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.
Excellent post,but I do have one small nit to pick. “Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.”
Suffice to say, the global warming hoax IS the golden goose for everyone who continues to receive literally billions in public/private funding.
There.All fixed. Unfortunately,unlike in the parable,this scam will continue until we strangle and roast this damn goose.
> Yes, we have
The claim was *global* cooling. Your link to to European cooling in response to the sea ice loss. That is a plausible result which is become better substantiated as more winters show it.
> Source
Well, it is a source, good. But that quote is from 2008, and isn’t what they actually spent. It doesn’t appear to be consistent with http://nonprofitfacts.com/DC/The-Alliance-For-Climate-Protection.html#b which suggests much smaller numbers.
> it continues to cool.
a link to the Daily Mail? Come now, the Daily Mail is a joke. No-one is silly enough to get their science from newspapers, particularly tabloids, are they?
but their efforts are just the dying gasp of the greatest hoax of the modern era.
Totally agree. However, whilst I’ve already called the “unofficial end to the global warming scam”, I think it is worth looking to other similar events to see that they seldom go out with a big bank … more a fizzle.
Swine flu is a classic. When it came it was never out of the papers, when it went … it wasn’t because there was an “end” … it just didn’t get a mention. What about the Ozone hole? Again fizzled out.
So, based on historic precedence this scam ought to just fizzle out.
But can it? Politicians haven’t just signed up to replace one refrigerant with another. They have in reality signed up to destroy the fossil fuel economy. That is not something you can hope no one notices. You can’t just stop people using cars and hope no one notices. You can’t close down fossil-fuel using industries and pretend it’s blip in the economy. You can’t convert half the agriculture of the world to bio-fuels and leave half the world’s population without food and expect it to go unnoticed.
From now on the natural inclination of the political elite who signed up to this con will be to ignore it and hope it goes away. What they will find, is that very quickly it will begin to dominate politics and rather than going away, the problems caused (although no necessarily linked to the policy of global warming) will create such a problem for them that they will not be able to ignore.
It is the proverbial unstoppable train hitting the immovable mountain … and the driving (our political elite) trying to ignore the problem in the totally vane hope that by ignoring the mountain that is fast approaching it will somehow disappear.
The Pompous Git
February 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm
###
Sorry but your point is irrelevant. The “but they all do it argument” is nothing but a distraction. My son used to try that when he was 10. The crimes of socialist are magnitudes more numerous and far far far more damaging the the crimes of conservatives. The crimes of socialist will result in the death of millions more then have already died at there hands. Socialist really are trying to destroy the economy. If you don’t understand this then you are a fool.
[Moderator’s Request: Name calling is BAD. Neither Gits nor Yotes seem to be constitutionally inclined to back down, so could we, perhaps, declare a STAND down and dial back the rhetoric? -REP]
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“The claim was *global* cooling.”
Looks down to me. Actually, looks like an inflection before accelerating descent.
“…which suggests much smaller numbers.”
Smaller than $44,000?
“Come now, the Daily Mail is a joke.”
So is Tamino. Maybe you missed the part about “Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years”.
Exp says: February 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm The last line is just a bold faced lie. You know it is Anthony. blah blah
Anthony.
First they deny there is a problem [with their ‘science’]
Then when they have to admit there are problems, they deny they are important
Then when it is impossible to downplay their huge problems, they … shoot the messenger to distract attention away from their problems. (I.e. you!!!)
Then when no one is fooled by shooting the messenger, they delay and obfuscate in the hope that the problem will go away.
Then finally, … when there is no choice but to act, they eventually and reluctantly address the obvious problem issuing a press release proclaiming the historic progress they have made, making it clear that it was always their intention to act in this way …. and they would have acted much sooner if only the messenger hadn’t interfered with their progress.
DesertYote says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm
R. Gates says:
February 16, 2012 at 12:10 pm
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.
###
No only lefties do this. Conservatives don’t have to.
_____
Oh…I see, then that would explain why Romney is not actually a conservative. Thanks for clarifying that. Well done!
“Never was a truer word spoken. Any atmospheric “greenhouse effect” amounts to a complete violation of the laws of physics and is a travesty of such.”
[SNIP: You can post this kind of trash talk when you comment with your real name. -REP]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
The rather odd idea that clouds at night will not lead to a warmer surface.
380 molecules get so heated up by reflected infra-red that they heat up the other 999,620 molecules. Then water vapor goes crazy and makes all these molecules even hotter. The models teach us this, children.
RobRoy says: The models teach us this, children.
They also teach us that botox makes them look beautiful, that anorexia makes you look healthy and that dressing girls as young as six to make them look like prostitutes is not child abuse.
You believe the models if you like …. I prefer the solid science which goes through these models like a dose of Epsom salts.
I have always held that to claim that a trace gas of 380ppm DRIVES the climate, is stupid.
R. Gates says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Predictable that you would avoid the question:
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?
RobRoy says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“380 molecules get so heated up by reflected infra-red that they heat up the other 999,620 molecules.”
This is an argument from incredulity, like when the warmists sneer that there would have to be a vast conspiracy in order for the science to be so wrong. But, there doesn’t have to be a vast conspiracy, and besides, conspiracies do exist – that’s why there is a word for it.
The element you are missing in your argument is that of time. How long does it take for one of those 380 molecules to absorb and emit radiation? Microseconds? Then in one second, you have effectively millions of absorbing and radiating molecules.
RobRoy says: “I have always held that to claim that a trace gas of 380ppm DRIVES the climate, is stupid.” … apologies thought you were pro-models & to the exclusion of real science.
@myrrh, you are incorrect with regard to photosynthesis.
Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen which is then breathed in by humans, who then breathe out carbon dioxide.
This is what I was taught in science class almost 50 years ago. The science has not changed since then!!
When did you write this, 1976? That’s about the last time the concentration was 0.033%. Not that it matters much, but you should have your facts straight…
Mike Borgelt said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 2:40 pm
That would appear to indicate that those who elected him their leader were gullible. Personally I find both extremes of politicz distasteful. And I have very great difficulty distinguishing between welfare statists who seem to only disagree on who gets to stick their snout in the trough. Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber — some choice.
I have over the last forty years managed to be on conversational terms with a number of politicians — from both major parties. Remarkably few have been decent, honest people, but those I do admire are from both sides of the House.
BTW Mods, I don’t mind at all that DesertYote called me a fool. More than happy to be called a fool for believing in such things as honesty, truth, justice… that kind of thing.
neill said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm
That no matter how much money you can muster, you can still be inept?
Rosco, you answered your question, why max temp on the moon is higher than max temp on earth in your last paragraph. It is due to the atmosphere, convection, advection, evaporation, and one more you didn’t mention: heat capacity. The reason why 1/4 applies is not to make earth’s max temp cooler, but to determine average energy hitting the earth. No different for the moon which averages -23C, a lot cooler than earth.
Doug Cotton, are cloudy nights warmer than clear nights (all other things being equal)? Does the surface stay warmer due to radiation from the clouds? If not, how does it stay warmer? Note that the clouds are nearly always colder than the surface.
PB-in-AL says:
I agree with your disagreement, but not with your “respectfully”. 😉
Trolls and dishonest posters tend to display certain quirks in their writing. I’ll point one of them out here because no matter if they’re told, they can’t seem to refrain anyway, so the trolls remain easy to spot. Posts that make comment on some failing of the host site while appearing to respect it generally are almost always trolls. Here, for example, “WUWT would do well to distance itself from…” implies that WUWT is of a higher standard than the thing it should distance itself from, but at the same time gives WUWT a “fail” nor not having distanced itself so far. This is not the same thing as a poster who simply disagrees, for example “I think this is all empty bluster”, nor is it the same as honestly encountering the issues, e.g. “This is mistaken because…”. Lots of people disagree with us without being trolls, but what you have in McVail’s remark is bull’s eye troll material.
William M. Connolley says:
The claim was *global* cooling.
And it is. This European cooling is accompanied by Australian cooling, and Antarctic cooling, and south pacific cooling, and a bunch of other cooling. The net effect being that the *global* temp anomaly has been trending down gradually for a decade, steeply for the past few years, and currently is lower than it has been in a decade or more. And it is this cooling which is called warming that is being held responsible for this cooling which is taken by some to be evidence of warming, which is apparently slated to bring more of this cooling.
a link to the Daily Mail? Come now, the Daily Mail is a joke. No-one is silly enough to get their science from newspapers, particularly tabloids, are they?
I’d like to say that you’d be surprised at how many people get their science from higly questionable and grotesquely biased sources, but given that you used to be one you are likely familiar with the concept.
R. Gates says (February 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm): ”
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.”
Actually, I did. And thank you, too. Your answer says a lot about you.
So much for your “honest” question.
Compare to the Tides Foundation, Tides Center, etc. Incredible offices in what was the Presidio at taxpayer’s expense. A thousand organizations and growing.Billions in grants.Hundreds of investigative journalists and lawyers funded through Byzantine foundation interconnections.
R. Gates says (February 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm): “Oh…I see, then that would explain why Romney is not actually a conservative. Thanks for clarifying that. Well done!”
No doubt most here have heard this joke, but for the few who haven’t:
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Hi, Mitt.”
Lest anyone think I’m picking on poor MR, I believe the joke could be told about many, if not most politicians.