[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] The Blackboard » Tell me what’s horrible about this.

The Blackboard

Where Climate Talk Gets Hot!

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

Ads used to be here.

Tell me what’s horrible about this.

15 February, 2012 (10:10) | politics Written by:

In article about Heartland funding by Leo Hickman begins

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” pleaded the Wizard of Oz as Toto revealed the true identity of the man with the big, booming voice to Dorothy and her friends. But it was too late: the illusion was shattered.

And so creates a tone that suggests all that follows is somehow nefarious.

Nestled in this we discover that:

The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to “create a new website devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public”. A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012.

Given the “Wizard of Oz” introduction, and the choice of verb “handed” I can only suppose that somehow, we are all supposed to read this and be horrified at the thought that someone who hires ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create a product might pay them. But turning to the specifics actually reported I can’t see why I should be horrified.

A website devoted to making NOAA data easy to understand by lay people seems like a good idea. It will take many man-hours to bring it into being. I can’t see any thing remotely shocking that Heartland — a private entity– would pay someone to create such a site. The price of creating this seems reasonable relative to what NOAA would pay NOAA staff if they created it. I don’t see anything remotely shocking that Heartland would pick a private company rather than hunting around for a faculty member to mooonlight doing non-research and non-teaching efforts to do this. I don’t see why anyone would object to Anthony’s company which has experience dealing with Weather data and creating websites accessible to the public being Heartland’s choice.

Hickman continues, suggesting what might be “bad” about it:

This revelation is potentially damaging to Watts as he has previously laughed off the notion that he is being funded by any corporate- and/or vested-interest group. “AGW proponents seem hell bent on trying to repeat this ‘linked to’ nonsense at any cost,” he wrote last May. “Heh, I’ve yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc – Anthony.”

Huh? Why should it be damaging to discover that in May 2011, Anthony said he had not received funding, but later in January 2012, he managed to get someone to fund a project for his company? Moreover, it’s clear from the Heartland memo that the funding in 2012 is new. The memo highlights the entry in yellow– indicating this is a new project in 2012.

Is there a rule that Anthony is required to see into the future and know that he will never, ever, ever get funding from Heartland to create a web site? Or that having said he wasn’t getting any in May his company can’t accept a project over 6 months later?

I admit, we can’t yet know whether the proposed web site will turn out to be a hit or a dud. Maybe Mosher could have done a better job– or Zeke– or even some university professor who formed his own company to do this sort of thing. Or maybe NOAA could have done a better job.

Maybe Heartland might be better advised to fund other things– like giving me money to create more scripts so people can bet quatloos on next months temperature anomalies. They haven’t done so; I don’t suppose they will. I don’t even think it’s worth proposing the idea to them.

But I don’t really see anything horrifying in Anthony’s company having obtained funding in January to create a web site. Nor do I find anything horrifying in the notion that the domain name and web site plan hasn’t been unveiled instantly. Nor am I horrified that in the past, when Anthony had not gotten funding and was doing what he did for free, he told people that he was doing what he did for free and not because someone had hired him to do it.

To Anthony, I say: Congratulations for convincing Heartland to fund a project that might actually permit the public to have access to better graphics than provided by NOAA and which, at least as described in the shocking memo seems to be perfectly legitimate.

Meanwhile, to others: If someone here can explain to me precisely what is horrible or embarrassing about this project, please do so. Is the problem that Anthony got the funding? Or that access to temperature data is a bad thing? Or that what? Because I can’t even begin to guess what is supposed to be horrible about this.

Update for additional info.
I wanted to write and post before I read other reactions. That way, you could read my first reaction. I’ll be adding links to posts on the subject:

  • Bishop Hill includes Anthony’s discussion of the funding.

Update 2
I’ve been asked to prove that everyone knew Heartland published the NIPCC document. Here is the front matter:


If the “Heartland” logo is too small to detect, click to make larger. Note also, Joe and Dianne Bast work for Heartland. You can find the report here.

Written by lucia.

Comments

toto (Comment #89748)

Meanwhile, to others: If someone here can explain to me precisely what is horrible or embarrassing about this project,

.
Well, it’s no more horrible or embarrassing than Steven Milloy receiving funds from tobacco companies to create webpages about the “junk science” behind second-hand smoking. :p
.
Seriously, though, that’s a big red herring. It’s obvious that Watts isn’t motivated by money.

toto (Comment #89749)

My favourite passage from the Heartland memos (emphasis added):
.

We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools […] His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

.
They don’t even have the common courtesy of using some kind of derogatory codeword, like “junk science” or “cagw”. No, it’s plainly “science” itself that is the problem.
.
Those guys could take a lesson or two from the real pros.

lucia (Comment #89751)

Toto–

Well, it’s no more horrible or embarrassing than Steven Milloy receiving funds from tobacco companies to create webpages about the “junk science” behind second-hand smoking. :p

Huh? Watts is being paid to create something good and useful. Steven Milloy is not Watts. He did something that is utterly unrelated to what Watts did. It seem to me that if I wrote “Tell me what’s horrible about liking chocolate.” You’d think the appropriate response what “It’s no more horrible than liking poo.”

I know that you want climate science taught, but grade school and highschool teachers do avoid teaching anything called science that is controversial and uncertain and defer that aspect of science to college. The sentence suffers from an unfortunate construction, but you would have to actually break the clause out of the sentence not to understand that they aren’t advocating not teaching physics, geology, biology etc.

FWIW, teachers would also avoid teaching math that is controversial and uncertain and to some extent the avoid teaching math that is perceived as not useful or not useful yet. I have no idea whether 5th grade teachers teach set theory anymore. They may not spend as much time on interpolation yet. If someone wrote a sentence that said

” His effort will focus on providing a curricullum that focuses on using tools like calculators and shows that interpolation need no longer needed to do trigonometry — a key point that is effective at dissuading teachers from teaching math”, no one wold interpret this as meaning teachers aren’t going to teach trig. They would interpret this as meaning that someone is trying to get teachers to skip interpolation deferring it to a time when it has a more direct utility.

Andrew_KY (Comment #89752)

“dissuading teachers from teaching science”

Yes… Kitzmiller vs. Dover comes immediately to mind.

Andrew

Zeke (Comment #89753)

I see no real problem with funding Anthony to do data displays. That said, NCDC/NOAA has spent quite a bit of time recently improving their own website data displays at climate.gov, though few folks seem to use their tools. Their spatial mapping program is quite nifty:
http://www.climate.gov/#dataSe.....ces_global

lucia (Comment #89754)

Zeke-I think I just ordered data from 3 stations within walking distance. Maybe I should go take photos of the stations!

KAP (Comment #89755)

Tell me what’s not horrible about this:

“His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.”

lucia (Comment #89756)

Kap-
I already commented on the bolded part in lucia (Comment #89751) and explained why I don’t think it’s not horrible.

Since I told you what to tell you that before you even asked me to do so, could you tell me what you think that full sentence was meant to communicate and then explain what you think is horrible about it?

Steven Mosher (Comment #89757)

I predict that Anthony will do a great site. There will be no editorializing on the site. It will just be the facts, maam.
Anything above that will get a bunch of criticism.

When it is done and people see that the funding did not skew the results, people will then say : what about the funding we dont know about!.

In the end both sides need to learn that funding rarely changes the answers. Funding changes the questions you ask. Ask different questions, you illuminate different corners. Illuminate different corners and sometimes the room looks different.

lucia (Comment #89759)

I think– but I’m not sure– that the site Zeke linked can be used to get NOAA to email data sets. That’s a nice thing. But it seems Anthony’s is set up to create plots. So the proposed site is more similar to ForestforTrees which is very popular. Many, many people don’t want raw data. I’d bet that for every 1 person who wants raw data, at least 10 just want to see plots. And the people who want raw data tend to be tech savier, so they often can navigate some of the less user friendly interfaces.
Still, I think it’s wonderful that NOAA is making it easy for people who want the underlying raw data to get it because there are enough people who want it and would like to stuff it into their excel programs that it’s a good thing.

Still, if I’m guessing right, Anthony’s site will be very popular and we’ll see lots of plots from that site. (I also predict that some people will hunt through to find the sites with negative trends to plot, and I bet other people will be very very angry and insist the existence of an online tool that lets people find those sites will “confuse” the public.).

MDR (Comment #89765)

I wonder how much money Michael Mann is able to control yearly. What do you guys think? A couple of tens of million dollars in research funds from many sources? All of which would be jeopardized if one manages to prove that his math is bogus. Then Anthony finds a 100k to create a website and, oh!, he’s compromised.

Even about the sentence of the Heartland institute is for him who is picky about wording. Though this is not the most precise sentence ever, it is obvious that they are trying to have teachers not teach climate science, as Lucia claimed, rather than science in abstract, as many seem to affirm.

(This reminds me of so many below-the-Equator highschool teachers who teach oversimplified Marxist History as it was the revelation of the History itself, instead of a model for the study of History).

The whole thing is very, very dull.

MDR (Comment #89768)

Lucia,

“woodfortrees”, right? That was funny.

lucia (Comment #89770)

MDR–
yes. Wood for trees. My mind has always translated it into “forest for trees”!

Artifex (Comment #89771)

Maybe Heartland might be better advised to fund other things– like giving me money to create more scripts so people can bet quatloos on next months temperature anomalies. They haven’t done so; I don’t suppose they will. I don’t even think it’s worth proposing the idea to them.

This idea they probably wouldn’t fund, but consider the possibilities. Obviously, those evil leftists will stoop to any means to prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard. These means might include bot attacks on websites containing data they would prefer not to be viewed or available. For a small fee, Lucia will provide prototype scripts and methods to safeguard right thinking blogs from the perils of collectivist perfidy.

Sounds like a proposal right there to me. Solve your bot problem and collect your big oil dollars

George Tobin (Comment #89776)

Wake me when Anthony Watts gets 10% of what Hansen gets for his activism or when Watts gets a significant fraction of 1 percent of what Al Gore has profited from his.

What is the biblical passage about taking the plank from the eye of the guy who claims to see a speck and then beating him upside the head with that plank?

steven mosher (Comment #89780)

It appears that those who got the documents did not wait, as I did, to get confirmation that they were authentic. Anthony Watts insisted that I get some kind of proof that the mails were real. I got that from UAE. Even then, we worried that one or two of the worst pieces might be forgeries.

Given the personal nature of some of the documents, they contain employee information( hiring and firing) who ever had access to them was probably on the board or in HR. heartland claims the documents were obtained by identity theft. If that’s the case, it would be much more interesting than a simple “hack’ of CRU which is a minor offense under english law. I wonder how deep the civil liability could run. If a blog posts personell information without due diligence, information that was obtained by identity theft, could get interesting. not sure, just a question

That said, once heartland confirms that all the documents are accurate I have no issue with folks reading them.

lucia (Comment #89783)

mosher–
I have no issue with people reading what is posted. The documents are posted. They are going to be read. I’ve read 2.

If criminal or civil liabilities apply to those who obtained the documents or those hosting them, I have no issue with the police or Heartland, or those injured resorting to remedies available by law. That was my position with the CRU emails.

The fact that the people redacted private information reduced possible injuries to people who might not want private information posted. I haven’t read every Heartland memo, but if they include personal information, that shows the Heartland leaker/hacker/whateverer had less sensitivity to privacy than those who made the CRU stuff available.

lucia (Comment #89784)

Ok.. I’ve read 3 now. One is memo announcing that a meeting for the board of directors will take place. Heartland’s board of directors sometimes meet! How horrifying!!! I guess there are 7 more to be read. I hope I don’t find anything even more horrifying.

lucia (Comment #89785)

Ok… I clicked open number 4. It is a list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, cellphone numbers and emails of the board of directors and key people at Heartland. At least one looks like a home address.

It is hardly shocking to learn that the board of directors exists nor that they have telephones, homes and emails. That said: this is precisely the sort of stuff the CRU leakers redacted.

lucia (Comment #89787)

Number 5: An agenda for the meeting of the board of directors. Among other things they will discuss “Confirm dates for next Board meetings: In 2012, April 24, July 24 (?), and October 25; in
2012, January 24, April 25, July 25, and October 24.”

Sounds fascinating…..

Willis Eschenbach (Comment #89789)

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

SOURCE

lucia (Comment #89790)

Number 6: Binder.pdf (boring)
Number 7: Heartland Budget. This is presumably the “shocking” part where we learn stuff like Anthony Watts is going to be paid to create a nice web site that permits the public to make temperature plots. This contains the material some think really should have been redacted.

Duster (Comment #89791)

Mosher’s wait-and-see approach is probably the best approach. Lucia is right about the papers being read, now that they’re on the net, but, unlike the approach taken towards the CRUgate email tranches, no one reporting has apparently bothered to try and verify much of anything. It now seems that Heartland states that the “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” is forged. Interesting comparisons of skill are also visible – to date no one seems to know how the CRUgate emails were obtained. Heartland has already established that the legitimate documents in this release were obtained through identity theft – “Mitnicked” as it were through “social” means. Their tracks weren’t well concealed and one would guess that it won’t happen twice. On the positive side, we see that sceptics seem quite effective with less than one percent of the support that the Team seems to enjoy.

lucia (Comment #89792)

Number 8: They are going to have fundraising events. Mail out letter asking for funds etc. Host exhibits (where they will ask for funds.) Do online fundraising for their various projects.

Among the projects are two that has Desmog blog and others in a tizzy:
* a project to create educational materials on climate change
* Anthony Watts’s weather stations project.

We learn about the “Anonymous Donor” (who I have nicknamed “Rusty Trawler” in my head. He gave more in the past and less now. Perhaps his vast wealth has eroded.)
They’ve also gotten money from all sorts of place including “Castle Rock Foundation”, which seems to have had some connection to Coors. I’m sure people are digging to explain the connection of every one of these to big all as I type.

Neven (Comment #89793)

So the proposed site is more similar to ForestforTrees which is very popular.

Everyone knows that the Woodfortrees site costed at least 100K. What will Watts’ site be called BTW? policy-driven-deception.org?

There is nothing shocking about this whole affair, because any rational person saw the writing on the wall a long time ago. People get paid to lie. Dearie me…

Nick (Comment #89796)

So lets see if UEA refuses to accept any money from the government, who directly profit from their Global Warming mantra.

Ah yes, its just other people.

Lets ban Greenpeace because they receive donations from people profiting from feed in tariffs, that drive up heating costs, that kill people in the winter.

Pots, Kettles, and calling people black. Other adages about stones and green houses.

Nick (Comment #89797)

no one reporting has apparently bothered to try and verify much of anything.

OK, so here’s how to verify them.

1. Submit and FOI request for the information.
2. Wait for the information to arrive.
3. Verify that the information in the FOI matches the emails.

You might find a problem with step 2.

lucia (Comment #89798)

Finally, I see the IRS form. I’ll let someone else tell me if there is anything shocking in that. I guess I miscounted. There are 9 things linked at Desmog blog.

Unless someone leaked more the shocking story appears to be limited to:

The Heritage Heartland Foundation, a not-for profit think tank has a board of directors who sometimes meet. The Foundation raises money and spends it on things we already knew they spent it on. For example, they publish the NIPCC document. This represents their rebuttal to IPCC documents. Rather than get people who work for NOAA (etc.) to work as lead author and travel to meetings on NOAA (etc.)’s dime, Heartland pays the authors to write chapters in the NIPCC.

Heartland also funds various other projects. Among the newly funded project is a web page that will let people create temperature time series plots based on NOAA data and a project to write educational materials for k-12, whose slant of global warming some anticipate will differ from the one Joe Romm would write. Based on the write up, it seems Heartland might prefer k-12 teachers don’t teach climate change at all.

To fund their projects, Heartland raises money using methods similar to other not-for-profit think tanks: They host events, mail people stuff, call them on the phone etc. Lots of people donate. Some donate a lot of money. One particular person who remains anonymous donates a whopping amount but his donation rate has declined.

As all previous projects were done openly, with Heartlands name appearing on their publications, which are distributed widely during their fund raising efforts, there is no reason to believe the new projects would be done secretly.

The person or persons who leaked this made no attempt to redact personal information including sensitive personnel information. Desmog blog didn’t redact before posting either.

Neven (Comment #89800)

The Foundation raises money and spends it on things we already knew they spent it on. For example, they publish the NIPCC document. This represents their rebuttal to IPCC documents.
.
It’s of course no shock or surprise, but was it known that the NIPCC report was funded by Heartland (not Heritage, dear Lucia)?
.
Of course, the NIPCC document wasn’t meant to rebut, but to “undermine” IPCC documents.
.
But nice defending, Lucia. Showing your lukewarmist colours, as always.

lucia (Comment #89802)

The faked memo is here:
http://pastebin.com/Hp7PamwM

Neven (Comment #89804)

How do you know it’s faked? You don’t. You want it to be so.

lucia (Comment #89805)

Nick–
Reporters could pick up the phone and ask. I’m under the impression reporters have talked to Phil Jones without requesting all information through FOI and Phil Jones even sometimes talks to them. 🙂

That reporters employed by honest to goodness news papers did not pick up the phone to ask Heartland their take is odd

lucia (Comment #89806)

Neven–

Thanks for finding my typo. I wrote Heritage once and Heartland several times. I’ve corrected Heritage where it appears.

On the faked: You are write, I should have written ” The memo Heartland reports is faked.” I don’t really have a preference that it be faked or real. We’d already discussed it. Though the writing is pretty poor, I don’t think the contents are particularly damaging.

Neven (Comment #89808)

I don’t think the contents are particularly damaging.
.
And if AGW turns out to be real, serious and costly?
.
Undermining reports, stifle opposing voices, getting teachers to not teach (climate) science, paying Craig Idso and Fred Singer (both notorious liars), be totally untransparent, lobbying instead of thinktanking…
.
Nothing damaging at all. Nothing surprising either.

diogenes (Comment #89811)

…have you seen the way that Tobis is drooling about this strange episode?

lucia (Comment #89813)

Neven–

And if AGW turns out to be real, serious and costly?

Let me respond to your rhetorical question with a real one I would like you to answer: Even if “AGW turns out to be real, serious and costly” how in the heck is funding Anthony to create a web site that lets people make temperature plots damaging to Heartlands reputation, Anthony or anyone?

Heartland a private entity has a right to be ‘untransparent’. But I’m also not sure what you think would be particularly “untransparent” in Heartland’s efforts. They fund stuff– it’s not a secret. They wouldn’t even have donors if they didn’t tell people they fund stuff. The donors give them the money because they fund stuff!

How can “shocking” revelations that they pay Singer to write documents be damaging when everyone already knew they funded it and he wrote it. Answer: It can’t!!

I realize you don’t like the fact they do this. But this was no secret.

Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815)

If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.

Freezedried (Comment #89816)

His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

So what does this statement mean? Does Heartland want teachers to not teach climate science or do they want them to teach climate science are teachers reluctant to teach subjects that are cloaked in controversy and uncertainty. Or was it even written by Heartland? This whole thing is a bit of a mess.

Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #89820)

“The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.”

That would only fly if they could prove that those who showed the documents knew they were fake and further were doing it strictly to defame. That would take a lot of proving. Meanwhile Heartland needs to show what was factual and what was faked.

Paul K2 (Comment #89822)

Lucia, In order to answer the question, it might help us to know if you have any relationship with Heartland.

Have you received any non-monetary compensation from Heartland, in the form of travel expense reimbursement, meals, waived conference fees, gifts, preferential seating at organizational events such as meetings or banquets?

How about access to non-published reports, electronic documents, email or phone access to Heartland employees or associates?

lucia (Comment #89824)

Freezedried–
I’d say ask the author of the sentence but it’s from the memo Heartland says is faked. SteveMc has looked at the document properties of the 9 real memos and the one Heartland calls a fake and that comparison suggests the faked one likely is faked.

Yes. That particular document is very poorly written. Many of the individual sentences are confusing, and it’s not very clear what the person writing it thought Heartland should actually do. I mean… I wouldn’t be surprised if people at a think tank might not prefer any nice glossy magazine to carry their stories and carry fewer of those with other views. But what were they supposedly planning to do? Schedule a dinner with someone at Forbes where they could schmooze up an editor and suggest the articles by Gleick don’t sell copy there by single-handedly “stifling” Gleick from getting his message out? Because Forbes is sooooo soooooo soooo influential on this topic? The only way this is damaging is that it would make the Heartland guys seem totally inept.

The memo-that-seems-to-be-fake doesn’t say– and it’s not clear Heartland could possibly do anything to Forbes.

Jules (Comment #89825)

Lucia,
you wrote it was known already Heartland funded NIPCC ?
do you have a source for that ?

At least one NIPCC-contributor (Hans Labohm) told me that Heartland NEVER paid NIPCC ANYTHING. The document shows otherwise…

Of course, in itself there’s nothing shocking in discovering the nipcc-authors do get paid by Heartland.

So far i’m fairly unimpressed by the released documents. Even if the “confidential memo” would turn to be a genuine Heartland-document.

Eli Rabett (Comment #89828)

Neven, we know that Heartland funded the writing of the NIPCC report, because Fred Singer acknowledged it in SEPPs 2007 990 ($143K)

Jeff Norman (Comment #89830)

Neven said:

“paying Craig Idso and Fred Singer (both notorious liars)”

I wasn’t aware that they were notorious liars. Perhaps you could illuminate my ignorance?

lucia (Comment #89831)

Lucia, In order to answer the question, it might help us to know if you have any relationship with Heartland.

Have you received any non-monetary compensation from Heartland, in the form of travel expense reimbursement, meals, waived conference fees, gifts, preferential seating at organizational events such as meetings or banquets?

How about access to non-published reports, electronic documents, email or phone access to Heartland employees or associates?

My only interaction with Heartland was attending their Conference in Chicago in May 2010. Ordinarily, one pays to attend, but they gave numerous bloggers press passes which admitted us so we could blog about it. I got a press pass and attended. I only wrote up a little. In fact, I wrote more about the dinner paid by PJ media:
http://rankexploits.com/musing.....-stefanis/

I told people I would apply before I applied, applied got in and this is entirely public.

To reveal all: Unlike most meetings, attendance got us free meals which were good.

I attended this one because it was near me. I rode the train in (paying my own fare) missed some breakfasts– but I know I ate one. I ate lunches, missed dinners because train rides back are spread out later in the evening. I listened to meetings, and talked to people and discussed some of what happened with people at this blog.

That’s my relationship with Heartland. So, specifically

  1. in the form of travel expense reimbursement: No.
  2. meals, Yes. Bloggers were fed at the Hearland conference.
  3. waived conference fees, Yes. I was admitted as a member of the news media to the Heartland conference like numerous other bloggers.
  4. gifts, Hmmm.. Oh! Yes. They gave us a little bag with a few of their Heartland publications. SteveMilloy included a hockey stick in it with his blog url on it! (I almost forgot about this!)
  5. preferential seating at organizational events such as meetings or banquets? No. But I… uhmmm…. snuck in to the presenters banquet while no one was looking because I wanted to buttohole someone… I don’t remember who!
  6. How about access to non-published reports, electronic documents, email or phone access to Heartland employees or associates? No. Oh.. unless you count the fact that I emailed a Heartland employee who was listed as the person bloggers should contact if they wanted to get into the Heartland conference in Chicago. Oh. And someone gave me his business card which I no longer have.

lucia (Comment #89832)

Oh– I forgot to mention, the first evening at Heartland there was an early migling session with wine– open bar. I drank a glass.

Neal J. King (Comment #89834)

– Some of the specifics of the funded projects MAY be incompatible with the non-profit tax-status of the Heartland Institute. I guess this will come out in the wash.

– These documents support the view presented in Oreskes’ book, Merchants of Doubt.

SteveF (Comment #89837)

Lucia, 89831, 89832,

In light of all that, I an not sure how you can sleep at night knowing how much a stooge of ‘big energy’ you are. By the way, what is the monthly fee structure for politically supportive bloggers? I mean, do you get paid more each month if your blog has a larger readership?

Eli Rabett (Comment #89838)

If you look at the proposed 2012 budget on page 7 you can see the list of payments. The ones where COI issues might be most biting are Madhav Khandekar and Indur Gulkany (both 1K/month).

Nathan (Comment #89839)

Nothing damning,

just confirms what people knew about Heatland; they pay people to write articles against AGW.

“Watts is being paid to create something good and useful”
HA HA HAAAAAAAAAA

That’s hilarious. He certainly doesn’t have a history of that.

Paul K2 (Comment #89840)

Not all bloggers get this kind of access, Lucia. Readers should realize that you have a bias in evaluating the morality and ethics of Heartland actions.

I am also interested in how much compensation Anthony Watts received from Heartland. AW has claimed over and over that he receives no fossil fuel industry money. It now appears that oil, coal, and tobacco company money was laundered through Heartland, before AW’s organizations got the money.

It appears that AW has been wrong about not getting money from fossil fuel interests.

lucia (Comment #89841)

Neal
Could you elaborate: How do the documents support anything presented in Oreskes book?

SteveF

I mean, do you get paid more each month if your blog has a larger readership?

As far as I can tell, no. As far as I can tell, Idso and Singer don’t have much in the say of readership and get paid. Marc Morano doesn’t seem to be paid by Heartland. ‘Dems the breaks.

Eli

The ones where COI issues might be most biting are Madhav Khandekar and Indur Gulkany (both 1K/month).

Could you elaborate?

lucia (Comment #89845)

PaulK2–
As far as I am aware, every blogger who applied to be admitted was admitted. I think it’s entirely possible for people to decide whether there is something horrible about Antony being funded to set up a web page whether or not I might have a bias because I attended a Heartland Conference without paying a fee to attend. Also, since this has all been public, I think everyone can decide for themselves whether getting a couple of lunches and being allowed to listened to presentations at a Heartland conference results in some sort of blinding bias.

I am also interested in how much compensation Anthony Watts received from Heartland.

The amount they are paying his company is listed in the memo Desmogblog “broke”. I suggest you go to Desmog blog, download and read it instead rather than using the rhetorical ploy of telling people you would be interested in knowing this.

I would suggest that if your only response to my question is that I am biased because I ate a few lunches and got to hear a few Heartland talks for free people might conclude you actually can’t think of anything horrible about Heartland funding Anthony’s efforts to create a web page that permits people to create temperature plots.

If you can think of something horrible about the project or Heartland funding the project, please reveal it.

lucia (Comment #89846)

Jules–I believe you when you tell me an author thought Heartland didn’t have anything to do with the document, but that author must not have opened up the cover! Really, it’s not a secret.

I posted the front matter from the NIPCC document in an update to the blog post. It clearly indicates the Heartland sponsorship running their logo and listing their employees as authors. There may be other evidence in the document. I didn’t look.

BobN (Comment #89847)

Well, I took a quick peek at the alleged confidential strategy memo and must say that just from the writing style and format, it doesn’t appear to be a memo prepared by an organization such as Heartland. Whatever you may think of their policies or politics, they are relatively effective communicators and can write fairly well, neither of which is evident in the alleged memo. Further, I have worked in many organizations and have never seen a memo put out without To and From lines, even if the memo is meant to be confidential. Further, who would write our “Anonymous Donor” several times with caps in a real memo. These facts along with Mosher’s findings regarding the absence of any document properties and the apparent creation date of 2/13 make me believe that Heartland is telling the truth when it says the memo is a forgery.

I am going to surmise that the other documents are real and whoever obtained them used the material in the real documents to create the fake memo trying to use language to paint the various funding and programs in the worst possible light.

PaulS (Comment #89849)

You would think with the billions these people have received, they could have at least retreived some serious dirt. I couldn’t stop laughing through your entire blog…especially Neven. Most shocking though, was your admission to taking bribes in return for a positive blog report…shameful!

toto (Comment #89850)

If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.

.
The Confidential Memo is the scan of a printed document. It won’t have any source file or drive information, because there isn’t any. By contrast, the other documents were directly generated as PDF files – hence the nice vector fonts that remain smooth when you zoom in.
.
The file properties on these documents tell us when and where the files were originally generated (most, but not all of them from the same computer), but not when they were received by the leaker. OTOH, the file properties on the Confidential Memo tell us when the document was scanned. So whoever bundled these files sent them very soon after the Confidential Memo was scanned – which doesn’t tell us much in either direction about the document’s authenticity.
.
I guess much depends on what the persons mentioned in the memo will say. If Idso and Wojick confirm the details about them (as Watts already has), then there wouldn’t be much left to “fake”.
.

SteveMc has looked at the document properties of the 9 real memos and the one Heartland calls a fake and that comparison suggests the faked one likely is faked.

.
He didn’t say anything of the sort, and the “comparison” suggests no such thing.

Robert of Ottawa (Comment #89851)

Cry SCANDAL!!! and let loose the dogs of propaganda!!!

Please tell me why they are not bothered by the billions of taxpayer dollars (ponds, euros, reais, etc.) is happily consumed by the Warmistas every year to perpetrate this fraud … for their own benefit.

Robert of Ottawa (Comment #89852)

Lucia, I want to announce to the whole world that I have donated money to Anthony Watts. I am, therefore, apparently, evil in some way or other.

Jon P (Comment #89853)

Someone attended the Dan Rather School of Journalism.

harrywr2 (Comment #89854)

Eli Rabett (Comment #89838)
February 15th, 2012 at 5:17 pm

The ones where COI issues might be most biting are Madhav Khandekar and Indur Gulkany (both 1K/month).

Eli, you’re obviously not current on the going rate for ‘consultancy fees’. 1K/month isn’t even a ‘retainer’. Anyone with a Phd doing work for less then $1000/day isn’t even trying.

Steve E (Comment #89855)

Neven (Comment #89804)
February 15th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
“How do you know it’s faked? You don’t. You want it to be so.”

…Because the source (Heartland) says that it’s faked. Because the document properties as per McIntyre (Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815) February 15th, 2012 at 4:31 pm) say that it’s faked. Because Mosher, McIntyre, Watts et al showed more respect (at least 3 days worth) by confirming or denying the information before releasing it; and most importantly because personal information was redacted in Climategate I & II where here it was a broad-brush, drive-by smear…

Steve E (Comment #89856)

lucia (Comment #89832)
February 15th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“Oh– I forgot to mention, the first evening at Heartland there was an early migling session with wine– open bar. I drank a glass.”

…”a glass”? I know that when I “migle” I enjoy more than “a” glass. 😉

lucia (Comment #89857)

SteveE–
I ordinarily also drink more than 1 glass. But I knew I would have to walk to the train and take it home. So… I didn’t.

HaroldW (Comment #89858)

lucia (#89832)
“I drank a glass.”

Red or white? Domestic or imported?
Really, the sort of interrogation going on here is crazy.

JimR (Comment #89859)

The ones where COI issues might be most biting are Madhav Khandekar and Indur Gulkany (both 1K/month).

Why? Madhav Khandekar and Indur Goklany are both listed on the Heartland website as a Heartland experts.

HaroldW (Comment #89860)

What I find puzzling about Heartland’s statement is that they present a reasonably detailed scenario about how the memos were made available (viz., phishing), yet they claim not to know whether the documents have been altered. [Excluding, of course, the document which they claim is a fake.]

Since they know (or believe they know) the source, it would seem to be straightforward to download the documents on display, and compare to their source documents. That would answer the question of whether the N-1 documents have been altered. Surely there’s been enough time to do this.

Perhaps there’s some legal reason which inhibits Heartland from confirming the accuracy of the personal information which has been made public.

Nick Stokes (Comment #89861)

#89815 #89824
: SteveMc has looked at the document properties of the 9 real memos and the one Heartland calls a fake and that comparison suggests the faked one likely is faked.

I think the reason for the difference in properties may be that the strategy memo has been scanned from paper. The property file says it was generated by Epson Scan. Presumably with OCR.

Craig Loehle (Comment #89862)

HaroldW: the president of Heartland was on a plane when the story broke and they have since been handling a flood of emails and phone calls. Just because instant messaging is instant does not mean the real world is. i am sure there will be more details coming out Thursday.

DocMartyn (Comment #89864)

Compare and Contrast

“Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house
experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences,
and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of
rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)”

The ‘Fake but Accurate’ Heartland Institute Climate Strategy

” These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion.

‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, p. 43

These people really know their history. No matter what is shown, the Manniacs will insist it accurate.

DocMartyn (Comment #89865)

“lucia
Oh– I forgot to mention, the first evening at Heartland there was an early migling session with wine– open bar. I drank a glass.”

Damn, you must be a cheap date.

lucia (Comment #89868)

Red or white? Domestic or imported?

Red. I don’t know if it was Domestic or imported. Probably domestic.

lucia (Comment #89869)

Damn, you must be a cheap date.

Heck, I’ll sometimes drink beer!

DocMartyn (Comment #89870)

lucia, most of the information in the Climategate 2.0 hack/leak/whatever are hidden behind a password protected gate.
Wonder what the gatekeeper thinks about ‘fake but accurate’ driveby’s.

Alvin (Comment #89871)

This is hillarious. I watch the NIPCC proceedings every year via streaming video. Their sponsorship of the event is everywhere and obvious.

Breaking News: Water is Wet!

Back to you, Irene

BarryW (Comment #89872)

Lucia, don’t you realize how much CO2 you’re releasing into the atmosphere by drinking a glass of beer? I’m shocked!

HaroldW (Comment #89874)

Craig (#89862)
I understand that Heartland’s president was unavailable. But somebody at Heartland put together a public statement. (Perhaps the Communications Director Jim Lakely whose name is on the statement.) That somebody managed to trace the released documents to a “staff member”. I would think between the staff member and the somebody, they could make a comparison between the staff member’s files & desmogblog’s files.

As you say, we’ll find out more tomorrow.

lucia (Comment #89876)

HaroldW–
Cru didn’t make a statement instantly.

I suspect Heartland wants to make sure any statement they make is accurate and they want to be sure they don’t further violate the confidentiality of people whose confidentiality has already been violated by this leadk.

I don’t think their response is time critical. A response tomorrow or even next week would be soon enough. It seems a Heartland employees allowing themselves to stooooopidly be duped into sending out memos. There’s almost nothing embarrasing in them– but there could be fallout with donors and employees whose personal information has been breeched. I suspect Heartland is going to be more concerned with them that with a few people on blogs or at the more hyperventillating news agencies who want an “explanation” that because they might have (gasp!) funded Antony Watts (gasp) to create a web page that will permit the public to create temperature plots (gasp!)

Duke C. (Comment #89877)

Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815)
February 15th, 2012 at 4:31 pm

If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.

The Confidential Strategy Memo and the Form 990 were both scanned, possibly from the same source. There are similarities in the Metadata. Both were created under PDF Version 1.5, with the same Extensible Metadata Platform Core:

xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26

The other 6 pdfs show a different core version:

xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 4.0-c316 44.253921, Sun Oct 01 2006 17:14:39

The Form 990 linked at DeSmog shows August 02, 2011 as the last modified date. The 990 linked at Heartlandinstitute.org shows December 06, 2011. Scanning artifacts indicate that both are identical.

All of this is, of course, circumstantial evidence. but I’m not ready to rule out that the Strategy memo wasn’t scanned at Heartland.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89880)

there’s also internal evidence in the document.

1. It’s a strategy document but combines operational details.
2. it gets operational details wrong ( the budget’s)
3. The sentence about encouraging teachers to not teach science makes no sense.

All in all, unless heartland says its real, the circumstantial evidence, bit internal to the document and the metadata suggest something is amiss. It would not have passed my smell test had I found it in the climategate mails

Bill Illis (Comment #89882)

I propose that the NCDC / GISS / and CRU operate at the same amount as that raised privately by Heartland.

How many other pro-AGW organizations do we extend this to.

C’mon people, no organization in the world with the word “Institute” at the end operates with no funding.

And none of this explains why temperatures are not keeping up with the predictions of global warming theory. Some of you are acting like the fact that Heartland has a budget has automatically made the world as warm as Hansen’s Scenario B.

Nope, GISTemp is at 0.36C this month and Scenario B is at 1.095C. Heartland or not.

Jeff Norris (Comment #89883)

HaroldW

A good PR person would advise you not to respond too quickly, too thoroughly, and in too much of a ‘corporate’ tone or via press release. These tactics are typically not well-received by the public and can cause more questions to be asked that can drag out an unpleasant situation. Make a statement then shut up and get your sxxt together.

Steve Reynolds (Comment #89884)

Now I understand: This was all a plot by Heartland to discredit the alarmists!

They leak their budget document (to show how low skeptic funding is compared to alarmist funding), and include a scanned document that looks fake (so it can be credibly claimed to be fake). As soon as all the useful idiots raise awareness in the media and commit themselves to how important these documents are, Heartland pulls out the rug by claiming the scanned document fake!!!

Apologies for the name calling, but required for humor…

ivp0 (Comment #89886)

In light of this current witch hunt I would like to state publicly that I have never offered monies or provided services to Anthony Watts or Heartland. In the spirit of full disclosure I admit I was a regular donor and card carrying activist member of Greenpeace and NRDC for over 10 years until they completely lost their minds and forfeited all public credibility.

Duke C. (Comment #89887)

More on the Strategy memo-

EPSON Scan

2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00

Hmmm……

That’s Pacific Standard Time, if I’m reading it right.

Duke C. (Comment #89888)

Oops. with html tags removed:

rdf:Description rdf:about=””
xmlns:pdf=”http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/”
pdf:Producer EPSON Scan /pdf:Producer
/rdf:Description
rdf:Description rdf:about=””
xmlns:xmp=”http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/”
xmp:ModifyDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:ModifyDate
xmp:CreateDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:CreateDate
xmp:MetadataDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:MetadataDate

bugs (Comment #89895)

Huh? Watts is being paid to create something good and useful.

As distinct from the usual bad and useless?

Scott Basinger (Comment #89896)

“If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.” Steve McIntyre

I was wondering if that poorly written note was real or a fake. I’ve come to sincerely admire Steve McIntyre’s sharp eye and detective skills.

Bob Koss (Comment #89897)

Duke C.

I think Heartland is only located in D. C. and Chicago. Not sure though.

Anthony (Comment #89898)

verified, Heartland has no west coast offices

http://heartland.org/contact-us

Duke C. (Comment #89899)

@Bob Koss-

6 of the PDFs show GMT -06:00 which would be Central Time- That would fit Chicago.

2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf from the DeSmog link shows GMT -05:00
2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf from the HI website shows GMT -06:00

Can we say that 2012 Climate Strategy.pdf was created at 4:41 AM west coast local time on an Epson (or compatible) scanner?

Orson (Comment #89900)

Duster (Comment #89791)
February 15th, 2012 at 3:29 pm:
“…. to date no one seems to know how the CRUgate emails were obtained.”

Since the amateurism of the fake doc has been remarked at WUWT, let me advance the reasonable speculation that the other docs were acquired in the simplest of ways: either they were printed out and accidently left out somewhere, or else simply taken from the trash outside.

This is pure supposition at this point, but also the simplest, least fraught guess to make, until more details emerge (if they ever do).

Orson (Comment #89901)

All of this not even a tempest in a tea pot bloviating reminds me on what Delingpole wrote in “Watermelons.” Skeptics want to be clear, understood, and have no need for ulterior motives.

This comes with the territory of defending good, solid, sound science.

I am utterly amazed by the ‘thought’ processes that go into the theory of creating a counter-climategate….? What are they thinking? ‘THIS was so embarrassing to REAL science, I wanna see those G–Da—-d deniers exposed the same way?’ WTF?

What could have been the interior rationalizing logic? Please help me here, lucia.

(Orson, who also admits he drank the Heartland ‘bought’ wine and conac with you at the Heartland NIPCC, May 2010.)

Tony Hansen (Comment #89902)

bugs….’As distinct from the usual bad and useless?’

Don’t worry about it, I dont think he has any intention of encroaching on the territory you have staked out for yourself.

John F. Pittman (Comment #89904)

I was visiting JeffID’s site when I saw the posting of the Climategate file about 15 to 30 minutes of posting. I did not even download it, fearing I would be DLing a fake. I and many others waited to DL and write about it until we had reason to believe it was not fake.

The way that the media jumped on this without checking, yet were able to go through the numerous climategate memos in a matter of hours and pronounce “nothing here”, is simply unbelievable. It took me three days just to sort and get the cross refrences for 2 keywords, much less read them and understand them in detail to the subject I wanted to write about. Here, with in hours the Heartland info is all over the net.

The other part that is amazing, is the inability of the media and AGW advocates to recognize is the distinct differences that these two events have with respect to the positions taken by the two different camps. The releasing of personel data, confirmation or denial, confirmation of documents before publishing comments or after, or even whether an attempt of actual analysis was attempted, these indicate that a glass of free wine and an 88K budget, do little to compare to the free trips to Cancun and other exotic place to meet with people with over $1,000K budgets to the people that should know better than take sides, the media.

Andy Revkin and others should take this to heart, good journalistic practices should always be engaged before the fingers on a keyboard are.

I know that many of us did that for Climategate.

grypo (Comment #89905)

I can corroberate Duke’s info. I get that the IRS doc was -4 GMT which is odd. I repost what I’m putting elsewhere:

I used a pdfinfo script to analyse the memos. The info I got is that all the meta data dates changed on the day of the leak in the Pacific time zone (-8 GMT). This is likely where our thief resides. This is also where the “fake” was created on 2/13. The other docs, with the exception of the IRS form were in the central time zone (-6 GMT). The IRS form was -4 GMT. This has been corroborated by a commenter at Lucia’s. Based on this, and I’m not sure if I’ve covered every base, the strategy memo is a fake.

The only other option would be if the create dates were faked, highly, highly unlikely or, the sender from HI didn’t have the doc, and someone from the west coast scanned it , emailed to her to send to the leaker. This, to me, doesn’t seem likely either. Logically, I have to go with HI’s story.

Jeff Norris (Comment #89906)

RAMPANT SPECULATION ALERT and reposting from Kieth’s place

The Daily Caller is currently doing an expose/hit piece on the left wing advocacy group Media Matters.
Besides anonymous insiders the piece also uses information like Tax returns, budgeting information and shockingly an internal memo from 2009
“According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage. “

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02.....z1mYLc7WrR
This series of articles started running FEB 12th. As Mosher has painstakingly tried to point out even semi-professional journalist try to verify their information and give the other side a chance to respond before publishing their story. Of course this gives the subject some warning that a story is about to break.
While this may be a mere coincidence it would be interesting to learn when according to Heartland their information was stolen and if any other right wing advocacy groups had similar attempts of theft.
My speculation is that someone is employing the “Chicago Way” in a broader political battle.

Ness: I want to get Capone! I don’t know how to do it.
Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?

Cui Bono (Comment #89907)

From this blog, it seems that to be able to comment without bias on climate you must sign the following affadavit:

I, the undersigned, have never knowingly eaten, drunk, had social relations with, had sexual relations with, taken money or gratis gifts from, gone to the movies with, shared a car with, shaken the hand of, commented that their baby photos are cute, indulged in a critique of that TV program (you know, the one on Sunday evening with whatshername out of thingummybob – on tip of my tongue) with anyone in the the Heartland Institute, its managers, employees, consultants or donors.

There, that should do it.

Also, after some experience on other blogs on this subject, may I propose Cui’s Law which, by analogy with Godwins Law, allows anyone to be called out when they mention smoking research in any internet blog post on AGW funding.

Boris (Comment #89908)

The only interesting bit about this whole thing is the Heartland’s press release whining about documents being stolen, which means so much coming from people who pounded the climategate emails.

You go Anthony Watts! Get paid, son!

Billy Ruff'n (Comment #89909)

Re: lucia (Comment #89868)

Red or white? Domestic or imported?

“Red. I don’t know if it was Domestic or imported. Probably domestic.”

——
Cabernet? Pinot Noir? Shiraz? Come on, Lucia, out with it! If you’re not going to be honest with us, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding are next.

TerryS (Comment #89910)

Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:

“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:

“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence.

GregS (Comment #89911)

“The only interesting bit about this whole thing is the Heartland’s press release whining about documents being stolen, which means so much coming from people who pounded the climategate emails. – Boris”

The ClimateGate emails were public property illegally withheld from the public. The Heartland documents were private document to which the public has no rights.

The inability to distinguish the difference screams volumes.

Don’t even try to argue that the ClimateGate emails were private correspondence. The law on that score is unambiguous.

Copner (Comment #89912)

Form 990s are available without leaking or social engineering hacks or whatever you want to call it

Also a form 990 would also be an odd thing to include with board stuff like budgets.

So I’m wondering if the process the documents was:

– Hacker/leaker/social-engineer persuades HI to email them some documents
– Hacker/leaker/social-engineer adds form 990, which they already have from another source
– Hacker/leaker/social-engineers adds the fake document
– This then gets forwarded as a package.

The only way to know for sure would be to ask HI,if the 990 was included with the email bundle they were tricked into sending out. I’m betting it wasn’t.

And if the 990 was obtained separately and added to the bundle, that could be start of the trail…

If you’re looking for a suspect – my suggestion would be begin with: So who do we know in the Pacific time zone who likes checking 990s of climate skeptics?

steven mosher (Comment #89913)

Hmm ran across this from somebody

“Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

steven mosher (Comment #89914)

HaroldW (Comment #89915)

GregS:
“The ClimateGate emails were public property illegally withheld from the public.”
Um, no…although one can argue that they are public property in a sense, that is, subject to FoI requests, they were not illegally withheld. FoI provides for production of documents upon request, not for all such documents to made public as a matter of course.

I concur that the Heartland documents were private.

toto (Comment #89916)

Grypo:

The only other option would be if the create dates were faked, highly, highly unlikely or, the sender from HI didn’t have the doc, and someone from the west coast scanned it , emailed to her to send to the leaker.

.
All the files have roughly the same Modification Date: 14th Feb 2012, around 12:30-8GMT. Presumably this tells us when and where these files were bundled together – on the West Coast.
.
Apparently, the bundler only had access to a physical hardcopy of the memo, which he had to scan himself. Hence the creation date of 13th Feb 2012. As opposed to the other files, for which he had the original PDFs from Heartland.
.
In itself, that doesn’t tell us whether the hardcopy was fake or legit.
.
One question, though: why do all the PDFs have a ModifyDate at all? Why/how did the bundler modify the PDFs, instead of just sending them ‘as is’, which shouldn’t change the modify date?

steven mosher (Comment #89917)

ARRRG damn keyboard on the mac.

Comment above is hat tip to terry S. for the quote I posted

toto (Comment #89918)

Mosh:

“Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

.
OK, that might suggest an explanation: the “bundler” is simply someone at desmogblog. Desmogblog is located on the West Coast. They received a lot of PDFs, but for the “strategy memo” they only received a hardcopy (which may itself be faked or legit).

toto (Comment #89919)

From desmogblog (emphasis altered):
.

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland’s own budget.
.
The “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.
.
The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.

.
So what exactly is left for the “faker” to have faked in the “memo-that-seems-to-be-fake”?

steven mosher (Comment #89920)

Ya, toto. they do have a west coast office. Demelle is in seatle.

I assume the document is fake until proven or admitted otherwise

toto (Comment #89921)

I assume the document is fake until proven or admitted otherwise

.
Hmmm… apparently all the bits of quantified, verifiable information within the “strategic memo” are already contained in the Budget or other PDFs.
.
So the supposed faker may simply have pored over the other documents and built up a juicy “strategy memo”, with an appropriately conspiratorial tone. Perhaps a bit too much of it, actually – it does sound a bit too “quotable”.

Michael Tobis (Comment #89922)

I get ~ 26,100 hits on

Adobe 63.139439

It appears to be a common commercial release.

grypo (Comment #89923)

I believe the adobe core compiles the xmp data. If you open your program files to the adobe folder, find adobexmp.dll, go to properties, details, you will find that time stamp and build on the version of the dll – if you are up to date.

L Nettles (Comment #89924)

Kids these days don’t know what WordPerfect is. 🙂

Punch My Ticket (Comment #89925)

“One question, though: why do all the PDFs have a ModifyDate at all? Why/how did the bundler modify the PDFs, instead of just sending them ‘as is’, which shouldn’t change the modify date?”

When a user of a typical mail client receives an email with attached documents and accesses a document directly, the mail client usually invokes another piece of software to open and display the attachment. For a PDF, typically Adobe Reader. If you want to save a copy of what is now on screen in front of you, push the appropriate icon and Reader saves it to disk. The modification timestamp will be updated accordingly.

No great mystery I think.

lucia (Comment #89926)

Billy Ruff’n (Comment #89909)
February 16th, 2012 at 9:21 am Edit This
….
Cabernet? Pinot Noir? Shiraz? Come on, Lucia, out with it! If you’re not going to be honest with us, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding are next.

I don’t remember! I don’t remember! Could’a been Pinot. Could have been Merlot! Could have been Château Mucho Chère$$$ ! I don’t know!!!

It wasn’t Gallo though. The Heartland affair was quite upscale. Maybe “Rusty Trawler” the anonymous donor was there and wanted to be able to eat good stuff so he sprung for everyone.

lucia (Comment #89927)

Am I correct that the “fake or alleged to be fake memo” doesn’t indicate who it was supposedly from or to? I only saw the pastebin version. Was the “original-fake” version on the “letter head” we see for other memos?

lucia (Comment #89928)

I assume the document is fake until proven or admitted otherwise

If the person who leaked wants people to believe it’s real, they’ll will have to step forward and tell us where it comes from.

Some one somewhere suggested they got a hard copy from the trash. If so, it should be easy enough for the person who obtained the document to prove it was from Heartland. All they need to do is dust it for finger prints, compare those to all employees at Heartland, and if there are Heartland head honcho fingerprints on it, it’s real!

TerryS (Comment #89929)

Re: lucia

The memo in question does not have any to/from names on it. There is no header, footer or page numbers.
There is no letterhead and the paper appears to be plain white paper

Copner (Comment #89930)

> Hmm ran across this from somebody

> “Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
> “Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”

Paste Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 into Google. It’s a common enough string that occurs in lots of PDF document/sites that nearly all have nothing to with climate.

Pointing at this, would be like saying “Wow I found two people both using Windows XP Service Pack 2, they must be connected!!!!” — i.e., in reality, it’s not impossible they are connected, but there’s no evidence of them being connected any more than 10 million other suspects.

Andrew_KY (Comment #89931)

Let’s not forget that given enough time, a billion monkeys banging on a billion typewriters could have produced this memo. 😛

Andrew

Phil CLarke (Comment #89933)

I’ve no problem with Heartland sponsoring Mr Watts (although as most of the money seems to originate from an anonymous millionaire, he can no longer claim that he never accepts oil funding – he simply does not know). And let us assume that the ‘strategy’ memo is indeed a fake. Much of the substantive points made in it are corrorborated in the other documents or elsewhere. Watts has comfirmed his payment, as has Christy.

It is the case that Heartland are proposing to use money from an anonymous multimillionaire to pay David Wojick, a lobbyist with a doctorate in epistimology, to create a GW school curriculum that is classic ‘teach the controversy’ where there is none, tactics borrowed from the creationist lobby, prompting this reaction:

Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist at University College London, described the project as “brain-washing”.
“This strikes at the very roots of truth and freedom in a democratic society, something I would have felt the American people would find abhorrent,” he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobi.....t-17048991
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-wojick

It is the case that they fund the ‘NIPCC’ report, which is scientific claptrap http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....cc-report/

It is the case that they slip Fred Singer, who disseminates demonstrably false information over the internet, $5K/year. http://www.monbiot.com/2005/05/10/junk-science/

So nothing ‘horrible’ there, then.

hunter (Comment #89934)

Now that it appears the key memo is a Rather-esque forgery, and the rest of the docs simply show a think tank going about its business. This is apparently unacceptable to AGW believers, who have no tolerance for opinions or opinion makers that disagree with theirs.
That Wojik was creating a curriculum to offer a less hysterical/apocalyptic view of climate is now criminal in the minds of believers is really an indictment against believers, not David.
That AGW promoters published the docs without taking time to verify them is an indictment of their powers of critical thinking.

Nyq Only (Comment #89935)

I think it is all a bit “meh”.
Even if the most controversial document is genuine (and the reasons for doubting that are significant) – the most damming sentnece looks more like a typo than a reflection of their beliefs.
As for the money to Watts – embarrising I suppose but sufficiently legitimate as to be less than a scandal. Watts won’t be able to say in future that he hasn’t recieved money from such organisations but it doesn’t make his past pronouncements false.

The only thing that has some legs here is the open question of whether Heartland have been abusing their non-profit status.

Andrew_KY (Comment #89936)

“tactics borrowed from the creationist lobby”

I had no idea that was where this was going.

Not again, I told myself.

Andrew

Duke C. (Comment #89937)

@TerryS (Comment #89910)

Terry, There are over 60 different versions of theAdobeXMP.dll floating around.

Latest Version: 5.3-c007 ( 32 bit ).1.144173.2011/09/27-19:16:43
Description: Adobe XMP Core 5.3-c007 ( 32 bit )

I have version 4.2.1, Updater disabled.

So yes, it could be coincidence, but perhaps not as much as we think.

Ged (Comment #89938)

@Copner,

Except all the other documents were made with a different Adobe XMP core. The only document made with that Adobe core shared by Desmog Blog was the memo that HI says is fake. Additionally, it isn’t even written in a memo format, or professionally!

LC (Comment #89940)

For those claiming that the “Strategy” doc only collates material found elsewhere in the documents and confirmed by other involved sources (e.g. Watts and Wojick), perhaps they can point to where in the other documents or which of those same other involved sources I can find confirmation of the following excerpts (all the italicised and the bolded text in particular)(all formatting mine):

1st paragraph (re: The Charles G. Koch Foundation):

“…. and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

2nd paragraph (re: Global Warming for K-12 Classrooms):

“two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”

3rd paragraph (re: Funding for parallel organisations):

“Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”

4th paragraph (re: Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland):

“Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

5th paragraph (re: Expanded climate communications):

The whole of this paragraph!

The Blackboard » Brits and their misconceptions! (Pingback #89941)

[…] Phil Clarke’s comment on the previous post linked to a BBC editorial that made me laugh out loud. The editorial contained a number of silly things, but the one that really cracked me up was this quote from the surely hyperventilating “Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist at University College London”, who commenting on the plan to have David Wojick write modules for use in classrooms: “This strikes at the very roots of truth and freedom in a democratic society, something I would have felt the American people would find abhorrent,” he said. […]

lucia (Comment #89943)

Phil Clarke–
That BBC article you linked evidently had to be reworked after Heartland reported on memo was fake.

But what remains suggests it must be written by an author who is an utter dolt utterly unfamiliar with the subject he is writing about. ( It’s Richard Black…. I live in fear I will learn he is a 4th cousin related to Sebastian Black whose picture appeared earlier on this blog!)

Anyway among the things that suggest he is clueless about Heartland– and didn’t bother to find out:

One thing that’s clear from the documents is that the Heartland Institute is largely behind the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project that purports to mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by producing reports downplaying the extent of global warming as well as the involvement of greenhouse gas emissions in producing it.

It’s clear from the memos?! This was clear long before the memos. This is not any kind of a secret. secret that needs to be revealed from purloined memos: Heartland’s logo appears on the NIPCC document. The editors are Heartland employees. I copied the face page from the NIPCC document and included it in the post above.

The institute says it retains the services of several “high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message”.
These include the US-based Craig Idso ($11,600 per month) and Fred Singer ($5,000 per month plus expenses), and Australian Bob Carter ($1,667 per month).

That these guys are and were paid for services performed for Hearland was no secret prior to these memos. The only possible question was how much.

How did we know these people were paid? These people are authors of the NIPCC document. It’s never been a secret the authors are paid for the contributions. At the Heartland conference I attended, someone stood up, mentioned they were looking for authors of other chapters and reminded people it’s a paid gig. Not only was the room full of bloggers, honest to goodness members of the press were invited and attended.

When I arrived at his quoting the apoplectic “Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist at University College London,” I almost split my sides. What he wrote was so funny…. I had to write a blog post about it. I mean… crimeney!!!! He thinks letting someone write educational modules “strikes at the very roots of truth and freedom in a democratic society,” and that Americans would think so?! Yowsa.

I guess I shouldn’t expect British scientists to be familiar with the US constitution. But Richard Black is a reporter– doesn’t he have any clue about American’s notions of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is an issue that is important to reports. I would have thought he’d have some passing familiarity about the general notions in various countries in the English speaking world. I guess not!

I’ll go read more to see if the remaining bits crack me up. (I see he is displeased Anthony got funded… yeah….)

Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #89944)

toto quotes desmogblog as saying:

The “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.

I added back the original link, which toto stripped (he also didn’t provide a link for the quote, but that’s not important). In what shouldn’t surprise anyone, the link doesn’t support the claim. If you follow the link, you’ll see quotes from the (supposedly fake) document, and you’ll see a quote from James M. Taylor, but not a word from David Wojick. It would be impossible for the claim to have “been confirmed independently by the author” in a source where the author doesn’t say a word.

Maybe I’m just feeling uncharitable because I’ve been reading Mann’s book, but it seems the author at desmogblog is either just making things up, or he can’t read a simple article.

Copner (Comment #89945)

Turns out the fake strategy document isn’t just a collation with an evil spin – it also contains arithmetic errors and errors about Koch’s contribution to HI – http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....ke/253165/

Steven Mosher (Comment #89946)

I have some speculation on the writer of the document.

1. West coast time zone.
2. trashes Curry and revkin, known adversaries
3. Uses a very strange word (anti-climate) in the document
and in his tweets
4. uses parenthesis in a very odd way when he doesnt know
how to punctuate sentences. in the document and in
his letter to Pielke.
5. glorifies himself in the document.
6. prior history of making phony statements

Its not proof of course, just a speculation, kinda like Mann speculating that Steve mcIntyre had something to do with the leak. which nobody objected to.

lucia (Comment #89949)

Steven–
I see Gleick mentioned in the strategy memo. I also noticed he gave Tamsin a hard time about her blog title name.

How do you scan tweets for word usage? I guess I can google for letter to Pielke. Do you mean Jr. or Sr? I don’t know about the rest….

SteveF (Comment #89950)

I read all the documents. Most are exactly what I would expect for a conservative political organization. The one that stands out is the single document which Heartland says is a complete fake (“Confidential Memo”). There is little in the other documents which supports the content in the questioned “Confidential” document, and there is absolutely nothing in those other documents suggesting anybody wants to tell teachers not to teach science. It is a bit unfortunate the names associated with salaries weren’t redacted; I think it is more than a bit unfair to publish the salaries of individuals who work for a privately funded organization. (And I would say the same if it were salaries at WWF instead of Heartland.)
.
Assuming the person who got the documents misrepresented who he/she was in order to obtain them, I rather suspect that person will face legal consequences if they can be identified. If that same person faked the “Confidential” document, that would put them at further legal risk.

lucia (Comment #89951)

Ok… I see

At the 2009 Heartland Institute anti-climate science conference,…

11/21/2011 @ 10:22AM |3,601 views

http://climatechangepsychology.....-year.html January 5, 2012 uses anti-climate.

But we need to get an Ngram on that. Other people use the word too.Someone in Utah and not mentioned in the fake-memo uses it in his blog title:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com.....ankruptcy/

Bob Koss (Comment #89952)

Megan McArdle who writes for The Altantic and is a self-described believer thinks the strategy memo is fake. She does a long dissection of the memo here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.....ke/253165/

You’d think the rest of media would have done similar due diligence, but I guess that is too hard for most journalists these days.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89953)

Steven Mosher (Comment #89954)

Lucia the word is relatively rare. What I call a high entropy word.

I hypothesize that you will not find in in the corpus of skeptic writings. They dont talk that way

Also, the description of Wojick? taken DIRECTLY from the heartland Bio. That sentence stood out like a sore thumb to me. It was obvious written by somebody other than the author of the memo.

toto (Comment #89955)

Yeah, McArdle’s piece is pretty convincing.
.
Googling “anti climate” returns quite a few hits, even if you exclude “anti climate science”, “anti climate education” and “anti climate change”.

Copner (Comment #89956)

Why would Heartland describe their opponents as “communicators” and “high profile climate scientists”, and themselves as “undermining”, against teachers teaching science and so on…

Are we really supposed to believe they wrote a document that basically says “We’re evil and we know it”, but not much else? How often does that kind of thing happen – even evil people tend to think they are doing good? And why would they write such a document?

That’s a big clue to the real author being a warmist.

And the fact they focus on Forbes, as if that’s a potential counterweight to the IPCC, tells you they exaggerate the importance of blogs, somebody tied up in that world.

A very odd phrase as well “official UN IPCC reports”

Steven Mosher (Comment #89957)

Bizarre use of parenthesis, just like the memo.
doesnt know how to use commas.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......ponds.html

Punch My Ticket (Comment #89958)

Not exactly common in that twitter feed.

A way to follow the bread crumbs maybe. If Heartland would say when the other documents got mitnicked out of them and its close to Jan 27/28 more hairs stand up. Using an unusual word or phrase on one day commits it to short term memory and invites reuse.

Being sceptical, I sense this may be as much a stitchup as the memo itself.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89959)

Copner

“undermining” is the wrong word. A believer would not use that word. A believer would write ” countering” or something like that.

Its written by somebody who thinks they can get in the minds of these people. Also, the whole copying of the first sentence of the wojick bio is important.

But the thing that hit me first off was the mention of Gleick.
What I thought when I read his name was.. what the hell is his name doing in a strategy document? huh? makes no sense.

Then I thought.. hey arsonists often return to the scene of the crime.. is this his weird way of doing the same thing, metaphorically.. then I read the slam against revikin and curry.
Then I remember that he and curry had an issue… then the west coast time zone thing.

Of course 15 people are in possession of the original mail.
That mail will have an IP.
That IP will trace back to a location and a time zone.

But this is all just speculation. kinda like Mann speculating that Mcintyre had something to do with the CRU break in.

lucia (Comment #89960)

Mosher–
McCardle on the style “It’s in run-on paragraphs that read as if they had been exhaled in one long breath.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.....ke/253165/

Also

It’s like the opposition political manifestos found in novels written by stolid ideologues; they can never quite bear (or lack the imagination) to let the villains have a good argument. Switch the names, and the memo could have been a page ripped out of State of Fear or Atlas Shrugged.

Basically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.

If whoever wrote it is reading McCardle: Ouch!

Steven Mosher (Comment #89961)

toto,

The important thing is this

“anti-climate” is NOT a word that skeptics use to refer to themselves or their message. It is a word used by warmista.
Second, its relatively rare. relative to other words. Thats what makes it stick out, stylistically. refer to zipfs law.

So, you go looking for authors who use it. And then note other things about the style. where they have difficulties.

Then look for whole sentences that stylistically dont match. The one describing wojick stood out like a sore thumb. Google that?
plagairized from the heartland bio of him.

again, fun to speculate.

Gras Albert (Comment #89962)

Mosher

Mcardle’s piece in the Atlantic adds a certain grist to the mill, below the fold when she tears to pieces the reference to influencing Forbes editorial policy it’s almost as if she’s joined up your dots…

SteveF (Comment #89964)

Mosher,

Why don’t you just ask him if he wrote the “Confidential Memo”? I am sure he would tell you. 😉

Steven Mosher (Comment #89965)

Lucia, yes. Thats the style.
Gleick parenthesis instead of commas. The idiosyncratic use of parenthesis at the end of sentences.

Read the memo, the paragraph mentioning Gleick. Note the use of parenthesis.
Then read these bits below.. see something the same?
##################################

Gratuitous? Inaccurate? You mean Curry’s claim (false and now removed) that I didn’t read the book?

Crap, Richard. I’m happy to take criticism of my review. I take offense when someone tells lies. Judith in her post (now corrected) said I didn’t read the book. She didn’t say that she disagreed with my review, or that it sounded like I read a different book… she said I didn’t read it. You liked the book? Fine. That’s a difference of opinion. But stick to the facts.

Oh, right. It’s better to be accused of not reading a book that you’ve reviewed than to have your opinion challenged? BS. Dr. Curry was repeating (unchecked) a lie posted on Amazon by others and on Watt’s website, where censorship is standard (I, for example, am not allowed to post comments because he doesn’t like my positions). Ironic, given that Laframboise spends considerable time claiming she’s a defender of free speech and a victim of censorship. Oh, yes, that’s in another part of her book I supposedly didn’t read.

LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government).

Steven Mosher (Comment #89966)

well SteveF, I’ve looked at the youtube videos taken in his office, looking for a epson scanner….

Steven Mosher (Comment #89967)

Just so you can see what I am saying about the utterly weird use of parenthesis in both the memo and the other gleick writings:

“Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house
experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences,
and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of
rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts).
Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile
climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.
This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep
opposing voices out. Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big
audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of
the more extreme AGW communicators such as Rornm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who
has become popular with our supporters). AVe have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in
2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Dr. Rumpus (Comment #89968)

@Neven

“are you sure people know the NIPCC report was made by Heartland and not the Heritage Institute? Of course the NIPCC report was not meant to “rebut” but to “undermine” the IPCC report.”

What the hell are you talking about, Neven? Let’s break things down to a general level that everybody can understand.

Team Neven True Believer:

argument: over the past 150 years, temperature has gone from 288.0 kelvin to 288.8 kelvin and this is a catastrophe.

money spent: billions of dollars spent to trick the public into thinking this is a problem. Nevermind that the earth is billions of years old. No, Team Neven has dismissed this as totally unimportant.

Team 1.3 (those who believe a doubling of 280ppm to 560ppm will cause about 1.3F of warming, and don’t believe the stupid true believers that fake positive feedbacks are going to amplify the effect of co2 by 400%)

money spent: millions of dollars to keep more money in people’s pockets, and less money in government.

Go back to desmog the frog Neven.

toto (Comment #89969)

If the memo is a fake, as seems to be the case, then we can tell one thing about the faker: he’s pretty dumb. All the facts in the memo were already contained in the other documents, and are damning enough on their own. All he had to do was to drop it ‘as-is’ to someone like Deep Climate or John Mashey.
.
Instead he ruins his effect with this pretty lame fakery. So the headlines turn from “Heartland salaries skeptics, funds Watts, pays epistemologist to teach rubbish to kids” to “Strategy memo in Heartland leak faked”.
.
I guess that would be a new standard for Epic Fail.
.
(Also, “Batman Villain Secret Lair Interns” sounds like an interesting band name.)

SteveF (Comment #89970)

My spidy sense tells me a Dan Rather moment may be approaching. And we know what happened to Dan.

Copner (Comment #89971)

toto, I honestly don’t see what you’re getting at.

All you’ve proved is Heartland pays people, some of whom are scientists, some of whom are not.

Well d’oh. People need money to survive.

How is this worse (or even different) than UEA or Grantham or RealClimate’s PR firm paying people, some of whom are scientists, and some of whom are not.

What you need to prove – if you want to show something nefarious is to show they paid people to do something illegal, immoral, or to knowingly lie. There’s absolutely no evidence of that – other than the faked strategy document.

Bob Koss (Comment #89972)

I’ve seen a couple comments at both Keith’s site and Anthony’s where the word FakeGate was coined. Could this end up being how this incident will be remembered? 🙂

Andrew_KY (Comment #89973)

“My spidy sense tells me a Dan Rather moment may be approaching. And we know what happened to Dan.”

What’s the frequency, SteveF? 😉

Andrew

JimR (Comment #89974)

Gleick also likes the word “undermine”, which struck me as an odd word for Heartland to use in describing their own activities. Gleick is very vocal about Heartland and he and Heartland’s James Taylor have had a recent blog battle.

thomaswfuller2 (Comment #89976)

Over at Deep Climate…

thomaswfuller2 | February 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Did you or anyone on your staff, or at DeSmog Blog or John Mashey, create, alter, change or format the strategy document in question?

curious (Comment #89977)

“well SteveF, I’ve looked at the youtube videos taken in his office, looking for a epson scanner….”

Was the HI’s website up on his monitor? 🙂

Steve McIntyre (Comment #89979)

Lucia, the text of Gleick’s tweet linked by Mosher containing the high-entropy “anti-climate” is:

#WSJ rejects climate essay from 255 National Academy of Science scientists; accepts anti-climate essay from 16 others.

It’s also recent (Jan 28, 2012).

Steve McIntyre (Comment #89980)

JimR mentions that Heartland James Taylor and Gleick have had a recent blog battle. Interestingly, the blog battle was at Forbes, which is mentioned in the “Confidential Memo”, See http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja.....d-science/

Boris (Comment #89981)

“What you need to prove – if you want to show something nefarious is to show they paid people to do something illegal, immoral, or to knowingly lie.”

I know James M Taylor of Heartland fabricated a quote in an op ed. Does that count?

But, yeah, Heartland is a bunch of ideologues not the least bit interested in science (Or they are only interested in suppressing it.) Anyone who has read that awful NIPCC report (or whatever its called) should know that.

Oh, crap. I used parentheses.

SteveF (Comment #89982)

thomaswfuller2 (Comment #89976),
“Did you or anyone on your staff, or at DeSmog Blog or John Mashey, create, alter, change or format the strategy document in question?”
.
Either a violent denial will be issued or the comment never sees the light of day. I’d bet it’s gone to the bit bucket already.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89983)

curious.

Folks can help by collecting as many gleick comments from blogs as possible.

What to look for

use of parenthesis where commas would be better or dashes
use of parenthesis at the end of sentences.
also use of this (e.g., ) putting eg in parenthesis.
use of a comma like below

“We
tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by
the Anonymous Donor.”

The corpus of Gleick stuff we collect should be unedited stuff only. Blog comments, letters. The fact that one line was taken from the Wojick online bio would lead me to believe that whoever wrote the memo wrote it in one sitting. so, we want text that is written in the same way.

AMac (Comment #89984)

An interesting twist on journalistic ethics came up in a fakery case a few years back — maybe the phony Bush documents being pushed by Dan Rather (not that Bush didn’t deserve brickbats on his record (Gleick!)). Maybe similar issues will end up being … ignored .. here?

The stand being taken was that journalists and their institutions must assign the highest priority to the shielding the identities of leakers and whistleblowers. If it ever becomes acceptable to unmask them, the very idea of a Free Press would be at grave risk of extinction.

Well after it had become clear that the journalist in question (Rather?) had been shown to have been pwned by the ersatz leaker, he and his employer stuck to their ethical guns: I bravely and selflessly protect my sources!

The question that arose: how, exactly, does it serve the common good to shield a counterfeiter from having his or her identity disclosed? It seems to reward rather than punish Bad Behavior.

I don’t recall reading a coherent rebuttal of that argument.

If this Heartland memo turns out to be a phony: will the activist bloggers who received the data dump open up their IP logs to help unmask the faker? Or will ethical considerations prevent that from happening?

lucia (Comment #89985)

Mosher–
I think we need someone typo prone. (I am. But I didn’t write this!) Likely it’s not a team because a team would have insisted that someone read the typo prone individuals stuff before circulating it as a supposedly high level confidential memo.

Typos that even I found:

Romm=> Rornm
funders=> flinders
high profile=>highprofile
They => Ave (maybe? See “AVe have also pledged” )

Duke C. (Comment #89986)

@Steven Mosher-(OT)

Steve, Just remembered…

Did you get that Facebook msg w/ attachment on Jan. 8, 2012?

I have the revision if your interested. Let me know.

curious (Comment #89987)

The “it is important to keep opposing voices out” attitude is also on display here:

http://allmodelsarewrong.com/a.....are-wrong/

Where PG links to this essay all about the “disinformation campaign’s tactics” including the use of think tanks and front groups, including the HI:

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/clima.....ing-o.html

Steven Mosher (Comment #89989)

Boris I will merely say this.

When I read this sentence:

“Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science.”

I knew that sentence did not fit the style of the person who wrote the other sentences. Dont ask me how I knew.

Of course, it was taken from the heartland bio.

In grad school my fellow TAs would bring papers to me. Student papers. I was the plagarism detector before we had online search.
It was easy, find the sentences that dont fit stylistically.
For me it started by getting a sense of the linguistic choices the person made as they wrote.. grammer like a chess game is a series of choices ( a markov chain ) and over time you get a sense of what kind of choices people make.

Looking at the small corpus of Gleick writings I would say that I see consistencies in misuse that are very telling. He writes himself into positions that he doesnt know how to punctuate. Hence the idiosyncratic use of parenthesis. he does this repeatedly.

Again, this is all just speculation. However, he’s been quiet. You’d expect him to tweet something over the last two days.. soo quiet..

l

Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #89990)

By the way, the Skeptical Science article on this subject is well worth reading. Despite explicitly acknowledging Heartland has claimed the one document is fake, the SkS article quotes from it without hesitation.

Also, the first comment is from dana1981, but he directs it at a comment #1, responding to something someone said. I wonder what the story is with that.

ivp0 (Comment #89991)

I wonder if Peter Gleick had any idea that he would find himself at the top of a very short list of possible “Fakegate” memo authors only a few days after the HL document release. The plot thickens…

Steven Mosher (Comment #89992)

err Duke

I dont think I got it. Kinda busy now, may get the leaker IP.
fingers crossed.

SteveF (Comment #89993)

Lucia,

I’m typo prone as well (and it wasn’t me, even if I use parenthetic comments!).
But it could just have been someone so excited/nervous that they could not strike the keys with their normal accuracy. I’m thinking of someone so worked up that their hands would be shaking and who could imagine adding a fake document to the real ones was actually a good idea. Someone prone to wild rants, someone so sure of their belief in catastrophic global warming that the imagined ends would, in their nerve addled mind, justify the means, someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with them is profoundly evil and so not worthy of even the smallest measure of respect. Humm… that likely narrows it down to maybe 100,000…. in the Pacific time zone. 😉

Copner (Comment #89994)

@Boris

> I know James M Taylor of Heartland fabricated a quote in an op ed. Does that count?

It counts as changing the subject.

toto, claimed that it didn’t really matter than 1 document was faked, because the non-faked documents proved that Heartland was engaged in nefarious activities: “All the facts in the memo were already contained in the other documents, and are damning enough on their own.”

So I’m just asking WHAT damning facts are supposedly in the other documents?

All I see in the other documents is them (a) gathering money, and (b) spending it to disseminate their point of view. That’s no different from I don’t know UEA, or CRU, or RealClimate, or Greenpeace, or WWF,…. or basically anybody.

Show me evidence that is supposedly in the other documents that they are engaged in something nefarious?

I submit you can’t.

All you can actually show from the documents is that they’re disseminating views that you disagree with.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89996)

Lucia,

flinders is a really weird typo. so is Romm
those look like OCR problems rather than misses on the keyboard
the correct letters are too far away

hmm

Copner (Comment #89997)

The “typos” are NOT typos. That is a red herring.

They simply the automated OCR features of Acrobat, making a best guess at poorly scanned images.

Nobody conceivably mistype “Romm” as “Rornm” — “rn” is not accidentally mistype of mis-spelling of “m”. It is an OCR error – “rn” LOOKS LIKE “m”, especially when dealing with a poor quality image.

SteveF (Comment #89998)

Copner (Comment #89997) ,
Fair enough. But why bother to use OCR when you could just generate a perfectly readable image file? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Actually, a fake document doesn’t make any sense either, but it sure seems like a fake.

Steven Mosher (Comment #89999)

I want copner as my partner..

lucia (Comment #90000)

The “typos” are NOT typos. That is a red herring.

They simply the automated OCR features of Acrobat,

Whew! I just dropped off the list of prime suspects! 🙂

Gras Albert (Comment #90001)

Sadly for one of Mosher’s points, a search of Twitter for ‘anti-science’ produces hundreds of hits, nearly all referencing the faked memo…

Anti-science is no longer rare

SteveF (Comment #90002)

I’m off the list too… but I do use those damned parentheses.

curious (Comment #90003)

SteveF – re: OCR – I’m guessing that, if it is a fake, then the thinking could be that a scanned doc would be more akin to an image facsimile and that it would not have the same authorship details that a direct esave doc or pdf would have. Maybe they should have shot it with a digital camera – which could have been fun if they’d used a phone with GPS tagging! 🙂

Steven Mosher (Comment #90004)

SteveF

its not the parenthetical comments, its the STYLE of using them

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile
climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.”

that (such as) is weird and he does it twice.

The other thing is this. Gleick and taylor have been fighting.
Gleick and Curry, fighting. Now comes this bogus memo that turns gleick into a high profile climate scientist.

Worst of all, haertland doesnt like revkin, and here in this memo they seem to like him.

This paragraph is the smoking gun. But the gun is pointed at the foot of a guy in california. This is just an extension of his fight with taylor.

FergalR (Comment #90005)

Hay, can I guess at the culprit too? I suspect a certain individual based on their godawful writing skills, single-minded belief that sceptics are high-financed evil incarnate and their penchant for making unsolicited calls and visits to those who disagree with them.

AMac (Comment #90006)

I’rn also not the faker (or the fakir, if one’s in this story)(despite use of you-know-whats).

Steven Mosher (Comment #90007)

Sadly for one of Mosher’s points, a search of Twitter for ‘anti-science’ produces hundreds of hits, nearly all referencing the faked memo…
Anti-science is no longer rare

############

Anti-Climate.

and you look for uses that predate the usage in the memo

curious (Comment #90008)

Gras – the phrase was “anti-climate”. Here it appears in Gleick’s article at Forbes when he refers to the Hi 2009 conference:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe.....ge-denial/

I don’t know if the description was as used by the HI.

SteveF (Comment #90009)

Mosher,
“This is just an extension of his fight with taylor.”
Well, maybe, but I wouldn’t get to far ahead of myself. Consider my friendly advice to have been offered. 🙂

Craig Loehle (Comment #90010)

I think it is so bizarre that the brit journalist and some commenters here object to conservatives even having the right to put educational materials together, as if they could force schools to use them, and assert that Heartland is so toxic that to even get a dollar from them is deadly. Yet they don’t object to Greenpeace helping write the IPCC reports even though they vandalize property and endanger fishing boats (and worse). And they don’t object to the government giving out $ to these organizations to astroturf policies like windfarms–that is, they pay outside orgs to do their propaganda for them, which (propaganda) is strictly illegal in US and Britain.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90011)

SteveF,

Of course, this is just speculating. Like mann speculated in his book about mcintyre. No issues wondering about stuff.

Steve

Copner (Comment #90016)

> But why bother to use OCR when you could just generate a perfectly readable image file?

Because you want to scrub any potentially incriminating data.

Here’s the thing: If you print to PDF, then the PDF can contain all sort of clues about it’s origin in the metadata, leading back to the software application (MS Word or whatever) and perhaps also towards PC that made the PDF. Clues include hidden fields, stuff that may not even be visible without a hex editor, and GUIDs which are unique ID numbers that computers generate for various reasons and are sometimes linked to a specific network card in a specific computer.

So to avoid that risk, what the faker did was print a document, scan it, and the convert to PDF. That way, any traces, they hope were erased.

When they converted to PDF, the OCR version of the text was added. And this contain the “typos”.

Now not everybody knows the above, in tech companies have made mistakes in this area (Google “SCO”). So this hints that it may be somebody who fairly tech knowledgeable who made the fake.

TerryS (Comment #90017)

Re: SteveF

> Fair enough. But why bother to use OCR when you could just generate a perfectly readable image file?

The document was written, printed and then scanned directly into a PDF. It is in the PDF as an image, not as words and sentences. All the spelling mistakes are due to the software, individuals are using to view the PDF, OCR’ing the images.

As to why they did it this way, it is simple. Had they just written the document and then saved it as a PDF it would have all sorts interesting (and possibly incriminating) meta data in there. It might have had enough so you could tie it to an individual and the computer they used. By scanning it directly into a PDF they ensure the minimal amount of meta data is included.

A PDF I looked at earlier had enough meta-data for me to determine 2 different types of camera and at least 4 pieces of software that were used to construct the document.

curious (Comment #90019)

Craig – what is bizarre, IMO, is that Black keeps his job.

Here is his story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie.....t-17048991

Note – seven paragraphs in he puts “UPDATE 2145GMT …” stating the HI’s position that the one of the docs is a fake. He then prattles on without giving this further thought and then ends with a dig over funding of the GWPF and their “unknown motives”.

Same at the Guardian last time I looked – Hickman’s story mentions “updated” in the headline but gives no further details until the end of the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....NETTXT3487

Later the same day he now moved on to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....-institute

If it is true that the “Climate Strategy” is fake then what I conclude is that these guys aren’t journalists, otherwise they’d be out of a job. To me they look like paid PR men doing their bit for the news aggregators.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90020)

wow curious, that article has the same weird use of parenthesis

Polling consistently shows that around six percent of Americans (nearly 20 million) think we’ve never made it to the lunar surface, while another five percent are uncertain.

Another astronaut, Harrison Schmitt (ironically a self-described climate-change denier), also used the term:

The use of the term “denial” and “denier” is regularly applied in instances where a small group of people reject proven science and broadly accepted facts, such as moon landing deniers, those who still challenge the link between smoking and cancer, or between HIV and AIDS (see the discussion on “AIDS denialism“), or human-caused climate change (see recent uses of the term in the Guardian, Salon, and Washington Post).

Indeed, all true scientists are skeptics if we raise specific doubts about specific claims, develop alternative hypotheses, test them, and if we do not reject conclusions because of ideology, the lack of absolute certainty (which is unattainable), or occasional errors.

Climate change denial is ultimately doomed to whither from natural causes, overwhelmed by the science and reality of climate change, the compelling observational evidence from every corner of the planet (OK, trolls, I know the planet doesn’t have “corners” in the flat Earth sense), and the increasing severity of extreme weather events influenced by climate change.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute anti-climate science conference, astronaut Harrison Schmitt (described above) called himself a “true quote ‘denier’ unquote of human-caused global warming.” [Here is the actual clip.]

Deniers won’t go away, though a measure of their diminished influence can be seen in their increasingly desperate ad hominem attacks on scientists rather than attacks on the science (see, for example, virulent personal attacks on IPCC scientists or individuals such as Drs. Michael Mann and James Hansen).

lucia (Comment #90021)

Copner (Comment #90016)
It’s still weird. Ultimately, these are distributed as computer files.

It’s just got to be possible to alter the meta data and fake it. Am I wrong? If I’m not and if the person knew meta data existed, wouldn’t the spend some time finding out if it could be faked and do it?

Steven Mosher (Comment #90022)

hmm

Same use of parenthesis in the forbes piece

Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #90024)

Mosher, it was not me doing a reverse – of a reverse if you will – in order to put – some might say – a bad light on the consensus crowd – consensus on AGW that is. I never use parentheses – or at least – never over use them (or at least in my mind).

By the way did you see the email quote from Andy Revkin giving a conjecture that the potentially faked document in question might be faked but also could be a compilation of other authentic documents from Heartland. Rather Ratheresque of him would not you say. Revkin as I recall was hesitant to discuss the climategate emails because they were stolen, but evidently had no compunction about the Heartland documents. Wow, wow I was able to go a whole paragraph without parentheses (well almost).

Copner (Comment #90025)

> I want copner as my partner..

I’m flattered but already taken.

If you want another avenue to explore. Look at the 990.

I think it is genuine, but I’m guessing it was not obtained at the same time as the other real Heartland documents.

The reason? It doesn’t fit.

It wouldn’t have been a document on the agenda for the last Heartland board meeting. When a person posing as a board member asks Heartland to resend the last board documents, there is no reason for Heartland to include the relatively unrelated form 990. (you can check with Heartland whether they did actually send this).

So assuming that is true.

What I think happened is you are looking at a collection of documents that are actually from 3 sources:

1. Actual Heartland documents obtained through the social engineering hack

2. Actual Heartland document obtained previously, perhaps legitimately, perhaps months ago – Form 990

3. Fake document (the Strategy Memo)

It also occurs to me it is possible that somebody had Heartland’s Form 990, used the social engineering hack to get the board documents like budgets looking for something incriminating, and when they didn’t find it, put together the fake memo to spice things up.

Initial/separate interest in the 990 is consistent with the email that the social engineering hacker sent out – which began “In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form.” – http://www.collide-a-scape.com.....-the-heat/

So follow the form 990 as it may be a clue, and add that to your other possible clues:

– Warmist

– Tech savvy enough to know about PDF meta-data risks.

– Lives in Pacific Time Zone

– Fascinated by climate bloggers, especially those named in the memo.

Copner (Comment #90027)

Lucia, it’s possible but it’s risky.

If you use a GUI program to make the edits, there’s a chance of missing something incriminating and leaving it behind. And nobody wants to wade through a 100,000 bytes of hexadecimal. and a 1,000 page PDF spec document to make sure they haven’t. The safest way would be to print & scan like I said – preferably using somebody else’s scanner.

toto (Comment #90028)

By the way did you see the email quote from Andy Revkin giving a conjecture that the potentially faked document in question might be faked but also could be a compilation of other authentic documents from Heartland.

.
It’s not a conjecture, it’s true. McArdle makes the same point.

TerryS (Comment #90029)

Re: lucia
> It’s just got to be possible to alter the meta data and fake it.

It is trivial to fake some meta data like the author’s name but it would be nearly impossible to fake it all and to do it in a consistent manner.
Just faking the author’s name has its own inherent problems. You have to know, for example, that the author does not have a verifiable alibi for the time the document was created and/or modified.

Gras Albert (Comment #90032)

Sadly for one of Mosher’s points, a search of Twitter for ‘anti-science’ produces hundreds of hits, nearly all referencing the faked memo…
Anti-science is no longer rare
############
Anti-Climate.
and you look for uses that predate the usage in the memo

mea cupla, I typed ‘anti-science’, but I twitter searched ‘anti-climate’ and there are lots and lots of hits, all referencing FakeGate

Steven Mosher (Comment #90033)

copner.

I figure the 990 was downloaded. pacific Institute has their 990 onfile. server logs. same with the Worick Bio. somebody visited
that site. ilkely a short list.

When I had to write bios for climategate its what I did.
took the online bio. rewrote them or quoted. This guy just
took the text.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90035)

Gras, thats ok.

Somebody else has done the google search.. Its a warmist term
too much going on for me to comment much. Plus I suspect
the pro’s from dover are already on the case. identity theft.
wire fraud. I suspect the perp was not as bright as FOIA, assuming of course there is a perp.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90036)

I would also suggest that HI should disgorge their office capital asset list. most offices have all equipment tagged. See if they have an epson scanner.

curious (Comment #90037)

Gras – try searching it as a “phrase” and with different potential actors names. See who gives you the best links and matches. Try with some unrelated names too for balance.

[“anti-climate” heartland] for example.

Gras Albert (Comment #90038)

Wish I could them to look at this, it lasted all of 30s at SkS and they even binned the account!

http://tinyurl.com/6v92blc

Jerrance (Comment #90039)

“I figure the 990 was downloaded.”

Is this some kind of whodunnit where we have to put together the stuff you already know? Gleick mentions he has the HI 990 in his first comment on Taylor’s Forbes blog on 01/22/12.

Copner (Comment #90044)

Jerrance, you are referring to this comment I assume? (Which would have been around 12th January, prior to the HI board meeting).

Note: I have no opinion on the identity of the social engineering hacker. So please don’t take this any confirming or denying any opinion others might have.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja.....d-science/

“I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that $7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus). And their 990 tax form doesn’t say either. [By the way, while my Forbes posts reflect my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Pacific Institute, all of the Pacific Institute’s financial records are public.]”

toto (Comment #90047)

I would also suggest that HI should disgorge their office capital asset list. most offices have all equipment tagged. See if they have an epson scanner.

.
Er… the Epson scanning also took place on the West Coast, at least if we believe the PDF metadata.

Jerrance (Comment #90048)

“Jerrance, you are referring to this comment I assume?”

Yeah I fat fingered the date. BTW, I’m just trying to follow Mosher and I’m not pointing fingers either.

HaroldW (Comment #90062)

Steven Mosher —
Very interesting theory…now where’s Perry Mason to extract a confession?

steven mosher (Comment #90064)

toto

I’m suggesting HI show they don’t own epson if they can. also forensics on the scanners they own will rule out staff on site.
that’s work that I would expect from smart invedtigators.

Copner (Comment #90065)

Anybody checked this office an Epson scanner?

http://static.algore.com/i/al_office.jpg

Just kidding!

steven mosher (Comment #90066)

harold. it won’t b perry mason. federales

George Daddis (Comment #90067)

When I first read the “insider’s” cover e-mail, I failed to see the significance of the comment: “Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form.”
Why would a 2010 tax return have any relevance to a 2012 budget?
Am I the only one who does not understand what the author was inferring?

Copner (Comment #90069)

The 990 was just something else the imposter/leaker/hacker had, and I was unlikely to be part of the board documents.

He probably downloaded it from heartland’s website, since they published it at
http://heartland.org/media-lib.....rm-990.pdf

And then added to the board documents, along side the fake, when he sent out his little package to 15 bloggers.

But like you say, a 2010 tax return document – the 990 form in question – has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 budget.

lucia (Comment #90070)

George Daddis–
I have no idea. I’m not a big fan of people writing things that amount to assigning homework. If there is something important to be learned by comparing the 2010 tax return to the 2012 budget, I’m willing to wait for who-ever wrote the insiders cover email to elaborate.

I don’t enjoy doing taxes. I don’t know regulations for not for profits. If there is a smoking gun there I’m not the one whose going to do the forensics on that one.

Steve McIntyre (Comment #90071)

The decision on the appeal of the Sarah Palin hacker was recently heard, affirming the original decision. See http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/op.....27p-06.pdf

One of the interesting aspects of this case was its use of Sarbanes-Oxley amendments to obstruction of justice law. Kernell’s obstruction of justice conviction was the most serious offence. These charges arose from his deletion of documents in an attempt to cover his tracks.

The key change arising from Sarbanes-Oxley was that an offence could be charged, even if a federal investigation had not yet begun.

Copner (Comment #90073)

One other thing about the 990 that shows it was available to warmists some time ago:

Go to sourcewatch.org, find Heartland Institute page – there’s a section about the 2010 990. No click History, and you will see reference to the 2010 990 – the one in question – was added on 18th January 2012.

SteveF (Comment #90074)

Steve McIntyre (Comment #90071),

Sarbanes-Oxley? Talk of unintended consequences!

A. Scott (Comment #90075)

lucia (Comment #89985)
February 16th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Mosher–
I think we need someone typo prone. (I am. But I didn’t write this!) Likely it’s not a team because a team would have insisted that someone read the typo prone individuals stuff before circulating it as a supposedly high level confidential memo.
Typos that even I found:
Romm=> Rornm
funders=> flinders
high profile=>highprofile
They => Ave (maybe? See “AVe have also pledged” )

Lucia – those are OCR errors – read the original PDF vs. the text you copied from the document

Brian H (Comment #90077)

Re: toto (Feb 15 10:45),

Actually, that’s obviously warmista cant. The document is a forgery/fraud/fake. Anyone taken in by it is a fool, or wants to do a tu quoque on skeptics.

Steve McIntyre (Comment #90078)

SteveF, here’s an interesting article on the topic discussing charges in the Wolff case http://www.perkinscoie.com/fil.....ureMay.pdf. The label “anticipatory obstruction of justice” is used in this article for the offence.

Shub (Comment #90080)

Copner: You say:

“So follow the form 990 as it may be a clue, and add that to your other possible clues:
– Warmist”

.
Why do you say that? Is it because he/she was stupid enough to try pulling this trick?

SteveF (Comment #90081)

Steve McIntyre,

Sarbanes-Oxley was terrible legislation. Solved none of the real problems and created a vast new infrastructure of potential criminal prosecution. I fear we citizens of the USA may soon be at risk of prosecution for even thinking the wrong thoughts, or even maybe/perhaps/might have thought the wrong things, a la Larry Summers.
.
Wait… isn’t the thinking of incorrect thoughts by individuals already a regular subject of consternation among self-styled “progressives”? Good thing you are Canadian… the trillions of dollars that will flow from the tar sands seem to have muted the worst of the PC rabble in Canada, at least for now. 😉

Copner (Comment #90082)

> Why do you say that? Is it because he/she was stupid enough to try pulling this trick?

Read the Atlantic article. It’s obvious that the person who wrote the fake document, isn’t a skeptic, because he/she doesn’t understand how skeptics think.

The fake document is a warmist caricature of how skeptics think. The person who wrote the fake document seems to be believe that skeptics are comic book villains, who are evil, know it, and enjoy being evil, partly for the sake of money, mostly for the maniacal laughter they can emit while hatching nefarious dastardly plots against science and mother earth.

Joe Papp (Comment #90084)

Hahaha on you BUFFOONS who acted on these fradulent documents before obtaining proof.

ANTHONY WATTS would not reproduce anything directly from the “Climate Gate” Emails for several days, until there was strong evidence they were bonified.

YOU RELIGIOUS AWG ZEALOTS show your true colors by your presumptions and prejudices. YOU are the FRAUDS.

SteveF (Comment #90085)

Mosher,

Deniers won’t go away, though a measure of their diminished influence can be seen in their increasingly desperate ad hominem attacks on scientists rather than attacks on the science (see, for example, virulent personal attacks on IPCC scientists or individuals such as Drs. Michael Mann and James Hansen).

It would help if you would offer your definition of ‘denier’. While I try very hard to remain solidly grounded in science, I have lots of issues with how Drs. Mann and Hansen have conducted themselves; which is, IMO, at a minimum irresponsible and at worst disingenuous. I hope you do not think if someone believes the actions of Mann and Hansen leave much to be desired, that makes someone a ‘denier’.

SteveF (Comment #90086)

Copner (Comment #90082),

skeptics are comic book villains, who are evil, know it, and enjoy being evil, partly for the sake of money, mostly for the maniacal laughter they can emit while hatching nefarious dastardly plots against science and mother earth.

My goodness, it is like you have looked into my (skeptical) soul…
.
I especially like the Mother Earth part. I feel inspired to go out in the back yard with a large kitchen knife and just stab the Earth’s surface… with maniacal laughter.

Shub (Comment #90101)

“Read the Atlantic article. It’s obvious that the person who wrote the fake document, isn’t a skeptic, because he/she doesn’t understand how skeptics think.”

Hi Copner,

I think you missed a joke there. But you are right.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90102)

Jerrance (Comment #90039)
February 16th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“I figure the 990 was downloaded.”
Is this some kind of whodunnit where we have to put together the stuff you already know? Gleick mentions he has the HI 990 in his first comment on Taylor’s Forbes blog on 01/22/12.

##########

i didnt know that. hmm was it a 2010 version.

Jerrance (Comment #90105)

Looking at it closer I would assume it was a 2009 version and he got his 7 million number by rounding up the 6.785 mil total revenue.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90106)

Joe Papp (Comment #90084) February 16th, 2012 at 9:25 pm

“ANTHONY WATTS would not reproduce anything directly from the “Climate Gate” Emails for several days, until there was strong evidence they were bonified.”

I’ve heard that said a lot, but it’s quite untrue. Here is his first post “Breaking News…”, Nov 19th. It’s full of direct quotes. It’s not until update 2, which links a Nov 20 report, that there is a mention of Phil Jones saying that they seem to be genuine.

Mark (Comment #90107)

Mosh,

I’m warming (pun intended) to his Gleickness as suspect #1. Excellent bit of detective work there. Supporting data:

1. We know that Gleick is willing to deceive to support his noble cause, as evidenced by his fictionalized review of Donna’s book, which he clearly had not read, followed by his subsequent protestations to have read it.

2. He has a history of being bad at managing the deception and being rather tone deaf about how the real world will perceive (and see through) his deception.

3. As you mentioned, the faked document elevates Gleick himself as a high profile climate scientist. He’s not. Except maybe in his own mind. I’m chuckling at how that claim has to be annoying ‘the team’. Also, Forbes is elevated in stature, which happens to be where Gleick has recently started blogging.

4. The oddly tortured phraseology of ‘dissuading teachers from teaching science’ was, in my opinion, the farthest reach in the document. Interestingly, on Jan. 17th it was announced that Gleick has joined the board of NCSE, an organization that has increasingly conflated support for teaching evolution in schools with a new mission to support the teaching of global warming in schools. It’s clearly a top-of-mind hot button with Gleick. In joining a board as a new member, the whole concept of board packages and documents might also be top of mind.

5. Of course, your vocabulary and punctuation analysis is the most damning evidence. The PDF metadata is circumstantial but supporting. Taken as a whole, all these “multiple lines of independent evidence” raise the odds to “highly likely” (on the IPCC scale) that your suspicion is correct. Nicely done, sir.

In feeling the need to create the fake document and release it with the real ones, the FakeGater has confessed he didn’t think the real documents were damning. He felt it needed something more than was actually there. Otherwise, why take the substantial risk of ‘undermining’ the real documents with a fake? Particularly when there are so many supportive journalists willing to spin non-incriminating documents into a warmly smoking gun.

Nyq Only (Comment #90108)

Re: Copner (Comment #90082) February 16th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
“Read the Atlantic article. It’s obvious that the person who wrote the fake document, isn’t a skeptic, because he/she doesn’t understand how skeptics think.”

I think that is as silly a conclusion as assuming the document is genuine. The bulk of it is manifestly how at least SOME of [insert prefered name] think as it pretty much summarises documents that appear to be genuine. There are really only two aspects that are suspicious in terms of content:
“anti-climate”
“teaching science”
If the document was genuine but a draft then both are plausible typos (e.g. ‘anti-climate alarmism’, ‘teaching “science”‘ or ‘teaching so-called “science”‘ or ‘teaching junk science’ could have been intended). Lots of intelligent, reasonable people type things they don’t mean. Nobody would be surprised if Lucia (for example) corrected a blog post because the first thing she wrote wasn’t what she intended.

steven mosher (Comment #90109)

Heartland doesnt like revkin.

You see that the writer of the memo tells the story
glieck would love to hear.

where he is the target of their strategy
where his enemies are heartland allies

When you do that the document makes sense.

DaveJR (Comment #90110)

Toto wrote “All the facts in the memo were already contained in the other documents, and are damning enough on their own.”
.
Are they? They’re just numbers with no context, relatively small ones at that when put into a wider context. What the memo did was to put those numbers into the “correct” context and provide motivation. There can be no doubt that this was, initially, a highly successful strategy.
.
“All he had to do was to drop it ‘as-is’ to someone like Deep Climate or John Mashey.”
.
Of course these people could attempt to place them into the “correct” context and provide what they believe is motive, however, this would merely be opinion. Heavily partisan opinion. There is no credibility in a quote from Mashey in a news article claiming that a bunch of numbers show that the HI want to prevent teachers from teaching science, for example.
.
The only sure way for the leaker to get his POV across was to have the HI tell everyone exactly what the money was for using suitably conspiratorial language.

Anthony (Comment #90112)

Nick Stokes @ #90106 as usual, is wrong. He has no first hand information like I do, and so relies upon his personal biases to interpret his view of history for him.

I had the emails when I was in Brussels, two days before that “breaking” post on Nov 19th. I sat on those emails while I attended a conference full of skeptics at the EU and didn’t say a word. Delingpole was there, and I said nothing to him. He read about it later on my blog like everybody else on Nov 19th.

In fact if you’ll care to recall FOIA himself posted a follow-up comment on my blog basically saying “what’s taking so long”? WUWT Moderator CTM answered saying “A lot is happening behind the scenes”.

It wasn’t until we had backchannel confirmation that CRU was reacting that we knew. Lucia also played a confirmation role in her dealings with the great obfuscator, Gavin Schmidt, trying to get her not to say anything.

I said from the get-go when I first looked at the file that we had to be sure. When we WERE sure, after two days of checking, it got published. Mosh nearly tore himself a new orifice having to wait, but my insistence that we wait gave him and MacIntyre the chance to study it in detail to be even more certain, comparing via telephone to correspondence emails MacIntyre had sent. They matched.

DeSmog Blog waited a whole hour, which either suggests they are sloppy incompetent bumblers, or that they were expecting the email package. While the former has been proven true by their publishing a fake document, I suspect the latter.

vieras (Comment #90113)

6. If Gleick has been silent about this, it’s even more weird. I’d expect him to be enraged about Heartland trying censor his blog at the Forbes.

But of course he might be busy with something else and not even noticed the documents. Like being somewhere in the wilderness, collecting tree ring samples, counting polar bears or measuring temperatures at the Antarctica.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90116)

Anthony (Comment #90112)
So are you saying you had confirmation when you posted your “Breaking News” that the emails, and the associated files, were genuine? From whom?

charles the moderator (Comment #90119)

Re: Nick Stokes (Feb 17 01:09),

Nick,

as has been stated in written histories, the files were confirmed as authentic by UEA themselves. We were forwarded a memo sent to University employees that informed them that leaked emails were circulating on the Internet and suggested everyone take security precautions.

~ ctm

hro001 (Comment #90120)

Speaking of “anti-science” and techno expertise, here’s something I found on the smoggy site:

Dr. Mashey is an easy-to-Google semi-retired Bell Labs (1973-1983) / Silicon Valley (1983-) computer scientist/executive. He has worked with a wide variety of scientists, many of whom have used software or hardware he helped create. For the last few years he has been studying climate science & anti-science and energy issues, and for several years has written occasional investigative reports mostly hosted here at DeSmogBlog.

In Spring 2011, he lectured several times in British Columbia on climate anti-science. He is a member of AAAS, AGU, APS, ACM, IEEE CS.

Source

Perhaps Gleick had a little help from a friend?! Just speculating, of course.

Anteros (Comment #90122)

Hro001 –

Well spotted, although there was another ‘anti-science’ hidden in your quote as well as the one you highlighted.

Would it be easy enough to find out who actually wrote that snippet about Mashey? Mashey himself, or some ambitious alarmist footsoldier?

The plot thins!

hro001 (Comment #90123)

Thanks, Anteros … but actually I had messed up my intro … the key phrase that Mosh had identified was “anti-climate”. So that’s why “climate anti-science” (along with the Mashey connection) grabbed my eye, while the other one didn’t 🙂

As for who might have written it … well, it has more polish than anything I’ve ever seen (or heard) from Mashey, so I’m inclined to think it may well have been one of the smoggy-crew.

Les Johnson (Comment #90124)

Nick: you don’t read very well. Anthony said they compared emails from Steve M, to the emails he had in the CG 1 files. They matched. That would suggest that at least those emails were the real thing. Also emails that were previously in the public domain (why should i make the data available..)
.
.
Darnit. I used parenthesis. Honest, Mosh, it weren’t me!
.
It was commented on, by both Lucia and myself, while the other emails could not be substantiated, the presence of the known emails at least indicated the rest were genuine. We also speculated that there might a forgery or two hidden in the real mail. Bombshells as it were. Like the fake document attributed to the HI.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90125)

#90123
“it may well have been one of the smoggy-crew.”
But I keep hearing that they only had the material for an hour before posting. That would be fast writing.

Copner (Comment #90126)

@Mosher

> i didnt know that. hmm was it a 2010 version.

I don’t know which version of the 990 had on 12th January 2010.

I do know that sourcewatch had the 2010 version of the 990 on 18th January 2010

@Nyq Only:

“There are really only two aspects that are suspicious in terms of content:”

There are a lot more than two you identified
3. “undermining”
4. “official UN IPCC”
5. no title, no author, none of the user corporate filler
6. no identification of “I”
7. wrong creation date
8. missing meta-data
9. wrong fonts
10. completely different writing style
11. errors – for example identifying Koch as a climate donor (the donation they made was for health care, see budget – whoever wrote didn’t understand the other Heartland documents, making even basic errors of interpretation)
12. + maths errors in adding totals

And finally – why would they create this document? From Heartland’s point of view it serves no purpose from their point of view. And it contains nothing that isn’t in any other document, except for

(a) errors (whoever wrote it clearly didn’t understand – at all – the other documents),

and (b) snippets where they openly declare their cackling evil.

Copner (Comment #90127)

Re: Mashey

He’s had an interest in 990s and tax documents going back some time, and there was an article that came out by him on Feb 14th – relating to Heartland and their tax status – of course like he says, it’s an “astonishing coincidence”.

http://www.desmogblog.com/fake.....s-free-tax

“This report was scheduled to be published in a few days, and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed. The report was done entirely from public sources, but today’s new information is quite consistent and fills some holes. However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer.”

Nick Stokes (Comment #90128)

Les Johnson (Comment #90124)

“Nick: you don’t read very well. Anthony said they compared emails from Steve M, to the emails he had in the CG 1 files. They matched. That would suggest that at least those emails were the real thing. Also emails that were previously in the public domain (why should i make the data available..)”

Yes, but most of the HI docs seem to be genuine too, so this trove would pass that kind of sampling test.

mikef2 (Comment #90129)

Nick Stokes……….are you the guy that played the black knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail movie….?

Dave Springer (Comment #90130)

The simplest explanation for why the “fake” document was scanned is that it was received as a paper document. If it has a lot of OCR errors it was probably received as a fax transmission. Conspiracy theories are characterized by how many times Father William of Ockham rolls over in his grave as it is read.

It seems reasonable to presume that the alleged forgery was faxed at one point then somewhere in the Pacific time zone was scanned and converted to portable document format by an Epson scanner.

There is nothing nefarious or contrived in that. It’s something that unsophisticated office workers do every day. Going beyond this starts to get cloak and daggarish causing friar Ockham’s rest to be disturbed.

As far as altering meta-data in a PDF as an old computer scientist I’d presume portable document format has a checksum of some sort that would prevent casual tampering with a hex editor but a quick search of the PDF specification found no mention of a checksum.

hro001 (Comment #90131)

@Nick Stokes 91025

#90123
“it may well have been one of the smoggy-crew.”
But I keep hearing that they only had the material for an hour before posting. That would be fast writing.

If your mouse will allow you to scroll backwards, you will see that my comment was actually a response to a specific question from Anteros, who had asked:

Would it be easy enough to find out who actually wrote that snippet about Mashey? Mashey himself, or some ambitious alarmist footsoldier?

And if you scroll back from there, you will see that the snippet in question was a brief bio about Mashey.

Should your reading skills return to you, you will see that this bio includes the words “for several years has written occasional investigative reports mostly hosted here at DeSmogBlog.

I suppose you could try to argue otherwise, but it seems to me that it is far more likely that this snippet has been sitting on the soggysite for some time.

That being the case, it would be rather foolhardy of you to attempt to argue otherwise. OTOH, it would be amusing to watch you try. So, if you feel so inclined, by all means give it your best shot.

Poor Mr. Stokes, he never seems to miss an opportunity to let an inane diversion get in the way of an interesting and intelligent discussion.

ul (Comment #90132)

@Nick

So 8 out of 9 is as good as 1000 out of 1000. You work in the climate buisiness, right ?

Dave Springer (Comment #90134)

It’s certainly not something to be horrified about. But it undeniably speaks to Watts having a vested interest in the climate controversy and using connections with Heartland to get a sweetheart deal. Presumably the contract Watts was awarded was not put through any competitive bidding process. Pretty clearly a case of you scratch my back and I scratch yours a.k.a. a good ol’ boy network a.k.a. crony capitalism.

Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with crony capitalism. It’s just that if you’ve staked out the moral high ground by accusing climate boffins of sexing up the controversy in order to keep the scientific funding rolling in (which Watts has certainly done) then you lose that high ground when you get caught doing the same thing. Watts got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he’s equivocating about it, and is now a hypocrite in any informed objective assessment.

TerryS (Comment #90135)

I don’t think to much weight should be put on the need for technological expertise in the perpetrator. I’ve seen several mainstream news stories in the past whereby somebody has been caught out by the meta data. As an example see this news item by the BBC from 2003. It is only a short step from knowing there might be compromising information to working out that by printing and scanning you get rid of it all.

Spence_UK (Comment #90136)

Lucia linked to Barry Bickmore’s blog above, noting he uses “anti-climate” as well (he also references Gleick a lot – perhaps they communicate and have picked up similar cues).

Bickmore also uses parenthesis extensively in his articles, and uses “e.g.,” a lot as well – peppered throughout his blog.

Although he is in Utah (-7hrs), which counts against him. Unless the person who wrote the article wasn’t the one who scanned it…

Climategate 2.0 (Comment #90138)

Some humor for Lucia.

How do they pronounce “Desmog” at the Heartland Institute?

Answer: “Da Smog”

Nick Stokes (Comment #90141)

ul (Comment #90132)
So 8 out of 9 is as good as 1000 out of 1000.

No. The claim is that Anthony had confirmation that the emails were genuine before quoting them. And the evidence seems to be that he had confirmed only a small sample. The validity of the rest were, at that time, unknown.

steveta_uk (Comment #90142)

Dave Springer (#90134) – I assume you are either very thick or being deliberately offensive.

A few minutes research would have lead you to find that Watts asked HI for assistance with a project to put NOAA data on the web in a more user-friendly format.

Now why would HI then put out to tender a project that Watts himself proposed? That makes no possible sense.

And in what way is spending $44k to develop a publicly visible web site having a hand in the cookie jar?

That’s very cheap indeed for a web site development. FFS, a government project to do the same thing would except to spend millions on the feasibility study alone!

GrantB (Comment #90143)

@hro001 90131 – FYI, Nick runs a large unicorn station in Central Australia

BobN (Comment #90144)

re: Mashey

Though it is clearly just speculation, his name came to my mind well before Gleick. However, they both seem to be fairly intelligent (if just a little bit obsessive) and I can’t see how either one would think faking a document would be anything other than an own goal so I am thinking it could be someone less visible in the climate debate.

Btw, Desmog’s most recent post is a real hoot, they just don’t know when to back down.

SteveF (Comment #90145)

Nick 90141,
You’re really stretching to make that comparison. The FOIA archive was huge, internally consistent (correct email addresses, etc.), matched up perfectly with emails which had been received by third parties, and contained a host of other non-email files. It would have taken someone years to fabricate such a perfect fake, and they would have to have known things they could not have known. Add to that the confirmation from UEA and Gavin, and it was a virtual certainty the FOIA archive was the real thing.
.
The document we are discussing here is so obviously faked that it is almost comical. Only a moron, or a person justifying means by desired ends, would publish such rubbish without any statement of doubt. I often wonder if you really believe some of what you write! Or just not thought it through.

DavidA (Comment #90151)

First time poster here (hi!). Gleick has 3 reviews at Amazon which haven’t been mentioned yet. One includes “anti-climate”; that’s in The Delinquent Teenager review. Overall the grammar in those reviews appears improved over the strategy document though he could well have put more work into them. He frequently uses “–” which doesn’t appear in strategy though you’d expect him to know it’s a personal habit.

Unnecessary comma(s):

“Toward the end, Mann talks about the misinterpreted, out-of-context emails stolen…”

The brackets are there including ending sentences with.

I can see the similarity though I personally have had to battle with similar overuse of commas and brackets so am maintaining a weariness.

Also the reviews themselves have active comments which he may have responded in, haven’t checked yet.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/m.....r_auth_rev

bugs (Comment #90152)

“How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.”

Bob Moss (Comment #90154)

“6. If Gleick has been silent about this, it’s even more weird.”

The dog that didn’t bark?

neill (Comment #90155)

What’s your story, Nick? If you think it’s not a forgery, state why you believe that. If you do think it’s a forgery, why are you trying to equivocate? Are you folks so zealous that forgery used to defame an opponent is ‘not so bad’ as long as it furthers your cause?

HaroldW (Comment #90162)

Dave Springer (#90134) —
Smh.
This is my first, and possibly last, use of this Internet abbreviation. It means “shaking my head”. Your post is so wrong!

You wrote “But it [the grant] undeniably speaks to Watts having a vested interest in the climate controversy and using connections with Heartland to get a sweetheart deal.”
Vested interest? Because he got a donor to sponsor a project? From which his take will probably be approximately $0.00? If you’ve read what Anthony wrote about the project — and if you have any idea about applying for funding — you would know that Anthony would have had to work up estimates for software development & web hosting. But somehow you know that the $88K promised (a) is going into Anthony’s pockets, and (b) makes him a hypocrite. Truly you are the Phantom, able to know what evil lurks within the hearts of men.

Secondly, your claim that this is “crony capitalism” is inaccurate. “Crony capitalism” can only apply when there is public money being funneled to friendly private enterprises. Does not apply to non-public entities. The fact that you think there’s nothing wrong with “crony capitalism” speaks volumes.

rg (Comment #90163)

“Nick Stokes……….are you the guy that played the black knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail movie….?”

LMAO! Reduced to biting kneecaps and such.

Sphaerica (Comment #90164)

it should be noted that all of the discussion surrounding Gleick as having committed a criminal act is probably an actionable case of defamation of character (see http://www.expertlaw.com/libra.....ation.html).

On the other hand, even a phishing attack to obtain the HI documents — as reprehensible as that act may (or may not) be — is quite probably not illegal. Research Illinois and federal USA identity theft and computer hacking laws. All of the identify theft laws are fairly specific about what must be stolen to constitute identity theft, and in every case appears to be attached to a combination of monetary gain by the thief and actual, direct monetary loss by the victim– not in future donations, but in the value of what was stolen. And phishing simply by pretending to be someone else by e-mail is not hacking into their systems — they willfully transmitted the information — so that doesn’t apply.

It is all rather nit-picky, but that’s how the law works. It has to be very specific, and if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. Maybe they’ll pass a “Heartland Identity Theft” law after the fact here, but it’s too late in this case.

So… while you can argue all you want about the morality of the action, there is no evidence yet that any actionable crime has been committed against HI in a legal sense.

At the same time, unwarranted accusations against a specific individual, on a publicly published web page, do open both Lucia and the posters up to civil suits by Gleik or any other target that chooses to pursue such action… and your only defense will be to actually prove him to be guilty of crimes which appear not to actually even be crimes at all.

Boy, it is funny to watch you guys getting into a tizzy over the acquisition of organizational documents like budget reports (although I do believe the release of individual’s names should never, ever have occurred), and yet you drooled over reading the personal correspondence of researchers from UEA. You looked for every way you could to convince yourselves that the UEA hack was a valiant whistleblower instead of a computer hacker, and yet here you can’t wait to find and accuse a criminal. What’s even more laughable is how HI is playing the bristling victim, after their unrestrained slew of tirades over the UEA e-mail hack.

Pot, kettle?

On Lucia’s original post concerning Watts… their fundraising plan which discusses his future project says:

“Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted)…”

There is no direct statement of monetary support, but I think a lot of people are going to read that statement the way they’d like it to read, one way or the other. That Anthony Watts has been in contact with and working in concert with the Heartland Institute, however, is unquestionable, and it leaves open a very big “yeah, right, tell me another one” attitude for many people at his protestations of innocence and independence in all of his efforts.

TrevorH (Comment #90166)

Whats clear to me from reading this is that the AGW crowd are a load of blinkered bigots.

neill (Comment #90167)

Dave Springer (#90134)

Evil Heartland is pushing some of its filthy lucre to fund Anthony’s nefarious scheme.

Except we don’t know the source of the funds. The project funded will make plots of some new NOAA data more accessible to….everyone. Assumedly, a gun is not being held to NOAA’s head on this.

These people are diabolical. No other word for it.

steven mosher (Comment #90168)

Nick Stokes (Comment #90116)
February 17th, 2012 at 4:14 am

Anthony (Comment #90112)
So are you saying you had confirmation when you posted your “Breaking News” that the emails, and the associated files, were genuine? From whom?

##############
From tuesday to thursday nov 17th to 19th, anthony insisted that charles and I hold the mails back until their authenticity could be established and legal council sought. I was asked to see what I thought. I took two approaches. try to prove them real. try to prove them fake. By wens morning I was convinced they were real or a very elaborate hoax. I wanted to go public. Charles reminded me of my promise to anthony. Tom fuller gave wise advise as well. we should wait until UAE confirm or deny. So, wens was spent doing more reading and checking of file bits here and there. Thursday morning I was read the mail from UAE.
Thats when I made the first post about them here at Lucias.
Even then I did not say they were verified true.
So lets see, I spent from tues 9pm to thursday 11Am looking at the files. sleep? err no.

Barry Woods (Comment #90169)

Has anyone actually asked Pete Gleick about this… ?

Neal J. King (Comment #90170)

1) “lucia (Comment #89841)
February 15th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Neal–
Could you elaborate: How do the documents support anything presented in Oreskes book?”

Oreskes’ narrative is that conservative think tanks are promoting and coordinating views of climate science that are not in accordance with the main body of working climate scientists. Singer’s name features prominently; as he does in the 2012 Heartland Budget document.

2) An item that I think could specifically problematic: The budget proposes $610,000 (p.4) for Operation Angry Badger, which is intended to pay for activities concerning Wisconsin’s Act 10 and the recall elections for the Governor and some state legislators. Act 10 was the rather controversial bill that imposed strong limitations on collective bargaining for state employees. The HL is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit: such organizations are forbidden to engage in campaign activities for elections for office. This seems, to me, to be skating pretty close: (Information below is not comprehensive and has been re-formatted)

OPERATION ANGRY BADGER

– $91,500: [Communications] A research and education project built to take advantage of the public interest in Wisconsin’s Act 10 generated by recall elections that could take place. Publications Dept. budget includes printing and mailing three reports and brochures.
– $60,000: Design and place ads in 10 small newspapers reporting teacher salaries and benefits, 10 @ $6,000.
– $31,500: HL staff will create and launch blogs allowing volunteers and allies to post information about Act 10 that their local newspapers aren’t covering. Maintain for 6 months.
$ 1,500 Web site hosting, $25/month x 10 sites x 6 months
$30,000 Web site promotion, $500/month x 10 sites x 6 months
———-
$31,500 Total

– $205,020: [Publications] A research and education project built to take advantage of the public interest in Wisconsin’s Act 10 generated by recall elections that could take place. Publications Dept. budget includes printing and mailing three reports and brochures.
“The Benefits of Wisconsin’s Act 10”
“How Good Are WI Schools?”
“Are Wisconsin’s Teachers Underpaid?”

[In case you ask: under Communication, the $91,500 is the sum of two items below; Publications total to $205.020. I do not know why these two don’t sum to the $610,000 budgeted on p.4, maybe staffing costs are not broken out. It’s not my budget, ask HL.]

willard (Comment #90171)

Dave Springer’s comment (#90134) contains this paragraph:

> Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with crony capitalism. […] Watts got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he’s equivocating about it, and is now a hypocrite in any informed objective assessment.

Parsomatics got stuck at “crony capitalism.”

lucia (Comment #90172)

Neil J King–
My impression was Oreskes made rather more expansive claims: Like there were huge sums of money from tobacco and fossil fuel etc.

To the extent that Oreskes made some obvious observations, she was not wrong. That think-tanks openly promote what they promote is no secret. That Singer is paid by Heartland and Heartland has conferences is no secret and hardly needed a book. But the inflation of this to something enormous an ominous using loaded language was highly tendentious and misleading on her part. If you are suggesting the Heartland documents support he latter bit I would suggest you are wrong. It shows a conservative think tank doing something rather ordinary: promoting the views it openly espouses.

2) An item that I think could specifically problematic: The budget proposes $610,000 (p.4) for Operation Angry Badger, which is intended to pay for activities concerning Wisconsin’s Act 10 and the recall elections for the Governor and some state legislators. Act 10 was the rather controversial bill that imposed strong limitations on collective bargaining for state employees. The HL is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit: such organizations are forbidden to engage in campaign activities for elections for office. This seems, to me, to be skating pretty close: (Information below is not comprehensive and has been re-formatted)

You might be right– it may be skating close. For all I know it might be over the line. I have no idea what the law defines “campaign activities for elections for office”. I suppose the legal question will be did they skate over the line. If they went over the line, then legal sanctions will be in order. If they did not go over the line, there will be no legal sanctions and there shouldn’t be any.

Have you found any attorneys who can tell us whether these activities are over the line? Because when I say I have no idea, I mean I really have no idea.

DeWitt Payne (Comment #90174)

There seems to be a massive misapprehension among warmers that if organizations such as the Heartland Institute didn’t exist, then decarbonization would be proceeding at flank speed. That is simply not true. Polls show that the majority of people in the developed world, including the US, believe that global warming is happening and that it is, at least in part, caused by burning fossil fuels. But when push comes to shove, nobody wants to spend very much money or significantly change their living habits. Look at sales of electric cars. Miniscule. Pielke, Jr. has explained this in detail in his book The Climate Fix. The Heartland Institute is a sideshow. Its influence is insignificant outside the blogosphere.

Neal J. King (Comment #90175)

Lucia,

– I mean what I wrote, neither more nor less.

– I also lack enough tax-law specific exposure to give an informed opinion as to whether they are over the line: It just smells funny to me. (Just as some of the involvement of the Catholic Bishops in the contraception issue strikes me as getting a bit over the line as well; but I think the Bishops have a better rationale than HL). I think it is a fair question.

Boris (Comment #90176)

“Boris I will merely say this.”

I agree with you, Mosh. Doubt you could even come close to proving a particular person was the author of the memo though.

mpaul (Comment #90177)

Steven Mosher (Comment #89983)
February 16th, 2012 at 3:43 pm

curious.

Folks can help by collecting as many gleick comments from blogs as possible.

What to look for

use of parenthesis where commas would be better or dashes
use of parenthesis at the end of sentences.
also use of this (e.g., ) putting eg in parenthesis.
use of a comma like below

The particular use of commas and parenthesis that you point to is a style that is taught at many east coast prep schools. The “Oxford comma” would also fit into this category.

Boris (Comment #90178)

“Whats clear to me from reading this is that the AGW crowd are a load of blinkered bigots.”

NO U

hanspeter born (Comment #90179)

Peter Gleick should be confronted with the evidence so far
assembled and asked to comment.

It seems to me important to clear this thing up and to
force the BBC, Guardian, Revkin, etc. to discuss the
legal, scientific and moral implications of “Fakegate”.

Neal J. King (Comment #90180)

DeWitt Payne (Comment #90174):

It’s true that de-carbonization would not necessarily be going gangbusters if HL didn’t exist; but that doesn’t mean that HL is not having an influence. If people don’t think something is necessary, they won’t do it. I happen to believe that it IS necessary; and that this point will no longer be debatable within educated society within 10-15 years. But the longer there are folks promoting the opposite view, the longer it will take for the preponderance of the power in the world to decide it should happen. And more time is more CO2.

neill (Comment #90181)

Neal J. King (Comment #90170)

Wisconsin Act 10 was not a “campaign for office”. So it seems that HI actively supporting it wouldn’t cross that line.

PaulM (Comment #90182)

DeWitt, spot-on.
Heartland only hits the news when the muppets attack it and give it publicity.
Similarly here in the UK the GWPF gets free publicity when the outraged believers write newspaper articles describing it as ‘influential’.

Roger Pielke Jr. (Comment #90183)

From my Twitter account:

I emailed @PeterGleick to ask if he faked the Heartland document, no reply yet. I offered to publish his confirmation or denial on my blog.

Neal J. King (Comment #90186)

neill:

As specifically stated in the budget line item, Act 10 is related to the recall election that was/is being set up. A recall election is an eviction from office, and should be considered as a “negative election”: Just as arithmetic applies to both negative and positive numbers, involvement in a recall election is involvement in a campaign for who will, and who will not, be in office.

neill (Comment #90187)

You’re right:

The budget proposes $610,000 (p.4) for Operation Angry Badger, which is intended to pay for activities concerning Wisconsin’s Act 10 and the recall elections for the Governor and some state legislators.

Anteros (Comment #90188)

Roger Pielke –

I think that’s fantastic – and it would never have occurred to me.

“Hey Pete, mate – did you fake that Heartland doc’?”

Perhaps that’s a lesson for those of us with an excess of English reserve… Bravo! 🙂

steveta_uk (Comment #90189)

MPaul, I don’t think this usage is similar to the “Oxford comma” .

That is used to separate list elements to avoid ambiguity. The apparently spurious comments in the document appear to reflect the writer’s manner of speaking, rather than providing any useful punctuation.

I mean, like, he seems to use (spurious) commas, (and brackets), where there is no, reasonable, justification.

neill (Comment #90190)

If HI’s status is changed that could have a negative impact on the Mann/UVA legal action, could it not? CFACT and HI are related, right?

HaroldW (Comment #90192)

Neal J. King (#90186)–
You’re stretching …Act 10 is not anything like an election.

That some people may consider a recall as a result of Act 10 doesn’t make it an election. People vote for or against (and sometimes recall) politicians based on their actions in government. It doesn’t make all discussion of legislation as election-related.

Look again at the Heartland cite you had above: “A research and education project built to take advantage of the public interest in Wisconsin’s Act 10 generated by recall elections that could take place.” Says nothing about any candidate.

Now, if only someone could come up with a 2012 Heartland political strategy document which says “We’ll use the cover of Act 10 to provide support for X’s campaign.” 😉

lucia (Comment #90194)

neill (Comment #90190)
If HI’s status is changed that could have a negative impact on the Mann/UVA legal action, could it not?
Changed from what to what? I don’t understand what you are asking enough to even see a connection between the if and then parts.

CFACT and HI are related, right?
??

SteveF (Comment #90195)

Neal J. King,
“and that this point will no longer be debatable within educated society within 10-15 years”
.
I suspect you are wildly overconfident about both the real level of urgency and whether or not that urgency will be debatable in 10 or 15 years. Should warming remain very modest over the next decade and sea level not rise at a much higher rate than the last 15 years (and those are at least very plausible based on recent history), then I think there may be more public resistance to costly government action, not less. Decades worth of cries of impending doom have prompted people to, very reasonably, expect clear evidence of impending doom. Has there been significant warming? Sure THAT much is beyond debate. Is GHG forcing at least substantially contributing to the warming? There is probably less consensus, but even here I think a majority agree that statement is probably true. It is the leap from observed warming to pending catastrophe that is not so widely believed.
.
And of course, even if/when the likely range and consequences of future warming is much better defined than today, a majority support for implementation of costly programs will still depend on both what those consequences are and voters personal values/philosophy/political views. It is hard for me to imagine today’s obviously wide range of personal/political values (in the USA at least) narrowing very much in 10 or 15 years… since I have seen no narrowing over the last 50+ years; indeed, just the opposite.

lucia (Comment #90196)

Sphaerica (Comment #90164)
I don’t think anyone has said Gleick committed a crime.

I think SteveMosher has a theory that Gleick’s writing style resembles that of the memo, that his location matches the headers of documents etc. Some people have made fun of Steve’s-theory-by parentheses and suggested flaws in it. I’ve pointed out that other people use anti-climate and Steve needs a lot more to convince anyone.

tonyb (Comment #90197)

Mosh

If you’re lurking here you were earlier asking for examples of Gleick’s wrirten style.

Presumably you had a look at the introduction to Tamsins new blog where Gleick was complaining about the name?
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/a.....are-wrong/

It will be intriguing to see if Roger gets a reply to the email he sent the guy -what a cunning plan to asik him direct-although I must say Heartland are not a big consideration here in the UK so its all washing over me a little at the moment.

My main interest in the matter therfore is in finding out if that document was faked, if so by whom
tonyb

kim (Comment #90199)

There’s a disturbance in the force and one tweet is moving at a snail’s pace. I think it’s run into a slime trail.
=================================

SteveF (Comment #90200)

Roger A Pielke,
“I emailed @PeterGleick to ask if he faked the Heartland document, no reply yet. I offered to publish his confirmation or denial on my blog.”
Humm.. whether he did or not, I don’t think he would answer in the affirmative… since that would land him in court with a defamation suit, and worse, maybe facing charges of fraud. My experience is that the guilty rarely fess up in public under any circumstances. For guilty ‘progressives’, it seems even more rare. 😉

J Bowers (Comment #90201)

Mosher — “Just so you can see what I am saying about the utterly weird use of parenthesis in both the memo and the other gleick writings:”

You mean like Joe Bast in his July 2011 article for Heartlander, ‘Heartland Responds to Nature’? He even uses them instead of commas. For instance…

“…But Climate Change Reconsidered has (I am told) 4,235 source citations…”

Anteros (Comment #90202)

I’m surprised that there isn’t greater consideration of the fact that the faking may have been deliberate [I mean not making any attempt to conceal the faking]

Reasoning – what are the chances that a half intelligent person will believe that their fakery won’t be spotted? I don’t know the answer to that question but if it is low, then the alternative is – for any number of reasons – the fakery itself is the motive.

Anything from prankery to luring the semi-gullible, to create a pro-Heartland backlash.

It just seems strangely stupid to go about something devious and risky and top it off with rank stupidity. Maybe the Pacific-person was drunk the whole time and is now cringing?

One other thought – I wouldn’t expect the writing of somebody concocting such a document to even vaguely resemble their own idiosyncrasies. Even by accident.

Which also makes me think it was either a draft knocked up by an office junior or a fake by someone who had no real interest in the fake remaining undiscovered.

lucia (Comment #90203)

SteveF–
I would be very surprised if we get an answer in the affirmative. I suspect people will be monitoring the number of parentheses used.

I don’t see how writing the memo constitutes fraud. Circulating it might. But oddly, those to actions could be different people.

For example: Suppose HI wants to share stuff with a buddy. He shares the stuff with the buddy on a friday night. The buddy writes up a silly fictional memo and emails it to HI. The email and context makes it clear to HI memo is fictional.

HI loves, loves, loves it and decides to include it with the other things. The author of the memo wrote it, but hasn’t committed fraud of defamation. There are lots and lots of ways that the person who wrote the memo might have neither committed defamation nor fraud. Moreover, this sort of thing — someone sharing stuff– someone else writing a fictional account– is even highly plausible.

Joshua (Comment #90205)

Has anyone asked Gleik when he stopped beating his wife?

Good on y’all if your detective work is validated.

What will be more interesting is how you’ll respond if it isn’t.

SteveF (Comment #90207)

Lucia,
Are you saying the memo was an attempt at humor within HI? That seems pretty far fetched to me, but who knows? Not me.

lucia (Comment #90208)

Anteros–
It could have happened the way I suggest in lucia (Comment #90203). The person writing the fake didn’t intend it to be public and was not stooopid. If it was meant as an inside joke, that would explain why it would read like an evil villain in a batman comic writing the thing in the batcave. The person sending it might not even be aware of any details about how the other materials were obtained, who got them etc. They just read them and sent off a spoof which then got disseminated by a different person.

I know some will think this unlikely. There are going to be lots of unlikely theories that aren’t inconsistent with data we have. But this at least doesn’t have the writer being stupid enough to think that fake memo is an intelligent thing to include.

SteveF (Comment #90209)

Anteros,
“Maybe the Pacific-person was drunk the whole time and is now cringing?”
Sounds plausible to me. Of course, they would have to have been pretty drunk. 😉

lucia (Comment #90210)

SteveF

Lucia,
Are you saying the memo was an attempt at humor within HI? That seems pretty far fetched to me, but who knows? Not me.

I think the writer of the memo might have intended it as humor. Also the writer might not be “in” HI.

That some people respond by resorting to satire doesn’t ever surprise me. Remember this:

marooned

People do that sort of thing. They intend to show it to a small group. Often, someone else likes it so much, they send it on. Confusion can ensue.

We don’t know who or what “HI” is. It’s possible the memo writer was not the person who obtained or disseminated the materials.

SteveF (Comment #90211)

Lucia,
“If it was meant as an inside joke, that would explain why it would read like an evil villain in a batman comic writing the thing in the batcave. ”
Sure, but if it was an inside joke, then it does not seem nearly enough “over the top”. I don’t see any reason for the document to single out Gleick or the Forbes blog. And anyone writing for that effect would probably have, well, written it a lot better than they did. Wait, pacific time zone, focuses a lot on language idiosyncrasies…. maybe it was Mosher impersonating Gleick! 😉

lucia (Comment #90212)

joshua

Has anyone asked Gleik when he stopped beating his wife?

If we are going to use metaphors, “Did you write X?” is more like “Do you beat your wife.” Neither are loaded questions.

Good on y’all if your detective work is validated.

What will be more interesting is how you’ll respond if it isn’t

Some aspects of the style resemble Gleick but people here have been responding to Mosher by pointing out that many people share those stylistic features. I use parentheses a lot– as do many here. Lots of people use anti-climate. So, lots of people think Mosher’s rampant speculation is rampant speculation.

How should “we” respond if Gleick turns out not to have written it? By saying: See Mosher, we told you lots of people use anti-climate and parentheses? Would that response be interesting or uninteresting because people like to say I told you so?

mpaul (Comment #90213)

steveta_uk (Comment #90189)
February 17th, 2012 at 10:38 am

MPaul, I don’t think this usage is similar to the “Oxford comma” .

stevea-uk, I was using the Oxford comma as an example. The east coast prep school style urges the use of commas liberally. The Oxford comma is but one example. Another quirk of the style is to always use commas to surround parenthetical phrases even when there is no possibility of confusion. This would mean that restrictive relative clauses would get set off by commas. For example, using this style I might write: “The forger, who created this document, will be caught.” Most people would conclude that there is no need for commas in this example. But our forger almost always surrounds the restrictive clause with commas.

Andrew_KY (Comment #90217)

Joshua should write a memo disclosing that he’s on the intrawebs to oppose “skeptics” and is not interested in objective fact-finding that may damage AGW promotion.

Andrew

AMac (Comment #90221)

There’s a very particular point of view in this AP story (likely to be applauded by some posters here and decried by others).

INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group’s climate efforts

By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
February 17, 2012

Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names…

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change. Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren’t accurate, but declined to be more specific.

[snip]

The most sensational parts of the documents — and much of what has been confirmed independently — had to do with global warming and efforts to spread doubt into what mainstream scientists are saying. Experts long have thought Heartland and other groups were working to muddy the waters about global warming, said Harry Lambright, a Syracuse University public policy professor who specializes in environment, science and technology issues.

“Scientifically there is no controversy. Politically, there is a controversy because there are political interest groups making it a controversy,” Lambright said. “It’s not about science. It’s about politics. To some extent they are winning the battle.”

A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed more than 1,300 most cited and published climate scientists and found that 97 percent of them said climate change was a man-made problem. Yet, public opinion polls show far more doubt in the American public.

[continues…]

* Documents were leaked from HI, who claimed one of them was faked. However, every item that we looked into turned out to be correct (not faked).

* Experts think the HI works to muddy the waters on global warming. “Scientifically there is no controversy [about global warming],” said the only expert quoted by the reporter.

* A recent study in the prestigious PNAS showed that 97% of the most-cited and most-published climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem. Yet, for no discernible reason, the right-wing sheeple of flyover country doubt this clear-cut black-and-white fact, endorsed with near-unanimity by the experts.

Sphaerica (Comment #90222)

Regarding Steve Mosher’s point that Gleik frequently uses parenthesis instead of commas…

So does Joe Bast:

http://blog.heartland.org/2011.....servatism/

So who is the more likely author?

Steven Mosher (Comment #90224)

Spence.

its probably not Bickmore. totally different style of writing. His writing actually shows some evidence of being written and rewritten.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Folks need to understand that is the consilience of the evidence.

like climate science. simples.

Lets engage in some speculation. Of course we suspend judgement
but lets speculate as mann did about mcintyre in his book

Most important is this. Gleick is in a fight with Taylor. That fight is happening in Forbes. Nobody in the climate wars takes notice of this fight. The fight is over who donated what. Gleick has the 990. But its old.

The smoking paragraph from the smoking memo adds one bit to the otherwise stale set of factual documents. It adds a story. In that story Gleick is portrayed as a highly respected climate scientist. Heartland dont think so. In that story Revkin is portrayed as neutral. Heartland dont think so. In this whole paragraph Glieck emerges as a driving force in their strategy.
That’s a story Gleick wants to believe. he wants to believe that heartland has co opted his enemies like Curry, and Revkin.

I will tell you the minute I read his name in this document I went..
THAT doesnt fit. What is Gleick doing in a heartland memo. nobody takes him seriously. The same way the sentence about Wojick didnt fit. I was actually on the phone with somebody who asked me to read the document. I read it aloud and when I hit the sentence about Wojick, I said ” that sentence is written by somebody else”
sure enough, it was plagiarized from the Wojick bio.

Anyway, whoever wrote that paragraph had mistaken views about how skeptics think and about the stature of Gleick. They also used weird rare words and a weird style of writing.

Now, can you find others who used that word? yes, of course.
did they have access to a 990? were they in a fight with heartland?

Can you find others who uses parenthesis weirdly? yes. Is it a consistent pattern in all their prose? not that I have seen.

motive, opportunity.

all speculation of course. But consider this. desmogblog spent an hour vetting these documents before publishing them as real.
I spent more than an hour researching this before pointing out a few things and drawing no definitive conclusion. Can we conclude it was Gleick? no. But the standard was set by Mann, we can speculate about Mcintyre playing a role in the hack and nobody complains. So, too in this case we can speculate about Gleick. I havent seen any evidence that indicates it wasn’t him.

Look, we have an explanation that explains the weird things we find in the memo. Kinda like a GCM that explains the warming only when you include anthro forcing. See, simple.

Carrick (Comment #90225)

Joshua:

Has anyone asked Gleik when he stopped beating his wife?
Good on y’all if your detective work is validated.
What will be more interesting is how you’ll respond if it isn’t.

You were a little unclear what you mean there.

You do mean how we’ll respond if we learn he hasn’t stopped beating his wife, right?

Neal J. King (Comment #90227)

“neill (Comment #90190)
February 17th, 2012 at 10:38 am

If HI’s status is changed that could have a negative impact on the Mann/UVA legal action, could it not? CFACT and HI are related, right?”

neill,

I have no idea.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90232)

Sphaerica (Comment #90222)
February 17th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Regarding Steve Mosher’s point that Gleik frequently uses parenthesis instead of commas…
So does Joe Bast:
http://blog.heartland.org/2011…..servatism/
So who is the more likely author?

##################
1. joe bast would have not made the errors about the Kock donation
2. bast would not use the term “anti-climate”
3. bast would not cast Gleick as a center piece of their strategy
4. bast would not make mistakes about the 88K or the 90K
5. bast would not use the word “undermine” to describe the NIPCC
6. bast would not describe revkin as neutral, heartland is on the
record as anti revkin.
7. bast would not have to plagairize a description of wojick
8. bast is not on the west coast.
9. bast has told the authorities that the document is fake. Those
people will be searching every system at HI to exclude HI
as the source.

NEXT!

The document is fake until proven true.
The next task is to look for who wrote it.

Start with motive and opportunity.

who had motive?
who had opportunity?

somebody with an axe to grind on the west coast

Then think about how arsonists like to watch their own fire burn.
perhaps somebody could not resist the urge to put himself center stage..

Neal J. King (Comment #90237)

“HaroldW (Comment #90192)
February 17th, 2012 at 10:44 am

You’re stretching …Act 10 is not anything like an election.

That some people may consider a recall as a result of Act 10 doesn’t make it an election. …

Look again at the Heartland cite you had above: “A research and education project built to take advantage of the public interest in Wisconsin’s Act 10 generated by recall elections that could take place.” Says nothing about any candidate.”

HaroldW:

A recall election specifically about a “candidate”: It is making the incumbent office-holder a “candidate” for losing his job.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the opinion that matters will be the opinion of the IRS (you know, the guys who give you a hard time if you want to claim a room in your house is being used as office space). If you don’t work for the IRS, in the division related to non-profits, or very close to them, your point of view on this topic doesn’t, in all honesty, matter very much.

In my opinion, it is at least a close call; and we shall see if the IRS thinks likewise, and what they do about it.

Steven Mosher (Comment #90240)

Joshua (Comment #90205)
February 17th, 2012 at 11:51 am
Has anyone asked Gleik when he stopped beating his wife?
Good on y’all if your detective work is validated.
What will be more interesting is how you’ll respond if it isn’t.

###################

Joshua, this is a hypothesis. Like global warming is a hypothesis. We are testing the hypothesis. People are practicing skepticism about it. See, I engage them. I don’t call them names, I don’t ask about their funding. I argue a case. I could very well be wrong.
In which case I will say.. Im wrong. No problem there. We have little evidence to go on. that evidence like all evidence may be explained any number of ways. So we suggest hypothesis. x did it.
Look, if the time zone the documents were scanned was chicago, I’d say that was good evidence against the hypothesis.
So we wonder, why a 2010 990 form for a 2012 meeting?
I wonder, gosh two documents were scanned. two documents DONT fit what you would have at a board meeting. And then we find out that this guy had a 990 form in his possession. that dosnt count againt the hypothesis.

We find a weird word, does it fit the hypothesis? yup
we find a weird style, not utterly unique, not a signature, but a pattern..
we find a motive
we find an MO, looking at the amazon review..

Gosh, did you complain about mann trying to finger Mcintrye?
no. why one standard for him and another for me?
I like Mann’s standard.

Neal J. King (Comment #90243)

SteveF (Comment #90195)
February 17th, 2012 at 11:09 am

You left out part of what I said:
“I happen to believe that it IS necessary; and that this point will no longer be debatable within educated society within 10-15 years.”

It is my opinion that the roughness we have been experiencing with the weather will be exacerbated over the next 10-15 years; that the ice caps will continue to shrink; that the oceanic pH will continue to decline; and so on. It is my opinion that people will be more ready to accept that this is going on, than they are now.

Nyq Only (Comment #90249)

Re: Copner (Comment #90126) February 17th, 2012 at 5:26 am
“There are a lot more than two you identified”
Not of the kind that cast HI in any more of a bad light than the apparently genuine document. There may be many interesting things about the memo but your earlier point was about the characterisation of HI. The other stuff you mention in turn fits with a sloppy first draft hypothesis. <- Note I'm not saying it can't be a fake just that there are reasonable alternative hypotheses.

"And finally – why would they create this document? From Heartland’s point of view it serves no purpose from their point of view. "

Organisations write summaries and briefings. That is hardly odd or unknown. People write memos to collect their thoughts or to introduce a policy document or as an outline for a meeting (particulalry a meeting involving a set of diverse documents). We know from HI's account of the "fraud" that somebody blagged their way into receiving a set of documents. That suggests that HI already had most of these documents together as a collection for some purpose (presumably a meeting or something similar).

EEEK! I just noticed I've got comments in brackets! And wait…I make typos all the time! And only somebody using Word in Australia would have a cupertino substituting "Flinders" for a mis-spelling of founders! I take it all back – I think I know who faked the memo! It must have been ME! Now I only need to work out how I manage to cunningly hide it from myself.

Sphaerica (Comment #90255)

Steve Mosher,

9. bast has told the authorities that the document is fake. Those
people will be searching every system at HI to exclude HI
as the source.

Not if those authorities say no crime has been committed, either local or federal, and from the laws I’ve looked at, there hasn’t been a crime committed.

As far as who wrote the document… do you think Joe Bast writes every single thing he puts his name on, or that he sometimes delegates things or puts his name on the works of others to give them weight?

I ran an online writing analysis program on posts by Joe Bast and Peter Gleik, on the document in question, and on the fundraising document. The last two came up as being written in the same style.

SteveF (Comment #90256)

Neal J. King (Comment #90243)
“roughness we have been experiencing with the weather will be exacerbated over the next 10-15 years”
There is no statistically significant change in extreme weather that I have seen published; there is a little more total rainfall.
.
“that the ice caps will continue to shrink; that the oceanic pH will continue to decline;”
If CO2 goes up, then surface water pH will decline slightly, of course. It could not do otherwise. Declining ice in a warming world is also pretty likely, although the extent and rate are not certain.
But what puzzles me is that you don’t address the point I was trying to make: that people will support or not support public action based on both data/projections and political inclinations/personal values. Do you disagree with this?

Sphaerica (Comment #90258)

Stever Mosher,

The document also will not be found if the document wasn’t produced in the office and was never circulated electronically (as would be the case if it had to be scanned instead of e-mailed)… or if HI takes care to delete all traces of it before calling authorities.

lucia (Comment #90259)

Sphaerica–
Link to online writing analysis program?

J Bowers (Comment #90263)

@ Steven Mosher (Comment #90232)

You seem to have a bit too much insight into how Bast’s mind works than you should probably take credit for.

Spence_UK (Comment #90264)

Many thanks for checking Steven! I’m afraid I only think in numbers and am a poor judge of writing style.

I thought the “e.g.,” was odd and coupled with “anti-climate”, pointed to two unusual traits – then googled e.g. and climate and found that adding a comma to e.g. was not that unusual (perhaps around 10% of authors in the climate debate do it).

One of the problems I had with Gleick was that he didn’t appear to use “e.g.” much, let alone “e.g.,”. But then I stumbled across this:

http://www.worldwaterweek.org/....._Water.pdf

Which has Dr Gleick with “e.g.,” – which puts one of my doubts to rest. Good sleuthing!

Neal J. King (Comment #90268)

“SteveF (Comment #90256)
February 17th, 2012 at 1:04 pm

But what puzzles me is that you don’t address the point I was trying to make: that people will support or not support public action based on both data/projections and political inclinations/personal values. Do you disagree with this?”

I think things will change, both attitudinally and weather-wise. I don’t try to justify this expectation, it’s just my sense of timing. Like, 25 years ago, I thought softcopy books would be all the rage, in about 25 years; and 25 years later, the biggest bookseller in the world is selling more e-books than paper books.

Rob Honeycutt (Comment #90270)

Hmmmm…. This whole thing looks like another example of the Serengeti strategy to me.

Copner (Comment #90271)

> Not of the kind that cast HI in any more of a bad light than the apparently genuine document.

toto made that claim earlier.

I challenged him to prove it. He never responded. Now you’re making the claim.

I have yet to see anything in the other documents that show anything other Heartland (a) collecting money, and (b) spending it on disseminating their point of view.

It may happen to be a view that you disagree with… but there is nothing in any of the other documents, of the nature “we’re evil and we know it”, or “we hate science”

Or if you believe there is something of that nature in the other documents, it should be simple for you to prove it with a reference to a specific section or quotation.

I’m still waiting….

Sphaerica/Nyq – And I’m also wanting for explanation of why the Strategy Memo apparently contains major errors (e.g. not understanding the HCN code) when interpreting the budget – the only plausible explanation is a person who wrote isn’t familiar with the most basic elements of Heartland’s financial system.

Howard (Comment #90272)

I love it. Reminds me of High School where Frank Zappa meets Salvidor Dali while geeks play the Jock and Cheerleader roles.

Who cares who did what. HI and the WUWT peanut gallery are moronic cranks more interested in politics. Maybe some of the political CAGW moronic cranks juiced a HI memo. We must get to the bottom of this!

Mosher is pretending to apply rigorous scientific analysis and ethics to solve the worlds greatest mystery in another effort to hide a pathetic Napoleonic complex. At the same time, Joshua is pretending to be Rodney King playing the Wizard of Oz. You two should get a sitcom… it practically writes itself.

All this BS deserves are personal attacks, worn-out cliches and random namedropping.

lucia (Comment #90274)

As far as who wrote the document… do you think Joe Bast writes every single thing he puts his name on, or that he sometimes delegates things or puts his name on the works of others to give them weight?

Given how small Heartland is he may well write everything or nearly everything he puts his name on. He’s likely not delegate a confidential strategy document that is meant to be circulated only among a subset of directors.

Nyq Only (Comment #90277)

“I challenged him to prove it. He never responded. Now you’re making the claim.”
Well it is hardly difficult. I listed two things which do cast HI in a bad light (which we discussed) and you, in defence of the cackling-evil hypothesis cited several more:
3. “undermining” <- no worse than the genuine documents
4. “official UN IPCC” <- no worse than the genuine documents
5. no title, no author, none of the user corporate filler <- iirelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
6. no identification of “I” <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
7. wrong creation date <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
8. missing meta-data <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
9. wrong fonts <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad – unless it was a really, really evil font – say Comic Sans (no the horror!)
10. completely different writing style <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
11. errors – for example identifying Koch as a climate donor (the donation they made was for health care, see budget – whoever wrote didn’t understand the other Heartland documents, making even basic errors of interpretation) <- irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad
12. + maths errors in adding totals <- almost irrelevant as to whether the document makes HI look bad (except if the claim is that bad arithemetic = evil)
So really all your claim comes down to is the two points I mentioned and "undermining" and "UN IPCC"

Nyq Only (Comment #90278)

“And I’m also wanting for explanation of why the Strategy Memo apparently contains major errors (e.g. not understanding the HCN code) when interpreting the budget – the only plausible explanation is a person who wrote isn’t familiar with the most basic elements of Heartland’s financial system.”

That doesn’t follow. SOmebody who didn’t know the system but was faking would HAVE to look it up. Somebody who DID know the system but who hasn’t memorised it by rote would make casual errors. Again I wouldn’t be surprised to find an email from a manager in organisations I’ve worked for that had a wrong budget or project code in it – precisely because they do know the system and hence wrote it from memory rather than look it up.

D. Robinson (Comment #90280)

RE: Dave Springer “The simplest explanation for why the “fake” document was scanned is that it was received as a paper document.”

Dave, if I understand all this correctly the documents in question were E-mailed form HI’s headquarters to a fake board member who released them. Does it seem likely to you that an internal memo in HI’s main records would exist in a faxed format? Really? In this day and age?

No way. If it was generated within HI and sent out by HI to the fake board member it would have been in an original electronic format and there wouldn’t be a mismatch between it and the other docs.

Duke C. (Comment #90282)

@Steven Mosher (Comment #90033)
February 16th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

copner.

I figure the 990 was downloaded. pacific Institute has their 990 onfile

Steve, do you have a link to the 990 posted at Pacific? I’m finding some interesting stuff in the 990 provenance, would like to compare it to the one at Pac Inst…. 🙂

Copner (Comment #90283)

> Well it is hardly difficult. I listed two things which do cast HI in a bad light (which we discussed) and you, in defence of the cackling-evil hypothesis cited several more:

You’re dodging the question – or conflating the issues (the my numbered list was about whether or not the memo was fake, and the oddities in the memo).

The point is I asked you & toto & others have essentially claimed it doesn’t matter if the strategy memo is fake, because the other docs indicate Heartland is just as evil anyway.

So my question is a simple one. And I asked you to be specific. WHERE IN THE OTHER DOCUMENTS DOES IT INDICATE HEARTLAND IS JUST AS EVIL AS THE STRATEGY DOC IMPLIES?

You just say “there’s nothing worse” and expect me to find the answer for you in 100+ pages. I submit there is no answer to my question.

Where in the other documents do they describe their activities as “undermining” or “opposed to teaching science”? There is nothing in the other documents, where they describe themselves as the bad guys…. all you can find in their other documents is them disseminating views that they believe to be correct (even if you happen to think those views are mistaken).

The strategy memo is the only document where there is anything like an admission that (a) Heartland is the bad guys, and (b) the views that Heartland promotes are mistaken.

The challenge remains – prove me wrong – find something in any one of the documents where it says (a) Heartland is the bad guys, and (b) the views that Heartland promotes are mistaken.

If what you are saying is true, it should be easy for you to find a specific quotation of that nature

But I submit you can’t.

As to the HCN code. You do not appreciate the extent of this error.

Major organizations classify expenses and income by codes, identifying projects that they are associated with. For anybody with control over spending or fund-raising such codes are like lifeblood because they are part of daily life. Every single time you spend time or money on something, the amount of time/money & the code is recorded.

The budget has the entire Koch contribution under the HCN code. HCN is the code for healthcare work Heartland was doing.

It is not a simple misreading to write a paragraph in the strategy document about Koch’s contribution to the climate-advocacy, when the contribution in the budget is listed under HCN… it indicates whoever wrote the memo didn’t know what HCN meant.

Oh, and this misunderstood several other basic aspects of the budget figures too.

Nyq Only (Comment #90287)

“You’re dodging the question – or conflating the issues (the my numbered list was about whether or not the memo was fake, and the oddities in the memo).”

Possibly you conflated or dodge an issue in your earlier email but my point (which you responded to with that list) was regarding whether the memo cast HI in a bad light or not. You may wish to go back and re-read it as we may be arguing at cross purposes.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90289)

steven mosher (Comment #90168)
Steven,
Yes, I understand that you exercised great restraint while Anthony was returning to US etc. What I’m not seeing is evidence that at the time of Anthony’s post, that the emails quoted there were any better validated than the HI docs. The accusation against the HI leak is that a number of apparently valid docs had been salted with a forgery. I don’t see how you had foreclosed that possibility with the FOIA docs.

Ged (Comment #90291)

@Nick,

Were not those caveats stated by Anthony and others? I distinctly recall them saying there could be fakes in that massive archive and to approach it cautiously until more and more could be confirmed as people worked their way through it.

But for the initial stuff, Anthony and Steven have already provided you all the evidence that they checked. The post on the initial stuff was already validated. And they waited for CRU to start reacting. These people didn’t wait for HI.

Did anyone who went off against HI about this list the caveats that there could be fakes, before HI press release?

Ged (Comment #90292)

@Nyg Only,

You are not following the discussion nor providing evidence.

Ignoring the forgery, provide direct quotes from the other documents, at your choosing, that would cast HI in a bad light–versus the on goings of ANY organization or think tank.

Go ahead, give it a shot, I’d like to see what you can do beyond hyperbole.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90293)

neill (Comment #90155)
“What’s your story, Nick? If you think it’s not a forgery, state why you believe that.”

I don’t have a story there, and haven’t propounded one. I don’t know.

But since you asked, I do think it is possible that the doc came in paper form from a HI office, or dumpster or whatever. If so, it was probably a draft, which possibly got no further. In that case, it should not be cited as a HI official view, and I would not do so.

I don’t think the stylistic or metadata arguments disprove that. The strongest argument against is simply that HI says it isn’t theirs. That’s substantial. So I don’t know. I would discount it until substantiated, and look at the other docs.

Copner (Comment #90295)

No my list that you cited, was a list of suspicious items in the strategy document

It was a response to your challenge – when you claimed there strategy document only had 2 suspicious elements – “There are really only two aspects that are suspicious in terms of content:”

To which I responded – “There are a lot more than two you identified” – followed by a list of other suspicious (as to fakery) items in the strategy document.

Separately, you & toto & others have claimed there are equally damning things (as in the strategy document) in other documents. I’m just asking you to show some specific examples, because I can’t find any.

Ged’s now asked the same question.

jorge c. (Comment #90296)

Nick Stokes (Comment #90300)

Ged (Comment #90291)

“Were not those caveats stated by Anthony and others?”

I linked Anthony’s first post. See if you can find it.

“But for the initial stuff, Anthony and Steven have already provided you all the evidence that they checked. The post on the initial stuff was already validated. And they waited for CRU to start reacting. These people didn’t wait for HI.”

There’s evidence that they waited. I can’t see what actual checking was done to see whether the emails quoted in the post were genuine. The first update mentions UEA checking their security. I’m sure HI did that too. It wasn’t until the second update, the following day, that there was a response from Phil Jones.

Ged (Comment #90304)

@Nick Stokes,

“I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.”

Here Anthony does not rule out that it could be a hoax, simply that it’s unlikely, and states why: 61 megs is a massive amount of material to forge in e-mail form, with inside knowledge of addresses and times. Easily proved false; but others (such as those who had e-mails that were in that dump) showed Anthony and Steven that they were correct, corroborating the factual nature of the dump.

Furthermore, Anthony does not speculate on the contents in that thread and their broader meanings. All he says is “It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag.” The is not slander in any sense, nor even speaking against those in the e-mails. The rest of Anthony’s post is just factual reporting and a reproduction of some of the e-mails as seen on another site’s thread.

Contrast that to the reactions on multiple blogs and medias about the HI.

So Nick, care to continue tangoing with me? I enjoy dismantling your logic and lack of reading your own evidence.

Ged (Comment #90308)

@Nick,

Oh, and I meant to say, I see that quote I put from Anthony as a clear caveat. Saying “appears to be” leaves room that it isn’t; and that is a caveat clear and simple. Do you see such language about the HI?

SteveF (Comment #90317)

Neal J. King (Comment #90268),
Some folks believe in fairy God mothers too.

Les Johnson (Comment #90319)

C’mon, Nick. The “bad guys” at least did due diligence in trying to determne the CG emails as valid. And waited for 2 days.

The “good guys” did ZERO due diligence. And released in 1 hour.

Snap quiz: who woud be the more professional journalist?

Jason (Comment #90320)

http://www.desmogblog.com/hear.....al-machine

Desmogblog quotes from the fake document as follows:
“Our climate work is attractive to funders”

when if a Text Select and Copy is done on the fake document you will get:
“Our climate work is attractive to flinders”

which could indicate that Desmogblog had access to the original document that the PDF was made from.
Nobody would retype the poorly printed fake document.
Maybe they noticed the wrong OCR conversion of the word funders, but I didn’t, and did they have time to notice inside an hour? I think not.

A. Scott (Comment #90322)

@Sphaerica (Comment #90164)

Nice try at scare-mongering. From info from YOUR link your effort would be a “fail” …

Defenses:

1. “truth”, which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

2. “opinion”. If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation

3. “fair comment on a matter of public interest”

4. “to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.”

5. Further – for public figures – “[in] an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.”

That matter of “truth” is what is being investigated here.

The activities of Mosher and others are that of investigating and researching, and any statements made thus far have been mere opinion – no one has stated Gleick is guilty, although saying so would be their opinion regardless.

Clearly this is a matter of public interest and as such the identity of the forger is an important and serious matter, reasoned comment on this issue is well within the bounds of fair comment. It is equally clear significant effort is being made to avoid reckless speculation – to be thorough – to fact find to the full extent possible.

Considerable damage has been done to a number of people in the climate research community as a result of this forgery. Anthony Watts in particular has been slimed by the dirtbag that wrote this forgery. It is very difficult to remove that slime, even if it is proven false. Several of those working to research this do so, at least in part, in defense of Anthony.

Gleick is also, by his choice and actions, clearly a public figure – he has chosen to publicly post and publish extensively. There is clearly an effort to to find the truth underway, and as that truth is unknown there can be no knowing false statement made.

By facts from your own link there appears not even a remote chance that any of those investigating this matter, would be remotely guilt of libel and slander regarding Gleick.

Anthony (Comment #90323)

@GED – thanks.

The difference between Mr. Stokes and I is that I spent 20+ years in a television newsroom, and factual reporting was my job. Imagine how long I’d stay on the air if I forecast hail and high water, and none happened, because I ignored checking data first. I learned when interrupting programming for a bulletin was warranted and what the risks were.

My boss also taught me well about how to research and report a story factually and fairly. I drew on that in CG1.

In FakeGate, the media had an apparent downed kill, and each ripped off what they thought was a piece of red meat and ran into their corners to consume it, without first checking to see if it was really dead or if what they grabbed was part of the kill, or simply a dead stick grabbed in haste.

Jit (Comment #90325)

Neal:

“The ice caps will continue to shrink…”

Eh? Presupposes something which isn’t true, that both ice caps are presently shrinking. Also, most people don’t live on or near ice caps. People tend to get most exercised about the things right under their noses.

Mosh:

It’s UEA not UAE. Please.

A. Scott (Comment #90326)

@stokes

Grasping at imaginary straws. Anthony simply acknowledged the documents existed. He stated what they knew about them, and what they APPEARED to be, but cautioned against assuming further until there was more validation.

The DeSmogBlog crew made zero effort, nor offered ANY caution – they dumped the documents, and I might add appeared to have the story all queued up and ready to go, within less than an hour of the creation date of the fake. They purposely, intentionally and with clear malice, smeared both Heartland and all associated with them, and Anthony Watts with zero regard for the authenticity of the documents.

Your repeated attacks on Anthony, which make a claim that is not accurate, make you look petty and vindictive … in my opinion of course.

Anthony (Comment #90327)

@ Nick Stokes #90293

“I do think it is possible that the doc came in paper form from a HI office, or dumpster or whatever. If so, it was probably a draft, which possibly got no further.”

No sorry, wrong again. From my second post on FakeGate, analysing the document:

3. One of the first questions I asked Joe Bast of Heartland when I saw this printed then scanned document was “do you not shred your trash”? His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”. That suggests a paper copy never existed in the Heartland office. The fact that none of the documents contains any personal signatures lends credence to this.

Copner (Comment #90328)

@Jason: They also corrected the badly OCRed word Romm (OCRed with an “rn” for “m”).

But I think you are maybe reading too much into it.

They only made a few short quotes. And it is perfectly plausible that they could correct typos in these quotes (or simply retype them if they didn’t realise they could copy and paste) within 1 hour.

Mike Mangan (Comment #90332)

Anyone hear from Peter Gleick lately?

https://twitter.com/#!/PeterGleick

Hmmm. Doesn’t seem to have anything to say on the subject. Maybe he’s having lunch with Anthony Weiner or something…

A. Scott (Comment #90334)

@Sphaerica

Now – how about you compare the actions of the deSmogBlog gang to the same 5 defenses from your link?

1. Truth? Zero attempt was made to ascertain if the information was truthful.

2. Opinion? Hardly – they presented the documents AS FACT and based their direct attack on that basis.

3. Fair Comment? Hardly – they attacked without bothering to even try to determine the validity of the documents. They saw what they wanted to see and recklessly rushed to attack with complete disregard for truth or accuracy.

4. Mitigation of damages? Nope – neither deSmogBlog, or any of the other attackers, had been defamed by Heartland. Rather they each have long histories of hatred for, and attack of, Heartland and any associated with them.

5. Malice? It is quite clear, especially when put in context of their past attacks on Heartland, that there was malice here. They made no effort to verify the accuracy, and even AFTER the accuracy was challenged continued their attacks. I suspect, from the ongoing investigations, it will be shown they knew the documents at the heart of their attack was false. Again regardless, they continued the attack even after learning the document was a fake.

Mosher, and the rest here attempting to investigate this have a long history of solid research, and restraint in issues like this. They have proven they exercise restraint and avoid reckless, unverified and unsupported statements. The deSmog gang on the other hand … not so much.

Sphaerica (Comment #90335)

Lucia,

iwl.me

But it’s only a toy. Real writing analysis requires far larger writing samples, and far more expert analysis. My point is that Steve Mosher’s off-the-cuff writing analysis is ridiculous. Making it up as you go to try to reach the conclusion you like is exactly how “skeptics’ get to where they’re at.

lucia (Comment #90336)

Sphaerica–
I thought that was your point. I asked for the url because I want to see the toy.

Jason (Comment #90337)

Peter Gleick at Forbes uses the odd phrase “anti-climate” 3 times on Feb 5 2012:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe.....ar-awards/
Feb. 5 2012 — 12:39 pm

“and anti-climate science in particular”
“after pressure from anti-climate-science activists”
“efforts to synchronize anti-climate science reporting
“an especially absurd piece from the Heartland Institute”

and also on 31 Aug 2011:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe.....r-america/

“this is a false savings solely due to anti-climate ideology”

Neal J. King (Comment #90338)

Jit (Comment #90325)
February 17th, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Yes, north cap is going, part of south cap is disappearing, part growing; but it’s warming up anyway. Crabs and sharks are entering the Southern Ocean for the first time. I think it will be a signal moment when the coral reefs have completely died out; which looks to be around 2050 or so, from my reading.

Jeff Norman (Comment #90339)

This is great fun. I haven’t chuckled through a long list of comments like this in a long time. Thanks,

SteveF (Comment #90341)

Sphaerica (Comment #90335)

Making it up as you go to try to reach the conclusion you like is exactly how “skeptics’ get to where they’re at.

Which sounds a great deal like how climate modelers set up their historical aerosol offsets and other “tunable” parameters. Everyone is subject to expectation bias and confirmation bias. Those involved in climate science are no different in that respect than the rest of us.

Kaboom (Comment #90342)

Steve Mosher invites readers to help identify the culprit:

[q]Steven Mosher (Comment #89983)
curious.
Folks can help by collecting as many gleick comments from blogs as possible.
What to look for
use of parenthesis where commas would be better or dashes
use of parenthesis at the end of sentences.
also use of this (e.g., ) putting eg in parenthesis.
[/q]

The only example of the rather unique (e.g., ) I found was Roger Pielke Jr himself, [b]responding [/b] to Peter Gleick at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......ponds.html, on 30 April, 2011, where he says:

[q]“A broader focus on deaths from extreme weather events around the world also has no scientific basis at this time for asserting a connection to human-caused climate change in any of these phenomena (e.g., PDF). If you really want to defeat “the deniers” then my advice is to refrain from giving them such easy targets to shoot down.”[/q]

My conclusion as to the identity of the villian?

It was Roger Pielke Jnr, in the Study, with the Epson!

Nick Stokes (Comment #90343)

Anthony (Comment #90327)
“His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”. That suggests a paper copy never existed in the Heartland office.”

Many offices would say that, often accurately. That doesn’t mean paper copies aren’t made. The lack of shredding adds to the dumpster possibility.

A. Scott (Comment #90326)
“Your repeated attacks on Anthony, which make a claim that is not accurate,..”

I’m not attacking anyone. A claim has been made that the authenticity of the emails was confirmed before they were quoted in the first post, and I’m just querying what actual confirmation of those emails was done. I’m not hearing what it was.

“appeared to have the story all queued up and ready to go, within less than an hour of the creation date of the fake.”

Again, this gets bandied about, but it’s just based on the fact that there was some activity with the docs an hour before posting, as you’d expect. With the strategy memo, it was scanned (though I think that was the day before). You actually don’t know how long DeSmog had access to the material before posting.

SteveF (Comment #90347)

Neil #90338,
“I think it will be a signal moment when the coral reefs have completely died out; which looks to be around 2050 or so, from my reading.”
You should choose your reading material more critically. Corals have been around for a long time, surviving very large cold and warm transitions, as well as rapid (multiple cm per year!) rises in sea level. They do quite well at higher dissolved CO2, at least until greater than ~600 -700 PPM (above which some species do seem to be slowed somewhat in growth… slowed, not killed!). We are a very long way from exceeding 600-700 PPM. Don’t worry, corals won’t disappear in 38 years.

Copner (Comment #90348)

@Nick:

Well we know that the “Dear Friends (15 of you)” email was sent on February 14th

See e.g.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com.....-the-heat/

So are you claiming that Desmog got their copy prior to the others? And if you are claiming that, what is your evidence for it?

Or you are just making up random speculations, and saying “well you can’t disprove this random piece of speculation….”

Well Desmog nearly do, they imply in their 14th Feb article, they had only just received the material – referring to it for example as “today’s new information”

Neal J. King (Comment #90355)

SteveF (Comment #90347)
February 17th, 2012 at 5:03 pm

1) It’s “NeAl”, not “Neil”.

2) As usual with biodiversity threats and GW, the issue is NOT the absolute amount of increase in temperature/pH/etc., but the rate at which it’s changing. The timescale for global changes due to natural causes is on the order of 100k years; but we are talking about significant changes in oceanic temperature and pH within decades.

To consider a global rate of change of 0.1-C/decade: If a tree is “happiest” at a certain temperature, over the period of a decade it should somehow travel 6 km poleward to maintain that temperature. Or climb higher. But of course trees can’t do that.

SteveF (Comment #90361)

Sorry Neal (not Neil),
“As usual with biodiversity threats and GW, the issue is NOT the absolute amount of increase in temperature/pH/etc., but the rate at which it’s changing.”
.
Right. But the other issue is factual reality. I’m just not sure how corals (which only live a relatively narrow depth band) managed to survive 1.5 cm per year sea level increases over thousands of years…. but they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F....._Level.png . The corals in Florida and Bermuda seem to do OK, in spite of quite large seasonal water temperature changes. Over the last 5 years Corals in Bermuda have lived through monthly average sea temperatures as low as 16C and as high as 30C. http://www.bermuda4u.com/Essen.....ature.html And by the way, the ocean surface never really goes much above 30C, anywhere, nor will it in the future. Too much moist convective heat loss above 30C to get any warmer. Trees don’t walk, but their seeds can move pretty quickly on the wind, or in the belly of a bird. Trees also have quite a broad band of temperatures where they can compete with other trees. Say, white oak http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUAL or silver birch http://www.euforgen.org/filead.....ula%29.pdf, or maybe white pine http://conifers.org/pi/pi/strobus02.gif.
.
Most every claim of looming ecological catastrophe does not stand up to actual data.

neill (Comment #90363)

Nick, your tactic on this thread (and others if I recall correctly) seems to be an attempt to simply obfuscate, to tangle the discussion, the way the big defenseman in hockey tangles with opponents going after his forward with the puck. Who cares, and keeps repeating ad nauseum, about the exact nature of Anthony’s due diligence TWO YEARS AGO? You alone, apparently. Fact is, DeSmog blog did NONE, rushing the “scandal” to achieve the maximum mass arm-waving by Warmists. And now, when folks on this thread are trying to sort this thing out, you have cranked your fog machine on high to obscure the conversation to the fullest extent possible. Turn it off, it’s thread pollution.

Tom (Comment #90367)

Well it looks like Lucia’s clan are defending the right-wing whack jobs again.

Way to go…

Andrew_KY (Comment #90369)

“right-wing whack jobs”

And this phrase is viscerally oozing with scientific significance. And that’s what this is all about, so they keep telling me.

Andrew

J Bowers (Comment #90371)

Jason (Comment #90337)
“Peter Gleick at Forbes uses the odd phrase “anti-climate” 3 times on Feb 5 2012:”
No he doesn’t, he says ‘anti-climate-science’. You’re only two thirds of the way there. You’ll find that even the Heartlander uses ‘anti-climate’ if you bother to look.

diogenes (Comment #90372)

ahhh…J Bowers, the Norman Wisdom of reason

A. Scott (Comment #90374)

@Sphaerica (Comment #90335)

My point is that Steve Mosher’s off-the-cuff writing analysis is ridiculous. Making it up as you go to try to reach the conclusion you like is exactly how “skeptics’ get to where they’re at.

Seriously? It appears clear Mosher and others are doing the opposite – making every effort to thoroughly research and not make off the cuff, unsupported claims. Just like they do with their inquiries to the science.

J Bowers (Comment #90375)

ahhh.. Diogenes, an ironic moniker if ever there was one.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90378)

Copner (Comment #90348)

‘So are you claiming that Desmog got their copy prior to the others? And if you are claiming that, what is your evidence for it?
Or you are just making up random speculations, and saying “well you can’t disprove this random piece of speculation….”’

No, people are accusing DeSmog of undue haste. I’m just pointing out that there’s no evidence of how long they had the info. I don’t know, myself.

But I do note that there is a typically long and detailed report from John Mashey which came out at about the same time, and has some of the same info. It wasn’t written in an hour.

diogenes (Comment #90380)

lucia…when climategate 2 erupted, J Bowers was assigned to infest Tallbloke’s blog. Just be warned – he seems to have the intellect of a tortoise. You already have Nick Stokes. Maybe you need some insecticide.

Copner (Comment #90383)

>I’m just pointing out that there’s no evidence of how long they had the info

There’s only no evidence if you ignore the evidence.

1. They info in question was emailed out to 15 parties, including Desmog, on Feb 14th

2. Desmog says they received it on Feb 14th.

So unless you are accusing Desmog of lying, we know exactly how long they had the info.

Are you accusing Desmog of lying?

Neal J. King (Comment #90385)

SteveF (Comment #90361)
February 17th, 2012 at 5:58 pm

Some flora & fauna are robust to changes and some are not. Further, there is a difference between a daily or seasonal variation and a secular change.
– Example: The pine beetles in the North American pine forests used to be killed off every winter by the cold. Now they’re not, so they wake up in the spring ready to munch. The result is devastation in North American pine forests.
– Example: Over the last 40 years, of the 400-odd birds tracked by the Audubon Society, the average migration distance has increased some 35 miles. It may not seem like much, but the general figure I got was that the mortality rate for bird migration is on the order of 50% anyway; so adding a mile/year to their travel distance does not sound good.
– Trees vs seeds: It is not sufficient to have the seeds travel in place of the trees, because a tree can have a lifespan of many decades: if the climate changes beneath it, it won’t have time to reach its full span. That changes the nature of the forest. Also, given the fact that there are roads and development everywhere, forests cannot just spill over into adjacent land: that land may be already developed/industrialized, or unsuitable in terrain, or just not there (seashore).
– Corals: I would be more comfortable with your views if you referenced biologists rather than temperature charts. Critters can have very intricate lifecycles; my sad experience with exotic pets is that they find all sorts of ways to die, so predictions need to be a bit subtle. The biologists that I have read estimate that we will lose about 50% of terrestrial species over the next 200 – 300 years, at the current rate. (I don’t know whether this includes bacterial species or not; it will probably include all the amphibians, except for a handful that are immune to this weird fungus that seems to be attacking them worldwide.) To me, this loss in biodiversity will be like the ultimate loss of intellectual property: gazillions of working designs in their settings and interactions, to disappear leaving behind perhaps a little DNA, as a clue.

Nick Stokes (Comment #90386)

Copner (Comment #90383)
I wish you’d give links, or something, to support your claims:
1. They info in question was emailed out to 15 parties, including Desmog, on Feb 14th
Evidence that Desmog was included?
2. Desmog says they received it on Feb 14th.
Where?

A. Scott (Comment #90387)

@Nick Stokes (Comment #90343)

A. Scott (Comment #90326)
“Your repeated attacks on Anthony, which make a claim that is not accurate,..”

I’m not attacking anyone. A claim has been made that the authenticity of the emails was confirmed before they were quoted in the first post, and I’m just querying what actual confirmation of those emails was done. I’m not hearing what it was.

“appeared to have the story all queued up and ready to go, within less than an hour of the creation date of the fake.”

Again, this gets bandied about, but it’s just based on the fact that there was some activity with the docs an hour before posting, as you’d expect. With the strategy memo, it was scanned (though I think that was the day before). You actually don’t know how long DeSmog had access to the material before posting.

You are splitting hairs to a ridiculous and silly point. Anthony made a simple post about the existence of the emails – a FACT – he said from the limited information then available they appeared to be real. He and other did significant research and vetting before they made any comment other than a simple statement to acknowledge their existence. No amount of your attempting to twist those words will change the simple facts – which show you are wrong.

As to the comments on the deSmog; there is clear evidence of the timeline … according to their own words there was less than 1 hour from the time the document was scanned to the deSmog posting – with a full blown story attacking Heartland.

The accuracy of that statement will also come in to play here shortly I predict.

Copner (Comment #90388)

Nick, you really are being deliberately obtuse. I assume just to muddy the waters.

Frankly you should find something better to muddy the water with – because desmog have made clear that they received the emails from Heartland Insider on Feb 14th – and I fail to see how it serves your purpose to prove them liars (even if you could). Are you really so demented to argue, “they are honest journalists who check documents authenticity – and the proof of this is that they lied about how long they had the docs?????”

Are you really accusing them of lying about that?

But hey ho, anyway…

They’ve said they received the documents by email, e.g. (a) + (c) from “Heartland Insider”

And they’ve said when they received them, e.g (a) mentions the email we know the date of, and (b) uses the word “today” to tell us when they got them.

And apart from (a), (b) and (c), we also have (d) where POLITICO gets a statement direct from Desmog telling us when and how they obtained the documents – again fitting the exact same narrative & timeline

(a) http://www.desmogblog.com/hear.....d-strategy – dated 14 Feb 2012

An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.

(b) http://desmogblog.com/mashey-r.....-deception – dated Feb 14

All of this is, again, corroborated by the Heartland documents leaked earlier today.

(c) http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s.....d-document – dated Feb 16

The Climate Strategy that was emailed to the DeSmogBlog with a package of material from the Heartland Institute’s Jan. 17 Board of Directors meeting is serving

(d) http://dyn.politico.com/prints.....C8C2EDA7DC

DeSmogBlog’s editors told POLITICO that they had received the documents Tuesday from an anonymous tipster who dubbed himself a “Heartland insider.” The blog posted them about an hour later without contacting the Heartland Institute for confirmation.

Jason (Comment #90390)

J Bowers (Comment #90371)
Peter Gleick at Forbes uses the phrase “anti-climate ideology” on 31 Aug 2011:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe.....r-america/

“this is a false savings solely due to anti-climate ideology”

—————————-
Peter Gleick tweets the phrase “anti-climate essay” on Jan 27th:
—————————-
http://webcache.googleusercont.....38;ct=clnk

#WSJ rejects climate essay from 255 National Academy of Science scientists; accepts anti-climate essay from 16 others. onforb.es/wv5rHU
9:45 PM Jan 27th via web Retweeted by 1179 people

PeterGleick

GrantB (Comment #90391)

Neil #90388 – “I think it will be a signal moment when the coral reefs have completely died out; which looks to be around 2050 or so, from my reading.” I’m with SteveF, you should expand your reading a little. The current growth in Western Australian corals is increasing at such a rate that there is a “possibility” (IPCC probability value yet to be assigned) that by 2050 they may have taken over the entire planet –

The Australian Institute of Marine Science says the most southerly reefs on the West Australian coast, have increased their growth rates by up to 23 per cent.

Principal research scientist, Janice Lough, says that’s not sustainable.

Link

DavidA (Comment #90392)

I think this is worth noting. The Guardian is reporting that Mashey has sent a “whistleblower”* complaint regarding HI to the IRS. The journalist is US based.

“Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months’ research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.”

3 months work, a few hours before – coincidence?

I wouldn’t trust everything this journalist writes (“climate science attack machine”!) though on this point should be reliable.

* Interesting that the term whistleblower is used. A whistleblower is often afforded certain protections from usually prosecutable acts. A whistleblower usually has inside information. Is it the journalist’s choice to use this term or Mashey’s?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....rutiny-tax

lucia (Comment #90393)

Copner– I don’t think the Desmog blog’s wording is clear about when they got the email. But David’ Appell’s blog is:
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.....email.html

I don’t have much new information, except the header of the email the leaker sent to Desmogblog, Thinkprogress, etc., after it was forwarded to Keith Kloor. The date and time are from the original email, not that forwarded to Keith.

From: Heartland Insider
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Subject: Files from Heartland Institute

Nick Stokes (Comment #90394)

Copner (Comment #90388)
“Are you really accusing them of lying about that?”

No, of course not. I’m pressing you to back up your claims. At the bottom of your third missive, you finally give, after a whole lot of irrelevant stuff, a Politico link which at last does have a relevant quote attributed to DeSmog. But why not just support your statements when you make them? It saves time.

Anyway, I note again the Mashey report. This didn’t just come out of the blue.

SteveF (Comment #90395)

Neal J. King (Comment #90385) ,
I show you huge geographic ranges for trees to show how they can’t be driven to extinction by any plausible climate change, and temperature data showing that corals are not so very temperature sensitive (or they could not live where they actually live). You reply with not a single reverence in support of your claims of vast future extinctions. This one in particular stands out:
.
“The biologists that I have read estimate that we will lose about 50% of terrestrial species over the next 200 – 300 years, at the current rate. ”
.
Ok. The Earth has a lot of animal and plant species (not bacteria); estimates are near 8-9 million. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html) Lets guess only 10 % of those are land animal species… that gives us maybe 800,000 land animal species. If half will be gone in 300 years, that means about 2,500 land species per year are being driven to extinction by climate change. Please give me references that show even 50 verified cases where a species has been driven extinction due to climate change in the last decade. I’ll bet you can’t, because they haven’t been driven to extinction. Those kinds of “world is ending” estimates are utter rubbish.
.
Vague claims about what might someday happen mean absolutely nothing except that the person stating them is ‘concerned’. I do not doubt you are concerned, but please, real data.

Copner (Comment #90396)

Lucia, if the stuff on Desmog’s blog is in anyway ambiguous, then Desmog’s own statement to politico and the link you’ve just posted nail it. FWIW I don’t think (b) is ambiguous, note Desmog says the documents were “leaked today” on Feb 14th – not released today.

In any case, I fail to see why Nick is trying so hard that Desmog got the documents earlier than they themselves had said.

The more important test of their (and other’s) integrity is how they reacted after the possibility of fakery emerged.

Personally I can’t see how anybody who has seriously looked at the strategy doc & the 2 Atlantic articles, can say there isn’t at least very serious doubts about the authenticity of the strategy doc.

And it’s disappointing and revealing that some journalists and bloggers have responded along these lines: ”

“well it might be fake, but I don’t really care because it supports my side”

or “well it might be fake, but it only contains stuff I already knew”

or “well it might be fake, but since Heartland hasn’t responded to me personally telling me that it’s a fake, I don’t care, and I’ll ignore their press releases saying it’s faked”

Copner (Comment #90397)

> No, of course not.

So after all this, you finally do concede that they do write their story on the “Heartland Insider” “leaked” documents after having them just an hour?

> Anyway, I note again the Mashey report. This didn’t just come out of the blue.

I fail to see the relevance. The existence of the report simply says they were writing about Heartland. Well d’oh. That’s what Desmog * the like do, all the time. They also endless write about Koch. And Exxon.

But it doesn’t change the fact that they published the “Heartland Insider” “leaked” documents after having them just an hour.

Or are you hinting it somehow does?

Carrick (Comment #90400)

Neal:

Some flora & fauna are robust to changes and some are not. Further, there is a difference between a daily or seasonal variation and a secular change.

There’s not that much difference between a secular change of 0.1°C/decade and a much larger multi-decadal natural scale variability, except the multidecadal variability (including in sea level, temperature AND precipitation) is larger.

You’re mistaking the sum of a series of really poor arguments with a single really good one.

Bob Moss (Comment #90401)

@ J Bowers

“You’ll find that even the Heartlander uses ‘anti-climate’ if you bother to look.”
.
I looked and did not find.
http://news.heartland.org/
.
Got a quote?

Carrick (Comment #90402)

Copner:

The more important test of their (and other’s) integrity is how they reacted after the possibility of fakery emerged.

Exactly the opposite of how they react if fakery had been discovered in the leaked emails.

They belittle existence of the faked document(s). Truth doesn’t matter to Littlemore, Gleick and the others , this is all about winning a cultural war.

Carrick (Comment #90404)

Bob Moss, It does appear. Like maybe five times in 15 years or so, as in almost never.

Not exactly a strong argument on Bower’s part, but FUD is what you give it.

(For extra points, count how many times Heartland uses it in their own rhetoric as opposed to quoting the other side.)

Nyq Only (Comment #90406)

Copner (Comment #90295) February 17th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“No my list that you cited, was a list of suspicious items in the strategy document It was a response to your challenge – when you claimed there strategy document only had 2 suspicious elements – “There are really only two aspects that are suspicious in terms of content:” ‘

Two suspicious items in terms of CONTENT and obviously in the context of the point I was making about it was really only those two things that give the memo the evil-parody feel to it. Which was the point I was making and which you seem to be circling around. If you think there are other aspects of what was written in the memo that also portray HI in a worse light than the memo then please point them out. I’d be happy to hear what you think they are. Otherwise it is hard to see how I can respond to you counter challenge – I’m supposed to do what? Find things in the other documents that correspond with things in the memo that make HI look bad – which I don’t think are really there in the memo? How would that work? I’d need to revise my earlier claim that there were only two things (which I suggested could be typos rather than reflect what HI thinks) and then find things that matched them in the other documents (even though I don’t think they are there) and then convince you of them?
As challenges go it seems to be of the nature of you demanding that I either prove I’m wrong or accept that I’m wrong because I can’t prove that I’m wrong.

I think you may be arguing against an imaginary protagonist and ascribing his views to me.

Red Jeff (Comment #90407)

From ‘the memo’ – “At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports…”
From D Suzuki “(Correspondence uncovered by Greenpeace also found that Dr. Soon led a plan in 2003) to undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report” http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d.....96543.html

Suzuki-Jim Hoggan-DeSmogBlog coincidence.

Bob Moss (Comment #90408)

@ Carrick 90404

None of those instances are examples of them using the term to describe themselves or someone else as “anti-climate”. The phrase only appears when they are quoting someone like Al Gore or in the longer phrase “anti-climate treaty”.
.
There are no examples of them using it like it was in the fake document which is what J Bowers appeared to imply.

Carrick (Comment #90409)

Yep which was really my point— I’d guess Bowers was aware of this when he made his comment. More “fake but accurate.”

HaroldW (Comment #90411)

Hmmm…you say Al Gore used the phrase “anti-climate”? And doesn’t he own a residence in California?

But I don’t think he fits the profile otherwise.

😉

J Bowers (Comment #90423)

Now that “alarmist” Forbes contributor Peter Gleick has been fingered both here and at American Spectator by Heartland’s Ross Kaminsky, does anyone else spot the comical irony?

@ Carrick (Comment #90409)
They use it in the same way as Gleick, which really was my point, and 1997 is a whopping outlier.

Jit (Comment #90426)

Neal:

The evidence thus far is that current extinctions that can be ascribed a cause are down to more direct human interventions than the release of CO2. Hunting and introduced species in particular. I know of no extinctions due to human-caused climate change, despite the presumably vast sums spent looking for such a link. Enlighten me if you know different!

Copner (Comment #90428)

sNyq Only

Your long paragraph is incoherent. I can’t make sense of it.

You & toto & other made the claim that the “evil” strategy memo is no worse than the other documents. All I’m asking you to do is show me where in the other documents – a single quotation will do – there are similar levels of “evil” – because I can’t find any.

All i can find in the other documents is them collecting money, and spending it on disseminating their views, which is what all semi-political outfits of this type do.

So once again, you made a positive claim (that there are equally “evil” things in the other documents) – what’s the evidence for it? Or should I just take the claim on faith?

lucia (Comment #90433)

J Bowers

Now that “alarmist” Forbes contributor Peter Gleick has been fingered both here and at American Spectator by Heartland’s Ross Kaminsky, does anyone else spot the comical irony?

I don’t. Could you point it out?

lucia (Comment #90434)

Copner–
I don’t see anything remotely evil in the other documents.

julio (Comment #90440)

Re: Carrick (Comment #90400)

You’re mistaking the sum of a series of really poor arguments with a single really good one.

This is a great line.

Neal J. King (Comment #90441)

Jit (Comment #90426)
February 18th, 2012 at 5:28 am

I agree that the current rates of species extinction are driven by land-use and other hands-on human activity, not, at this time, by warming. However, take a simplified model of a homogeneous smooth-surface planet: the isotherms are then the lines (actually circles) of lattitude. Now if you impose a uniform temperature increase of 0.1-C, the isotherms move poleward: at the lower lattitudes, the amount of shift is about 6 km, according to my estimate. (It depends on the temperature/lattitude profile.) If the increase is 2-C by 2100, which is a common expectation by now, that amounts of a shift of each isotherm of about 120 km. So we are roughly talking about each species wanting to be 120 km away from where it is now, by 2100. On a featureless globe, each species could move, but if we re-introduce geography and human-generated development, motion is restricted. In biological terms, a 2-C average increase is not a small matter: ecological changes over distances of 120 km are observable; and ecological/biological response to temperature changes is not linear.

With regards to extinction rates: I defer to one of our more eminent biologists, E.O. Wilson, http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/wilson.html :
“Tropical rain forests are the site of most of the known damage. Although they cover only 6% of the land surface, they contain more than half the species of plants and animals of the entire world. The rate of clearing and burning of rain forests averaged about 1% each year in the 1980s, an amount about equal to the entire country of Ireland, and the pace of destruction may now be increasing. That magnitude of habitat loss spells trouble for the planet’s reservoir of biodiversity. It means that each year 0.25% or more of the forest species are being doomed to immediate or early extinction. How much is that in absolute numbers, as opposed to rate? If there are 10 million species in the still mostly unexplored forests, which some scientists think possible, the annual loss is in the tens of thousands. Even if there are a “mere” 1 million species, the loss is still in the thousands.

These projections are based on the known relationships between the area of a given natural habitat and the number of species able to live within it. The projections may be on the low side. The outright elimination of habitat is the leading cause of extinction….”

Wilson’s concern is focused on habitat destruction, but climate change will contribute to that by forcing the habitat to move 120 km. [For comparison, the area of Yosemite park is 3081 km^2 = (55.5 km)^2.]. Climate change will force habitat transformation, even if it doesn’t achieve outright habitat elimination.

More from Wilson: “People commonly respond to the evidence of species extinction by entering three successive stages of denial. The first is, simply, Why worry? Extinction is natural. Species have been dying out through more than 3 billion years of history without permanent harm to the biosphere. Evolution has always replaced extinct species with new ones.

All these statements are true, but with a terrible twist. After the Mesozoic spasm, and after each of the four greatest previous spasms spaced over 400 million years, evolution required about 10 million years to restore the predisaster levels of diversity. Faced with a waiting time that long, and aware that we inflicted so much damage in a single lifetime, our descendants are going to be–how best to say it?–peeved with us. Worse, evolution cannot perform as in previous ages if natural environments have been crowded out by artificial ones….”

HaroldW (Comment #90443)

Neal J. King —
According to BEST (at least their original dataset), average land temperature has changed by approximately 2 K since the early 1800’s. Using your logic, it would seem that the current number of species is already down from the 19th century by ~50% or so.

You spent some time in #90441 discussing the significance of tropical rain forest. If this is threatened by climate change, perhaps you can show what percentage of the Amazon rain forest has been lost to climate change (as opposed to clearing) due to the ~2K increase in average land temperatures over the past 2 centuries.

Jit (Comment #90444)

Neal:

E.O. is a legend, so it’s nice to hear a quote from him.

I thought the same as you twenty years ago – really did. At the time, I was reading papers that assured me that, for example, the isotherms at the tree line were going to advance northwards hundreds of times faster than the trees could possibly do.

But ecological matters are rarely that simple. As you may know, species have a “fundamental” niche – where they would exist in the absence of other biology, and a “realised” niche, where they are squeezed by competition, disease, predation, and so forth.

The point is, the fundamental niche tends to be much larger than the realised niche. So, species could persist in a much wider range of climates than they exist in now, in the absence of external biological processes (competitors, etc).

Also, where climate IS limiting, this might well be due to rare, extreme conditions. And we don’t know how the frequencies of those might change. (Mortality at the tree line is an example.)

I would accept that there may be a problem with, for example, Scottish alpine plants being pushed higher in altitude – off the top of the mountain they live on. In such cases the isotherms are highly compressed, and there are ready competitors to rise up from downhill.

But the real danger, I think, is that people take their eyes off the problem we definitely have now and devote too much attention to addressing a problem that may turn out to be a damp squib.

Neal J. King (Comment #90445)

HaroldW (Comment #90443) :

– I’ll check the BEST delta from 1800.
– For the time being, the Amazon rain forest is big enough a contiguous body that internal migration is possible, except at the coast. As Wilson discusses in the linked article, climate change is one of several factors that is contributing to extinctions: It is not a matter of this or that, but of this and that. The effect is closer to being multiplicative than additive (as would be suggested by the term “factor”).

AMac (Comment #90448)

Neal J. King (Comment #90441) —

This line of argument points out the importance of multi-century and multi-millenial paleotemperature reconstructions to the Standard Model of AGW impacts.

Many “lukewarmers” — myself included — understand that increases in atmospheric CO2 such as Earth is now experiencing will directly cause a significant rise in average temperature, and this effect will likely be magnified by indirect effects.

How does the non-CO2-caused temperature rise (~1850-~1950) and the more-recent (partly) CO2-caused one compare to past rises and falls? For example, in terms of vulnerability to extinction, are changes of this order of magnitude and timing novel and terrible challenges? Or, are they old hat; something that every living creature’s ancestors have, by definition, successfully surmounted?

In this regard, the close-the-ranks defense by the cognoscenti of Prof Mann’s error-filled new book is informative; albeit a well-worn play from an oft-used climate science playbook.

Taking the longer view, were I participating in a climate-sci version of JournoList, this is a strategy I would have advised against.

The adamant promotion of poor science has the effect of weakening the impact of subsidiary arguments, in my opinion. (I understand that it is not Neal King himself who is taking this stand. The effect nevertheless exists.)

Neal J. King (Comment #90449)

Jit (Comment #90444):

I would be the last to suggest that immediate land-use/habitat elimination issues should be neglected in favor of climate change issues; I think they are far more urgent. However, aside from money, I have little to say about those issues: physics and math offer limited additional insights.

The contribution from climate change is certainly longer term; but it is also inescapable, given the geographical and land-use constraints we have already discussed. As we have a build-up of CO2, from my exposure to radiative transfer theory, I do not see how we can escape a radiative forcing; when we have a radiative forcing, we would have to be very lucky for all feedbacks to zero out (per Lindzen’s dream); and as far as I can tell from the scientific reception of the “iris effect”, we haven’t been that lucky. Since CO2 does not disappear from the atmosphere/ocean/biome sphere for about a thousand years, for the foreseeable future we will have to live with what we liberate from fossil fuels. This is going to be quite a battleship to turn around.

One of the nicer aspects about cap/trade or a carbon tax is that it does support such concepts as preserving rainforest as a mechanism for slowing down climate change; although from my point of view, that is almost putting the cart before the horse, as I think of slowing climate change as a mechanism for preserving biodiversity.

To quote further from the same article by Wilson:
“… it is notoriously difficult to estimate the overall rate of extinction. Some groups, like the larger birds and mammals, are more susceptible to extinction than most. The same is true of fishes limited to one or two freshwater streams. Most kinds of insects and small organisms are so difficult to monitor as to make exact numbers unattainable. Nevertheless, biologists using several indirect methods of analysis generally agree that on the land at least and on a worldwide basis, species are vanishing 100 times faster than before the arrival of Homo sapiens.

All these factors work together in a complex manner. When asked which ones caused the extinction of any particular species, biologists are likely to give the Murder on the Orient Express answer: they all did it. A common sequence in tropical countries starts with the building of roads into wilderness, such as those cut across Brazil’s Amazonian state of Rondonia during the 1970s and ’80s. Land-seeking settlers pour in, clear the rain forest on both sides of the road, pollute the streams, introduce alien plants and animals and hunt wildlife for extra food. Many native species become rare, and some disappear entirely.

The world’s fauna and flora are paying the price of humanity’s population growth. The levy may be acceptable to those who put immediate human concerns above all else. But it should be borne in mind that we are destroying part of the Creation, thereby depriving all future generations of what we ourselves were bequeathed. The ongoing loss in biodiversity is the greatest since the end of the Mesozoic era 65 million years ago. At that time, by current scientific consensus, the impact of one or more giant meteorites darkened the atmosphere, altered much of earth’s climate and extinguished the dinosaurs. Thus began the next stage of evolution, the Cenozoic era or Age of Mammals. The extinction spasm we are now inflicting can be moderated if we choose. If not, the next century will see the closing of the Cenozoic era and the start of a new one characterized by biological impoverishment. It might appropriately be called the Eremozoic era, the Age of Loneliness.”

Neal J. King (Comment #90451)

AMac (Comment #90448):

“How does the non-CO2-caused temperature rise (~1850-~1950) and the more-recent (partly) CO2-caused one compare to past rises and falls? For example, in terms of vulnerability to extinction, are changes of this order of magnitude and timing novel and terrible challenges? Or, are they old hat; something that every living creature’s ancestors have, by definition, successfully surmounted?”

For this issue, I look to the biologists to evaluate the significance of the impact of climate change and other aspects of habitat change. The comments of E.O. Wilson cited immediately above are, I think, relevant.

Don Monfort (Comment #90459)

Nick Stokes,

When I first started reading climate blogs, you seemed to be somewhat honest. What has happened to you?

StreveF (Comment #90460)

“The world’s fauna and flora are paying the price of humanity’s population growth. The levy may be acceptable to those who put immediate human concerns above all else. But it should be borne in mind that we are destroying part of the Creation, thereby depriving all future generations of what we ourselves were bequeathed.”

I think that pretty well lays out were E.O. Wilson stands. His is not a scientific argument; it is fundamentally a political/religious/moral analysis (too many people, we are destroying “the Creation”, concern about what we “bequeath”, etc.). Cutting and burning forested areas will in fact drive species that live in those areas to extinction, as will hunting endangered species for food, and nobody doubts that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Not destroying natural habitats (including forests, coral reefs, and other areas of great biodiversity) is the key to avoiding loss of species, and protecting natural habitats to avoid extinctions is broadly supported by just about everyone (including most people who are skeptical of the danger of global warming!).
.
In any discussion about extinctions driven by global warming, loss of habitat is nothing but a red herring. If you do not want to drive endangered wild species to extinction, then don’t destroy the habitats in which they live, and don’t eat them for dinner. Gee, what a simple concept.

Neal J. King (Comment #90461)

StreveF (Comment #90460)
February 18th, 2012 at 10:18 am

As I’ve stated earlier, habitat loss is immediate and primary; climate change is a factor which will amplify the impact.

Since I fully expect we will continue to lose habitat, despite best efforts, it behooves us to also attempt to damp down the exacerbating factors.

Simple concepts sometimes cannot be implemented by simple actions.

You take exception to Wilson’s rather Christian language. I’m not sure how strong a Christian he is, but his basic argument has to do with the numbers involved in extinction (already cited) and the value of what is lost. I will quote further:

“Entering the second stage of denial, people ask, Why do we need so many species anyway? Why care, especially since the vast majority are bugs, weeds and fungi? It is easy to dismiss the creepy crawlies of the world, forgetting that less than a century ago, before the rise of the modern conservation movement, native birds and mammals around the world were treated with the same callous indifference. Now the value of the little things in the natural world has become compellingly clear. Recent experimental studies on whole ecosystems support what ecologists have long suspected: the more species living in an ecosystem, the higher its productivity and the greater its ability to withstand drought and other kinds of environmental stress. Since we depend on functioning ecosystems to cleanse our water, enrich our soil and create the very air we breathe, biodiversity is clearly not something to discard carelessly.

In addition to creating a habitable environment, wild species are the source of products that help sustain our lives. Not the least of these amenities are pharmaceuticals. More than 40% of all prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies in the U.S. are substances originally extracted from plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms. Aspirin, for example, the most widely used medicine in the world, was derived from salicylic acid, which in turn was discovered in a species of meadowsweet.

Only a minute fraction of the species or organisms–probably less than 1%–have been examined for natural products that might serve as medicines. There is a critical need to press the search in the case of antibiotics and antimalarial agents. The substances most commonly used today are growing less effective as the disease organisms acquire genetic resistance to the drugs. The bacterium staphylococcus, for example, has recently re-emerged as a potentially lethal pathogen, and the microorganism that causes pneumonia is growing steadily more dangerous. The age of antibiotics, it has been said, is over. Not quite, but medical researchers are nevertheless locked in an arms race with the rapidly evolving pathogens that is certain to grow more serious. They are obliged to turn to a broader array of wild species to discover the new weapons of 21st century medicine.

Each species is a masterpiece of evolution, offering a vast source of useful scientific knowledge because it is so thoroughly adapted to the environment in which it lives. Species alive today are thousands to millions of years old. Their genes, having been tested by adversity over so many generations, engineer a staggeringly complex array of biochemical devices to aid the survival and reproduction of the organisms carrying them.”

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90464)

That’s a great quote, Neal [90461], especially the last two paragraphs juxtaposed.

One paragraph blames anthropogenic pressure on habitat for causing some species to adapt and evolve. Without pausing the next paragraph blames anthropogenic pressure on habitat for the extinction of species that cannot adapt and evolve.

There’s a value judgment buried in there, i.e. that anthropogenic pressure on habitat is bad per se. I doubt Wilson or you believe habitat pressure is bad per se, so the fault comes entirely from it being anthropogenic.

To my mind, that brings us right back to “life was better when I was a kid”, which extrapolates eventually to the fallacy of a perfect Eden. The terms “self-hating Jew” and “guilt-ridden Catholic” come to mind as well.

If only we could outlaw nostalgia and religion …

Neal J. King (Comment #90470)

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90464):

I’m not sure I get your point. Wilson’s seems to be that some things we will have to deal with (like TB) seem to be able to adapt around antibiotics rather quickly. (Not too surprising, because the rather common over-use and over-prescription of antibiotics would almost seem designed to select for and promote resistance to antibiotics.)

But many of the species of which we are aware (“higher organisms”) are not going to adapt that fast; for one thing, their lifecycles are much longer than microbial lifecycles. So the real issue is not anthropogenic vs “natural”, but one of timescale: As quoted earlier, “After the Mesozoic spasm, and after each of the four greatest previous spasms spaced over 400 million years, evolution required about 10 million years to restore the predisaster levels of diversity.” Wilson does not attribute the Mesozoic and early spasms to human agency.

Not even to Jews or Catholics.

SteveF (Comment #90474)

Neal J. King (Comment #90461),
.
No need to keep placing huge blocks of E.O. Wilson quotes in the comment thread. It is clear that you agree with Wilson. However, I think most of what Wilson says is unrelated to scientific analysis; it is more philosophy, morality, and religion, and not really science.
.
Where we fundamentally disagree is how to evaluate the threat that global warming poses. It seems to me you see global warming as part and parcel of an overall ‘green’ view of the world, including habitat loss and probably lots of other issues (like the need to reduce current human population.. tell me if I am wrong about that). I see global warming and habitat destruction two as distinct issues; one is a real and obvious problem, the other, not so much.
.
While I think there is plenty of clear scientific evidence of the impacts of habitat loss, there is no such evidence for any contribution from global warming (which is where this discussion started). It seems obvious to me that people like Wilson (and you) hold sincere moral/philosophical/religious views which lead to a conclusion that drastic public action on CO2 emission is required immediately to combat global warming.
.
But I hope you can appreciate that there are many people (including me) who evaluate the need for public action to “address” global warming from a very different perspective, one which demands a reasonable balance between costs and benefits, and even evaluating that balance requires a level of confidence about the future scale and impacts of warming which simply does not today exist. My objection to the conflating of issues like habitat destruction and global warming is that the conflation is the result of personal views/values which I do not share.

Neal J. King (Comment #90477)

SteveF (Comment #90474):

Aside from the first time, I have only posted from Wilson’s essay to answer specific points raised by others. I disagree with your statement that his argument is primarily philosophical: I think it is essentially numerical. It has to do with how many species are affected, how fast they are dying out, and how fast the planet’s biodiversity can recover. Wilson writes very well, so it sounds philosophical; but beneath the velvet is the frame of numbers.

Regarding a green view of the world:
– I think we probably do have too many people in the world. An estimate I saw was that every year we use the amount of fossil fuel that was produced (in the sense of primary production of the original plant material) over 400 years: that’s not sustainable in the long run. Our use of fresh water is not sustainable at present: In the US, water tables are dropping everywhere. On the encouraging side, the better off people are, the slower the population tends to grow.
– The flip side of a zero-population growth (ZPG) target is that it will really screw up the ability of society to support the ever-longer-living elderly. Social-Security/Medicare type problems are emerging everywhere.

Regarding the impact of global warming:
– It is not surprising that you haven’t seen the impact of AGW, because AGW has only begun. It only began, very slowly, about 150 years ago; and it’s only gotten as far as 0.5-C as yet, as we have gone to an increasingly energy-consumptive mode. But most climate scientists seem to think that we are essentially locked-in for 2-C increase by 2100; and some think it could be 3-5.
– Conflation: No, AGW is not the same as habitat loss. But it seems very likely to promote it and amplify its effect.
– With regards to balancing costs and risks: Don’t forget that what we don’t know can hurt us, as well as help us. The uncertainty is not all in one direction. And, however expensive preventative measures may be, several detailed studies indicate that mitigation, if needed, is going to be much more expensive.
– I think it gets down to the “Dirty Harry” question: “Do I feel lucky?”

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90478)

NJK [90470],

You make another unsupported and unsupportable value judgment in sympathizing with unadaptable “higher organisms” over super-adaptable microbes. I too have an innate preference for cuddly looking things but try not to let my innate prejudices, in this case the vilest speciesism, rule my judgment.

Neal J. King (Comment #90479)

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90478):

I use the term “higher organisms” to indicate the sort of critters that people actually notice.

It isn’t a matter of “vile speciesism”: I consider cochroaches as falling into that category, so cuddliness is not an issue.

You seem to be working hard to find something to take offense at. Relax, it’s a blog comment.

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90482)

Neal, it takes gumption to quote Wilson on the value of preserving everything, especially including all the things we haven’t noticed yet because they might provide valuable data or insights, and two hours later express your own view that the things that matter are “the sort of critters that people actually notice.”

Carrick (Comment #90486)

Neal:

I agree that the current rates of species extinction are driven by land-use and other hands-on human activity, not, at this time, by warming

This is a place were we can agree, almost all animal extinction and pressure on animal species comes from human activity, most of it in the developing worked (and not through high-end industrial activity).

Where you and I disagree is your assumption that global warming will ever become a dominant threat to species extinction, in relationship to other human related forces on the ecology.

I think Wilson and other biologists actually understand this too, and that is how it drives their agenda.

The link to AGW for them is they see it as a mechanism for impeding industrialization, and thus for reducing species loss.

They aren’t that dissimilar to the socialists who see AGW as an opportunity to impose their ideas of “social justice” on the world (mostly referring here to the redistribution of income under the guise of the reduction in fossil fuel usage).

And then there’s world society group, who see this as an opportunity to build a world government that is more representative of global needs than a world where the agenda is getting set by America and Europe.

The irony is that industrialization of the third world fixes all three of these problems:

The first is solved because all of the sudden they have the resources to make choices between economic activities that destroy habitat and choices that protect (as has happened in the fully industrialized nations).

The second will be solved because by industrialization they will have created their own wealth, and will no longer need ours for “social justice” needs to be met.

And the third again, if they are more industrialized, they automatically have a larger influence in the global political economical system.

All that said, if you remove all other influences of human activity, then AGW will become and important, almost by definition, dominant one. But as long as there are people here, other things we do to environment will always play a bigger role that the added variability to climate from humans on an already highly variable climate.

Neal J. King (Comment #90492)

Punch My Ticket (Comment #90482):

Not so much: What I said was, “But many of the species of which we are aware”. I didn’t say that these were the only species that matter; they’re just the species that people notice. So if I ask a typical person, “What kind of life is there around your house?”, I am likely to hear about dogs, cats, birds, butterflies, spiders; if they’re having a problem, cochroaches. Not very likely to hear about protozoans.

And it should be obvious that I meant the term “aware” in the sense of “common day-to-day awareness”, and not in the sense of “known to science”, because I added the parenthetical “higher organisms”: As soon as you read that term, the opposing concept of “lower organisms” (= microbial life) should arise by automatic conceptual reflex. So there is an implicit understanding that “lower organisms” exist even though ordinary people (non-biologists) are not paying attention to them.

Neal J. King (Comment #90495)

Carrick (Comment #90486):

I think that it is quite plausible and likely that if we burn all the oil and coal that we have in the ground, without some as yet undeveloped technique for sequestration of CO2, that this alone would be a serious blow to biodiversity.

So I would have to take your view that it will never be dominant over the de-forestation/land-use issues as meaning that you think these will just continue to get worse and worse. I would have to evaluate that as an extremely pessimistic view.

Carrick (Comment #90503)

Niel, I think it’s not so much I’m overly pessimistic about human impact, I think you are just bloating out of proportion the relative impact of anthropogenic global change to that already occurring and not to be neglected associated with natural variability, and being extremely unrealistic about, even on a good day, just how much of an impact a given human being has on their environment, starting with where they build their house, what they build it from, to the foods that get grown for their consumptions, and on down the economic chain from there.

Neal J. King (Comment #90505)

Carrick (Comment #90503) :

Regardless of what happens with land-use, etc., if we get one of the worser-case scenarios, like a +5-C change in average global temperature (which is not considered likely, but not out of the question), I think we are looking at a disaster. The heart of the last ice age was -6-C away in AVG.

SteveF (Comment #90525)

Carrick (Comment #90486)
.
Yup, that is the crux of it. There are fundamental disagreements about priorities, morals, and obligations which are quite beyond compromise, which is (of course) why people so very strongly disagree about climate science. These differences constantly interfere with reasoned analysis of the honest-to-goodness data. This comment: “I think we probably do have too many people in the world” pretty much defines the disagreement; everything else is “small change”.
.
The nice thing about climate blogs is that everyone gets to hear what the most extreme of opposing views has to offer by way of argument. As usual, I am far from impressed. IMO (from a technical POV): Neal offers utter fluff… fluff… fluff… no real substance.
.
We could, of course, agree to sing cumbahia together hand in hand and let half of humanity continue to suffer in extreme poverty… and grow rapidly in population. Fabulous idea.

Neal J. King (Comment #90529)

SteveF (Comment #90525) :

– An increase of 5-C in global average temperature is not ruled out by our best science

– If that were achieved by 2150, would you consider that a problem?

DeWitt Payne (Comment #90543)

Re: Neal J. King (Feb 18 17:49),

A very large rock falling out of the sky by 2150 can’t be ruled out by our best science either. Do I consider that to be a problem? Yes I do. Are we doing anything to prevent it, as opposed to knowing when it might happen? Not really. I consider this to be a much more serious problem than global warming.

We have populations at risk from severe weather events right now. Does it make sense to spend vast amounts of money to keep the future risk of severe weather events from possibly rising rather than doing something about the populations at risk now? No, it doesn’t. Are we doing anything significant to alleviate the current risk to those populations? No, we aren’t.

The whole undiscovered medicine argument also falls completely flat as well. I’m far more worried that some highly lethal bacteria or virus exists in the wild than I am that we might not discover some new class of antibiotic or the mythical cure for cancer. In 50 years we should know enough about biology to be able to design drugs from scratch, provided that the government doesn’t hamstring the pharmaceutical industry like they apparently want to.

You have apparently completely accepted the IPCC WG2 and WG3 conclusions that the problem is severe and that the cost to fix it is minimal. But WG2 is poorly documented, much of it gray literature, and WG3 is a bad joke.

I should go dig up the WSJ quote on German solar power. They’ve discovered that subsidizing PV solar power has indeed been at substantial expense to the taxpayer and the ratepayer with little to show for it in terms of CO2 emission reduction. Germany will buy nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic when the sun doesn’t shine, but they won’t generate it themselves.

Given all that, why do you think, no matter what the claimed evidence, that anything significant will be done about CO2 emissions? Here’s another question: Have you written your congressman and Senator to demand they do something to streamline the permitting process for constructing nuclear power plants? That’s the only technology we have that’s more or less shovel ready that could actually put a small dent in CO2 emissions. But even that, if we could start right now, would take at least a decade to develop the infrastructure to construct new power plants fast enough to make a difference. Whinging about the possible future consequences of global warming accomplishes precisely nothing.

DeWitt Payne (Comment #90544)

Whinging about the Heartland Institute is, if anything, even less productive.

SteveF (Comment #90549)

Neal J. King,
“An increase of 5-C in global average temperature is not ruled out by our best science. If that were achieved by 2150, would you consider that a problem?”
.
My considered opinion (based on review of the available data) is that the chance of 5C warming, compared to today, is extremely low, even if (in a bizarre bout of self-destructive insanity) people continue to choose to not build nuclear power plants.
.
Zero chance? No, but very low probability. Which is why I am suggesting that we wait until climate sensitivity and future warming is better defined. I think a more likely peak temperature is in the range of 2 C higher than now, not 5 C higher than now, and even that 2 C depends on lots of people continuing to resist the construction of new nuclear power plants, especially breeder reactors, combined with fuel reprocessing.
On that subject: IMO, Jimmy Carter likely did more to reduce human well being with his refusal to pursue breeder technology than any human being in history. Profoundly misguided, profoundly shortsighted, profoundly harmful, profoundly stupid. I watched his actions as they were made, and IMO, he was (and remains) an absolute idiot.

Carrick (Comment #90551)

Neal King:

Regardless of what happens with land-use, etc., if we get one of the worser-case scenarios, like a +5-C change in average global temperature (which is not considered likely, but not out of the question), I think we are looking at a disaster.

This is simply not good logic on your part.

You don’t just go looking at “worst possible cases” without factoring in relative plausibility at the same time. A 5° increase is extremely implausible, about on par with aliens attacking and killing us because we’re “destroying the planet”, and while 2° is plausible, it is neither outside the range of natural variability, nor is the weight of the evidence in favor of the position that the net effects will even be harmful.

You can’t plan for every extremely implausible scenario. In this case, the most plausible scenario is not even that the warmed climate makes things worse, but that it makes things generally better, at least for humans and most flora and fauna.

And further, in the places where it doesn’t have a net beneficial effect, the deleterious effects in any plausible scenario get swamped by other much more harmful human activities. Ones that are happening now, not implausibly happening in the future, and in many cases can be addressed and ameliorated now without requiring a world-wide consensus to start.

SteveF (Comment #90554)

Carrick (Comment #90551).

Glad you said that said that, so I would not have to. 😉

J Bowers (Comment #90669)

Duster (Comment #91388)

lucia (Comment #89985)
February 16th, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Typos that even I found:

Romm=> Rornm
funders=> flinders
high profile=>highprofile
They => Ave (maybe? See “AVe have also pledged” )

It is kind of late for this comment, however, these typos look more like scanning -> OCR -> document file errors. For instance I read “AVe” as “We” rather than “They”. A substitution of “AVe” for “We” is inconsistant with a normal typographic error. However, “A” is close enough to”W” on querty keyboard to be a mistyped character, but where would the “v” have come from as a typo? Similarly, in a font where kerning allows an f to overhang an “i” and obscure the dot on the “i”, the “funders” _> “flinders” error could occur easily, especially if the typeface is one like a Roman or Times face where thinner portions of the stroke may be read by the OCR ware as a blank. Romm -> Rorm is similarly unlikely as a typo. The “r” is on the left hand of q querty board while the m is on the right.

If that were the case, the document would have been printed, scanned, run through an OCR program, printed again, and scanned once more to arrive at the released document with the pattern of errors you highlight. That could be a rather clumsy attempt to disguise a source printer by someone who watches too many police procedurals.

Man Bearpig (Comment #91397)

How much CO2 did Gleick use whilst obtaining these documents and all the computing power generated since?

Bill Jamison (Comment #91402)

I just read through most of the original comments and I have to say WOW what incredible detective work! Most of the credit goes to Mosher but others pitched in.

Has anyone asked the question: How long did Gleick have the HI documents? If he had them for a while then it would have given him more time to write the Climate Strategy document. I thought maybe someone else had written it and included his name just to entice him but reading the analysis of the writing style it seems clear that he very likely wrote it himself.

Amazing how this story has turned out.

 

Comments Closed: You may request comments be reopened by asking Lucia



This page may be cached. Created at Tuesday 26th of December 2017 12:45:59 PM