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.
I have paraphrased the following comment I made at Judith Curry’s place. It seems to fit the DeSmogger’s recent contribution to the final demise of their ‘cause’.
John Whitman said:
“. . . . . . I started reflecting on the mental image of the Colossal Ruins that was once the mighty consensus edifice of the IPCC centric theory of catastrophic AGW by CO2. This poem, first read when I was ~13, comes to mind:”
John
“yawn says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Wow, the denialosphere is really scared pantiless by the documents that expose the secret funding of anti-science nonsense. Embarrassed, Watts?”
===========================================
Um what reality are you posting from again?
Scared no, laughing our backsides off about how stupid it was of the warmistas to run with this yes.
Just what planet are your from?
We think it is hilarious that the pro CAGW folks would do something so stupid, and that the blogs and news organizations are falling all over themselves to out idiot each other.
They are misquoting and totally twisting the papers, and totally ignoring (or perhaps too stupid to notice) that they are quoting a forged document as a smoking gun expose. We are not scared pantiless we are stunned at how stupid the extreme left/CAGW is, and their willingness to parade their incompetence so openly without having a single clue they are making world class fools of themselves.
Their own pro CAGW groups get orders of magnitude more money from the power brokers who are trying to sell this scam, and they are completely oblivious that they are trumpeting a completely fabricated story as if it had any meaning. Not to mention demonstrating to the rational world that they have no ethics, have no skill as journalists (violate the most basic principles of good journalism), and totally misunderstand the lack of valid science.
They are creating a key stone cops caricature of how a popular movement based on fabricated “science” (and I use that term with gritted teeth) self destructs in full public view and destroys 30 years of carefully fabricated credibility in a matter of weeks.
Larry
gleich Gleick? (or fawning follower, whatever).
Timing is interesting, considering the various conferences coming up, books recently appearing,
cold waves (not snaps) crippling europe…nothing like a warm scandal to take one’s mind off
of what is really going on. If it keeps getting colder, I don’t think frozen windmills or
snow-covered solar panels will be of much help…
steven mosher says:
February 17, 2012 at 10:32 pm
interesting. There are a couple more things I came up with.
hat tips to the folks at Lucia’s who helped flesh this thing out.
Megan should have given us a bit more credit since she lifts the entire argument.
Now, back to berkeley earth programming.
Yeah, mosh. No credit. But personal satisfaction. And the word is out now.
“DON’T PEDDLE FAKE STUFF. WE’LL RUN YOU DOWN.”
yawn says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Wow, the denialosphere is really scared pantiless by the documents that expose the secret funding of anti-science nonsense. Embarrassed, Watts?
Yawn,
Nope, I think we are more amused than anything else at this point.
Cheers!
yawn says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
=========================
What is with you sky is falling fanatics, your names appear to reflect your mental state. You “yawn”, have clearly been sleeping; “Lazy Teenager”, clearly has been just that; and “Gates” is the back 1/2 of the past.present and future climate-gates, and “Shore” is ever unchanging, defending even Hansen, refusing to move an inch, just like the non rising ocean on the shore.
yawn said @ur momisugly February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Yawn; think I might have an afternoon nap… Somebody wake me up when one of the trolls says something even vaguely interesting.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says (February 18, 2012 at 4:32 pm): “We are not scared pantiless we are stunned at how stupid the extreme left/CAGW is, and their willingness to parade their incompetence so openly without having a single clue they are making world class fools of themselves.”
Well, we already know they’re pretty gullible–they bought into the CAGW nonsense, right?–but this is (almost) too painful to watch.
@bladeshearer says:
From an update at DeSmogBlog at the top of the Heartland story:
“Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute’s climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all.”
=============================================
As I observed elsewhere, if Koch funded the climate sceptics that proves climate sceptics are evil because Koch is evil. If Koch didn’t fund the climate sceptics that proves that the climate sceptics are incredibly evil because even Koch (who are evil), were afraid to fund that level of evilness.
You sort of have to admire the impervious logic. No matter what Koch did or didn’t do, the climate sceptics are proved evil.
yawn says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
I’m finding my Sadistic streak now.
OK, what secret funding?
DaveE.
Will Nitschke says:
As I observed elsewhere, if Koch funded the climate sceptics that proves climate sceptics are evil because Koch is evil. If Koch didn’t fund the climate sceptics that proves that the climate sceptics are incredibly evil because even Koch (who are evil), were afraid to fund that level of evilness.
This is from the same crew for whom a heat wave is proof of global warming, a cold spell is proof of global warming, a drought is proof of global warming, a flood is proof of global warming, etc.
There isnt really anything to admire, except perhaps the fact that despite this severe cognitive impairment, they seem to be able to eke out a decent existence. Granted, they are always demanding heavy subsidies from the rest of us to make it happen, but they do pretty well. Rather like being a functioning alcoholic, I suppose.
@ur momisugly Michael Tobis
“The suggestion that someone as socially adept and successful as Peter Gleick is involved in this proposed clumsy heist and forgery is ludicrous and not worth considering either way.”
You wouldn’t expect “someone as socially adept and successful as Peter Gleick” to write a review of a book he didn’t read, either. But Gleick did write a review of a book he hadn’t read.
He made a donkey out of himself with that review. Nay, a zebra!
This looks pretty bad for Dr. Gleick. He posted the following on Twitter a few hours ago:
“Great to be away with family. Celebrating 2 big birthdays. (Total =100!)” http://twitter.com/#!/PeterGleick
Not a very convincing “alibi”.
There are only two possibilities here…
1. He’s well aware of this whole fiasco, and has read the growing speculation linking him to the fake memo. Rather than denying involvement, he’s staying VERY quiet and pretending to be “off the grid”, while he ponders how best to defend himself.
2. He’s genuinely unaware of what’s been going on in the last 5 days. In which case, he’s in for one heck of surprise when he next opens his email inbox.
I find either possibility equally entertaining.
DirkH says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
DirkH says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:56 am
“The wikipedia weasel completely fell for it.”
Wikipedia-Weasel.
Ho-Ho-Ho !!!
I paid no attention to Gleick before this Fakegate saga, but a quick scan now of his twitter feed shows a rather obsessive ‘tweeter’ who rarely misses a day or two. Often he has many tweets in one day. Of course one can email or tweet without necessarily catching up with the online world overall, but for someone as digitally connected as Gleick to be really “off grid” for more than a few hours or a couple of days is difficult to believe. Also, he is the President of his Pacific Institute, not merely some research associate, so it is exceedingly difficult to believe hat someone has not filled him in fully even if he were on a vacation.
One guess is he’s waiting to see what develops in public and private. Considering the volume of his web chatter on much lesser issues (many of utter insignificance to his own life and interests) it is truly remarkable to see his continued silence.
Gleick-Gate?
[snip . . this is just trolling . . try harder . . kbmod]
yawn says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“Wow, the denialosphere is really scared pantiless by the documents that expose the secret funding of anti-science nonsense. Embarrassed, Watts?”
Actually I’m not scared, I’m glued to my computer waiting for the next stupidity from the alarmosphere. Bring it on, I can’t wait! It’s so funny watching you hit yourselves.
“… the denialosphere is really scared pantiless …”
Far more like: “Is that all you got?”
u.k.(us) says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Wanna see a professional writer’s take.
Donna Laframboise shows how it is done, here:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
_____
Indeed. Environmental activism has evolved into an extortion racket.
@Kozlowski February 17, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I don’t know what it signifies, but all the examples that you give of hyphenated words are my standard writing practice!!
IanM
Ironic how the Heartland Inst turns to the heavy hand of governmnet intervention when the interaction of private individuals does not suit their purpose.
sceptical says: February 19, 2012 at 11:15 am
Ironic how the Heartland Inst turns to the heavy hand of governmnet intervention when the interaction of private individuals does not suit their purpose.
So, you are suggesting that the Heartland Institute sees no role at all for government and this case represents an instance where the “interaction of private individuals” should be given free reign? And when one of the private individuals refuses to do the right thing, the other should…. what? Like much else you post here, “skeptical”, your position is moronic.
Robert E Phelan, I’m suggesting it is ironic Heartland Inst is calling for the intrusive action of government intervention because the private sector has not meet with the Institutes expectations. I’m suggesting Heartland Inst, like so many free market pretenders, are only against government actions when it suits their purpose and are all for government action when it suits their purpose. I will further suggest that people like yourself will not understand this irony and will instead attack me for pointing out this irony and label things moronic because you do not understand.