New Scientist wants indoctrination, not balance, in climate education


Joke publication (from Jo Nova)

New Scientist (or “Non-scientist” as it should be more accurately called) continues to smear any attempt at balance in climate education with misrepresentations, straw men and half-truths. Citing the Heartland documents, it recycles the same, tired old arguments that we have heard a thousand times before:

Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don’t know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”. This is to create controversy where none exists.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere.

We all acknowledge that humans are warming the atmosphere. The question, and where the doubt lies, is in the magnitude of that warming, in particular relative to natural climate cycles. Why are supposedly intelligent publications incapable of understanding this obvious difference? If that warming is one degree, then this isn’t a problem. As we keep repeating, the catastrophic projections come from multiple positive feedbacks in climate models.

In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth’s warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

Ah yes, science by head count, and the politicised statements of a political organisation, the IPCC.

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate. (source)

Smears, smears and more smears. And hints at a scientific conspiracy and selective use of evidence were both clearly exposed in the Climategate emails, but that doesn’t seem to concern the editorial writers today.

Why do they bother? Only total indoctrination will satisfy the headbangers at Non Scientist.

Quote of the Day: Megan McArdle


Quote of the Day

Wonderful quote from The Atlantic on Gleick:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.  I would probably have thrown that memo away.  I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what?  That Heartland exists?  That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible? 

Exactly. Global warming alarmists (and the Left in general) can’t handle dissent, so they try to suppress it at all costs.

Tweet of the Day (and ACM's reply)


Hypocrisy and double standards are wonderful things, employed to their fullest by the environmental left:

Climate fail

Heartland: Gleick roundup


Josh on Gleick (click to enlarge)

Naturally, the blogs are full of the Gleick admission that it was he who solicited and then distributed confidential Heartland documents. Here is some recommended reading:

Judith Curry

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate.  Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels.  There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.

On the one hand, Climategate involved a large number of people that were involved in the IPCC.  Apart from the FOI avoidance that was arguably criminal, everyone seems to have been ‘cleared’ by the various investigations.  On the other hand, Gleick is only one person, but his actions are far more serious, particularly if they involve fabrication of a document.

WUWT on the National Centre for Science Education:

As part of NCSE’s expansion to defend the teaching of climate science, Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

“Gleick obtained and disseminated these documents without the knowledge of anyone here,” NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, “and we do not condone his doing so.” But, she added, “they show that NCSE was right to broaden its scope to include the teaching of climate science. There really are coordinated attempts to undermine the teaching of climate science, and NCSE is needed to help to thwart them.”

WUWT on Gleick’s removal from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics:

Commenter FP writes:

Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page.

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

James Delingpole:

So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake. His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he’s the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he’s a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on “integrity” in science. (H/T Roddy Campbell, Jabba The Cat)

Funny, that, eh? Before we examine a little more closely what he’s done, let’s just read a bit more about his Institute’s passionate commitment to integrity, shall we?

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

Ah. That kind of integrity. Protecting good, honest climate scientists against all the lies and misinformation and black propaganda ranged against them by the evil, Koch-Bros-funded Climate Denial industry: would that be the sort of thing you meant, Peter?

All in all a huge embarrassment for “The Cause”.

Heartland: more on Gleick


Career ending lapse of judgment

After today’s revelation that Peter Gleick had admitted to soliciting the confidential Heartland documents and distributing them to the bloggers, it occurred to me that suspicion had already fallen on Gleick in several blog posts and comments, including at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog here, and Lucia’s Blackboard here.

But, crucially, such suspicion fell on him not as the recipient and distributor of the confidential documents, but as the alleged forger of the “Climate Strategy” document that MeDog’sGob and the other headbangers got so steamed up about.

Particularly on Lucia’s blog, there was detailed textual analysis in the comments of the strategy document and comparisons made with Gleick’s style, including use of parentheses, and the unlikely use of the term “anti-climate” – strikingly similar to “anti-science”:

Steven Mosher (Comment #89946
February 16th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

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 doesn’t 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.

So the blogs suspect Gleick of being the forger, and he outs himself as the receiver. I think this story has a lot further to run…

UPDATE: And if this doesn’t make you sick to the stomach, check out MeDog’sGob for a stout defence of Gleick’s actions as a brave “whistleblower”:

So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied.

Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause. (source)

Disgusting, but only to be expected from a smear site like that.

BREAKING: Warmist Peter Gleick "solicited Heartland documents under someone else's name"


Career ending lapse of judgment

UPDATE: Statement from Heartland here (WUWT). Climate Depot’s roundup here.

Warmist Peter Gleick has admitted to soliciting Heartland documents under another’s name and then forwarding them to journalists:

In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

There must also therefore be suspicion that he created the forged document as well…

Read the full statement here..

 

Heartland: Letters of demand sent to Greg Laden and DeSmogBlog


Legal action possible?

Gotta love Greg Laden’s comment on this:

“I just got this email. I have no way of telling if it is authentic.

Greg hasn’t spotted the irony there clearly! I guess he’ll realise it’s authentic when the FedEx copy arrives…

Notice also that Greg’s post URL uses the term “anti-science” – one of the regular smears used by warmists against “deniers”. So again, what realist, in their right mind, would use the term “anti-climate” about themselves?

Anyway, here’s the text of the email to Greg Laden (a similar one sent to DeSmogBlog according to Jo Nova):

February 18, 2012

By e-mail to:[email redacted]
By Federal Express to:

Mr. Greg T. Laden
Greg Laden’s Blog
[address redacted]

Re: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartlandgate_anti-science_ins.php

Dear Mr. Laden:

On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.

Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.

It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

1. The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

2. As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

3. Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours,

Maureen Martin
General Counsel (source)

Josh parodies warmists' open letter to Heartland


Josh is on fire:

Click to enlarge

Heartland: headbangers flogging a dead horse


The headbangers and Heartland

It’s little short of hilarious to watch the headbangers desperately trying to keep the Heartland leak alive, when it’s falling about their ears (and, in all probability one of their own will be exposed as the faker of the key document, given sufficient time).

MeDog’sGob is hanging on for all it’s worth (not much) spruiking an open letter in The [Lefty] Guardian from some of the big names in “The Cause” (including Australia’s very own über-headbanger, David Karoly) and chastising Heartland for alleged double standards (a la Revkin):

As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

“Well-established propaganda”, you mean, surely? Hang on, that was in the fake document wasn’t it? The reality is that Heartland wanted to remove the politics and provide a balanced educational perspective for children, but that’s not good enough. Nothing short of total indoctrination is acceptable, right?

Unfortunately, the Climategate emails were all genuine, and showed that consensus scientists (let’s repeat it again, because no amount of repetition of these examples of disgraceful scientific malfeasance will ever be enough):

  • fudged and massaged inconvenient data;
  • threatened journals that dared publish sceptical papers;
  • suppressed dissent at every turn;
  • minimised uncertainty in order to keep a consistent political message;
  • deleted emails and avoided FOI requests in breach of national legislation;
  • smeared anyone who dared disagree.

In the present case, on the other hand, the main Heartland document was FAKED by one of their own, and the rest showed how much Heartland really managed to achieve on a relatively meagre budget compared to the massive warmist swill trough. So you can take your patronising faux sympathy, guys, and shove it. Er, sorry about that.

Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science is, pitifully, still banging on about it, trying in vain to make a few million at Heartland over several years look somehow substantial when stood next to the hundreds of millions swallowed up by Greenpeace and WWF each year, and, bless their little henna socks, they’ve helpfully illustrated the whole thing with a laughably crap “infographic” (no really, that’s what they call it), lumping together several years of donations to make them look bigger – yep, they are that desperate – whilst at the same time remaining silent on the billions spent on the consensus. Hypocrisy much?

Whereas those with a brain capable of rational thought, on the other hand, are starting to dig into where that fake document came from (thanks to WUWT for the link):

The climate blogs presumably relied so heavily on the memo because the quotes were punchier, and suggested far darker motivations than the blandly professional language of the authenticated documents–and because it edited the facts into a neat, almost narrative story.  

In the first 24 hours, I saw a lot of comments along the line of “See!  They’re really just as amoral and dangerous as we thought they were!” based on a memo which I now believe to have been written by someone who, well, thinks that AGW skeptics are amoral and dangerous.  (And judging from his update to the original document dump, Littlemore’s fellow blogger, Brandon Demelle, is also unsure of the memo’s “facts”.)

For me, this leaves the most fascinating question of all: who wrote it?  We have a few clues:

1)  They are on the west coast

2)  They own or have access to an Epson scanner–though God knows, this could be at a Kinkos.

3)  They probably themselves have a somewhat run-on writing style

4)  I’m guessing they use the word “high-profile” a fair amount.  

5)  They are bizarrely obsessed with global warming coverage at Forbes, which suggests to me that there is a good chance that they write or comment on the website, or that they have tangled with writers at Forbes (probably Taylor) either in public or private.

6)  The last paragraph is the biggest departure from the source documents, and is therefore likely to be closest to the author’s own style.

7)  I have a strong suspicion that they refrained from commenting on the document dump.  That’s what I’d do, anyway.  A commenter or email correspondent who suddenly disappeared when they normally would have been reveling in this sort of story is a good candidate.

8)  They seem to have it in for Andy Revkin at the New York Times.  There’s nothing in the other documents to indicate that Heartland thinks Revkin is amenable to being . . . turned?  I’m not sure what the right word is, but the implication in the strategy memo that Heartland believes it could somehow develop a relationship with Revkin seems aimed at discrediting Revkin’s work.

Unfortunately, I’d imagine that this is still a sizeable set of people, and it will be hard to identify the author.  I suspect that it will be easier to do if the climate-bloggers–who may well know this person as a commenter or correspondent–get involved in trying to find out who muddied the story by perpetrating a fraud on their sites. (source)

Who in the realist camp would refer to themselves as “anti-climate”? It’s as meaningless as saying someone is “anti-weather” or “anti-seasons”, and just as ridiculous. And who would say they would “discourage teachers from teaching science”? Only a dimwitted headbanger would include something so blatantly false in a faked document.

Interesting times!

Heartland Roundup


Quality journalism

Some great articles on Fakegate (the Heartland document release) from around the blogosphere (illustrated by Josh).

Should we be surprised that the main document referred to at the Big-Green-funded smear blogs was a fake? No. Faking stuff is what the headbangers do:

Alan Caruba at WUWT:

The New York Times article is a case study in bad journalism and bias on a scale for which this failing newspaper is renowned. The Times reported that “Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming part of the nation’s culture wars.”

Wrong, so wrong. Polls have demonstrated that global warming is last on a list of concerns by the public. It barely registers because the public has concluded that it is either a hoax or just not happening. Teaching global warming in the nation’s schools constitutes a crime against the truth and the students.

Daily Bayonet:

What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.

The Air Vent:

So when it is shown that the ‘primary’ leaked Heartland document with the main message is a complete forgery, where are the media reporters now?    Where are the retractions?  How about a simple investigation of the headers?

In the same place that the nefarious act of publishing the NOAA temperature data is.  In the circular bin or the janitorial closet of the New York Times where it won’t see the light of day.  There is no need to apologize to conservative groups after all, only to groups that push the correct politics like Media Matters or GreenPeace.

William Briggs:

Much of the stink over these documents are from people like Huffington Post’s Shawn Lawrence Otto whose major point of emphasis is that Heartland is biased towards their own point of view. Well, this is true. This is not of course proof that this point of view is false, though. It is no different than saying that Greenpeace screeds (i.e. press releases) are biased towards their point of view. And yet we never hear arguments like this.

Lubos Motl:

I find it amusing. The Heartland Institute has organized several conferences of climate skeptics and everyone who observes the debate at least at a superficial level must know that the folks in the think tank are skeptics and they have some – modest – amount of money to be used.

Roy Spencer:

Only fringe lunatic save-the-Earth-by-killing-everyone-but-me types could really believe that any organization would actually promote “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. The person who wrote this obviously fraudulent Heartland goal clearly knows little about science or what kind of organization Heartland is.

That so many media outlets (especially the Guardian) ran with the story without checking its veracity is another black eye for what passes as journalism these days.

I know Joe Bast, the president and CEO of Heartland. He is of the highest character and intelligence, and I would consider his motives on the climate subject to be at or above anyone I have met in this business, on either side of the issue. 

James Delingpole (who coined the phrase “Fakegate”):

Ready for your amazing fact, fruit loop eco-loons?

OK. Here goes.

We climate realists don’t think of ourselves as anti-science.

No, really. We think we’re pro-science. That’s what we want science teachers to teach kids in schools: hard science – physics, chemistry, biology. Stuff that’s empirical. Theories that are falsifiable. Not the kind of junk science they teach in places like the school of “environmental” “science” at comedy institutions like the “University” of East Anglia. Because that’s not science at all. It’s computer-modelling, projection, which is more akin to necromancy.

So, next time you try to fake your Protocols of the Elders of Climategate document, guys, at least try to credit the people you’re trying to smear with a bit of integrity. Not everyone is like you, you realise?

Jo Nova:

The hypocrisy is flagrant. The Sierra Club listed a category for $1,000,000 donations by “anonymous donors” in their 2010 annual report. Strangely DeSmog didn’t froth with anticipation. Their Sierra Club annual report mentions “Matching Gifts”, and apparently supporters who matched gifts include the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more. But that’s alright then.

Jo Nova (again):

In the hours after the ClimateGate emails were released, skeptics asked about their authenticity (as we are want to do). In the hours after the Heartland Documents (including at least one complete fake) were released, the commentators on the other side did not even ask (just as they uncritically accept any weak report in favour of their pet theory).

They leapt to their defamatory conclusions in a smear-fest. At least one person out there has probably committed a criminal act. The rest are guilty of small brained unskeptical blind hatred, defamation, and ignorance. And will any of them apologize? I’ll be shocked if even one has the decency or manners.

We should not allow them to forget it. DeSmog=DeSmear. They are a group happy to promote lies with no compunction. They are not interested in the truth, just in the PR. Oh the fool journalists who think the paid hacks at DeSmog ever had anything to say on science that was not biased or deceitful. Richard Littlemore, where is your apology?

Watts Up With That:

All the above evidence, plus Heartland’s statement saying it is a fake, taken in total suggest strongly that the “2012 Climate Strategy” document is a fake. From my perspective, it is almost if the person(s) looking at these said “we need more to get attention” and decided to create this document as the “red meat” needed to incite a response.

Indeed, the ploy worked, as there are now  216 instances (as of this writing) of this document title “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” on Google at various news outlets and websites.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,706 other followers

%d bloggers like this: