Some notes on the Heartland Leak

Heartland has yet to produce a press release, but I thought in the meantime I’d share some behind the scenes. If/when they do, I’ll add it to this post.

UPDATE: 11:45AM -The press release has been added below. One of the key documents is a fabrication

UPDATE2: 2:30PM The BBC’s Richard Black slimes me, without so much as asking me a single question (he has my email, I’ve corresponded with him previously) or even understanding what the project is about Hint: Richard, it’s about HIGHS and LOWS, not trends. No journalistic integrity with this one. – Anthony

I’m surprised at the number of articles out there on this where journalists have not bothered to ask me for a statement, but rather rely on their own opinion. To date, only Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian has asked for a statement, and she used very little of it in her article. Her colleague, Leo Hickman asked me no questions at all for his article, but instead relied on a comment I sent to Bishop Hill. So much for journalism. (Update: In response to Hickman, Lucia asks What’s horrible about this?)

(Update: 10:45AM Seth Borenstein of the AP has contacted me and I note that has waited until he can get some kind of confirmation that these documents are real. The Heartland press release is something he’s waiting for. Contacting involved parties is the right way to investigate this story.)

Here’s the query from Goldenberg:

Name: Suzanne Goldenberg

Email: suzanne.goldenberg@xxx.xxx

Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Message: Hello, I am seeking comment on the leak of the Heartland

documents by Desmogblog which appear to suggest you are funded by them. Is

this accurate? Thanks

MY REPLY:

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

Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.

They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.

It is simply for this special project requiring specialized servers, ingest systems, and plotting systems. They also don’t tell me what the project should look like, I came up with the idea and the design. The NOAA data will be displayed without any adjustments to allow easy side-by-side comparisons  of stations, plus other graphical representations output 24/7/365. Doing this requires programming, system design, and bandwidth, which isn’t free and I could not do on my own.  Compare the funding I asked for initially to

get it started to the millions some other outfits (such as CRU) get in the UK for studies that then end up as a science paper behind a publishers paywall, making the public pay again. My project will be a free public service when finished.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description from the same (Heartland) documents:

Weather Stations Project

Every few months, weathermen report that a temperature record – either high

or low – has been broken somewhere in the U.S. This is not surprising, since weather is highly variable and reliable instrument records date back less than 100 years old. Regrettably, news of these broken records is often used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either global warming or the more ambiguous “climate change.”

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts WattsUpwithThat.com, one of the

most popular and influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the

temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.

Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t widely publicize data from this new network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.

Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new

temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by  weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at  WattsUpwithThat.com. Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011.  The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DeSmog, as part of their public relations for hire methodology to demonize skeptics, will of course try to find nefarious motives for this project. But there simply are none here. It’s something that needs doing because NOAA hasn’t made this new data available in a user friendly visual format. For example, here’s a private company website that tracks highs and low  records using NOAA data:

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/yesterday/us.html

NOAA doesn’t make any kind of presentation like that either, which is why such things are often done by private ventures.

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

That above is what I sent to the Guardian, and also in a comment to Bishop Hill.

The reaction has been interesting, particularly since the David-Goliath nature of funding is laid bare here. For example, Al Gore says he started a 300 million dollar advertising campaign. The Daily Bayonet sums it up pretty well:

Hippies hate Heartland « The Daily Bayonet

What the Heartland document show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.

Your climate fear-mongering backfired. You cried wolf so often the villagers stopped listening. Then Climategate I & II gave the world a peek behind the curtain into the shady practices, petty-feuding and data-manipulation that seems to pass for routine in climate ‘science’.

So enjoy the moment, warmists, because what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out. It’s what you do best.

I see none of the same people at the Guardian or the blogs complaining about this:

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

(Update: Dr. Hansen responds here)

Or the NGO’s and their budgets (thanks Tom Nelson)

With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million respectively, how can lovable underdogs like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million?

Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed | Deep Climate

Heartland is projecting a boost in revenues from $4.6 million in 2011, to $7.7 million in 2012. That will enable an operating budget of $6.5 million, as well as topping up the fund balance a further $1.2 million.

[Sept 2011]:  Greenpeace Environmental Group Turns 40

Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, now has offices in more than 40 countries and claims some 2.8 million supporters. Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from “direct action” activists to scientific researchers.

Last year, its budget reached $310 million.

[Nov 2011]: Sierra Club Leader Will Step Down – NYTimes.com

He said the Sierra Club had just approved the organization’s largest annual budget ever, about $100 million for 2012, up from $88 million this year.

[Oct 2011]:  Do green groups need to get religion?

That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people.

But me and my little temperature web project to provide a public service are the real baddies here apparently. The dichotomy is stunning.

Some additional added notes:

“Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications.”

For the record, and as previously cited on WUWT, NCDC started on the new network in 2003 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html Heartland may have confused the Climate Reference Network with the updated COOP/USHCN modernization network which did indeed start after my surfacestations project: What the modernized USHCN will look like (April 29, 2008)

They then asked for 100 million to update it NOAA/NCDC – USHCN is broken please send 100 million dollars (Sept 21, 2010)

###

Moderators, do your best to keep the sort of hateful messages I’ve been getting in the past 18 hours in check in comments below. Please direct related comments from other threads to this one. Commenters please note the site policy.

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

PRESS RELEASE 11:45 AM – source http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 – The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Communications Director Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.


Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

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

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

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

Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.

Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

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

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

631 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ken Hall
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“Anthony, I am loathe to think that there are nefarious schemes and whatnot at play here, but really… $44,000 to write software that analyses data? I made that much in an entire year as a professional programmer. It took me a day to write up …”
44K for a website is a lot. 44K for an entire research project, of which a website is only a part, is a pittance. And 44k for a research project that has the backing of a blog that reaches the millions of people reached by WUWT is an absolute steal! You can buy a script kiddy writing rubbish code for 44k a year. You cannot get a software engineer, meteorologist, project manager and promoter with the experience and global public reach of Anthony Watts for 44K for very long.
Importantly, what is being produced is NOAA data, unadjusted just presented better and clearer. As stated, NOAA should be doing this anyway. Unlike the very very well paid warmists, Mr Watts is not being hired to fudge, adjust or bend the data to fit a political argument.

Steve S
February 15, 2012 1:11 pm

Hi Anthony,
Love your blog, I don’t give a damn about your receiving funding for a special project. I’ll continue visiting, and reading because there are precious few resources out there that present contrary viewpoints, and evidence to ‘accepted science’. WUWT is one of the better resources that do.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:15 pm

R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?

What if it was leaked by a whistleblower? They have protection under UK law I understand so there would be no crime to act against.
Now some of you angry posters need to realise that at least one of the key documents is fake.

February 15, 2012 1:16 pm

Severian 11:57 AM : “Why, if you were able to see the real data, simply presented, sans “adjustments” and commentary from the AGW clergy as to what it all means, in a nice predigested press release.”
It took over 100 comments, but I think you finally touched on the why of their over the top reaction: They don’t want the general public to know what a sorry state the temperature monitoring stations are in and how they have been moving into the UHI for the last half century, artificially jacking up temperatures. Once Anthony and Heartland goes live with this, not only do we see the actual site locations and the actual data, but more importantly we see where the sites are not located (Arctic, mountains, Antarctic, etc) – places where cooling would show up early and often.
Congratulations to Anthony and Heartland. The truth is the ultimate weapon in this fight. Cheers-

Gary Hladik
February 15, 2012 1:18 pm

Is anyone else wondering if “FOIA” will take this opportunity to release the key to the remaining Climategate 2 E-mails?

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:19 pm

Peter says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:09 am
I love the way you use the fact free, propaganda driven campaigns against second hand smoke and CFC’s as the standard by which you want to be measured.

David
February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
Lots of fun, eh? “effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.
——————————————————————
Mr Connolley, get real. At the most this was sloppy writing and the author meant to say …”from teaching “BAD” science. (You know like Mann’s broken hockey stick and all the non peer review IPCC alarmist literature since proven false)
Connolley goes on
Heartland’s statement that “no more than 5% of total budget from a single corporate entity” now looks to have been very carefully crafted, now we know that 20% came from a single individual!
————————————- SO??? God bless him.
Connolley swings and misses again, but thinks its a home run-
“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” is also pleasantly honest – no pretence there of actually doing any real science.
————————————————————————————-
The NIPCC use professional science literature and articles, not non peer review IPCC alarmist literature since proven false. Your view that is is not real science does not make it so. The earth was just as round before mankind proved it. CO2 is a benefit to the biosphere, and does not produce catestrophic warming, despite your blind passion that it does.

e k johnson
February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

The hypocrisy here is amazing. Certain groups have certainly conspired to breach FOIA in order to hide the data, methodologies and reproducibility of their results. And they have done so using public funds. But the Repeaters (“journalists” sic) focus on a privately funded project which is entirely open concerning the methodology and data which is to receive a paltry $44K of PRIVATE capital.
Compare that to the immense funding for the Universities and Institutions such as NOAA who recently sent a “anonymous” (laughs) survey to their staff to find out what amounts to their a political view of or belief in AGW, quite obviously with the objective of marking out “trouble makers” ready for ousting in the next round of convenient redundancies and to stall their careers. This is the definition of a witch hunt. It is the definition of un-American and all Americans should be enraged by that survey.
PS someone clever should go to this, ask some questions, and report on the answers. Try to film it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-mythbusting-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Feb-28.html

February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.

There are two key differences. The Climategate emails are legally ours to begin with because of the Freedom of Information laws. The second difference is this Heartland is funded by private interests and CRU is funded by taxpayers.

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:21 pm

Paul Butler says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:10 am
1) FIghting the lies of the warmists, is not the only thing Heartland spends money on.
2) The groups listed are not the only ones trying to spread the AGW lies, as several others have mentioned, many govts are in on that game.
3) Who are these well heeled organizations who’s sole goal is fighting the AGW lies?

DavidS
February 15, 2012 1:24 pm

Anthony
This will probably run for a while, but don’t let it distract from your work here. Your explanation above is coherent, completely believable and prompt. As a general rule i am not that concerned about how you fund your blog. The good thing about this blog is that all comments and commentators are welcome, providing dacorum is preserved. Other blogs could learn from this attitude.
The project sounds like a good idea and relatively inexpensive, why aren’t NOAA doing and funding it thmselves????
Just a thought before I post this comment – How much would each regular WUWT reader have to put in to the TIP jar to fund the entire project? It would make an intersting story. Im good for $50, providing it could be directly attributed to this project. Im in the UK so that would beabout £35 at the current of exchange.
Best wishes
DavidS

Gary Hladik
February 15, 2012 1:25 pm

Gary Hladik says (February 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm: “Is anyone else wondering if “FOIA” will take this opportunity to release the key to the remaining Climategate 2 E-mails?”
Bill Williams says (February 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm): “I wonder if all this jumping around by the alarmists will precipitate the release of the password for the remaining Climategate emails?”
Oops. OK, obviously others are wondering! 🙂

February 15, 2012 1:26 pm

To all those complaining about Anthony receiving some thousands of dollars in a one time donation to provide information that overpaid government bureaucrats won’t provide, let’s compare grants to just one climate alarmist.
Recent Michael Mann grants:
Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons: 
$250,000
Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases:
 $1,884,991
Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model: 
$541,184
A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices:
 $330,000
AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship,: $23,000
Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana: $759,928
Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions: $459,000
Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium:
 $68,065
Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC): 
$100,000
Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results: $102,000
Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia: 
$315,000
Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability: $133,000
Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation: $14,400
Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years: $20,775
Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere: 
$214,700
Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport: $20,775
Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison: 
$381,647
The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change:
 $266,235
Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations: $270,000
Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium: 
$78,000
Total:
$6,232,700
[Mann collected $1.8 million to ‘study mosquito vectors’ – in addition to many $millions more in other payola. Why would someone pay Mann, instead of a biologist or an epidemiologist, to study disease transmission? It was payola, pure and simple. And I can’t seem to find Mann’s report. Maybe one of our resident trolls can find it.]
And that’s only Michael Mann’s payola, and an incomplete list at that. There are lots of alarmists on the climate grant gravy train, on both sides of the Atlantic. But the trolls monkey-pile on Anthony instead.
Hypocrites worry about the mote in someone else’s eye, while ignoring the 2×4 in their own eye. A textbook case of psychological projection by blatant hypocrites, starting with the very first post.

peeke
February 15, 2012 1:27 pm

@Tucci78
“peeke, have you got anything factual with which to prove that what was reported in that Daily Mail article was in error, or are you just condemning this particular newspaper as “not a reliable scientific source“?
Because, bubbeleh, that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (evading address of the substance by attacking the source instead).”
The argumentum ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy when used in an argument. I.e. something is not right or wrong because of who stated it. Checking the credentials of a certain person at the door however is more than useful. The thing is you can do this the way Lucia does: Constantly seeing how the current global temperature anomaly compares to models. And lo and behold, even with the spike the AGW croud mentioned as the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH, the doom scenario doesn’t hold. When you have that, why on earth would you check the Daily Mail?
Mind you, ΔT in and after the Dalton minimum, the sort of change is solar activity currently expected, was about 0.08K. And if you would dismiss the idea of a frozen Thames simply because of a Dalton-esque minimum, you will also be able to consider the current flattening of the line not caused by solar activity decrease. Hence it must be something else (Hint: The climate system currently has a negative feedback to forcings..)

David
February 15, 2012 1:27 pm

Michael Tobiss says
(“I don’t think the other “green” groups are especially comparable as they have broader missions. Whether they ought to is another question. For instance, there’s not much percentage in protecting ecosystems under rapid climate change scenarios.”)
—————-
The heartland Inst has a broader focus then most of the green groups.

Bill Illis
February 15, 2012 1:29 pm

A few million to talk about the facts versus billions spent on propaganda.
I’ll take inexpensive facts over extremely expensive propaganda any day of the week.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:29 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm
———————-
You talk about oil funding yet you CONVENIENTLY ignore the points I made above. One example is CRU receiving funding from BP and Shell. Is that OK by you. I want an answer.
See also Pachauri’s links to BIG OIL. Is that OK by you. If yes then that’s what I call hypocrisy.

February 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) said February 15, 2012 at 10:19 am

In all these years I’ve received $100 for an article and a little more for a translation. Am I part of the well funded denial machine too?

I can do better than that! In 1998 I was paid $AU65/hr for six hours of computer training by an oil company 🙂

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Phil C says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm
kim2ooo —
This is all I’m asking:
1. Define “controversy” and “uncertainty” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education
2. Define “Normal Science” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education.
————————————————
Mr C.
When we are not allowed to discuss the controversy or uncertainties involving climate science in school…when a hypothesis without observational empirical evidence is taken as fact….you are not teaching normal science.

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Koos says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the contaminated sites were already removed from the data? Until Anthony’s work, the NOAA did not know that any of their sites were contaminated.
As to the rest of the world, why do you believe that it is in any better shape than the US?

February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Chris Colose: Arrogance does not make anyone correct, regardless of what the warmist establishment currently thinks.

TomRude
February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Let’s not forget that Desmog is owned by Hoggan the Chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation whose funding has been increasingly under scrutiny since the sleuthing work by Vivian Krause.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/david-suzuki-foundation-70-million.html
Moreover, Suzuki himself is being called for being a political lobbyist masquerading under the guise of a charitable organization by the journalist Erza Levant of the Sun Network
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/charity-or-lobby-group/1439306081001
So obviously Suzuki’s seat is getting hotter and since Hoggan is in the PR business… $44,000 should be enough smog over Suzuki’s tens of millions…
Computer says No.

February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Chris Colose said February 15, 2012 at 11:15 am

Whatever a “warmist” is, they probably are right, because they have that stuff called ‘physics’ and ‘data’ to back them up. The problem is you have to get educated in the physics, and you need to learn the data, its limitations, and how it applies/does not apply to the problem of interest. Despite what everyone thinks, you can’t read a blog to get all that.

Presumably you have some evidence that Robert G Brown doesn’t have any expertise in physics:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Where is your evidence?

1DandyTroll
February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Apparently the smog blog doesn’t understand conservatives don’t do nothing until there’s a reason to do anything, that’s why conservatives rarely, if ever, lie. Although communists always lie so they think everybody else also lie, that’s why communist hippies always paint themselves into a corner, it’s infallible. :p

February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

I am always amazed that the warmers keep looking at funding and ad hominems instead of data and relevant facts.
Guess that just shows that the average warmer is incapable of evaluating facts, and so must rely on the irrelevent for their conclusions.
BTW, DeSmog: can you show us any real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming?
Thanks
JK

1 6 7 8 9 10 25