Well, the DeSmog Blog “coup” is going down, oh the humanity.
There’s a scathing second writeup at The Atlantic by Megan McArdle (as if the first wasn’t enough) that takes the DeSmoggers to task. Note to Hoggan and crew – when you can’t even get a left leaning news outlet to back you up, even in the slightest, you’ve lost the battle.
This is a must read: Heartland Memo Looking Faker By the Minute
I appreciate this quote from her article:
The high probability that the memo is fake makes this response from Desmogblog, one of the first places to post the memos, all the more disappointing:
The DeSmogBlog 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.But in the tradition of the famous, and famously controversial “hockey stick graph,” the challenge to the single document has afforded the DeSmogBlog’s critics – and Heartland’s supporters – something comfortable to obsess about while they avoid answering questions raised by the other documents.
The first two links are to my post, and they are an egregious misrepresentation of what I said.
She adds:
Dismissing the possibility of fakery–and the obvious questions about who might have perpetrated it–does not help us focus on the “real issues”. I’m afraid “Fake but accurate” just won’t do. Nor will trying to shift the burden of proof to the people who are pointing out solid reasons for concern. Instead, the stubborn willingness to ignore obvious problems becomes the story–something that Dan Rather learned to his dismay in 2004.
Moreover, the fact is that this document does not merely confirm facts found in other sources. It substantially recasts those facts, in the case of the Koch donation. And in the selection of facts it presents, and the spin it puts on them, it alters the reporting.
…
The climate blogs presumably relied so heavily on the memo because the quotes were punchier, and suggested far darker motivations than the blandly professional language of the authenticated documents–and because it edited the facts into a neat, almost narrative story.
In the first 24 hours, I saw a lot of comments along the line of “See! They’re really just as amoral and dangerous as we thought they were!” based on a memo which I now believe to have been written by someone who, well, thinks that AGW skeptics are amoral and dangerous. (And judging from his update to the original document dump, Littlemore’s fellow blogger, Brandon Demelle, is also unsure of the memo’s “facts”.)
=============================================================
Crash and burn for DeSmog.
Meanwhile, over at The American Spectator, Ross Kaminsky has this:
=============================================================
Theft and Apparent Forgery of Heartland Institute Documents
The Heartland Institute is in contact with law enforcement officials, which may have the perpetrator feeling a little nervous.
One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft — and this is just my speculation — is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute. Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter that he shares Forbes magazine’s pages with Heartland’s James Taylor.
The document which the alarmists have been trying to make the most of is called “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” It appears to be of a similar nature to the forged “Rathergate” documents which ended Dan Rather’s long career promoting leftist views disguised as news.
First, the Heartland document is written in a way which makes it appear unlikely to be genuine. As a commenter on a Forbes.com article about this mini-scandal notes, “It uses the term ‘anti-climate’ to refer to Heartland’s own position — a derogatory term which climate skeptic outfits never use to describe their positions (and…) it is written in the first person, yet there’s no indication of who wrote it. (Have you ever seen a memo like that?)”
…
Interestingly, Gleick, who would normally be preening and prancing in glee at this sort of attention to the Heartland Institute has so far been utterly silent at his Forbes blog and on his Twitter feed.
Full story here.
================================================================
(Added)There are two other discussions of interest in the “whodunnit” category. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has a spirited discussion going on (love his movie graphic), as does Lucia’s Blackboard. Pielke Jr. has flat out asked Dr. Gleick in an email if he was involved, and so have I. I have received no response since my email this morning, and to my knowledge neither has Pielke Jr. For once, not a sound out of WaterWorld by the bay.
In Australia, The Age has this political cartoon about Dr. Bob Carter, also named in the emails along with me:
We live in interesting times. Popcorn futures are off the charts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jimbo says: “Logic miss. You go to the effort of providing a science (module) curriculum for schools in order to be effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
No, Jimbo. Perhaps that sentence should have been expanded to cover the potential for it to be miss-understood; but it does not say to dissuade teachers from teaching, but that these two elements which (are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science) need spelling out with clarity so that teachers can feel confident in pointing this (controversial and uncertain) out (teaching it).
Put another way: “sceptic” is not an impure word, nor an unmentionable disease and that needs spelling out (thereby supporting teachers).
Well, to my utter suprise, the DeSmog bloggers have actually taught me something:
the opposite of ‘skeptic’ is ‘credulous boob’
That got me wondering, unlike the oil and gasoline business, the natural gas industry is a highly regulated municipal commodity like telephone poles and water supply. who receives the huge bulk of its income on the basis of government controlled rates. The basis for such rate determination is the cost of the gas, the cost of its delivery, advertising, the profit they negotiated for, etc.
If any of the costs for the gas burning in my furnace and the gas that generated my electricity went toward donations to the Sierra Club – I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH so I can request a refund of that amount. Just as union members cannot be forced to pay any portion of a union’s political donations, customers of municipal natural gas utilities and any other municipal utilities that buy natural gas should not be forced to pay any portion of the gas company’s ‘charitable’ donations, especially ones that are really for a political agenda aiming to raise the price of the fuel to fund energy alternatives they wish to foist on us that cost ten times more and all on the basis of a hoax.
(Scott Brown, are you listening..?)
There are things called Gmail, Hotmail, net cafes and memory sticks.
I see the BBC has dropped all reference to Heartland on their front page and Richard Black’s great scientific coup of the day is:
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
Sake brewer rescues yeast from #fukushima, re-starts production.
This man is a true journalistic giant. I hope he has checked his sources.
Anthony,
You need to put up a post based on the following comment AFTER checking facts.
“DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and [b]funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/the-desmoggers-are-crashing-and-burning/#comment-895941
Jimbo Says ..
‘Are you actually all now arguing that your arguments in favour of leaking emails don’t apply if it’s done to people you support?’
It a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. When climategate happened, the furore was about these are stolen emails and should not be published .. cry cry .. wipe eyes.
Now these documents have been stolen and/or faked they are published all over the AGWosphere – talk about hipocrites.
Now though it would seem that it is ok to completely fake a document and pretend it is real and it makes it to MSM so imagine what the skeptics could fake if they wanted to .. but they dont, they are not that way inclined. Skeptics search for real science – not faked, made up or failed hypothesis upon failed hypothsis .. It would seem that the only argument the alarmists have is Ad hom and fakery – nothing scientific.
cui bono says:
February 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“He was so fast in doing an Amazon review of Donna’s book on the IPCC he practically gave off Cherenkov radiation!”
I like it! Now, that is fast….
Ross Kaminsky: “It uses the term ‘anti-climate’ to refer to Heartland’s own position — a derogatory term which climate skeptic outfits never use to describe their positions…”
“Anti-climate” is not a “derogatory” term; it’s a nonsensical term. That is why a sceptic would never use it with regard to their own or anyone else’s position.
Could this be the reason why DSBlog published those documents.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/02/01/blog-funder-guilty-money-laundering
If people started pointing blog fingers at me and blackening my name as the perpetrator of Fakegate, I might feel inclined to do nothing and give them the confidence to dig a hole for themselves so deep that there was no possibility of escape. I’d simply arrange to be called away from my computer for a few days then come back and be horrified.
I was curious about how well the news of the fake Heartland document has been spread so I Googled and Binged for news in the last 24 hours. It was hard to find any evidence that this news has made it into the most recent news stories. Anyone not linked into a skeptic website would see dozens of stories attacking Heartland Institute on the basis of the “leaked” documents and would probably not be aware that anything was amiss. A USA Today story quoted AP as verifying the accuracy of components of the document that they checked. There appears to be some clever wording in that particular article to spin the story against Heartland. Just my take, I could be wrong.
I suspect that the only reason that the genuine documents were stolen in the first place was to lend authenticity to the “package” containing the fake – including to ensure that the stationery format matched Heartland’s current usage.
Anthony—it should be oh-the huge manatee as far as desmog goes—
http://carlsagansdanceparty.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/oh-huge-manatee_500x500.jpg
Reblogged this on Not Good News and commented:
Leftists caught spreading untrue propaganda once again.
German left-of-centre media continue in NYT style, admitting one document is called fake by the Heartland Institute but go on to treat the whole thing as one of the “legit” leaks that the Left around the planet so embraces (as long as it ain’t ClimateGate). They also love to say “Koch Brothers” without telling their readers that those 25K Koch money were for a Health care related project.
They really don’t have high standards – whatever fits in their belief system is printed. This newspaper BTW counts as “moderate” and “reputable”.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/vertrauliche-akten-veroeffentlicht-die-geldquellen-der-klimaskeptiker-1.1287309
mikemUK says:
February 18, 2012 at 4:51 am
I suspect that the only reason that the genuine documents were stolen in the first place was to lend authenticity to the “package” containing the fake – including to ensure that the stationery format matched Heartland’s current usage.
Come on, that’s kind of topsy-turvy: you’re saying the plan was to fake a document and to also steal something to make the fake seem more authentic? What are the chances?
As has already been theorised: much more likely is that documents were stolen, which turned out to be not exactly as damning as the thieves had hoped. So then they brought out Plan B – a rather shoddily knocked-up fake that only the stupid or the religiously brainwashed would fall for. Talk about an own goal!
The gob-smacking quote from the Edmonton Journal article:
“…The resources available for “naysaying” are much greater than the resources scientists have at their disposal to counter misinformation, said Federoff, a geneticist and veteran of the heated debates over genetically modified organisms…”
Another example of modern journalism: don’t question dumb comments by your interviewee if they support your agenda
The best defense is a good offense.
Time to unleash the “key” to the unimpeachable other 200,000 emails?
Hello Climategate 3.0+
Smacking myself in the head… It is sooo freaking obvious that the doc is a fake. The title screams it. Anyone who has actually written confidential documents would have never titled it such. That is something you use in a comedy like Police Squad or Hot Shots to make it obvious in a Hollywood movie. If Confidential was used in the title, it would never start like that. It would be “2012 Hearlland Climate Strategy – Confidential” AND normally there would be a Confidential watermark or Confidential with a legalize as the footer or header (which Heartland uses as the footer only on the title page – they should fix that).
Are you going to link to Ms. McArdle’s comments on this post:
“The first two links are to my post, and they are an egregious misrepresentation of what I said.”
[Reply: the link is just above the quotes. But here it is again. -REP]
I agree that it is primarily nonsensical but also derogatory in a self deprecating kind of way. “Anti-climate” is a term that THEY use among themselves to describe us but the nit-wit who used the term is so brainwashed he/she must actually believe we also think that of ourselves. There isn’t one AGW skeptic anywhere who would self identify with the label “anti-climate” anymore than James Hansen would self identify as being a charlatan, (that he is…)
We aren’t only dealing with a pack of liars, we’re dealing them plus all those paid to lie on their behalf. Fortunately they didn’t pay enough to whoever concocted this ringer.
Another fortunate thing is that liars do not know what it is like to be honest so they can only guess at it. A distinct disadvantage for them I’d say.
Jimbo, all the facts are confirmed in my post,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
“A former president and co-founder [John Lefebvre] of payment processor NETeller pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a conspiracy charge related to handling billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/11/oukin-uk-neteller-founder-plea-idUKN1036368620070711
“Two former directors and founding shareholders of NETeller Plc [Stephen Lawrence, John Lefebvre], a British online money transfer company, have been charged in the United States with laundering billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/01/16/us-crime-neteller-idUSN1622302920070116
Actually, in the case of GMO (genetically modified organisms), he’s right IMO. The ones opposing GMOs are the enviro groups, who are the ones with the very deep pockets.
—————
theduke,
I would be very much surprised if the Climate Science Rapid Response Team was completely unaware of the events leading up to the publishing of the fake HI document.
John