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.
[SNIP: Please read the policy page. And your new e-mail address is really, really cute. -REP]
Michael Tobis, still waiting.
sceptical says: February 19, 2012 at 11:59 am
Sceptical, arguing with a caricature and proclaiming “gotcha!” is not ironic. I get irony. Your contribution is just moronic. But as I think about it, your cntribution does have a certain irony to it: the moron thinking he is being ironic.
sceptical says:
February 19, 2012 at 11:59 am
“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.”
Sceptical, Heartland Institute sees property rights as fundamental. Property rights need the protection of the rule of law. This is at the core of all free market philosophies – without rule of law, there can be no property rights. The fact that you see an irony here shows that you don’t even know what property rights are.
[snip. ~ dbs, mod.]
DirkH, Heartland Inst sees its own property rights as fundamental, not property rights in general. Heartland Inst and other statist organizations are willing to use the intrusive of power of the state when ever it suits their purposes.
The clown who runs the little green foot balls blog is claiming that Heartland has told him to pull down his threads on this and he put up a thread where he says he will not.
He and many of the other “green tax the rich” lefty blogs will hang on to any climate change misinformation to the end of time. Hope their fingeres do not get cold.
sceptical says:
February 19, 2012 at 12:43 pm
“DirkH, Heartland Inst sees its own property rights as fundamental, not property rights in general. Heartland Inst and other statist organizations are willing to use the intrusive of power of the state when ever it suits their purposes.”
You sound pretty confused. Why not start with some fundamentals.
http://mises.org/
Oh, I get it. If I write “denier”, the comment is censored?
[Reply: The entire comment is deleted for violating the rules. That is not censoring of a different scientific opinion. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
sceptical says:
“DirkH, Heartland Inst sees its own property rights as fundamental, not property rights in general. Heartland Inst and other statist organizations are willing to use the intrusive of power of the state when ever it suits their purposes.”
Can anyone be more confused than ‘sceptical’? Property rights are fundamental rights. For everyone. Heartland wants its rights to be defended just like anyone else would.
And the ultimate in ‘statist organizations’ are government bureacracies like GISS, NOAA, etc. They could be completely defunded and the result would be beneficial: private companies would provide the same information, and the politics that President Eisenhower warned against would be eliminated because people don’t pay for propaganda, they pay for accurate information.
‘Sceptical’ has no understanding of statism, he is just regurgitating talking points. I’ll make it simple: as the writers of the original U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights understood, government is inherently evil. Government is necessary for basic functions: defense, adjudication of justice, protection of people and their property. Aside from the basics, government should butt out. The less government, the better for society.
We’re already reaching the point where granny can’t have the operation that will give her another ten years of life, because the government is rationing health care. Where in the Constitution does it say the government’s job is to provide health care, serviced by doctor-bureaucrats? And there are thousands of other examples of government bureaucracies encroaching into areas where the free market does an immensely better job, and for far less money.
So enough with the Saul Alinksy tactics of isolating and demonizing a basically honest, law abiding organization that never has its hand out for taxpayer loot. Save your complaints for tax suckers feeding at the public trough, like Greenpeace, universities, the WWF, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the NGO rent seekers.
Heartland is voluntary. If you don’t agree with their mission, don’t contribute. No one is making you pay for Heartland, like they’re making the public pay for GISS, and for NASA’s Muslim Outreach programs, etc.
@sceptical
You simply know nothing about political philosophy, libertarian or otherwise. There is no serious “libertarian” view which rules out basic protections of property rights and rule of law. That would be some version of anarchism.
One can argue forever about exact lines and definitions, but there is nothing at all ironic or hypocritical about libertarians insisting upon legal defenses for property rights and privacy rights, however defined. The importance of such rights is at the core of libertarian views.
No, I am not a libertarian. Simply an interested observer….
Whether or not that disputed memo is a fabrication, Heartland and Bast won’t gain much sympathy through heavy-handed tactics.
Joseph Bast threatened a retired colonel who accused him of being a traitor
( http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/ )
and it seems they plan to sue anyone who posted or commented on the docs and disputed memo?
Good luck with that, fellas. The statement on their site mentions judging the credibility of those who posted the docs – fair enough, but their own credibility is at stake and their actions will likely have as lasting an impact as any number of leaked memos, true or forged.
Whether the disputed memo is a fabrication or not isn’t really very interesting. We’ll never know anyway, and the fact is that it only seems to repeat information that’s verified as being correct in the other docs.
The fact is that there are several docs that reveal disturbing things about how the HI is dishonestly trying to manipulate public opinion and the education system. Arguing over whether two-page document which basically sums up confirmed information is fake or not is a dead end.
yawn says:
February 20, 2012 at 2:33 am
“Whether the disputed memo is a fabrication or not isn’t really very interesting. We’ll never know anyway, and the fact is that it only seems to repeat information that’s verified as being correct in the other docs.”
Go ahead digging, we’ll watch from the sidelines. See what it gets you.
Pat Frank, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/the-desmoggers-are-crashing-and-burning/#comment-897053
“waiting” for what?
“What paleoclimatologists do is grounded in ecology.”
How is that more informative than your “what engineers do is grounded in physics”?
I have a bachelors in engineering from Northwestern.
I remember the textbook on semiconductor circuits pretty clearly. It would start with “empirically, the equation for this is bla bla” and proceeded from there. They never said where the equation came from or how it was justified.
Often there was no physics behind it at all. Sometimes it was just experimental data. Engineers just want things to work.
Of course, I would have been better off writing “How is that Less informative than your “what engineers do is grounded in physics”?”
My point is that they are equally informative claims, i.e., not very.
Applied science uses empirical relationships all the time. Shouldn’t it? If you don’t like it, don’t go to the doctor!
(By the way, Oliver Heaviside founded electrical engineering on mathematical shortcuts that were mathematically invalid. Later, mathematicians came along with some obscure branches of mathematics and cleaned it up. But the stuff he designed worked despite the mathematically invalid reasoning! People really interested in the philosophy of science and how it relates to applications ought to look into it. But they might need some math to get very far.)
Digging? You are not making any sense. The documents have been verified as containing correct and accurate information. For example, the anti-science school curriculum project. Are you going to argue that the facts are correct, but the documents fake? Or what?
Is the information accurate or not? If it is, you can of course continue to do your hand-waving and spew red herrings. It’s much more convenient to focus on a pointless discussion about the validity of a single document than to look at whether the information in the documents is correct or not.
yawn says:
“…a pointless discussion about the validity of a single document than to look at whether the information in the documents is correct or not.”
So we should look at whether a fabricated document is “correct”? That sounds exactly like Dan Rather’s “Fake but accurate”. Rather was fired for that, remember?
Continue crashing and burning, mouth-breather. The fact is that this entire scandal is over the fabrication of a document, not the rest of the information, which is intended to counter the pseudo-science of anthropogenic runaway globaloney.
@Smokey
There is no proof that the document is fabricated, and all the information in simply repeated from the other documents that have been verified as being real.
So until you can prove that the document is fake, you should focus on addressing the evil actions that are being exposed in the other documents.
Also, “mouth-breather”? I bet you won’t be censored for that, whereas if I started being obnoxious in the same way you are, I would be censored in an instant.
“The fact is that this entire scandal is over the fabrication of a document, not the rest of the information”
no, the fact is that the scandal is over the proof that the HI is secretly funding anti-science propaganda, and aiming to replace science with its own political ideology.
Heartland is secretly funding anti-science propaganda, yawn?
That’s odd… I thought they were funding the anti-alarmist stuff. That makes me unhappy. I mean, really, the funding of education in schools is no secret, and part of the reason I have been supporting them. But if there’s some secret anti-science funding going on, I sure as hell want to know about it.
Oh well.
What “anti-science propaganda”? Are they paying for the screenings of “An Inconvenient Truth”? Are they pushing the idea that the world is warming because of CO2 emissions?
yawn says:
“…“mouth-breather”? I bet you won’t be censored for that, whereas if I started being obnoxious in the same way you are, I would be censored in an instant.”
I doubt it. I’ve been called names before off and on, and those comments got posted all the same. Based on your comments attacking everyone, I was having a little fun at your expense. I’d like to see you yawn without opening your mouth.
yawn continues his battle with common sense: “…until you can prove that the document is fake, you should focus on addressing the evil actions that are being exposed in the other documents.”
Heartland immediately stated that one document was fake. And of course, it is. Heartland’s unequivocal statement is there for falsifying, if yawn or any other mouth-breathers can show it was genuine. The onus is not on Heartland to prove a negative. They have already stated that the document was a fabrication. If yawn wants to believe otherwise, the onus is on yawn to show that the document is an official Heartland statement.
And there is nothing whatever “evil” in any of the documents, even the fake one. yawn’s moral compass is broken, that’s all. Probably from reading some of the Climategate I & II emails. Now, thosee exposed true evil… if fraud, conspiracy, inventing years of faked temperature records, pal review, etc., etc., can be called evil. And of course, it is.
No wonder the desmoggers appear to be lunatics. They are. Apropos:
[snip. No redeeming value of any kind. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
RE: Michael Tobias,
Like Pat Frank I have considerable doubts about the ability to use tree rings as a proxy thermometer. As science mentor working with students in ecology based science programs, I’ve had the opportunity to ask experienced foresters and biologists this simple question – In choosing between temperature and percipitation, which is more likely to impact tree growth?
I have yet to find anyone picking temperature.
oh…. my….. God!! BREAKING NEWS
February 20, 2012, 8:06 pm
Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/?smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=auto
Do keep up, yawn – the fake document contained errors like this one quoted by Steve McIntyre today on his blog:
“The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012.”
Oh, and Gleick has just confessed – see Climate Audit for details.