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.
To R. Gates: February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am
I encourage you to take a look at the Heartland web site. As a libertarian organization, they favor smaller and less intrusive government, and policy based on science rather than a political agenda.
I was curious about the Heartland stand on smoking too. They take a libertarian stand. They agree that it is bad for you, but that extreme taxes and other means to stop people from smoking is not the right way to go. On second hand smoke they cite studies that it is not as bad for you as the government would have you believe, which is probably what prompts detractors to proclaim that Heartland doesn’t believe smoking is a bad thing to do.
http://heartland.org/.
Can someone please advise: NCSE claims that Hansen has published his Algorithm and all in peer reviewed literature? is this correct This is their claim ” The methods are described in peer reviewed literature and on NASA’s website: http://1.usa.gov/xvs3t1“
Gary Hladik says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:50 am
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?
_____
So apparently you can’t. Thanks, that says a lot.
Bob Koss says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:45 am
Beat you to it, Bob. It appears she has it all wrapped up. The document is a fake.
I find it so hypocritical that warmists can take billions from whoever they want without question, but a single dollar from a doubtful source put to disprove them is automatically a scandal… I always thought science was supposed to stand on it’s own merit… I guess I’m an idealist…
If we should contribute to both The Heartland Institute AND WattsUpWithThat, are we automatically co-conspirators?
Hot Damn!!!
Regardless of the releases of any information, it is the science that will win the argument. From the beginning proponents of AGW forgot the first law of data analysis, ‘things correlated to the same thing, aren’t necessarily correlated to each other.’ As temperatiures went up, they made millions, but now that temperatures have leveled and threaten to go down, they resort to the base tactics they have displayed all along.
Facts will always (eventually) trump bad science, and it looks like we are there.
Well it starting to look like FAKEGATE is an own goal for the AGW crowd. Yet another thing that wakes the public up to the reality that the eco-loons have been lying to us all along, and are still at it. They’re getting desperate and the last thing they want is for the general populace to be able to look a graphs of real data so they can make their own minds up. It used to be forbidden for anyone who wasn’t a priest to read the bible in case the churches lost control of the flock – only the blessedly chosen are allowed to consult the scriptures, all others who try are evil heretics & should be burned at the stake.
Beesaman says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
“Why is it that many of the Warmist crowd come across as all weaselly and unpleasant?”
It’s because they are…(well at least Romm and McKibben…).
Wake me up when the climate elites break their addiction to copious amounts of government/taxpayer money…otherwise this whole event is nothing but a big yawn…
Downdraft says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:55 am
To R. Gates: February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am
I encourage you to take a look at the Heartland web site. As a libertarian organization, they favor smaller and less intrusive government, and policy based on science rather than a political agenda.
_______
Thanks, I have poked around their site. I actually am favorable to certain Libertarian positions myself, especially in regards to the intrusion of the government into the private affairs and lives of citizens and fiscal responsibility. What I’m trying to find are neutral sources of information that would clearly indicate the Institute’s actual positions– for example, longer sound bites or recordings that clearly indicate their position on issues, with no chance for misinterpretations, etc. Any organizaitons can (and individuals too), and many do, go back and “sanitize” their past, so as to make themselves appear to be something more acceptable to various groups or the public at large.
Re: Heartland and “Big Business”. Heartland has forthrightly and consistently opposed Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbox is undoubtedly a boon to “big business”, as the reporting requirements are easily handled by large corporations with existing legal, compliance and accounting departments. This gives them a huge incumbency advantage over their smaller competitors, and, in particular competitors that are contemplating IPOs, which is often a good way to raise funds in order to crank up the competition. Sarbox certainly was a factor in a very successful small company in which I was involved deciding to get acquired by our large competitor as opposed to going public.
Warmists as peculating Luddite sociopaths –cf: Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish et al.– are wholly in the pocket of Big Government collectivist Statists, capable of any deception and malfeasance whatsoever in pursuit of their public-sector rent-seeking gravy train.
Since the Global Cooling Scare ended c. 1988, no disinterested observer has granted Briffa, Hansen. Jones, Mann, Trenberth or any of their ilk the slightest credibility. Fuss and bluster as they will, over decades their malicious propaganda has blighted everything it touched, destroying an entire generation of potentially invaluable research. Anabaptists of Munster come to mind.
This latest warmist attack is a direct attempt to distract skeptic bloggers and the general public from the cold European winter.
The day after MSM starts to mention ‘extreme cold snap’… BAM, the next day Heartland documents are released, and the skeptics are distracted. There are many people employed to persuade the publics opinion on AGW, it’s a trillion dollar industry. Remember the last distraction? Days after announcements of the coming little ice age… caused by the SUN, there was a paper released that claimed volcanoes cased it (primarily). The volcano paper was waved in the publics face for days on every website possible. And no mention of the sun after that.
Do not let this ordeal distract from the actual tasks at hand: expose the greatest hoax of the modern era.
I see Richard Black has updated and edited. Magic. (Is he related to Sirius?)
Gary Hladik says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:50 am
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?
—————————————————————————————-
Great answer Gary!
Its become a complete smear I wonder if Heartland has the B### to sue all of them
http://news.google.com.au/news/more?hl=en&gl=us&q=global+warming&gs_upl=1587l3973l0l5620l14l9l0l0l0l0l366l1163l2-2.2l4l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dVY3POaGI3N_n4MffVSh0EzZ2AJIM&ei=t2Y9T8WTOpGtgQfZ78WdCA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQqgIwAQ
Fake or not, it doesn’t matter. The unwashed masses of worshipers have and never do their homework on the issue anyway. This just becomes a talking point which “proves”, skeptics are “anti-science” and funded by nefarious means. It is no different than the “inquiries” which supposedly exonerated the participants in the leaked East Anglia emails.
IMO, this isn’t going to change a single thing. The worshipers in their pews would have stayed devoted to the cause anyway, it just hardens them. The critical thinkers like never believed in the first place, and those with some common sense started bailing a few years ago, when the rhetoric got more dire and vitriolic while the prognostications never came close to materializing.
carry on. keep reporting observations and the diversity of theories and time and truth will continue to advance.
I don’t believe Sar-Box has been a boon to anybody except the auditing and consulting firms. It’s a drain on the economy and just one more reason to not start a business here.
You are correct that bigger businesses can often more easily afford to comply and it stifles competition.
R Gates,
“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.”
i would have expected that even you would have realised that this is an extremely simplistic black-white argument of the sort most commonly associated with the lowest form of politics. it should be clear to any enquiring mind that there are plenty of big businesses that are profiting from the AGW cult, as there are those that are disadvantaged by it.
In Europe, utility corporations have reaped billions by gaming the system – collecting carbon credits as part of a deal that allows them to continue to emit co2, while other businesses have seen the price they pay for electricity increase. Not suprisingly, these utilities are vociferous in their support of actions to cut emissions.
We have seen investment bankers profit from the very same carbon trading schemes, as they skim off profits from brokerage fees.
We have seen land owners and wind turbine companies profit by the direct subsidies paid by compulsory renewable energy obligations – again, a direct transfer of wealth from working people to capitalists.
It would appear then, that the Heartland institute is taking a position that is squarely at odds with the interests of a lot of “big business”.
A physicist says:
“The widespread impression that that climate-change warnings, from the world’s most eminent mathematicians and scientists, are any kind of modern innovation, is of course entirely mistaken.”
====================================
The history of the pronouncements of doom go back a long way, starting perhaps with the eminent Thomas Robert Malthus, yet we are still here. 😉
Although that is not to say I was impressed by this article, which comes across as angry, paranoid and ridiculous.
The last line is just a bold faced lie.
You know it is Anthony.
This site has no credibility.
[REPLY: Neither do anonymous trolls with fake e-mail addresses. No further comments until you comply with site policy. -REP]
GeologyJim said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 11:05 am
In my experience the term “ecology” has been misused by envirowhackos and there are some commenters here that are foolish enough to believe that makes any user of the word is an envirowhacko. Completely illogical.
Check out Dave Stockwell’s Niche Modeling to read what a Ph.D. in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University has to say about CAGW. You might learn something. You certainly don’t seem to understand what ecology and the study of ecosystems is about.
R. Gates says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:24 am
IF the strategy memo is a fake, what does that say about the nature of the multi-billion-supported forces arrayed against tiny Heartland and even tinier Anthony?
Vince Causey said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Vince, anyone with half a brain can see that CAGW is something devised by and for Big Business and Big Government. Sadly, R Gates is only using the other half of his brain.
Exp says:
“The last line is just a bold faced lie.”
Thanx for your uncited, baseless opinion. However, it is wrong.