All of us paid by the Koch brothers to uncover the Great Climate Conspiracy have been floundering around looking for the Mr Big behind it all, and now you’ve done it! It’s Aaron! Just look at http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/ Despite a full-time job as Press Secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a full-time pastime watching TV series three times, he’s managed to find the time to direct the whole trillion dollar scam. There we were, pawing over the emails of his underlings Mann, Trenberth etc, and the truth was there on his blog all the time. 65. Stephen Richards says: Not A Physicist You are such a great PRAT. The court case would have nothing to do with your so called facts (-which aren’t). It’s about deformation and theft by deception. The words ‘climate’ and ‘we are all going to die’ will not be needed. 66. Brian H says: I can’t quite decide if association with CRU debases UCS more than association with UCS debases CRU. I suspect a vicious circle is involved somewhere. Oh, BTW: Mike says: February 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm Might as well read the real ting. And here I thought “ting” was the sound made by a belled cat trying to sneak around the corner! 67. J Bowers says: 68. Lars P. says: Mike says: February 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm “Might as well read the real ting.” Yes Mike, indeed, I downloaded it from that link and it shows author Aaron Huertas. 69. “As scientists who have had their emails stolen…..” Stolen, really? Stolen? It hasn’t been released to the public how the emails ended up in the public. How do they know “stolen”?? How naive of me to think scientists are always careful to be accurate—especially ‘global warming’ scientists. (in bolds just to help catch the eye if any of “The Team” happens to be passing by, Thanks, Gene Nemetz, aka, Amino Acids in Meteorites) 70. Disko Troop says: Perhaps one of us should ring up the Union of Concerned Scientists and pretend to be a board member with a fake e-mail address and ask for their list of members and sponsors. Level playing field and all. 71. “This is a personal Web page for Aaron Huertas. I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists….” The Union of Concerned Scientists is not solely comprised of scientists. It is, and I quote: “……an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students…..” (link to where the quote is from on their web site: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/ ) To call it a union of scientists makes it seem all the members are scientists. The name is misleading. There has to be laws on the books that forbid such misleadings. Besides possible laws being violated isn’t it a matter of conscience on the part of the members of the organization that the name should represent what the organization really is and not give A CLEAR IMPRESSION IT IS SOMETHING ELSE? 72. Simon says: “having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change” Nice attempt at frame control guys, let’s try “having an honest, fact-based debate about whether climate change is even sufficiently man-made to give a crap about” first shall we? 73. Charles.U.Farley says: Another one for the team: Just because YOU say any observed climate change is man made, it dont necessarily make it so. Nullas in Verbia. The basis for good science. Pity they went and forgot what that meant. 74. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says: neill says: February 18, 2012 at 7:08 pm Hilarious! OT, but talk about kicking a hornet’s nest. Look at this prog thou ght-leader’s piece in support of Mann’s new creation: 8 to 2 con in comments. I lurk there. nothin like this ever: http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video If your comment about “8 to 2 con in comments” was accurate, then Mann is actively deleting critical YouTube-comments, RC-style. Right now there are only 3 comments, all praising Mann: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=ztKFTxC6kVI 75. hro001 says: Stolen, really? Stolen? It hasn’t been released to the public how the emails ended up in the public. How do they know “stolen”?? My guess would be that they know “stolen” the same way that they know that human generated C02 is the primary cause of global warming aka climate change: Because They’re Scientists And They Said So! Provision of empirical evidence in support of their claims, alas, does not appear to be a concept with which they are familiar. 76. Ian W says: To all those glibly using the word ‘stealing’ as in ‘stolen emails’ they should realize that although this may be ‘common usage’ the publication of public emails held by the CRU was not ‘Theft’ in English law. That is defined as: “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly” Regardless of whether these emails are public or private – CRU still had access to them after they were released to the Internet. Therefore, they were not permanently deprived of them therefore they were not ‘stolen’. There are all sorts of other laws which could be applied such as the Computer Misuse Act or the data protection legislation; but it was not stealing. 77. I had a lot of discussions with members of the Union of Concerned Scientists in the past about the use of PVC in hospitals. They object against its use, based on unfounded scares like dioxin releases from its manufacturing and burning (in dedicated incenerators). The first was a real lie, based on false allegations in Greenpeace reports, the latter a matter of incineration temperature and cleaning equipment, very little to do with the chlorine content of the garbage. Other “problems” were fake again: the use of phthalates to soften PVC bloodbags (which lengthens its shelf life!), which doesn’t show any harm, even after 50+ years of use for even the most intensive care. In my opinion, their “concern” is about alleged risks, not on real risks, while the risks (and the costs) of the alternatives are ignored… Quite similar to their stance against fossil fuels and the alternatives… 78. Peter Miller says: I liked the letter; this was from a group of people – use of the word ‘scientists’ would be a stretch – as: 1. They completely ignore the most obvious cause of climate change: Natural cycles. The geological evidence is ignored, or deemed irrelevant. 2. They distort/torture/cherry pick their data in a way totally unacceptable in any field of real science. 3. They spread unfounded exagerrated scare stories designed to perpetuate their comfortable life styles and own self-aggrandisement. 4. They refuse to debate the subject of climate science with sceptics, because they know very well they would be exposed as perpetrators of fraud. 5. They whine like stuck pigs every time their ‘science’ is shown to be flawed/fraudulent – not surprisingly, the volume of whining is little short of incredible. 6. They completely ignore the fact that the world has stubbornly refused to warm up, as predicted, over the past 12 years. Caveat: if they don’t ignore the inconvenient truth of recent zero warming, they concoct all sorts of blatantly ridiculous reasons for the lack of warming and continue to argue “warming is still happening”. 7. They design computer models where the outcome has always been pre-determined and which simply cannot ever hope to reflect the extreme complexities of global climate. The outcomes then become ‘settled science’ and self-righteous abuse is hurled at anyone who questions the validity of these models and their conclusions/findings. 8. They conduct the bureaucratic equivalent of ethnic cleansing – all those in government, or quasi-government, are forced to accept the CAGW theory as unquestionable fact. Any deviation from total acceptance of CAGW theory almost always results in dismissal or non-renewment of contracts. 9. They never consider the concept that a small increase in temperature might be beneficial – it is always bad/evil/dangerous. 10. They never consider that preparing for supposed ‘global warming’ is a lot less economically destructive than fighting it. In any event, anything we try to do to prevent ‘global warming’ will be totally insignificant and simply not worth the cost, nor the effort. In conclusion, is it any surprise these ‘climate scientists’ are steadily losing the argument? 79. AJB says: J Bowers says @ February 19, 2012 at 1:55 am What is more likely? That grammar is not the WEB site designer’s strong point or, if we’re talking about creative PR stunts that backfire, perhaps this. 80. DirkH says: They can’t even be honest when writing an open letter? 81. Lars P. says: Speaking of the speculations about fakegate I found from suyts space this link to a very interesting article published on Forbes a couple of days before fakegate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/12/please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science/ 82. Robin Guenier says: John West: Noting the letter’s “authoritative sources agree on these points”, you say, “Appeal to authority is no proof”. Of course, that’s true. But, if you’re going to appeal to authority, it’s wise to be sure the authority supports your position. Amusingly, the Team have overlooked that simple precept. For example, if you follow the link to the Royal Society that the letter helpfully provides, you’ll find that the RS, in contrast to the Team’s “Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change”, is carefully nuanced about attribution. But, in particular, you’ll find that the RS says nothing at all about current disruption of “human and natural systems”. And, as for the future and how “severe those disruptions will become”, here’s are two extracts from RS document: “… there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change …” “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.” These people are seriously hopeless. 83. Zac says: And the BBC is not supposed to be biased? 84. A physicist says: A. Scott says: ‘A Physicist’ – please get back to us after you’ve read those Guardian links so thoughtfully provided you – would love to hear your defense of your prior claims. Mother Jones has just published new internal Heartland emails that (as predicted) affirm Heartland’s intention to “to support litigation, starting immediately, to demand that false and defamatory material be removed from blogs and Web sites and publications.” With Heartland committing its lawyers to action, it’s understandable that The Guardian is being careful to criticize Heartland only for concrete actions that can be independently verified, as is the seven-scientist Open Letter to the Heartland Institute. So if everyone is focusing on verifiable facts, and insisting upon a respectful public dialog, what is all the furor really about? Well, it’s not complicated. Just as the CRU emails were embarrassing, but in the end were no big deal, the Heartland documents too are embarrassing, but in the end are no big deal. The sooner that the Heartland Institute, and the scientists too, refocus their rational energies upon the primary mission — contributing to the strongest skeptical analysis of the strongest science — the better for everyone. In the long run that matters to our children, kerfuffles involving stolen emails and purloined memos have precisely zero lasting significance. Which is why the main threat to our children’s generation is a foolish obsession with irrelevant kerfuffles. For the common-sense reason that Richard Feynman gave us: “Nature cannot be fooled” … and she is preparing some mighty big challenges for our children. 85. DirkH says: steven mosher says: February 19, 2012 at 12:28 am “Funnier still One of the words in the fake memo that tipped me off was… ‘undermine’ thats warmist/leftist lingo” There was also “working the climate issue”. Normal people don’t “work an issue”, but they might be “working on an issue”. 86. Peter Plail says: The PR representatives of these concerned scientist seem to have applied blinkers (blinders). They are all concentrating on the theft aspect, which is of course unpardonable, but are totally ignoring the forgery aspects, which in my view is a far worse sin. Could it be that in their world that forgery is so common that they don’t see it as wrong? As to the theft aspects of the e-mails, leaving aside the public v. private nature of the debate, the UK police have after many months failed to establish that it was in fact a theft. This must mean that it is far from clear, despite the claims of the team team and their apologists (yes A Physicist, I’m including you). If and when a theft is proven then I am sure that the culprit will get their just deserts, but until then the actual means of obtaining the e-mails is simply speculation. In this respect it fits in with all the other “facts” mentioned by the so-called concerned scientists – speculation based on incomplete data gathered for too little time by instrumentation of variable quality and analysed by questionable statistics and then modelled by simplistic software. 87. Jimbo says: From the letter from Gavin Schmidt et. al. These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. I have a simple question for them: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING? Temperature standstill for 15 years and counting. Rate of sea level rise flattening. Massive snow disruptions. Himalayas’ ice Armageddon stood still for the past decade and so on. Yes there is climate change because, well, the climate has always changed and may soon change in a very negative direction to the one they predict. 88. Tom in Florida says: Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research 89. Caleb says: Alarmists are doing everything they can to avoid looking at what the Climategate emails show. This attempt to equate Fakegate with Climategate is just another attempt. There truly is no comparison. It is not like trying to compare apples with oranges. It is like trying to compare apples with hand grenades. I have some good friends who are environmentalists like myself, but who drank the Kool Aid at some point, and tend to mouth Alarmist talking-points. As we debate Global Warming they give me a good idea what the current state of Alarmist Propaganda is. One response is to state the Climategate emails were “stolen,” and therefore are not admissible. They try to return to the year 2008, when Skeptics had a hunch bad things were going on behind the scenes, but sounded paranoid when they said so. Climategate proved the suspicions had a foundation in fact. Rather than settled, the science was corrupt. When I refuse to ignore the Climategate emails because they were “stolen,” the next approach is to state “everyone talks that way, in private.” I then say it was not merely talk, but also action. The third response is, “You have to expect such actions in politics.” I then say Climate Scientists should change their name to Climate Politicians. I actually think that is the crux of the matter. The joke is that Heartlands is not pretending to be disassociated from politics. Heartlands states from the start it is an advocacy group. Climate Scientists, on the other hand, spent many years raising their palms and protesting with innocent faces that they were strictly focused on a science that was settled. Then you get to the joke of jokes, and the real difference between Climategate and Fakegate. Climategate didn’t involve a single forged email. Fakegate has falsehood as its nucleolus. Climategate revealed falsehood without using falsehood. Fakegate revealed falsehood by using falsehood. In both cases, all the falsehood was all on one side, the Alarmist side. Any Alarmist who also loves truth had better stand up for truth, or they will be guilty through association. 90. Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Credo, credo! I smell the burning incense. Or is it the gunpowder? 91. “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” Abraham Lincoln 1809-1865 92. Jeff Condon says: What a bunch of losers! Heartland is privately funded. They have no obligation to disclose their operations. The CRU accepts massive amounts of government money. Independent panels? Bull.. Also, the main document in this group was completely fabricated. What a joke. 93. Wade says: The “team” or whoever wrote that follow-up letter STILL DOES NOT GET IT! Heartland is NOT A GOVERNMENT FUNDED ENTITY! The University of East Anglia is. They, or someone who claims to represent all those people, say “We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking.” WRONG WRONG WRONG and WRONG! THOSE EMAILS ARE NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION because of the Freedom of Information Act. That one sentence shows these people do not get it! They still think what they do on taxpayer’s time should not be subject to scrutiny and supervision. These people, or at least the person who wrote that follow-up letter, are still disconnected from reality. The problem is, all of the gatekeepers — their bosses, the media, and others in charge — are helping them to stay secret in violation of the law and scientific method. Furthermore, with Climategate, no one invented any fake letter. They didn’t have to. 94. Hoser says: Does A Pissyitch read the Grauniad? 95. michael hart says: There is no such paper as The London Guardian. Or least not one that I have heard of. The national newspaper is called simply The Guardian. It was originally The Manchester Guardian. I don’t buy it anymore partly because of their global warming stance, but they do still have at least two jounalists that I respect. What day was this letter published? The Guardian doesn’t publish on Sunday and the letter does not appear on Saturday’s letters page. 96. Nerd says: The whole thing reminded me of saturated fat and cholesterol consumption causing heart disease theory that we as “independents” fought hard to prove that it is wrong. Last time I checked the “official” agencies still go by that stupid theory, we’ve pretty much proved them wrong. It still doesn’t matter to those agencies because it brings in billions of dollars to them. Here is a classic one (at least for people interested in nutrition) – http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/ Denise Minger who only had a degree in English but apparently very sharp with numbers. China Study written by Dr. Campbell was filled with so many errors or misleading statements, Denise downloaded raw numbers and showed the errors. That literally made Campbell’s head explode. It was funny to watch how it turned out. Campbell questioned her education background and saying she doesn’t know a thing, blah, blah. Mann reminded me of Campbell. It’s just funny. Always whining that others are pointing out his mistakes, etc. The China Study is like the bible for those loony leftwing people that “felt” that we should cut back on animal food and eat more grain based food or whatever when too much of grain based food is causing obesity, heart disease, etc. See Wheat Belly Diet by cardiologist Dr. Davis. He went much farther than most cardiologists in nutrition that he was determined to figure out why people get heart disease. He used the actual science to figure it out and his patients are doing much better by simply making changes in the diet and mostly no medicines! Diabetes/heart disease can be reversed if you do it right but mainstream academia says impossible! They must use medicine! They are controlled by big pharma… lots of money.. China Study is no different than IPCC study being the bible for those people that they “feel” that we should cut back on CO2 to save the world. Pfft. It’s always about money… 97. gnomish says: they are seriously hustling to divert the issue from ‘they forge and fake’ and, imo, if heartland fails to mount that alarmist forger’s head on a post, they are losers because the fraudsters will still retain the talking points they reiterated in that ‘open letter’, i.e., all the fakers have been declared innocent by multiple investigations. you need a head on a post to start the chain of dominoes tumbling. moncton talked big and did nothing when he had a slam dunk libel case. plz don’t repeat that, heartland. if you do, you will reward and reinforce the fraudulent behavior and continue to prove that the hoaxers are indeed above it all and you are not just a doormat but a doormat that bleeds the opposition of funds. win or don’t play at this. you’re on the cusp of a defining moment. let’s see what you got – this is definitely a test of your character now. 98. Chris B says: Here’s Huertas’ review of Mann’s book and questions about his organization’s unfortunate name. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZM01HSJG3T5S/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0072N4U6S&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful 99. suyts says: Amino Acids in Meteorites says: February 19, 2012 at 2:16 am Besides possible laws being violated isn’t it a matter of conscience on the part of the members of the organization that the name should represent what the organization really is and not give A CLEAR IMPRESSION IT IS SOMETHING ELSE? ======================================================= That only applies to people with a conscience…… 100. Urederra says: How are we supposed to believe their temperature data when they have no shame on using fake documents? Fake but accurate…. meh. 101. J Calvert N(UK) says: The warmists frequently use “Climate Change” as a synonym to “Global Warming due to Man-made CO2″. The glossary of the IPCC 3rd AR – gives a pointer to this. The definition for “Climate Change” includes, “Note that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.” The UNFCCC have hijacked the English Language in my opinion – but there you go. 102. Anton says: Will Aaron Huertas [snip - over the top crude ~mod] 103. yawn says: [snip -speaking of fakes, per policy a vaild email address is required to comment here, you don't get to comment without one - Anthony] 104. Beesaman says: The future problem, as I see it, for science is that when the link between global temperatures and CO2 is found to be false then the public will lose trust in the rest of science. That will result in real dangers being overlooked. It really will be a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. That, for those of us who do care about science and our Earth’s environment, will be the greatest harm some of the present warmist scientists are doing at present. 105. DirkH says: gnomish says: February 19, 2012 at 6:18 am “and, imo, if heartland fails to mount that alarmist forger’s head on a post,” Highly unlikely. The smeargate forger made about every conceivable mistake. 106. Dave Worley says: “the public will lose trust in the rest of science.” It’s easy….just look for the word “global”, “sustainable” or “progressive”, or look for the backing of the U. N. and you can be pretty sure it’s cult science. Real environmental issues are usually idntified using empirical data, are localized and can be resolved without taxing the planet. 107. A Lovell says: Nerd says: February 19, 2012 at 6:06 am Thanks for the link. I came to ‘the climate wars’ through sites like that. It is extraordinary how many myths are promulgated and generally accepted. I’ve got to the stage where I simply don’t believe anything until I have made exhaustive enquiries. Luckily I have the time. You might find http://www.davehitt.com/facts as interesting as I did. 108. Leon Brozyna says: Dorothy pull back the curtain to find … another curtain. 109. Jeff Wiita says: What happened to Malcolm K Hughes? 110. Pamela Gray says: If these scientists (cough cough) signed this open letter and go on to compare their indignation with ours, is it any wonder they can’t find the missing heat? I would say that our indignation rises to the level of the anthropogenic portion of CO2. Their’s rose in hockey stick fashion. This likely explains why they cannot see the gap in their own predictions versus reality. 111. Sonicfrog says: “These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. ” Um…. I thought the science wasn’t settled????? 112. John Greenfraud says: Top Warmist scientists say: “We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.” I’m sure Hartland will stipulate to this (as they already have filled this role) on the condition you stipulate everything written after that is a pack of unmitigated and unsubstantiated lies, and that it is simply nothing more than several fallacious conclusions wrapped in the form a request. The request is quite frankly laughable. It is not meant to ‘mend fences’. This letter resembles something like an unrepentant child would write . Is this the best these climate “scientists” can do? Really? Maybe skeptics are giving these guys way to much credit, this whole AGW nonsense is caving in on their head. This is desperation folks, pure and simple. 113. bladeshearer says: I think the AGW team needs to find a wider lexicon. From the “Open Letter”: “…to undermine the teaching…” and “…to undermine public understanding…” From Kevin Knobloch, UCS: “…deceptively undermines the truth.” From Gene Hashmi, Greenpeace: “…undermining progressive climate legislation…” From Deep Climate: “…their credibility is undermined…” Oh, yes, and from their crudely faked ‘Heartland Strategy’ document: “…we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports…” 114. AdolfoGiurfa says: @Nerd: This is really crazy: What does it has in common: “global warming”, Not smoking, pro abortion, “saturated fat and cholesterol consumption”, “child obesity”, “the day after pill”, “gay marriage”, AH5 flu virus, etc.,etc.? . All this seems just insanity, to say the least. Recently a group of environmentalist rallied against lithium mining in Chile, while in other places other environmentalists rally in favor of “electric cars”, running on lithium batteries… That´s schizophrenic. It would be laughable if it would not entail actual consequences on our lives. We are living “interesting times”…OK, but, come on, please, not so interesting! What is the purpose, the goal, if there is any, of the people backing all this non sense? Is it a well thought and planned conspiracy or just a psychological pandemics? 115. HR says: Wasn’t desmog getting criticism for posting on fake stuff before checking it’s authenticity? 116. DJ says: As a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (I possessed a valid credit card), I am now less than amused by their actions, for 2 reasons: 1. UCS is using my “donation/membership” fee for less than honest public relations efforts that have nothing to do with actual science. 2. I “joined” less than a year ago. I am already being hounded by UCS via emails to “renew” my membership. The constant barrage of emails from them seeks to squeeze more and more money from my pocket, while the actual scientific basis they offer in their articles is clearly biased. Since money and funding seems to be a focus, let’s look at the money at UCS. Seems they’re doing quite nicely, thank you. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/UCS-audited-financial-statements-9-30-10.pdf Shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the background of Kevin Knobloch. But come look at what UCS has even now on its website re: Heartland. http://blog.ucsusa.org/living-in-a-glass-house-in-the-heartland Talk about living in a glass house….. 117. A physicist says: Apparently daunted by Heartland’s threats, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) has taken down an REP press release that once conveyed a sensible message: Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality While Heartland has done commendable work in other policy areas, such as risk management, its climate operation has become a public relations servant of special interests—sowing confusion, misrepresenting science, and spreading distortions that pollute what should be a robust, fact-based debate about climate change. That’s not conservative. As William F. Buckley once said, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.” Climate change is an opportunity for conservative organizations to actually be conservative, by acknowledging facts and laying on the table conservative policies for dealing with the climate issue. For me, Bill Buckley’s fact-driven style of conservative skepticism serves the public well … Heartland’s bluster-and-threat style of skepticism doesn’t. [REPLY: For the record: IANAR. I don't think those other REP guys are, either. -REP] 118. Phil C says: “With the exception of one scientist not listed here, Dr. Scott Denning, none of you accepted.” I’m really confused, Anthony. Who is the “you” you refer to above? Does the above sentence mean that one and only one scientist has ever attended a Heartland climate change conference? Who is the intended audience for these conferences and who ends up attending them? 119. Leaking emails that should have already been released under freedom of information (FOI) from entities taking public monies and stonewalling on FOI is not morally equivalent to stealing documents from a private organization that is not publicly funded. I don’t recall that anyone claimed that any of the emails were forged. I suspect that they know that claiming that they were forgeries would just make things worse when it was later shown that they weren’t. In most cases where an email was quoted, the email was identified so that anyone could see for them selves if something was taken out of context. If there was such contextomy, it would have been a simple matter for the victim of that contextomy to discredit the source by showing the quote within its complete context. 120. Jeremy says: Glimpse into the twisted mind of an activist… http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/05/biking-is-safer-with-a-construction-vest/ Aaron has no issue with impersonating a construction worker as it makes cycling easier with more respect from drivers and he believes he can use this deception to get to prime seating at outdoor concerts. Could Aaron be the Fakegate memo faker? 121. Kev-in-UK says: A physicist says: February 19, 2012 at 3:42 am so sorry – but I call BS on your claim the climategate emails were not significant. They were very significant and illustrate many BAD facets of the science within climate scientists circles and the way they conduct peer review, etc, etc. If you are a real physicist, I would expect that you, of all the natural science based scientists, would understand the extremely serious nature of psuedoscience in such a defining (as in policy making) field. Imagine if everyone had taken some of the early physics models as gospel and had never queried or subsequently refined them? The climategate emails and the so called climate scientists actions reflect badly on all science – no better than fraudulent medicine testing or something similar… probably much worse, if you consider that a few billion people would be affected (e.g. by being struck poor with unnecessary taxes, energy poverty, cold and death, etc)!! Put it another way, would you like to be the one that was promoting the CAGW bulldust and around when it’s shown to be completely false and over-hyped AFTER the world has wasted so many billions on it?? Of all the science projects where, whether there is CAGW or not, we need to be absolutely sure of correctness to avoid countless more wasted billions – that will affect billions of people – surely to god, one expects, nay demands, the absolute UTMOST sincerity and integrity of those undertaking the ‘science’?? Yes? – and pray tell, where exactly in the climategate emails does one obtain that impression? 122. O2BNAZ says: The only similarities between the Climate gate “thefts” and the Heartland thefts is the Team and their cohorts are the ones fabricating all the documents… 123. PJB says: Based on the link in the update, what ever bacame of Scott Denning after his appearance at the conference? Was he banished, penniless or was he tolerated or did he switch sides? 124. You-all are reading too much into Aaron Huertas’s name in the document metadata. Happens all the time – you grab a Word doc with the right format, delete all the content (but not the metadata), rewrite it, and send it on. Proves nothing except someone who once received a document from Huertas sent it to someone who sent it to someone who sent it to the team. 125. A physicist says: Slashdot is the largest on-line forum in the world for software folks. So it’s bad public relations for the Heartland Institute when today’s lead story of Slashdot is this one: Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents Typical Slashdot Comment: “The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.” Regardless of whether Slashdot has got the story right, the perception is spreading like wildfire among America’s technorati that: (1) Heartland is clueless about how public debate really works, and (2) Heartland’s strategy of threatening the entire blogosphere with lawsuits is dumb. 126. Steve Brown says: Most shocking of all – he is running OSX 10.5… Leopard…. Get with the times matey 10.8 Mountain Lion is round the corner. 127. gnomish says: i have to agree with the troll that heartland’s wolf tickets are a sign of weakness and cluelessness. talking is to not.do do it, heartland – stop threatening like an impotent child. winning is very different from what you are doing by feeding talking points to trolls. you can’t scare people on the internet – heck, your threats are less impressive than you seem to imagine and where they do impress, it’s not on the dimension you imagine. talk is cheap. don’t be cheap. did john wayne and clint eastwood get all huffington and then do nothing or did they stfu and just do it and let everybody else talk about it? take a lesson from our romantic american heroes portrayed in the art of an earlier age. ppl who already grew some don’t threaten. people who are actual credible threats don’t use their lips on the enemy. i’m dead sure nobody contributes to heartland that they may generate talking points for cagw trolls to flog them with. that’s to lose. we want a winner. 128. David Jones says: A physicist says February 18, 2012 at 8:52 pm Elevator Summary: The Guardian’s coverage of the Heartland kerfuffle is scrupulously founded upon facts that can be independently verified and defended in court … and is adequately juicy none-the-less. Good heavens!! That’s a first for them! 129. JamesD says: Phil C wrote: “Who is the intended audience for these conferences and who ends up attending them?” That’s easy. Anyone who wants to learn how fake scientists flip the signs on proxies (upside down Tiljander), use bad proxies (stripped bark trees), and overweight proxies (the ONE lonely Yamal tree) in order to get a hockey stick. HIDE THE DECLINE baby. 130. DirkH says: Rod McLaughlin says: February 19, 2012 at 8:51 am “You-all are reading too much into Aaron Huertas’s name in the document metadata. Happens all the time – you grab a Word doc with the right format, delete all the content (but not the metadata), rewrite it, and send it on. Proves nothing except someone who once received a document from Huertas sent it to someone who sent it to someone who sent it to the team.” Why not just ask Aaron. His writing style seems to match. A physicist says: February 19, 2012 at 9:11 am “Typical Slashdot Comment: “The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.” Regardless of whether Slashdot has got the story right, the perception is spreading like wildfire among America’s technorati” Uh huh huh. And the significance of slashdot these days is what compared to when they were practically the only news blog? 131. DesertYote says: A physicist February 19, 2012 at 9:11 am ### /. is populated by a bunch of whiny self important collage brats that have swallowed the leftist propaganda fed to them by them by their Marxist professors. The only reason to read /. is to find out the latest techniques and lies being used to brainwash our children. A read of the comments to the link you provided proves that they are written mostly by mindless zombies who have no understanding of what is going on. But most lefties fall into this category. 132. dp says: Let us apply the “fake but accurate” meme to real life and see how it works for you. The company you work for is going to start issuing fake but accurate pay checks. Discuss. 133. John Greenfraud says: Warmist “scientists” write: “These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become.” Warmist “scientists” conclude: “Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.” The scientists have provided these “facts” in no uncertain terms. “Human activity is a primary cause of climate change”. This claim is nothing more than supposition, and yet they present it as fact. So in essence just believe our “facts” and then we’ll have an “honest fact-based debate” on climate policy. Could I be so bold as to suggest we come to agreement on the “facts” before we debate political policy. The definitions below should be a good start, then we can work on the oft-changing and ever-ambiguous “climate change” term. supposition (s p-z sh n) n. 1. The act of supposing. 2. Something supposed; an assumption. fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments. 134. Copner says: @mosher: “Also, looks like they are repeating a libel” No the team is innocent. Even if the letter repeats a libel, we know the team didn’t write it. Ergo the team is innocent! 135. Bob says: “Slashdot is the largest on-line forum in the world for software folks.” I quit reading Slashdot a long time ago. It is like a digital Reader’s Digest. Not much credibility. 136. steven mosher says: Now for the Irony Most of you havent read Manns book. in it mann makes a case that sceptics share a certain vocabulary. like “final nail in the coffin” good argument mike!. the words work like proxies for the source. “undermine” is a proxy that indicates the writer is a warmist 137. John F. Hultquist says: Jeremy says: February 19, 2012 at 8:13 am RE: “construction vest” It is the man’s arrogant attitude that is twisted. These things are actually called safety vests, such as: http://www.safetyvests.com/ Knowing a person that was killed while jogging – hit by a car on a misty gray morning – I wish she had one of these on. Many events, even recreational ones, require these now. And about once a month I encounter a jogger, walker, or biker on our local roads with an outfit that seems designed to make them blend in with the side of the road. That’s not smart. 138. Bob says: JoNova posts this, today. Her Latest Post 139. John F. Hultquist says: Rod McLaughlin says: February 19, 2012 at 8:51 am Happens all the time – you grab a Word doc with the right format, delete all the content (but not the metadata), rewrite it, and send it on. Interesting. Our first personal computer was a Vic-20. We’ve used MS-Word since it was first shipped. The only word document with the right format I’ve ever used is the one I created for such a purpose. I just supposed everyone did the same. I guess your way would work though. 140. tty says: Rod McLaughlin says: February 19, 2012 at 8:51 am You-all are reading too much into Aaron Huertas’s name in the document metadata. Happens all the time – you grab a Word doc with the right format, delete all the content (but not the metadata), rewrite it, and send it on. Proves nothing except someone who once received a document from Huertas sent it to someone who sent it to someone who sent it to the team. Sorry, but that is nonsense. This is a PDF document, and the author in the metadata is the person who created the PDF file, not whoever wrote either the original or any later version of the source file (in this case a Word file). Incidentally that the create and modify dates are similar shows that there has been no subsequent editing of the PDF. So what the metadata does show is that the file was created either by Aaron Huerta, or by somebody else using Aaron Huerta’s Mac. 141. A physicist says: DirkH asks: The significance of slashdot these days is what? (1)~SlashDot is the world’s most-posted and most-read technical weblog, and (2)~SlashDot decides which news stories deserve to be tagged as Streisand-Effect Stories. As of today, “Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents” tops the Streisand-Effect List, supplanting SlashDot classics like: • “PR Firm Unwisely Tangles With Penny Arcade”, • “Actress Sues IMDb For Revealing Her Age” • “Blogger Sued By Restaurant For Bad Review” • “Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit” • “4,000 Anti-Scientology Videos Yanked From YouTube”, and • “YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos.” SlashDot’s techies take a firm stand against attempts to suppress public comment. To which liberals, conservatives, and libertarians generally say “GOOD.” 142. wermet says: Bob says: February 19, 2012 at 11:25 am I quit reading Slashdot a long time ago. It is like a digital Reader’s Digest. Not much credibility. Please don’t paint Reader’s Digest with the same broad brush stroke as Slashdot. Compared to Slashdot, RD is a paragon of virtue, on par with the respect Encyclopedia Britannica used to enjoy. 143. Ric Werme says: Phil C says: February 19, 2012 at 8:09 am “With the exception of one scientist not listed here, Dr. Scott Denning, none of you accepted.” I’m really confused, Anthony. Who is the “you” you refer to above? Does the above sentence mean that one and only one scientist has ever attended a Heartland climate change conference? Who is the intended audience for these conferences and who ends up attending them? Who is the you? – that refers to “these scientists who signed the letter.” Perhaps most notable is Gavin Schmidt who works at GISS in New York, site of two of the ICCCs who could have easily attended. I thought that was clear in Anthony’s response. Dozens of scientists have attended the ICCC meetings. Roy Spencer (who debated Denning at last year’s ICCC in DC), Nils-Axel Moerner, Harrison Schmitt (the only geologist to walk on the moon and also a director of the Heartland Institute),Bill Gray, Bob Carter (one of the scientists who’ve had the most impact on me), etc. They pretty much range from defenders of the scientific method who have major concerns about the “consensus science” to people how strongly disagree with it, e.g. Moerner (sea level) and Gray (hurricane intensification). Some speakers were grad students doing things like looking at peat bogs to see if they can be used as temperature or precipitation proxies. I’m not certain what the Heartland Institute’s vision for the intended “audience” was, but this isn’t far off the mark: Journalists. Much media attention has been focused on things like James Hansen’s presentations to congress and his claims that NASA was trying to muzzle him, the Mann et al hockey stick, and claims that the Maldives were about to be flooded, and so on. The HI encouraged journalists to come and report on what the other side (heck, both sides) had to say. Politicians. A couple ICCCs were held in Washington DC, all I believe granted free registration to active politicians. One of the first people I ran into in Chicago was a state rep from New Hampshire, where I live. Scientists. While not a hardcore scientific conference, this let a lot of scientists meet other and compare notes. Not everything is covered well in papers and Email. This was especially important in the first ICCCs. Lay people. Folks like me. My interest is just personal, Some people were sent by employers who who agreed the company might benefit from know more about the issues, etc. There are a lot of aspects about climate change where lay folks can make a contribution, much like we serve the fields of ornithology and astronomy. Someone, I think Joe Bast, made it clear to me the registration fees were a problem I should talk to people at Heartland about a reduced rate in the future. All in all, the goals were to share information and accelerate climate study. 144. AdolfoGiurfa says: This is true: “Human activity is a primary cause of climate change”….of course: Theirs! 145. Jimbo says: Lars P. says: February 19, 2012 at 3:28 am Speaking of the speculations about fakegate I found from suyts space this link to a very interesting article published on Forbes a couple of days before fakegate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/12/please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science/ A very interesting smackdown of Peter Gleick. Could this have been the trigger for the fake document. Well worth a read. 146. DirkH says: A physicist says: February 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm “As of today, “Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents” tops the Streisand-Effect List, supplanting SlashDot classics like:” So you are over there making your cute lists? Telling you what, Physicist, I used to read slashdot in 2000. It was fun back then. 147. Monique says: ““We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.” … The request is quite frankly laughable. It is not meant to ‘mend fences’. This letter resembles something like an unrepentant child would write . …” Yes, John G, I also noticed this remarkably snippy and condescending sentence. Between this unhelpful letter, whoever wrote it, and the “crudely faked ‘Heartland Strategy’ document” (as bladeshearer accurately describes it), the AGW crowd has done themselves no good this week. Or, as they themselves might say, they have undermined their own cause. 148. Jimbo says: Here is Peter Gleick’s reply in comments. I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that$7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus). And their 990 tax form doesn’t say either. [By the way, while my Forbes posts reflect my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Pacific Institute, all of the Pacific Institute's financial records are public.]

And James Taylor [Heartland] replied further down.

Looks like Aaron Huertas has taken his blog down. http://aaronhuertas.com/ is unreachable. Sounds like someone with a guilty conscious.

When a PR person becomes part of the news rather than behind it then they have failed at their job.

[REPLY: No, it is still there. -REP]

150. crosspatch says:

While not directly related to Aaron Huertas, this just shows how sort of incestuous these organizations are when it comes to people moving about. For example, a previous Union of Concerned Scientists employee who was responsible for “online communications” for the group and now is VP of Communications for Population Action International whose goal appears to be to reduce the number of people on the planet:

Michael Khoo came to PAI in 2009 with 14 years experience in strategic communications for progressive organizations focused on politics, the environment, health, and international issues. He was Vice President at Fenton Communications from 2004-2009 where he worked with clients such as the Nobel Women’s Initiative, MoveOn.org, Friends of the Earth, Step It Up, Farmworker Justice, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Pew Health and Human Services. He led Fenton’s Washington online division and specializes in communications strategy, media relations, and online marketing.

Prior to joining Fenton, Khoo was the Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, where he developed online and offline communications strategies and tactics for its corporate and legislative campaigns.

So it appears that the UCS is a stepping stone to bigger and better positions within the left wing propaganda machine.

151. Brian H says:

Lars P. says:
February 19, 2012 at 3:28 am

Speaking of the speculations about fakegate I found from suyts space this link to a very interesting article published on Forbes a couple of days before fakegate:

Very much worth the read … James Taylor (incidentally sr. fellow at HI for environmental policy) commiserates with Gleick’s confusion, and offers a data-based POV. Bonus — Gleick has responded! And then Taylor responds to that. Popcorn time!

One commenter, btw, says Gleick’s science qualifications consist of one undergrad humanities science survey course! Plus a certitude in his own infallibility, evidently.

[REPLY: Dr. Gleick has A Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from UCB - let's try to avoid hearsay. -REP]

152. Robert of Ottawa says:

I agree with the very first comment by Jack Barnes: Satire & ridicule score a very serious goal.

Morale must be low in the Warmista camp if even their best efforts are shot to pieces by … a ….. CARTOONIST! :-)

153. John Whitman says:

Brian H @ February 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm

————

Brian H,

Thanks for the link to James Taylor (of HI) at Forbes.

Gleick’s emotion based intellectual arsenal was ineffective and self-defeating. Taylor was cool headed and his case was reasonably stated.

Let’s have a Gleick and Taylor face-to-face debate!

John

154. CodeTech says:

A physicist says:

Regardless of whether Slashdot has got the story right, the perception is spreading like wildfire among America’s technorati that: (1) Heartland is clueless about how public debate really works, and (2) Heartland’s strategy of threatening the entire blogosphere with lawsuits is dumb.

Unintentionally, you have yourself just completely submarined your entire argument.

First, nobody already brainwashed by the warmists gives a crap about anything Heartland has to say. Unless is appears to be self-incriminating… so what difference could it possibly make?

Second, I am among the technorati, and /. is as relevant to me as used toilet paper. Heck, I’d rather scan through Cheezburger sites daily than waste my time on politically charged garbage sites.

Fact: if an organization is “clueless about how public debate really works”, the correct response is to ignore them, since they are their own worst enemy. That is not happening.

Who, then, is actually “clueless”?

155. Darren Potter says:

“And they wonder why many in the world have trust issues with climate scientists?”

I have no “trust issues with climate scientists” at all, for I don’t trust them at all.

156. A physicist said (February 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm):

“…Anthony, when I compared the WUWT (fantasy) open letter to today’s (real) Open Letter to the Heartland Institute (authored by Ray Bradley, David Karoly, Michael Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, and Kevin Trenberth), which appeared in The London Guardian earlier today, it was good to see that the scientists/signers regard this theft as a serious matter, to be condemned outright as “stealing” pure-and-simple … and rightly so…”

Outright theft is wrong. As soon as the police find the person or persons responsible for theft of the e-mails, they’ll take action. How long has it been that they’ve been searching for clues, now? As of now, they still have no proof it WAS a theft.

But if theft is wrong, so is out-and-out fabrication of a letter. And they DO have proof that the HI letter was forged.

Let’s see which “crime” gets solved first…

157. Max Hugoson says:

Ah the Union of Concerned FRAUDSTERS! I hope to HECK this is true, because it shows us that “the team” really, REALLY.. are not boni-fide scientists any more if they do not REPUDIATE this association completely.

Back in I recall, 1988….a journal (alas now out of print) called “Opinion” magazine sent out a survey on nuclear power to 2500 people listed in the “Who’s Who of American Men and Women of Science”. (About 150,000 entries. Mostly people as University Professors in Engineering, Chemistry, Physics…medical researchers, industrial Phd’s of some note, etc.) It was on nuclear power and their attitude towards it. Aside from the STUNNING 90% support for nuclear power, there also was the matter of the STUNNING 80% return rate on the surveys. Most surveys of this type obtain about a 10 to 15% return (mailed surveys, even directed to pre-selected interest groups.)

One of the interesting little “side questions” the survey takers threw in was, “Are you now, have you been, or are you planning on becoming a member of the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists”. Of the 1800 replies, there was one AFFIRMATIVE to being a member of the UCS.

On the basis of various statistical metrics, the authors in Opinion Magazine stated that “statistically”, if this was a valid sample, less than 300 of the 150,000 in the WW of American Men and Women of Science, would be members of the UCS. (Please note the UCS, who have NEVER published any credentials, or ANY information on their members, proudly tout 50,000 plus members.)

As I recall, I believe Anthony’s DOG is a member of the UCS? I’m wondering, would HE have had something to do with this letter from the TEAM? (Or would Anthony do well to use it to line his “puppy poopie” box?)

Max

158. Max Hugoson says:

A FAKER says:

“Well, it’s not complicated. Just as the CRU emails were embarrassing, but in the end were no big deal, the Heartland documents too are embarrassing, but in the end are no big deal. ”

Hey, TROLL! I find NOTHING in the Heartland documents embarrassing. Completely VALID and to the point. The EMBARRASSING point is the FAKED PDF, which was easily dismissed as being a fake.

As far as the CRU Emails go, any 3 to 6 of them, selected out…written in the UNPROFESSIONAL CHILDISH way these immature snipes write to each other, would get MOST “professionals” fired or disciplined in the REAL “private industry” world. (I had a friend, who responded to a fellow from Australia, who (on the basis of my friends rather “Irish” sounding name..when said Aussie complained, “It’s just like an Irishman, to demand the cheapest (blank) possible, without regard to quality.” My friend responded by saying, “Since my extended time in Australia will be paid for personally…I do have reason to look for the cheapest rate. Interesting to have my ancestry questioned by someone from a country that was a formal ‘penal colony’ for the British Empire!”

The Aussie responded by sending the Email to the corporate offices (for my friend) ..end result just short of firing! (Probation for a year…after 10 years of “loyal” and dedicated service.)

So THIS is why I regard the “team” as WHINY CHILDREN to be treated as such!

159. Billy97 says:

Has Heartland been a user of the climatgate emails?

160. David says:

A physicist says:
February 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm
DirkH asks: The significance of slashdot these days is what?

(1)~SlashDot is the world’s most-posted and most-read technical weblog, and (2)~SlashDot decides which news stories deserve to be tagged as Streisand-Effect Stories.

As of today, “Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents” tops the Streisand-Effect List, supplanting SlashDot classics like:
===========================================
Perhaps SlashDot is as confused about the facts of the situation as you appear to be. If any news blog currently comments on what is in all likelyhood a fake document, and speaks about it as if it was real and made valid points portraying the Heartland Inst in a mendacious and evil light, they should be sued for the malicious slander they are perpetuating.

161. Skiphil says:

Re: Gleick v. Heartland Institute

I don’t see much plausibility to the idea that Gleick himself could have decided to undertake an assault on HI via theft and forgery of docs. However, one of his fanatical readers could easily have been moved to such actions. He has some real nutcases “supporting” him on his blog articles.

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the exchange of blog articles between Peter Gleick and James Taylor on Forbes in early Jan. is fascinating. I had managed to avoid Gleick’s writings before Fakegate erupted, but he is a real…… piece of work.

The ferocity of the dust-up with Taylor is intriguing and disturbing, and it occurred just before the theft and forgery with Heartland docs. However, I don’t see any likelihood that Gleick himself could be involved — more likely one or more of his fanatical fans. When one reads the comments war following those two Forbes blog articles, it is clear that Gleick has some CAGW acolytes who (1) do see him as the center of their world, and (2) could easily decide to “strike” out at Heartland in some decisive manner. The ferocity and obsessiveness of some of the commenters there is quite striking.

Gleick v Taylor articles:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/05/the-2011-climate-b-s-of-the-year-awards/

Have we verified that Josh actually wrote the satirical memo? Can’t be too careful these days! :-)

163. TomRude says:

Meanwhile the AAAS meeting in Vancouver is getting full coverage by the Thomson Reuters media in Canada…

[Moderator's Note: Links make life easier. -REP]

164. More Soylent Green! says:

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become.

Let’s break this down:

#1 – Climate change is occurring. What do you expect? The implications here are the climate is not supposed to be changing. When a journalist or layman like Al Gore makes a statement like this, conscientious scientists should be pointing out the mistake. When scientists say this, it’s deliberately misleading. And yet the apologists will claim no one says the climate is not supposed to change.

#2 – Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. This is not a statement of fact, but is opinion.

#3 – Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. – As a changing climate is the natural state of affairs, this is another meaningless statement. Again, the implication is the climate is not supposed to change.

#4 – The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. And yet there is little evidence this actually is happening. There is a compelling lack of evidence that the late 20th century warm period was any warmer than any previous warming during the Holocene. There is a great deal of evidence that the MWP was warmer than the 20th century warming.

/More Soylent Green

165. Hoser says:

A physicist says:
February 19, 2012 at 8:07 am
Apparently daunted by Heartland’s threats, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) has taken down an REP press release that once conveyed a sensible message:

I looked into the Republicans for Environmental Protection a few years ago. The group was started by a guy who has worked on a number of liberal causes. It’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only) group. Not at all conservative and not at all science based.

166. DGH says:

“Skiphil says:
February 18, 2012 at 11:33 pm
It may be worth noting that the “created” and “modified” times are identical, suggesting that text (from an email, for instance) may simply have been copy-and-pasted into a fresh MS Word doc….It still raises “interesting” questions about what the relationships are among the scientists, UCS, and the Guardian, and especially why the Guardian would not disclose the involvement of UCS if they received the letter via that route. Or if Huertas sent the MS Word file to one of the scientists for forwarding to the Guardian, why exactly was the UCS flack involved at all?”

According to Gavin Schmidt UCS was involved because “you might have a list of editors of major news organisations at your fingertips, but I don’t).” Which of course doesn’t pass the blush test. He’s written an article for the Guardian where the letter was “exclusively” released.

In regards to your observation of interesting questions, consider how quickly this letter was published – faster than the speed of light….

15.24 EST. Guardian Article with reference to letter appears. (See history)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax?newsfeed=true

17:28 Union of Concerned Scientists Tweets their press release regarding the letter at 5:28 PM. (presumably EST tweets appear in order on my computer which is EST)

19:38 Letter written and created 2/17/2012 7:38:44 PM (presumably EST since Mr. Huertas is out of DC)

I know that timestamps can’t be fully trusted. All I can conclude is that the relationship between the realscientists, the non-profit UCS, and the Guardian is cozy indeed.

167. yawn says:

“According to Gavin Schmidt UCS was involved because “you might have a list of editors of major news organisations at your fingertips, but I don’t).” Which of course doesn’t pass the blush test. He’s written an article for the Guardian where the letter was “exclusively” released.”

Publishing an article in a newspaper does not mean you have the news organization at your fingertips.

And releasing something to news organizations before it is made public means “the relationship is cozy”? No, it’s normal PR. It’s a normal way to get more coverage by making it more “exclusive”.

This is basic stuff, dude!

168. timg56 says:

There are a couple of things here I don’t understand.

1) What is the big deal about the open letter possibly being authored by Aaron Huerta? I’ve written letters and memo’s on a number of occasions that went out under someone else’s signature, including the CEO. It is no different from speech writing. Those here commenting on it do nothing more than provide fodder for those calling us wacko denialists.

2) Who in their right mind would give any credence to the Union of Concerned Scientists? Their little Doomsday clock has had the world just minutes from imminent destruction for the last 50 – 60 years. We’re still here. The UCS has always appeared to me to be a bunch of neutered pansies afraid of their own shadows. Can someone provide even one example where they have been correct in their fears and warnings?

169. IAmDigitap says:

A physicist says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Anthony, when I compared the WUWT (fantasy) open letter to today’s (real) Open Letter to the Heartland Institute (authored by Ray Bradley, David Karoly, Michael Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, and Kevin Trenberth), which appeared in The London Guardian earlier today, it was good to see that the scientists/signers regard this theft as a serious matter, to be condemned outright as “stealing” pure-and-simple … and rightly so.

There are plenty of folks (me for one) who neither regard theft lightly, nor treat it as a joking matter, because theft threatens the polity that is essential to the responsible working of democracy.

______________________________
Hence your Social Democrat myopic fantasy: this is a R.E.P.U.B.L.I.C.

No wonder you didn’t know Mike Mann’s math makes hockey sticks when even his colleagues were running it, having it pop up just like nearly everyone else on earth who ran it.

No wonder you’ve still not grasped the staggering stupidity in thinking trees are thermometers.

No wonder you’ve still archly wearing the ‘I R straight man fer muh online cherch’ attitude of naivete at the comprehensive evil, theft, you use as cover for ‘A Democracy’.

Your criminality is no less than the people who actually spent the money fraudulently stolen using government employee status and ‘scientist’ moniker for grand larceny.

You’re just too stupid to see that no matter which band of criminopaths you usher into the working of your government, the civilization suffers from your existence more than them: if you didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have a cover for their criminality.

Not shame on you.
Darwin’s Dog: all over you
is what the people who have suffered – I haven’t – deserve
after you supported fraud and caused 3rd world nations to plant the wrong crops;
after you supported fraud and caused the world’s nations to mis-appropriate weather-related emergency mitigation funds;
after you supported fraud and caused the world’s nations to have to hear, yet again and be traumatized by, your White Men Want To Sterilize the Extra Brown People in the Name of Prius and Gaia.

It’s pathological beyond any remnant of normal, healthy social thinking and just rattling that saber over the peoples of the world should be cause for having YOU be rounded up and put into a prison cell until you display some normal healthy socially oriented personal penitance for your
low
rent
corruption and terrorization of 3rd world people. I’d say they’ve been shaken down enough.

Apparently you not only don’t know why a hockey stick’s not real math, and a tree’s not a thermometer, you don’t know where to stop in adopting the political regalia of the world’s most evil people: socialists of this or that stripe.

170. David A. Evans says:

Hoser says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:14 am

I looked into the Republicans for Environmental Protection a few years ago. The group was started by a guy who has worked on a number of liberal causes. It’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only) group. Not at all conservative and not at all science based.

We have a similar thing here in the UK. Our current coalition government leaders are Conservative In Name Only, (CINO)!

It’s no coincidence that the acronym is also a name for a once fashionable style of trouser, or, for our cousins on the West side of the pond…

PANTS!

DaveE.

171. yawn says:

@IAmDigitap

[snip. More content-free threadbombing. ~dbs, mod.]

172. DGH says:

@Yawn

Writing an article for the Climate section suggests strongly that one knows the climate editor. I’d be happy to dig up some Climategate emails to demonstrate other Hockey Team connections to the Guardian and other news outlets if you’d like. Gavin’s statement was disingenuous, dude.

As for the practice of pre-releasing press releases, you’ve only supported the point. The Hockey Team enjoy a cozy relationship with the Guardian that allowed reference to their letter to be quickly inserted into an article based in part on fictional and misappropriated documents. The Guardian can conduct their business as they wish. But an informed reader should put little stock in anything originating from their climate department.

In the wake of Gleick’s confession, it’s hard to believe anybody would continue aligning themselves with fraudsters and thieves. But then again these are the climate wars and I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by anything. I’ll look forward to your reply.

173. old44 says:

I notice the Open Letter to the Heartland was missing Phil Jones signature, anyone know why?

174. Larry in Texas says:

A physicist says:
February 19, 2012 at 8:07 am

Boy! In addition to pretending to be a legal authority, you pretend to be an authority on Bill Buckley. In fact, you are neither.

Buckley’s quote was intended to contrast conservatives to leftist, radical environmentalist, or socialist dunderheads (like yourself) who make up reality as they go along in the name of The Cause of controlling mankind and making mankind subservient to the-leftists-who-know-better. The reality that Buckley was saying conservatives need to be “subservient” to is the reality that mankind is not some Pavlovian dog perpetually malleable or amenable to endless political, social, or environmental tinkering by so-called “experts,” nor to some mythical ideal of egalitarian or primal fancy such as what Rousseau and others of his ilk would have imposed upon us. History, particularly the history of the past 100 years or so, shows that people prefer to be left alone and to have liberty, the maximum liberty reasonably possible, to govern ourselves. We are NOT receptive to your foolish, utopian blandishments about environmental catastrophe.