This press release, initially published here, is reproduced in full below.
FEBRUARY 27, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released an analysis of the fake “climate strategy” memo circulated by Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick to fellow environmental activists and journalists on February 14, 2012.
The analysis, written by Heartland President Joseph Bast, refutes the most damaging claims that appear in the forged memo:
- The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund Heartland’s climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for a health care reform project.
- “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been Heartland’s goal. Heartland is working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political.
- Heartland does not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. It pays them to help write and edit a series of reports titled Climate Change Reconsidered, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
- Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.
The analysis is accompanied by a copy of the forged memo with the forger’s own words highlighted. (Note: Text that is not highlighted is not necessarily accurate, and often it is not. Such text generally paraphrases text appearing in one of the stolen documents but was deliberately twisted or falsified to create a false impression.)
The analysis and marked up copy of the fake document can be found at Fakegate.org.
Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to more than 100 news reports and commentaries on the global warming scandal can be reviewed at Fakegate.org. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.
Surely he shouldn’t be prosecuted for a little lapse of memory….lapse of ethics…brain fart….like this…………
Throw the book at this hypocrite……………..
Concise Report!
This entire flap–like the larger ongoing row about the climate–drives me again and again back to the early 17th century observations of Francis Bacon. Here he provides an apt description of what Peter Gleick (and all of us) are liable to become, absent critical reason:
“an inquisitive man is a prattler; so upon the like reason a credulous man is a deceiver: as we see it in fame, that he that will easily believe rumours will as easily augment rumours and add somewhat to them of his own; which Tacitus wisely noteth, when he saith, Fingunt simul creduntque: so great an affinity hath fiction and belief.”
_The Advancement of Learning_
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5500/pg5500.txt
wow…this whole thing is painful for AGW enthusiasts.
I continue to except the Hebrew inspired Scriptures on this topic and as the “SABBATHS” were given as both an eternal “SIGN” of YHWH’S people, so is his NAME, YAHWEH, as his son YAHSHUA! Watch!
So, you remove the yellow highlighted parts and what you’re left with is material that was in the other documents, as far as I can tell.
I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
By the way, the Pacific Institute has put out a new statement.
Back to work!
p.s. …as long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease(Genesis 8:22). WATCH! Just saying…
kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
=========================
The legal wheels grind slowly. If this case does go to trail, I’d be very surprised it it takes less than 3 years for the trail to actually start.
Sound a bit similar to the analysis I did in the comments at Stoat:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/02/so_is_it_a_fake.php#comment-6233653 (towards the end of the comment)
The document is clearly fake on so many levels:
a) Budget
b) Terminology
c) Origin
d) File info
e) Viewpoint (written from theirs instead of ours)
f) Style (capitalization, lack of signature, etc)
Great free publicity for Heartland. This strikes me as easily the most important bullet:
They clearly do. I’m much more a follower of Heartland as a result.
■Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.
i·ro·ny [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural -nies.
1. Peter Gleick made up a fake story about someone trying to keep him from blogging for Forbes, and in doing so got himself evicted from Forbes.
James Taylor from Heartland blogs for Forbes, and had great fun dissecting Gleick’s histrionic rants. Of all the entities in the world that might have wanted to keep Gleick out of Forbes, it surely was not Hearltand.
LeeHarvey says:
Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’?
I would rather that they only used “global warming”. Using the CC term just allows the global warming nuts to define the debate using ever changing and confusing language. Their claim was global warming caused by people, and that is a very specific claim.
“Climate change” is meaningless in the context of this debate, and unintelligible when they use it (as they nearly always do) when they clearly mean to say “anthropogenic global warming” . They end up saying the equivalent of “Scientists concur that this climate change was caused by climate change”.
Good that WUWTers aren’t the only ones who “ride tall in the saddle” for “truth, justice & the american way”…. “High ho” science – (&) “away” (we go)!
It is interesting to note that there are at least a few in the CAGW cult who are capable of recognising the difference between right and wrong – I am referring to ethics, not science here.
Prof Richard Betts of East Anglia is one of them; unfortunately there are too few like him.
RE the Pacific Institute’s “independent investigation” that is mentioned in Update 64, I assume that it will be chaired by Muir-Russell with Edward Acton as a senior consultant.
JJ says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“Global warming” is just as misleading as “climate change.” We know the climate changes naturally and “global warming” implies it’s not natural. AGW is not misleading, except when somebody implies all global warming is man-made.
What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
@MarkW
I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.
LeeHarvey says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
“Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”
LeeHarvey,
I would propose that it is just you alone and the alarmists that would be “feel better” if they were able to “disappear” the term “global warming”. When the Hockey Stick graph was the ubiquitous symbol of climate science, what did it show? It showed global temperature vs time? it showed global warming, not some vague concept called climate change. While some scientists are undoubtedly evaluating weather events as evidence of climate change, the fundamental marker for CAGW is an increase in global temperatures. The push for the change from global warming to term “climate change” and the subsequent unsuccessful attempt to remake the issue into “climate disruption” was and is simply an attempt to muddy the waters.
RE: “LeeHarvey says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”
Don’t give me that “Climate Change” bull. First of all, when you change the vocabulary you are in essense changing the ball-field. (For example, change the word “wife” to the word “partner,” and you’ll get a look. Change it to “aquaintance,” and you’ll really be in trouble.) “Global Warming” got the press, so “Global Warming” is what they are stuck with.
Second, you are changing the topic from really vile behavior to merely moderately vile behavior. The topic of this thread is not whether we use the words “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.”
Are you trying to change the subject? If so, nice try.
.
ChE says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
“What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”
I guess “social Justice” is so “last week”. the flavour of the week is now “social equity”.
@ChE “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”
Boiler plate. It’s one of those meaningless feel-good phrases; do yourself a favor, and don’t think about it too hard. Phrases like that suck you in and, as you thrash about, seeking meaning (the words have meaning, but the phrase…no so much), you encounter only emptiness.
Since “social justice” has been beaten to death then had its skin dried and stretched for a drum-head, a new phrase was needed.