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.
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?
###
Everything. The whole point of all of this AGW stuff is to use it as a pretext for bring about the great Marxist utopia. “Social Equality” is pure Marxist jargon.
Game, Set, and Match.
Wow the trolls are still attacking on several fronts, trying to create non-issue scandals and such up here in Canucklehead land.
Busted, busted, and more, flailing for anything to distract the “sleeping giant” of people fed up with being lied to.
I watched the film “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930, Universal Studios) the other day.
In the last gasps of the Kaisers Germany, schoolteachers were sending schoolchildren to battle, to fight and die for a cause that they did not understand.
Sound familiar?
It should, if we don’t want to repeat history again.
dwright
Ps. Congratulations on the Bloggies win, Mr Watts, tireless Mods and all Contributors; you absolutely deserve that respect.
@Caleb, Robert Austin, anyone else:
My point was that by simply saying ‘global warming’ they’re playing into the hands of those who would want to paint anyone who doesn’t toe the Malthusian line as an anti-science knuckle dragger who’s being paid off by the Koch brothers. If we want our side to come off as being authoritative, wouldn’t it be better to demonstrate that we clearly don’t know even what the temperature/CO2 response of the earth’s atmosphere is? Let them try to muddy the waters all they want – the remedy is to provide facts without hysteria.
eyesonu says:
February 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“It appears that the forger of the fake document may have been under a lot of pressure (time constraints) to get it completed as was done with the scanning on Monday afternoon Feb 13 so it could be ready for public distribution on Valentine’s Day on Feb 14.”
On Feb 12 realclimate had a whiny post about alleged death threats against CliSci’s (by “Rasmus”). Maybe that tripped Gleick out.
wermet says:
February 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“We move a step closer to “[f]rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — Karl Marx.”
Has been tried. Doesn’t work. The Soviet Union made profits illegal. So entrepreneurs became criminals.
ChE:
Read on their appointee Elena Schmid:
http://www.resource-solutions.org/pressreleases/2010/012810.htm
Answer your question? This is all about energy… your monthly bills,
The best restitution that Gleick could make would be to perform some mandatory number of debates on a Heartland platform against Heartland selected opponents on Heartland selected topics. Say two a month for a year.
Keeps him out of jail (he probably doesn’t really belong in jail as much as we would love to see it happen and it would just make him a martyr.)
And it would achieve Heartlands stated objective of finally getting him onto a debating platform.
Don’t take Gleick to court: stay the proceedings if Gleick will publicly apologize, attest that to his current knowledge the faked document was fake, that he was invited previously to speak at Heartland conferences, and that he is prepared to debate in a televised program on the scientific basis
a) that man’s contribution to the warming trend since 1850 is greater than that of solar contributions, and
b) that observational evidence supports IPCC computer modelling of CO2 and water vapour radiative power,
c) that the GISTemp temperature profiles are not in the adjustments but in the data,
d) that the prior 34 years of temperature changes support the higher end of CAGW theory, and, finally,
e) that the prior 34 years of temperature changes do not similarly support normal solar processes with a minor, insignificant human addition.
We skeptics have been given a gift, should we choose to take it. If Heartland simply goes the FBI and punishment route, then a grand chance at a debate worthy of an Edward Murrow – McCarthy event will be missed.
It seems strange that Heartland is posting the memo and yet wants others to take it down. Again, this is all going to backfire.
IanR says:
February 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
It seems strange that Heartland is posting the memo and yet wants others to take it down. Again, this is all going to backfire.
I agree this is all going to backfire unless Heartland uses Gleick to force a debate on the technical merits of CAGW (see my comment about IanR’s).
If Heartland uses this for vengeance, then two things will happen. The first is that the warmists will (rightly) see the skeptics as no better than they claim them to be. The second is that, as a skeptic I (and perhaps many others) will wonder if anger and personal dignity is more on the table on Heartland’s and some other skeptics’ side, rather than a desire to correct a bad political position based on unsound scientific principles and inadequate data.
I have been waiting a long time to see aclimate scientist perp walked. Gleick barely qualifies, but better than nothing.
“What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?….”
Hayek in The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism:
“Social is a weasel word that has acquired the power to empty the nouns it qualifies of their meanings.”
ChE says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
…
The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.
What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
As no one seems to have noticed, you misquoted. It’s “equity”, not “equality”. Equity is much more punitive and legalistic language; it suggests justice, “fairness”, and enforcement of claims. On the basis of “social(ist)” criteria. I.e., it’s code for class warfare.
Correction: Coach Springer and others noticed the wording change (comments clearing moderation after I wrote the above).
It is interesting (and typical) that “equity” also (and usually) means capital and claims on capital. So it can be “excused” as referring to enhancement of “social capital” or some other nebulous concept. But make no mistake. It is actually referring to “social justice”, a phrase much beloved and employed by certain notorious “community organizers”.
Gleick’s “temporary” replacement is Elena Schmid. She’s been a player in the CA energy subsidy games for some time (2006 citation):
For renewable energy to become a “critical part” of the energy mix, KEMA’s Schmid indicated what is needed is a combination of greater public awareness, more public-private financing, technology advances and greater accountability for regulators and energy providers.”
Evidently big on public financing and regulating private energy investors ….
Sorry, blown tag. Cite ends at … providers.”
@LeeHarvey says:
February 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm
” If we want our side to come off as being authoritative, wouldn’t it be better to demonstrate that we clearly don’t know even what the temperature/CO2 response of the earth’s atmosphere is? Let them try to muddy the waters all they want – the remedy is to provide facts without hysteria.”
The problem is that facts without hysteria puts people to sleep. The AGW crowd figured that out a long time ago, thus Stephen Schneider’s 1989 remark that they had to exaggerate the problem to get people’s attention. “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
If the statement is true, then the person that wrote the memo from fragments of the purloined documents must have had access to those documents in order to create the fake.
We are closing in now and I have it now in my mind who created the fake and I bet he is reading this blog very closely.
Social equity and social equality are not the same things. Equity is a general condition characterized by justice, fairness, and impartiality. Equality means value equal to all others in a specific group.
Justice is a word which confuses people. It is defined as a system or application of law: the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law. However, there are unjust laws. According to Muslims, Sharia law is founded on the words of Allah revealed in the Quran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Women have fewer rights under Sharia. It might be the law, but it isn’t justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Napoleonic Code is derived from Roman law. US law descends from English common law, except in Louisiana. Its civil code has kept its Roman roots and some of its aspects feature influences by the Napoleonic Code, but is based more on Roman and Spanish civil traditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
Not to be a killjoy but that analysis from Bast is crap. He’s presented the strategy doc which we all believe to be the forgery, and he’s shown bits in yellow as apparently being the forger’s work but Bast has stupidly left unhighlighted the error about the 200k from Koch bros. So either that info was not the forger’s work and HI made the error themselves, or it’s meant to be highlighted. Either way Bast isn’t up to par to manage this sort of public response. Leave it to McIntyre and Mosher, is my advice.
IanR & Doug Proctor,
The FBI are now involved in this case. It seems to me that P. Gleick will have to persuade them to leave him alone. What’s that phrase? Oh yes; “They Always Get Their Man”.
A bigger point to consider; this also about dealing with the egregious reports at Desmog and the Guardian et al. P. Gleick is just the visible tip, a marker for where to dig and expose the corruption beneath the surface. The Pipsqueak P. Gleick will be wrung until his Pips Squeak. Alliteration rules.
Brian H says: February 27, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Well, I noticed … and the “vital mission” of the Pacific Institute is, in effect, a copy ‘n paste (slightly modified) of the “three pillars” of the “broad political concept” known as “sustainable development”:
For source and other fascinating aspects of this “broad political concept” please see:
Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos
Pachauri’s already on the “sustainable development” bandwagon, btw … and if his “vision” for AR5 is realized, we can expect to see sustainable development “pervading” the reports of WGs I, II and III.
Perry says:
February 28, 2012 at 12:35 am
“Social equity and social equality are not the same things. Equity is a general condition characterized by justice, fairness, and impartiality.”
But of course, in their little world they’re trying to be first to “trademark” a word to pretty much degrade the oposition from start.
So, essentially, they’ll now believe that every critic of theirs will be seen as, unjust, unfair, and partial. If I’m not mistaken that’s a trick of the demagogues in the PR/propaganda trade: demonize the oposition from start.
Jim says:
February 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Something that jumped out at me from the highlighted portions of the memo is the comma after the parenthetical “e.g.”…. “in-house experts (e.g., Taylor)…”
You may be on the right track, but nothing is simple. Publications on pacinst.org are full of this “(e.g.,” thing, even those unrelated to Gleick (e.g., How Can an EMS Manage GHG Emissions? by Kevin Brady, Five Winds International).
(e.g., labor and environmental standards, the treatment of animals)
(e.g., prices paid to farmers)
(e.g., research on HIV/AIDs and cancer, provision of clean drinking water in developing countries)
(e.g., Vogel 2005, 2008)
(e.g., Elliott and Freeman 2003)
(e.g., Fehr and Schmidt, 1999; Andreoni, 2006; Benabou and Tirole, 2006)
(e.g., Becchetti and Solferino 2005)
(e.g., Auger et al. 2003, 2008; Dickson 2001; Mohr and Webb 2005; Loureiro and Lotade 2005; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005; Hertel et al. 2009)
(e.g., types of polo shirts)
(e.g., Richardson and Stahler 2007; Baron 2009a)
(e.g., SA8000 standards)
(e.g., Nike, Adidas, Reebok, and IZOD)
(e.g., Roth and Ockenfels 2002; Ariely and Simonson 2003; Bajari and Hortsecsu 2003, 2004)
(e.g., Lucking-Reiley 1999)
(e.g., Resnick et al. 2006)
(e.g., Hossain and Morgan 2006)
(e.g., Katkar and Reiley 2006)
(e.g., similar items of different size or color)
Could it be the case, that Gleick has not acted entirely alone, but someone at the Institute, whose regular job includes such tasks, gave a hand in proofreading “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” before its publication? Do we have a latent witness after all?
kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
This isn’t the kind of case where the perp gets arrested before the trial. So no, we don’t get to see Gleick do the frog march.
From a legal standpoint, there are a lot of clocks that start ticking once a formal arrest is made. Right to a speedy trial and all that. So it’s pretty normal to not arrest someone if they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk.