UPDATE2 10:45PM 2/18/12: This started as a humorous reply to the “Open Letter to Heartland” purportedly signed by several prominent climate scientists. That may be true, but it is now in doubt, as none of the signers wrote it. A PR hack from an NGO did. See below for who actually authored the letter for the Team, quite a surprise!
UPDATE: I was offline and used my cellphone to post the comic above, and wasn’t able to add more at the time.
If anyone is wondering what this is in response to, read this letter from The Team, plus my response below:
An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute
As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.
We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said.
Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.
So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.
We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.
What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.
Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.
Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Source: this letter
==================================================
Here’s a reminder to these scientists who signed the letter.
Heartland has invited many of you and others to Heartland Climate conferences. There’s always been a standing open invitation in addition to the direct personal ones offered. With the exception of one scientist not listed here, Dr. Scott Denning, none of you accepted. He had the integrity and courage to engage us where you do not.
You might be surprised to find that he was warmly welcomed.
Therefore, don’t lecture us on the need for “civil debate about climate change policy options” when you don’t even bother to engage when invited. Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were invited to the Heartland NYC Climate conferences, both times, and could not be bothered to make a short trip a few blocks in their offices to do so.
Hearing he had declined Heartland’s formal invitation in 2008, I made a personal appeal to Dr. James Hansen through a mutual contact for the first NYC conference, and even offered to send a car uptown for him. Of course that was declined as well.
Fellows, if you want open debate, lift a finger to make it happen when invited. Otherwise, please don’t presume to have the high ground and lecture us when you have no moral basis for doing so by your own inaction.
-Anthony Watts
UPDATE2:
Can’t you guys even write your own letters when you sign them? Or did you sign them at all?
Document properties of the open letter here:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf
Look who Aaron Huertas is: http://aaronhuertas.com/
This is a personal Web page for Aaron Huertas. I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. My interests include communicating science and the ongoing interaction between our genetic ancestry and our modern technological society. I also watch a ton of TV series.
Looks like UCS might have cooked this up and got the team to sign off on it. Or maybe just sent it as PR with no formal approval. Why else would UCS be involved if this was a letter from these scientists?
Maybe Gavin used his credit card to pay for this. Kenji is displeased, not only about his membership dues being used for this, but for the fact he still (months since Oct11) hasn’t received his UCS mousepad that he paid an extra $10 for.
And they wonder why many in the world have trust issues with climate scientists?
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
If you register, you may see their form 990. They, too, are an NPO with tax exempt status. http://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding.html
Exactly the same kind of organization as the Heartland Institute. Where does Mashey get the idea they will lose their tax exempt status? Anyone can be a “whistle blower” and send a report to the IRS and then announce their action to the media. Unfortunately, it will be months before anyone even looks at it, if ever. Meanwhile, the PR damage is done. Just tricks 🙁
So I suppose this is the one-two propaganda punch from the Union of Concerned Scientists…
First, USC President Kevin Knobloch writes up a blog post and crows about it in a press release as follows:
“Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted in a blog post today that while Heartland is demanding integrity and fairness in the treatment of this theft, the group was silent and in fact actively exploited the theft of these scientists’ emails in an effort to discredit their climate change research.”
Press Release: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html
BLOG: http://blog.ucsusa.org/living-in-a-glass-house-in-the-heartland
And then he has his PR flak, Aaron Huertas secretly author a supposed “open letter.”
Great propagandizing. Too bad they forgot to remove Huertas’ name from the properties. We are just getting too lucky lately.
Isn’t this rich… Knowing what we know, that Aaron Huertas of Union of Concerned Scientists, colleague of UCS President Kevin Knobloch was the author of the open letter.
— But wait, there’s more —
“WASHINGTON (Feb. 17, 2012) – Seven leading climate researchers who themselves were the victims of an email theft which was promoted by the Heartland Institute have written an open letter to the organization, calling on it to refrain from spreading inaccurate information about climate science and attacking climate researchers.”
The paragraph above is the opening paragraph from a press release by UCS. They are lying when they say the seven researchers wrote the letter. They wrote the letter themselves.
What a crazy charade… More propaganda brought to us by “The Team.”
Let’s be REALLY careful here folks. You’re working diligently to answer a claim – that has only been made in the faked document. Whenever, wherever, the claim is made that we are attempting to discredit science should be vehemently rejected. We are NOT opposed to science. We are NOT opposed to climate science. We ARE opposed to the distortions of science that the “mainstream climate science” community has subjected us to. We’ve looked at the science. We are not alarmed by what it tells us.
A physicist says: “each link in the chain can (if necessary) be proved-beyond-doubt as factual in a British libel court.”
Yeah? Okay …
Claim: “These are the facts:”
(1) Climate change is occurring. Really? Perhaps you could give us some proper scientific evidence to prove this beyond doubt? You know, something based on empirical observation, not just the usual, seriously inadequate “models”? Like old-time physicists used to work with, when they developed theories which actually made useful predictions in the field?
(2) Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. See comment on (1).
(3) Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. See comment on (1).
(4) The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. See comment on (1).
(5) Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points. We’d noticed that. So, all your choir can sing the same tune, great. Maybe they should make a record. No, scratch that. Everybody’s already heard it, over and over.
Never mind British libel courts, renowned the world over as probably the easiest way for the offended to harass their detractors. It’s people who understand science you need to convince of your ‘facts’, and frankly, you have a very long way to go. If you truly are ‘a physicist’, then respect, but I make my criticism of the CO2 conjecture as ‘a technician’ – one of those people downstairs who can make most things work – if they’re serviceable in the first place.
Nice cartoon, btw, Josh. As usual, that claim needs no proof. 🙂
I don’t see how the “team” can think the Heartland revelations compare to climategate. The damage to Heartland comes from having failed to protect donor privacy. There don’t appear to be ethical issues at all.
Too see what else Aaron Huertas has written follow this google link.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Aaron+Huertas+filetype%3Apdf&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images
A physicist says: “it appears that the assertions in the Open Letter to the Heartland Institute ….(from the seven scientist-signers’ point-of-view) a genie of provable truth that is newly escaped from servitude to for-hire publicists.”
From the letter: “authoritative sources agree on these points”
Appeal to authority is not proof.
In reply to A Physicist: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png
How is it that one way GHG-AGW can apparently cause massive cooling in the N. Atlantic?
My interpretation [professional engineer and applied physicist with 40 years’ post-PhD experience] is that GHG-AGW << natural cooling and the existence of natural cooling implies that much 1990's heating [contributing most global OHC rise] was also natural.
As for the explanation, once you correct the four major physics' errors in the IPCC 'consensus', two of which no professional should ever have made, net GHG-GW is near zero.
Funnier still
One of the words in the fake memo that tipped me off was…
‘undermine’
thats warmist/leftist lingo
Also, looks like they are repeating a libel
Could someone please total the payments and grants to these 7 “scientists” for climate research over the last year or few … would be extremely interesting to put a number to the total budgets of just these 7 and do some comparing
Oh, and APhysicist – please get back to us after you’ve read those Guardian links so thoughtfully provided you – would love to hear your defense of your prior claims.
Here is some more funny writing, though I don’t mean funny as in ha ha kind of funny:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Hume+Fake+skeptics+climate+change+swayed+good+science/6174934/story.html
Well done Josh – captures the mood!!
One for The Team…..but will they “get it”?
q_{ult} = 1.3 c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.4 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \
q_{ult} = c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.5 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \
q_{ult} = 1.3 c’ N_c + \sigma ‘_{zD} N_q + 0.3 \gamma ‘ B N_\gamma \
where
N_q = \frac{ e ^{ 2 \pi \left( 0.75 – \phi ‘/360 \right) \tan \phi ‘ } }{2 \cos ^2 \left( 45 + \phi ‘/2 \right) }
N_c = 5.7 \ for φ’ = 0
N_c = \frac{ N_q – 1 }{ \tan \phi ‘} for φ’ > 0
N_\gamma = \frac{ \tan \phi ‘ }{2} \left( \frac{ K_{p \gamma} }{ \cos ^2 \phi ‘ } – 1 \right)
At last! All of us paid by the Koch brothers to uncover the Great Climate Conspiracy have been floundering around looking for the Mr Big behind it all, and now you’ve done it! It’s Aaron! Just look at
http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/
Despite a full-time job as Press Secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a full-time pastime watching TV series three times, he’s managed to find the time to direct the whole trillion dollar scam. There we were, pawing over the emails of his underlings Mann, Trenberth etc, and the truth was there on his blog all the time.
Not A Physicist
You are such a great PRAT. The court case would have nothing to do with your so called facts (-which aren’t). It’s about deformation and theft by deception. The words ‘climate’ and ‘we are all going to die’ will not be needed.
I can’t quite decide if association with CRU debases UCS more than association with UCS debases CRU. I suspect a vicious circle is involved somewhere.
Oh, BTW:
And here I thought “ting” was the sound made by a belled cat trying to sneak around the corner!
What is more likely?
Mike says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm
“Might as well read the real ting.”
Yes Mike, indeed, I downloaded it from that link and it shows author Aaron Huertas.
“As scientists who have had their emails stolen…..”
Stolen, really? Stolen? It hasn’t been released to the public how the emails ended up in the public. How do they know “stolen”??
How naive of me to think scientists are always careful to be accurate—especially ‘global warming’ scientists.
(in bolds just to help catch the eye if any of “The Team” happens to be passing by,
Thanks,
Gene Nemetz, aka, Amino Acids in Meteorites)
Perhaps one of us should ring up the Union of Concerned Scientists and pretend to be a board member with a fake e-mail address and ask for their list of members and sponsors. Level playing field and all.
“This is a personal Web page for Aaron Huertas. I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists….”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is not solely comprised of scientists. It is, and I quote:
“……an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students…..”
(link to where the quote is from on their web site: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/ )
To call it a union of scientists makes it seem all the members are scientists. The name is misleading. There has to be laws on the books that forbid such misleadings.
Besides possible laws being violated isn’t it a matter of conscience on the part of the members of the organization that the name should represent what the organization really is and not give A CLEAR IMPRESSION IT IS SOMETHING ELSE?
“having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change”
Nice attempt at frame control guys, let’s try “having an honest, fact-based debate about whether climate change is even sufficiently man-made to give a crap about” first shall we?
Another one for the team:
Just because YOU say any observed climate change is man made, it dont necessarily make it so.
Nullas in Verbia.
The basis for good science.
Pity they went and forgot what that meant.
If your comment about “8 to 2 con in comments” was accurate, then Mann is actively deleting critical YouTube-comments, RC-style. Right now there are only 3 comments, all praising Mann:
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=ztKFTxC6kVI