Guest post by Alan Caruba
Full disclosure: Years ago I received a small stipend from The Heartland Institute to help cover the costs of writing articles regarding the global warming hoax, well before it was exposed in 2009 when emails between its perpetrators—the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—revealed the total lack of real science involved. I have continued to expose the hoax without any support from Heartland or any other entity.
A total of six conferences on climate change have been sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I attended the first conference in New York City in 2008 and my initial observation was that virtually no one from the press was there and the meager coverage it received disparaged it.
This week, a major smear campaign against the Institute erupted as the result of an act of deception and thievery that may well result in criminal charges against its as yet unknown perpetrator.
The President of the Institute, Joe Bast, immediately informed its supporters, directors, donors and friends that someone pretending to be a board member had sent Heartland an email claiming to be a director and asking that documents regarding a January board meeting be re-sent.
A clever ruse, but the result was that elements of the confidential documents were then posted on a number of so-called climate blogs and from there to various members of the media who, with the exception of The Guardian, took no steps whatever to verify the authenticity of the documents, some of which Heartland says were either a concoction of lies or altered to convey inaccurate information.
The leading disseminator of the global warming hoax, The New York Times, published its version on Wednesday, February 15th, titled “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science.”
Suffice to say, the “climate science” served up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a pack of lies from the day it first convened. Its “science” was based on computer models rigged by co-conspirators that include Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia.
The original leak of their emails in November 2009 instantly revealed the extent of their efforts to spread the hoax and to suppress any expression of doubt regarding it. A second release in 2011 confirmed what anyone paying any attention already knew.
The “warmists”, a name applied to global warming hoaxers, launched into a paroxysm of denial that has not stopped to this day. Their respective universities have since engaged in every possible way to hide the documentation they claimed supported their claims. Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.
We have reached the point where the warmists have been claiming that global warming causes global cooling! Along the way the bogus warming has been blamed for thousands of utterly absurd events and trends. What really worried the perpetrators was the fact that the planet had entered a cooling cycle in 1998.
At the heart of the hoax was the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing the Earth to heat and that CO2 emissions must be reduced to save the Earth. Next to oxygen, CO2 is vital to all life on Earth as it sustains all vegetation which in turn sustains every creature that depends on it as a source of food. It represents a mere 0.033% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is referred to by warmists as a “greenhouse gas.” It is, as any meteorologist or climatologist will tell you, the atmosphere that protects the Earth from becoming a dissociated planet like Mars.
The New York Times article is a case study in bad journalism and bias on a scale for which this failing newspaper is renowned. The Times reported that “Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming part of the nation’s culture wars.”
Wrong, so wrong. Polls have demonstrated that global warming is last on a list of concerns by the public. It barely registers because the public has concluded that it is either a hoax or just not happening. Teaching global warming in the nation’s schools constitutes a crime against the truth and the students.
The Times article makes much of the amounts some donors to Heartland have contributed, but in each cited case, with one exception, the donations had nothing to do with its rebuttal of global warming science.
“It is in fact not a scientific controversy”, said the Times article. “The majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by human beings are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk.”
The exact magnitude is zero. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions denouncing global warming as a hoax. The Times lies.
A post at The Daily Bayonet on February 14th said it well, “What the Heartland documents 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 (World Wildlife Fund), the Sierra Club, the National 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.
The Times will continue to publish lies about global warming, as will others like Time and Newsweek magazines. The attacks on Heartland and the many scientists and others like myself who debunk this fraud will continue, but their efforts are just the dying gasp of the greatest hoax of the modern era.
There’s a reason the theme of Heartland’s sixth conference in 2011 was “Restoring the Scientific Method.” Real science does not depend on declaring “a consensus” before the hypothesis has been thoroughly tested, a process that often involves years of effort. Meanwhile, the planet continues to cool.
Thanks Alan. Congrat. Concise, pithy, covers all the main points. Positively Moncktonesque.
That the warmist argument is so weak is indicated by the lengths some feel they need to go to create a buzz of publicity against skeptical views. Nothing else is working. Only the desperate would contrive such a plan. To me it was obvious, too convenient. They were hoping that the proven success of the Climategate releases could be copied. It is all but an admission that the Climategate ‘reveals’ are true, devastating to ‘the cause’ and further, unanswerable.
You can smell the inherent hope that once the Heartland documents are shown to be faked, that the ‘fakery’ idea will be picked up by warminst to pretend the Climategate emails were also faked or modified. This on the notion that sliming one will slime all and somehow hide the manipulations, perfidy and serial fabrications of the CRU staff.
The ‘context’ thing, which was that last workable gasp, was destroyed completely by Climategate II. Thanks to Unknown.
This is a new level of desperation.
Fortunately it is also giving WUWT a new opportunity for everyone to declare their interests, at least on the skeptical side. That provides even more ammunition for the general public to demand that the Hansens of this world come clean about how much money they are personally making from their involvement in extending and protecting the hoax. Suzuki, Gore and others immediately come to mind.
Let the scrutiny come! Let all reveal all! Start looking into the AR5 now so we are prepared to answer whatever outrages against science it will contain.
Pity Michael Crichton isn’t around to enjoy this. How prescient he was!
@an Bearpig says:
Does anyone have any other scaned pdf’s from ‘suspects’ websites that could be used as a comparison ?
++++++++++
Good point. Look for the tell-tale markers. It was exactly for this reason that those were introduced, much as analysis of the worn letters on typewriters were used to find the machine that produced the ransom demand.
The CO2 concentration is roughly 0.04% (or 0.039% to be more precise) by volume not 0.033%. Might as well get that right. It is rising a roughly 2 ppmv per year but varies seasonally.
@johnny McVail – “WUWT would do well to distance itself from this kind of empty bluster. It adds nothing to the body of science.”
Respectfully, I disagree. This issue speaks to the heart of the body of science. The attempt to discredit those who are presenting data, observations, and are trying to adhere to the scientific method is detrimental to that body directly. If the ability to present data that contradicts the “consensus” is condemned and vilified as “denier-ism” where does the body of science end up?
The beauty of the scientific method is that the data and facts established are subject to confirmation, verification, and many eyes. A scientist who has been emotionally invested in a particular path of research can, and should, be willing to hear a different view, if supported by data, and observation. In this way he can redirect, be shown flaws or short-sightedness, even at the expense of his emotional investment, if he would. Or on the other hand, his path can be buoyed up by the confirming experimental or methodical observation of others, thus the body of his part of science expanded and grown.
None of this is happening in the pro-AGW world, as evidenced by the content of the climate-gate e-mails, and the many personal attacks that have been launched against the “deniers”. Where’s the concern for the “body of science” in that? How do personal attacks further the body of science? They don’t, but they do help the illusion of “consensus”; shutting opposing views up does that.
So what does the Heartland flap have to do with this? This foundation has been supportive of the skeptical view of AGW, among other things. They have been willing to allow and provide grants or loans to projects and present gatherings to do the scientific thing: present data, discuss methods, examine outcomes. Unfortunately, there is also the PR onslaught that has to be contended with, as well. While not a direct contribution to the body of science, it keeps the possibility of contrarian views alive, in spite of the best efforts to shut them down.
**Disclaimer – I have absolutely no connection to anybody involved in any of this dust-up. I had never heard of The Heartland Institute before seeing comments here about some conference a year or so ago. I am not a scientist, nor do I have a horse in the AGW race in any way. However, I do care about both our society and environment. I feel that the environment is doing just fine without our fretting about it; our society, not so much. The ability to respectfully and civilly debate, argue even, has been lost, and must be regained. Without this ability the body of science will die, as will the body politic, and civil society, too.
Cheers
Jon (10:11 am) says: “What is wrong with teaching ecology (if it is done right)??? Ecological principles are extremely important in forestry, fisheries, wildlife management etc. etc.”
In my experience, “Ecology” is commonly presented from the static-equilibrium point-of-view in which “change” is viewed as “bad” or “pollution” or “to be avoided”. You’re right that there’s nothing wrong about studying the interactions of biology, geology, hydrology, etc.
But the real-world “ecosystem” is founded on (evolved for) fight/flight, hunter/hunted, competition for food/mates/resources/territory, evolution/extinction, adaptation, catastrophy, and above all CHANGE — — — not on harmony and balance.
Megan McArdle has what appears to be a smoking gun. See “Update” near the bottom:
The document at the heart of the latest contretemps is a fake.
I’ve not seen Richard Blacks article at the BEEB but if it’s even remotely actionable in the States, it will almost certainly be here and as the libel originated in the UK, here is where it should be contested.
I’m not going to give it the traffic to give an opinion.
Can’t remember which has the legal background, either Pompous Git or Dodgy Geezer I think.
DaveE.
Great post! There is a greater problem here. How can dissenting scientists get funded to offer up a skeptical view? We just assume that the scientific method is a free-for-all heading toward the truth. But as climate science has shown, the gate-keeping alone keeps the dissenters under-funded while the consensus seekers are over-rewarded. Heartland funding is a crumb on the bakery floor.
Ken Hall says:
“Richard Black of the BBC has knee-jerked into publication in condemnation of the Heartlands based upon these spurious documents, in complete contrast to the restraint and diligence he used over the CRU “climate-gate” leaks. …. But to use the once respected BBC as a platform for his personal agenda is beyond the pail”. “once respected” – How well put.
Yesterday it was announced that the BBC need not disclose a report which the Corporation itself commissioned into the BBC’s anti-israel bias. The Information Tribunal ordered its release under the Freedom of Information Act but the BBC fought this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court, where the judges concurring with those of the Appeal and High Courts, decreed that it need not be revealed as it was matter held for the purposes of journalism.
Of course, had the report not found strong evidence of bias there would have been no need for the BBC to continue to hide it.
You may expect the same results if the BBC ever commissions a report into its coverage of Climate Change or for that matter any other interests for which it acts as a propagandist such as wind turbines and the Euro.
The thing I find most fascinating about this affair is how quickly and how ferociously people leaped on the documents. Clearly Anthony and WUWT has gotten under the skin of many people who have no counter to the messages here, until this “gift” of a leak from Heartland. Not also, the focus of these people is not so much Heartland, but a smallish grant to Anthony.
We’ve had detractors posting on the subject who I haven’t seen in months so quick to stand up and relish the moment without applying the slightest skepticism that should follow any anonymous release. Some quoted nonsensical passages like the one about discouraging teachers from teaching.
On thing I’ve learned from my engineering point of view is that you can learn more from a system that is failing than one working well. In this case it appears that:
1) There are a lot more people interested in destroying WUWT and its reputation than I thought.
2) WUWT and Anthony have as strong a foundation as I thought. Apparently it’s going to take more than social engineering and faked documents to stop open debate.
WUWT rocks.
Logic and science is on the side of the skeptics.
The feedback response of the planet to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing change by increase or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics (negative feedback) which increases or decreases the amount of sunlight reflected into space. (Four published papers support this assertion as does the actual temperature rise vs IPCC model predictions.) The IPCC extreme AGW paradigm requires that there is positive feedback to amplify the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 without feedbacks which is 1C to an amplified warming of 3C to 5C.
As there is a negative feedback response (cloud cover in the tropics increases to resist warming), the temperature increase due to a doubling CO2 will be less than 1C.
Trillions of dollars of tax pay dollars are proposed to be spent on boondoogles which will result in minimum practical reduction in CO2 rise. Atmospheric CO2 rise is not a problem from the standpoint of dangerous rise in temperature if the increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The biosphere expands when the planet is 1C warmer (with most of the warming occurring at higher latitudes) and contracts when it is 1C colder.
Commericial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to reduce growing times and increase yield. Plant’s eat CO2.
The skeptics are on the side of logic, tax payers, and the biosphere.
What side are the extreme AGW promotors on?
This issue and the funding received by advocacy groups reminded me of an idea that has always intrigued me. I keep hearing of groups like Greenpeace, WWF etc receiving large donations from the likes of large corporations like Exxon and Goldman Sachs to name a few. What intrigued me was why. Why would large Oil companies and Finance institutions donate to an advocacy group whose core principles are anti-corporate. Is it to use these organizations as hitmen to advance the cause of some particular industry or concern over their competitors. This could be the case and there seems to be evidence suggesting this, or is it something else, more nefarious and disturbing. Is it hush or protection money, paid by these corporations to keep the spotlight off them, lest these advocacy groups sick the dogs of war on them. Shakedown rackets like the Mafia of old. A comparison of big corporate donations in relation to the actions of these advocacy groups receiving them, would make for an interesting read.
Isn’t about time for the remaining Climategate emails to be released? I would love to see the analysis of what remains. They don’t have to be made up.
For Elmer: Waiting for your next global warming song. Love your humor.
Here’s an honest question: I am not that familiar with thea actual history of the Heartland Institute and their actual stances in the past on controversial issues such as smoking & ozone layer destruction, etc. I can of course do an internet search and find lots of fairly negative information that would paint the Institute in a very bad light on these issues, which would explain why journalists, scientists, and others pretty much view the Heartland Institute in such a negative light. So, what is the truth of the matter in these issues? What actually was the Institute’s stance versus what is stated now around the web? The perception is of course, that the Institute will take any position that supports and protects big business versus public health and the public interest. Is this perception of the Institute unjustified? Can you give an example of when the Institute took a stance against the interests of big business when the evidence indicated that stance was justified?
Google ‘Obama birth certificate’
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
~More Soylent Green!
While all this is going on, I’d keep in the mind the veiled threats made by D. Brown about legal action against skeptics. It’s also wise to bear in mind the fact that these guys really are relentless. These people (of course, not necessarily the same individuals) have already driven a governor out of office and a presidential contender from the race. Some of them are half-mad (if you don’t believe that, ask Eric Bell; he received some interesting instruction on this point just recently, though in a different context), and they won’t give up easily, especially on a cause that has become so central to their entire Weltanschauung.
(If only it were just about money!)
Pull My Finger says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
I think it was Churchill who said a young conservative has no heart and an old liberal has no brain (or something to that effect).
According to an article on wikiquote on Churchill at:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
this quote was misattributed to Churchill.
If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.
According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century French historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, “Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. (N’être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d’un manque de cœur ; l’être après trente ans est preuve d’un manque de tête.)” This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.
However, the idea that your experiences as you grow older make you more conservative is one that many of us relate to.
Sorry. Forgot the quotes around the quote from wikiquotes begining with “If you are not…” and ending with “and others”
nothernont,
You’re certainly twisting in the winds of political correctness!
(It is a pretty complicated world, isn’t it? Wait till you find out that Wall Street contributes most of its political donations in the US to the Democratic Party.)
Megan McArdle who writes for The Altantic and is a self-described believer thinks the strategy memo is fake. She does a long dissection of the memo here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
@Fenbeagle: Dan Dare!!!! And Dogby!!! (LOL) Absolutely the BEST strip yet. I just wish our colonial cousins could appreciate it, but I doubt they know who Dan Dare was. I’m still chuckling (The Mekon is my favourite).
R. Gates says (February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am): “Can you give an example of when the Institute took a stance against the interests of big business when the evidence indicated that stance was justified?”
You mean, like the multibillion-dollar big business of global warming alarmism?
Just a small nitpick. CO2 is way more vital than oxygen. There is a significant number of microorganism who can survive without oxygen and for some of them oxygen is even toxic. Remember that O2 is a byproduct of photosynthesis. The composition of the young Earth did not include oxygen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism
Until today, I was not aware of the existence of the Heartland Institute. Thanks to the release of the fake pdfs, I am now.