Josh from CartoonsbyJosh.com writes:
Another ‘Gate’ – but this one turned round and bit the owner.
Leo Hickman and co at the Guardian thought they had a bona fide leak of incriminating
information on the funding of climate skeptics by the Heartland Institute.
Two problems, the funding turns out to be rather small beer, especially in comparison to the vast sums of money paid to promote Climate Change Alarmism. Secondly it looked like the funds were going to fund scientists and with another trenche for a website to explain climate science research.
Hardly a surprise, and not exactly incriminating. It is what the Heartland does after all.
Third problem. The most incriminating document was a fake.
So now it has become know as Fakegate. Ouch.
Great comment by Lucia here, summary and comment by Judith here and lots at
BishopHill, here, here and here, and WUWT, here and here, and even one at Roy Spencers.
And here is the cartoon:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Fake but Accurate”
Yeah, that’s what they think about their science too.
kim2ooo said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Oh nooooo! We don’t want Mr Mann Downunda; we already have Herr Professor Professor Doktor Flim Flammery. Please, we beg of you, keep Mann away from us….
The Guardian certainly hasn’t given up. Suzanne Goldenberg had a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/16/heartland-institute-fundraising-drive-leaked) yesterday evening that described Heartland as “free market thinktank behind efforts to discredit climate change and the teaching of science in schools” and quoting this extract from the fake document: “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”.
Maybe the paper’s editors still think this nonsense is genuine. Or perhaps they don’t care so long as they can continue to publicise the calumny.
A physicist: “These seem like appropriate stories to me. So it’s hard to understand why WUWT is doing more than most web sites to keep the “HeartlandGate” story alive”.
Two main reasons:
1.- Those who previously spread fake information have not apologised or corrected or just taken off-line anything that they originally published, despite it being widely known now that it is all fake.
2.- Anthony and WUWT are directly affected by the fake story.
Not that difficult to understand. Are you sure you are a scientist?
Anthony,
Because of all of the hub-bub created by your interactions with the Heartland Institute, I would hope you are compensating your Moderators with all of the revenue coming in from your corporate sponsor. They are working double overtime with moderating all of the responses here on WUWT.. I would hope a coffee and danish at least? /sarc off
Again, thank you for being a level head in this game. You continuously demonstrate that you operate with class. Unlike some, who’s names will not be mentioned in this post.
FYI, It seems like they are doubling down at some smog blog.. From their front page:
“The #%S*0%Blog (name not to be mentioned here and no link to help his Google ranking) has no evidence supporting Heartland’s claim that the Strategic document is fake. A close review of the content shows that it is overwhelmingly accurate (“almost too accurate” for one analyst), and while critics have said that it is “too short” or is distinguished by “an overuse of commas,” even the skeptics at weatherguy Anthony Watts’s WUWT say that a technical analysis of the metadata on the documents in question does not offer sufficient information to come to a firm conclusion either way.”
They got their head in the sand, or maybe up somewhere else?
OK, almost too accurate says one analyst. Please name that analyst..
Accuracy? Oh, the page with the phone numbers and addresses of the Board, THAT was correct. BUT the ‘smoking gun’ strategy PDF scanned page? We’ll just ignore that one….
‘Fake but Accurate’…
A physicist says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“Sites like SkS already have abandoned the HeartlandGate story to cover a science-first story. And that (IMHO) is what WUWT should do too.”
The FakeGate story is actually a scientific story; not because it tells us anything about the future of the climate. The science it is connected with is, of course, psychology, and here especially the psychology of cults. Read up on Festinger, A. Physicist.
and more from the posting at DeSmellyBlog:
Now, we have a case where Bast admits that some dope on his staff emailed Heartland’s whole board package to a stranger. Yet rather than praising the opportunity that this provides for independent observers to judge the performance of a taxpayer-subsidized body (Heartland is a registered charity), as Bast did when someone stole the so-called ClimateGate emails from leading scientists such as Mike Mann, the Heartland boss has attacked the veracity of the Climate Strategy and used that to attempt to dismiss the legitimacy of the other material (Heartland Institute Responds to Stolen and Fake Documents).
as my daughter would say.. O-M-G!!!
Are they living in an alternate reality? They want the theft of documents from a private organization to be praised? And comparing it to a whistle blower releasing FOIA documents from a organization that is funded thru government grants? They want Fake but Accurate documents to be used to judge said organization?
The Taxpayer-subsidized comment made me chuckle… I think the author is attempting to make the Heartland Institute sound like it gets government money, so these documents are public property. Taxpayer-subsidy is a play on words… It gets voluntary funding directly FROM the taxpayer, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! A Private institution getting funds from Private individuals IS NOT government funded…
They are digging their own hole.
A physicist may understand science, (citation very much needed) but he does not understand the law.
It does not go…Publish fake defamatory documents, insult and defame individuals, move on to the next target, as per Sks, Guardian, BBC,etc
It goes… Publish fake defamatory documents, insult and defame individuals, retract all defamatory and untrue statements, withdraw all defamatory comments derived from faked documents, apologise to corporations and individuals, pay compensation as decided in a court of law.
We are waiting.
Fact is, big corporations ALWAYS give to both sides of every important issue. They never benefit from facts or solutions. They gain when everything remains perpetually unsettled. More room for speculation and bets.
The partisans on both sides of every important issue blindly follow along, keeping the ball in the air forever.
“Journalists” play the biggest part in keeping this idiot game running, because it’s always easier to follow a money trail than to seek actual facts.
Wouldn’t it be grand to have one media outlet that stayed out of the Fox/CNN fake battles, and simply asked one question on every story: “What’s the truth?”
There is always an answer to that question, but we’re never allowed to approach it.
MikeH says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:56 am
Oh go ahead and visit http://www.desmogblog.com/ . Their rank isn’t high enough to worry about, and if it were, it’s no reason not to go there.
One you get there, you’ll see
If you follow the link, you’ll wind up at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ and see the analyst’s name is Megan McArdle, and her article is very good.
Desmog even has links to WUWT. Don’t worry about the page rank or view count.
A physicist says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
As completely embarrassing as this episode has been to the CAGW acolytes, that would be exactly my recommendation, too, AP.
Too bad the masthead on WUWT reads “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts.” This little episode matches several of those items, and in particular centers on Anthony Watts, the proprietor.
I wouldn’t expect it to be abandoned anytime soon, AP. Nope. Not in your wildest dreams.
(This really shows you’re not an even-handed truth seeker, AP–your comment reeks of bias clear from Iceland and is ANYTHING but “IMHO” (leave the “honest” out and you are much closer). Oh, and if you think SkS is a site to emulate, you are one misinformed person. Laughable!)
“trenche” > “tranche”
IanM
I have never got the we-should-give-Andrew-Revkin-credit thing. Now I see more reason why it never took with me.
Rocky, with respect, perhaps you and I actually agree on this.
In the short run, for lobbyists and politicians, “hack and purloin” stories are big news.
Yet in the long run, for scientists and for our children, the same stories mean nothing.
For the simple reason that Richard Feynman explained: “Nature cannot be fooled.”
The offending document is so transparently fake that it occurs to me it could be a sting.
Ric Werme said at February 17, 2012 at 6:04 am
Yes, it’s an interesting read, for the quick glance I gave it. But as for her qualifications as an analyst, as DSB labeled her.. I don’t see where she calls herself an analyst, but DSB is reporting her as one. I can look at and analyze a document and give my humble opinion, but I wouldn’t want someone calling me an analyst. Her qualifications are impressive, per Wikipedia. But I do not see any listing as a forensic document expert. She currently is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She may have an opinion on the treasure trove of documents supported by her references, but if she were to be called to testify as to the origin of the document, I think she would have a hard time (disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but I’ll play one on the web). If someone was referencing me as an analyst on their web site based on what I wrote somewhere else, I think I’d have them remove that reference and clarify my involvement. But if she is comfortable with this reference, so be it.
One of the major points that speak against the strategy paper is the fact that it doesn’t contain strategy. That would require for it to extend beyond the 2012 budget year into the future. It is, by constraint of the limited information available to the pretender who put it together, entirely tactical.
MikeH says:
February 17, 2012 at 8:36 am
If you read down to her “Update”, you will see that she pretty much nailed that the document is a fake.
Paul Westhaver says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm
…”.A summary would be helpful…. not sure who faked it…”
That would have been my second wife 🙁
A physicist says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:32 am
“In the short run, for lobbyists and politicians, “hack and purloin” stories are big news.
Yet in the long run, for scientists and for our children, the same stories mean nothing.
For the simple reason that Richard Feynman explained: “Nature cannot be fooled.””
No A physicist you are wrong. This is not just another “hack and purloin” story.
“ils n’ont rien appris ni rien oublie”. The same smear tactics, the same method to add something to the “data” to make it sound bad, “it is worse then we thought” by any means.
The skeptics being brought in line with creationists, the anti-science meme. “Skeptics don’t want children to be taught science”. They want to “undermine” what so ever.
One can see a pattern in this A Physicist. Look at all the adjustments to the data, look at the way how science is being treated and discussed.
So, this is not a simple smear campaign, it is what the skeptics have to live with for years. This is why it is not a subject to say simply, nothing to see here, move along. There is a lot to see here. See also the biased way how this has been treated by some major media outlets. Compare climategate with other-leaks or fakegate.
The different behaviour – how skeptics blogs waited, checked information, in contrast to the way how this was exploited and thrown in the face of all of us. This needs to be worked out. It is good that more people see it and understand.
Of course science is important and of course skeptics are all for science – at least the ones who matter, but the way how we talk to each other and about science is also important, sometimes as important. Now is the time to clear up the mess that fakegate produced, go through the hatred mails that were posted, the inquisitorial, arrogant, impertinent finger pointing discussion that fakegate produced.
We have a lot of time to analyse and clear this up.
Nature cannot be fooled – as you correctly cite. The mild warming that the Earth “suffered” since the pre-industrial time, including the CO2 increase have been beneficial and happened over 150 years and more. The Earth has had n times more CO2 in the atmosphere and did not explode, so we have time to do our science right. And we have and should take the time to answer and put things right.
Speaking of putting things right, above you said SxS did not say anything about Anthony. A bloger above: juanslayton says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
A Phys:
It’s easy to check that the “HeartlandGate” stories on SkS and RealClimate never did contain any personal criticism of Anthony….
Son of a gun, you’re right! It’s easy to check. From SkS (borrowed from the smogger):
Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.
———————————————–
you did not comment on that. Would be nice to hear your comment, dare I hope an apology?
Lars, I am pleased to extend sincere congratulations to Anthony. Because of all the researchers who receive Heartland funding — as as critically surveyed by John Mashow — Anthony receives the least criticism for the quality of his science, and moreover, Anthony receives zero allegations of impropriety. This is admirable.
Robert Pielke Jr has asked Peter Gleick if he was involved in the fake:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/17/rp-jr-on-fakegate.html
Some laugh at the thought – saying, if Gleick was involved he would hardly admit it publicly.
On the other hand, I think its a brilliant ploy … a non-response lends an impression at least of involvement. And a negative response, that he was not involved, would – should he later be found to HAVE involvement – be really problematic for him.
The post at Pielkes:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/02/reality-is-not-good-enough.html
Revkin saying:
“wacky stuff, this end of the climate fight.”
So, he thinks the climate wars are over ? I wonder who he thinks won.
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/andrew-revkin-finds-journalism-religion-after-posting-fraudulent-document/
In Norway the alarmists won; They have spendt countless millions on it, imposed taxes impossible to remove. It goes on and on. So, yes, they won over here.
Later, let us say, 30 years later, they will allow documentarys on TV, telling the real story.
By then it will be too late. Just like the story on Lenin,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxa, Kim Il Jong…
They do a lot of damage, these people.
A.Scott:
It’s Roger Pielke. Good link, though.
: > )