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?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
February 19, 2012 at 2:16 am
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?
=======================================================
That only applies to people with a conscience……
How are we supposed to believe their temperature data when they have no shame on using fake documents?
Fake but accurate…. meh.
The warmists frequently use “Climate Change” as a synonym to “Global Warming due to Man-made CO2”. The glossary of the IPCC 3rd AR – gives a pointer to this. The definition for “Climate Change” includes, “Note that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.”
The UNFCCC have hijacked the English Language in my opinion – but there you go.
Will Aaron Huertas [snip – over the top crude ~mod]
[snip -speaking of fakes, per policy a vaild email address is required to comment here, you don’t get to comment without one – Anthony]
The future problem, as I see it, for science is that when the link between global temperatures and CO2 is found to be false then the public will lose trust in the rest of science. That will result in real dangers being overlooked. It really will be a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. That, for those of us who do care about science and our Earth’s environment, will be the greatest harm some of the present warmist scientists are doing at present.
gnomish says:
February 19, 2012 at 6:18 am
“and, imo, if heartland fails to mount that alarmist forger’s head on a post,”
Highly unlikely. The smeargate forger made about every conceivable mistake.
“the public will lose trust in the rest of science.”
It’s easy….just look for the word “global”, “sustainable” or “progressive”, or look for the backing of the U. N. and you can be pretty sure it’s cult science.
Real environmental issues are usually idntified using empirical data, are localized and can be resolved without taxing the planet.
Nerd says:
February 19, 2012 at 6:06 am
Thanks for the link. I came to ‘the climate wars’ through sites like that. It is extraordinary how many myths are promulgated and generally accepted. I’ve got to the stage where I simply don’t believe anything until I have made exhaustive enquiries. Luckily I have the time.
You might find http://www.davehitt.com/facts as interesting as I did.
Dorothy pull back the curtain to find … another curtain.
What happened to Malcolm K Hughes?
If these scientists (cough cough) signed this open letter and go on to compare their indignation with ours, is it any wonder they can’t find the missing heat? I would say that our indignation rises to the level of the anthropogenic portion of CO2. Their’s rose in hockey stick fashion. This likely explains why they cannot see the gap in their own predictions versus reality.
“These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. ”
Um…. I thought the science wasn’t settled?????
Top Warmist scientists say:
“We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.”
I’m sure Hartland will stipulate to this (as they already have filled this role) on the condition you stipulate everything written after that is a pack of unmitigated and unsubstantiated lies, and that it is simply nothing more than several fallacious conclusions wrapped in the form a request. The request is quite frankly laughable. It is not meant to ‘mend fences’.
This letter resembles something like an unrepentant child would write . Is this the best these climate “scientists” can do? Really? Maybe skeptics are giving these guys way to much credit, this whole AGW nonsense is caving in on their head. This is desperation folks, pure and simple.
I think the AGW team needs to find a wider lexicon.
From the “Open Letter”: “…to undermine the teaching…” and “…to undermine public understanding…”
From Kevin Knobloch, UCS: “…deceptively undermines the truth.”
From Gene Hashmi, Greenpeace: “…undermining progressive climate legislation…”
From Deep Climate: “…their credibility is undermined…”
Oh, yes, and from their crudely faked ‘Heartland Strategy’ document: “…we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports…”
@Nerd: This is really crazy: What does it has in common: “global warming”, Not smoking, pro abortion, “saturated fat and cholesterol consumption”, “child obesity”, “the day after pill”, “gay marriage”, AH5 flu virus, etc.,etc.? . All this seems just insanity, to say the least.
Recently a group of environmentalist rallied against lithium mining in Chile, while in other places other environmentalists rally in favor of “electric cars”, running on lithium batteries…
That´s schizophrenic. It would be laughable if it would not entail actual consequences on our lives.
We are living “interesting times”…OK, but, come on, please, not so interesting!
What is the purpose, the goal, if there is any, of the people backing all this non sense?
Is it a well thought and planned conspiracy or just a psychological pandemics?
Wasn’t desmog getting criticism for posting on fake stuff before checking it’s authenticity?
As a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (I possessed a valid credit card), I am now less than amused by their actions, for 2 reasons:
1. UCS is using my “donation/membership” fee for less than honest public relations efforts that have nothing to do with actual science.
2. I “joined” less than a year ago. I am already being hounded by UCS via emails to “renew” my membership.
The constant barrage of emails from them seeks to squeeze more and more money from my pocket, while the actual scientific basis they offer in their articles is clearly biased. Since money and funding seems to be a focus, let’s look at the money at UCS. Seems they’re doing quite nicely, thank you.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/UCS-audited-financial-statements-9-30-10.pdf
Shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the background of Kevin Knobloch.
But come look at what UCS has even now on its website re: Heartland.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/living-in-a-glass-house-in-the-heartland
Talk about living in a glass house…..
Apparently daunted by Heartland’s threats, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) has taken down an REP press release that once conveyed a sensible message:
For me, Bill Buckley’s fact-driven style of conservative skepticism serves the public well … Heartland’s bluster-and-threat style of skepticism doesn’t.
[REPLY: For the record: IANAR. I don’t think those other REP guys are, either. -REP]
“With the exception of one scientist not listed here, Dr. Scott Denning, none of you accepted.” I’m really confused, Anthony. Who is the “you” you refer to above? Does the above sentence mean that one and only one scientist has ever attended a Heartland climate change conference? Who is the intended audience for these conferences and who ends up attending them?
Leaking emails that should have already been released under freedom of information (FOI) from entities taking public monies and stonewalling on FOI is not morally equivalent to stealing documents from a private organization that is not publicly funded. I don’t recall that anyone claimed that any of the emails were forged. I suspect that they know that claiming that they were forgeries would just make things worse when it was later shown that they weren’t. In most cases where an email was quoted, the email was identified so that anyone could see for them selves if something was taken out of context. If there was such contextomy, it would have been a simple matter for the victim of that contextomy to discredit the source by showing the quote within its complete context.
Glimpse into the twisted mind of an activist…
http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/05/biking-is-safer-with-a-construction-vest/
Aaron has no issue with impersonating a construction worker as it makes cycling easier with more respect from drivers and he believes he can use this deception to get to prime seating at outdoor concerts.
Could Aaron be the Fakegate memo faker?
A physicist says:
February 19, 2012 at 3:42 am
so sorry – but I call BS on your claim the climategate emails were not significant. They were very significant and illustrate many BAD facets of the science within climate scientists circles and the way they conduct peer review, etc, etc.
If you are a real physicist, I would expect that you, of all the natural science based scientists, would understand the extremely serious nature of psuedoscience in such a defining (as in policy making) field. Imagine if everyone had taken some of the early physics models as gospel and had never queried or subsequently refined them?
The climategate emails and the so called climate scientists actions reflect badly on all science – no better than fraudulent medicine testing or something similar… probably much worse, if you consider that a few billion people would be affected (e.g. by being struck poor with unnecessary taxes, energy poverty, cold and death, etc)!!
Put it another way, would you like to be the one that was promoting the CAGW bulldust and around when it’s shown to be completely false and over-hyped AFTER the world has wasted so many billions on it?? Of all the science projects where, whether there is CAGW or not, we need to be absolutely sure of correctness to avoid countless more wasted billions – that will affect billions of people – surely to god, one expects, nay demands, the absolute UTMOST sincerity and integrity of those undertaking the ‘science’?? Yes? – and pray tell, where exactly in the climategate emails does one obtain that impression?
The only similarities between the Climate gate “thefts” and the Heartland thefts is the Team and their cohorts are the ones fabricating all the documents…
Based on the link in the update, what ever bacame of Scott Denning after his appearance at the conference? Was he banished, penniless or was he tolerated or did he switch sides?