The SPPI Blog

Breaking: Eminent Scientist May be Jailed for Faking Climate Emails

sppibob — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:42:31 +0000

Source: CCD

In a sensational public confession a leading climatologist, Peter Gleick has admitted to taking part in a high-profile climate emails forgery that has backfired; says it was done to intentionally injure skeptic foundation.

Britain’s pro-green national daily, ‘The Guardian’ was the first major newspaper to break the news that Dr. Peter Gleick had confessed to unlawfully libeling the prominent climate skeptic supporter, the Heartland Institute (HI). Heartland is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Stopping short of specifically admitting he was the author of the faked Heartland Institute document, Gleick nonetheless spilled the beans that he was a co-conspirator, via the Huffington Post late last night (February 20, 2012). Gleick admits that his political bias on climate catastrophism led him to commit “ a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”

In reply Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast immediately issued an official statement declaring,

“Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.”

Climate Criminality to Promote Failing Alarmist Agenda

Gleick, an eminent climate scientist promoting the man-made global warming meme, had jumped off his lofty establishment pedestal to admit that he had knowingly intented to cause injury and defame HI, a registered charity.

Dr. Gleick added he would “not comment on the substance or implications of the materials.” But there can be no doubt that the tone of his letter suggests it was drafted under the direct guidance of an attorney.

Heartland Institute lawyers have announced they will mount a prosecution in a civil court for knowingly using a fraudulent instrument to inflict intentional injury upon the prominent skeptic foundation.

Jail Time Possible for Conspiring in a Criminal Conspiracy

The consequences for Gleick are very grave. HI President Bast added, “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.”

So not only does Gleick face being financially ruined by a civil prosecution, he is also liable to a criminal investigation as such falsification of documents is a well-known brand of white collar crime.

Gleick, a water expert, has implicated himself in passing along copies of documents that he admits he knew to be false. In most states, including Washington D.C., falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony. He may serve jail time if convicted.

No Way Back for BBC’s “Visionary on the Environment”

But in addition, Dr. Gleick very probably will be compelled to step down from public life and resign his prominent positions now his reputation is in tatters. Gleick is president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute and UC Berkeley Alum. {C}{C}In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a “visionary on the environment” by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 2006 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Here is a video of Gleick denouncing skeptics at UC Berkeley’s Annual Sustainability Summit in April 2011.

But on a broader front, the debacle constitutes a devastating own-goal for the billion-dollar climate alarmist industry.

From the outset of the leak, trumpeted by global doomsaying mouthpiece, DeSmoglblog, Heartland’s president Joseph Bast had announced that the two-page memo was a fake – “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage,” Bast said in a statement. But extremist climate alarmist outlets had failed to heed Bast’s warning that HI would sue for damages anyone who re-published the counterfeit correspondence. Now DeSmogblog, Gleick and other unprincipled accomplices will surely face heavy civil liabilities if Bast’s lawyers file suit for damages.

Richard Littlemore, of DeSmogblog, has already defiantly refused to remove the material Gleick admits is fake. The most egregious lie in Gleick’s mendacious memo was the claim that skeptics were out to repress science, the kind of fakery Littlemore has form for promoting.

DeSmog Blog, laughingly claiming its mission is to “clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” is suspected of being implicated in the Gleick fraud. It is now in line to suffer defeats in three climate libel lawsuit – adding to the two vexatious claims against Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, a vociferous campaigner against climate criminals.

Heartland Calls Gleick Confession “Unbelievable”

Gleick disingenuously claims he received the fake document “At the beginning of 2012” and that he “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.”

But this statement appears at odds with the timeline and forensic evidence and was promptly denounced by Bast who responded, “This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.” Bast also disputed Gleick’s account that he had received the first document – the faked two-page memo – from an anonymous source.

But diehard zealots of the climate cult are rallying behind their man. One such crank is Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team, who chipped in, “He [Gleick] is the hero and Heartland remains the villain.”

Although fellow pro-green activist, Andrew Revkin was more restrained admitting,”Those actions may have undercut an entire career.” Revkin went on to accept that “Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.”

No doubt retractions of such vituperative invective, as found on the Vancouver Sun, will surely proceed apace and grovelling apologies will be published. Heartland’s statement on the matter is so bullish and legally compelling that any pro-green media outlets declining to comply are best advised to lawyer up pronto.

What are the depths of Peter Gleick’s depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack?

sppibob — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:17:27 +0000

Source: Red State

[UPDATE: The preliminary steps of removing Peter Gleick from positions of authority and respect have begun: he's 'resigned' from his position with the National Center for Science Education, and his scientific ethics task force chairmanship(!) for the American Geophysical Union. One wonders whether groups like the MacArthur Fellows Program and NAS will insist that Gleick cut all ties from them, as well. Nobody's really expecting the Pacific Institute to join in, of course: it's a well-known reliable quote machine for the American Left.]

OK, quick background: last week there was a bit of fuss when a variety of documents appeared that purported to show that there was some sort of nefarious global warming ‘denialist’ (that’s what a Lefty calls somebody who has noticed that, hey, the temperature’s not actually rising the way that people told us it would) conspiracy centered around the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute was not amused by this, and has been making it clear that at least one document was a pathetic forgery. This latter point has generally been conceded by all the players, if tacitly, and the great walkback is beginning. I recommend Watts Up With That for those looking to monitor further developments: that site has been all over this story.

But let’s go back to what got revealed, for a moment. The documents can be grouped into two categories: a variety of materials that global warming advocate (and lecturer on ethics*) Peter Gleick admitted stealing from Heartland**; and the aforementioned pathetically faked document. Since we now know that not even Gleick is standing by the provenance of said document, let us ignore it completely. What it says is irrelevant. It has no bearing. I did not even read it before my summary below of the documents that Gleick stole, solely to keep it from contaminating my assessment.So, what’s in those documents?

Fundraising plan – confidential budget and fundraising information that has nothing to do with Heartland’s positions on climate change policy (thus, not germane). Also, this was a general fundraising plan, not one specifically concentrating on climate change.
2012 Budget -…Umm, it’s their general budget. No line items for Sooper Sekret Globeal Wharming Projekt here. Just salary/line item information that’s nobody’s business except Heartland’s.
January 17, 2012 Director’s Agenda – They read a bunch of reports at that one. Which happens at every meeting, everywhere, and will continue to do so until the end of time, amen.
Notice of January 17, 2012 – I assume that it’s here to get more phone numbers into the internet stream.
IRS Tax forms – Man, I hope that whoever is hosting these documents has a good lawyer.
October 18, 2011 Director’s meeting – See the entry for the January 17, 2012 Director’s agenda.
Board of Directors contact list – Hey, let’s make sure that Heartland staffers get a lot of personalized hate mail/stalkers/harassment! Smooth move there, Peter Gleick.

…In other words? Nothing. No conspiracies, no nefarious plans, nothing really of particular interest to outsiders – except, of course, for contact information for Heartland’s top staff, which is provided in handy-dandy format for the Left’s near-psychopaths to use to try to make a bunch of climate “denialists’” lives miserable. Which is really the point to this sort of thing; it’s not actually about the climate, and it’s not even really about the politics. It’s about shutting people up.

What makes it even more annoying, of course, is that the people that want to do the shutting up in this case aren’t, well, very bright. Megan McArdle took this memo apart, and effectively concluded that it was written after the fact by somebody who was under the mistaken belief that they could successfully reproduce the tone of global warming skeptics and conservative/libertarian activists. Speaking in a semi-professional manner; no, most people can’t. The ability to successfully imitate people that you despise – truly imitate them, and not just lampoon them – is exceptionally difficult, because in order to think like somebody you have to empathize with them. The problem there is that it’s hard to be empathic toward somebody whom you hate.

Well. That’s the generic problem. The specific problem for wayward ethicist Peter Gleick – not to mention the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, given that Gleick’s unethical behavior directly reflects on both groups – is that he’s claiming that he got the original document before he stole the other ones. Which should be easy to check; he kept the email, right? And it’s on a server that can be checked, right? – And, given that Gleick is so cavalier with other people’s property rights, surely he’ll make it very easy for investigators to see whether or not he’s guilty of libel, as well as identity and intellectual property theft…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*You know. Ethics. It’s the meta-concept under which we categorize thoughts and precepts like, oh, Thou shalt not steal.

**I quote Gleick: “…I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” The organization would have apparently not provided that information to this particular… researcher… voluntarily; and, given what Gleick did with that information once he illicitly acquired it, you can hardly blame Heartland.

Stolen Heartland Documents: DeSmog Blog Keeps Blowing Smoke

sppibob — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:55:50 +0000

Source: Global Warming Org

by Marlo Lewis

Updated 4:34 pm, Feb. 21, 2012

“Climate scientist Peter Gleick has acknowledged that he was the person who convinced the Heartland Institute to hand over the contents of its January Board package, authenticating the documents beyond a doubt and further exposing the disinformation campaign Heartland has pursued in the last week, trying to discredit the information,” writes DeSmog Blog in a post titled “Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents” (Feb. 20, 2012).

Gleick is indeed the culprit, but he is not a “whistleblower” because to be a candidate for that honorable title, he’d have to be a current or former employee. Gleick acknowledges that he, an outside critic of the organization, solicited and received Heartland documents under false pretenses, an action he describes as a ”serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”

More importantly, contrary to DeSmog’s spin, Gleick does not claim to authenticate the document titled ”Confidential Memo: Heartland 2012 Climate Strategy,” the only document among those stolen and published that even vaguely resembles the stuff of scandal.

Even more pathetic is the sanctimonious open letter by Michael Mann and six colleagues who suggest that Heartland merely got its comeuppance for cheering and publicizing the release of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that sparked the Climategate scandal.

As noted here last week, there is good reason to believe the climate strategy memo, which purports to be a confidential communication to a “subset of Institute Board and senior staff,” is a fake.

The memo says, “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000.” But one of the bona fide stolen board meeting documents, Heartland’s 2012 Fund Raising Plan (p. 22), shows that Koch donated $25,000 in 2011, not $200,000, and for Heartland’s health care program, not its climate science program. Heartland seeks a $200,000 donation from Koch in 2012 — for its health care program, not its climate program. In short, the alleged strategy memo gets basic information – how much Koch contributed and for which program activities – stunningly wrong. It is almost inconceivable that Heartland would have mailed to key board members and staff a document so egregiously inconsistent with the Institute’s 2012 Fund Raising Plan.

Megan McCardle of The Atlantic reported another reason to be suspicious of the strategy memo. Electronic analysis of the document indicates it was created by someone living in the Pacific time zone, unlike the other documents (aside from the IRS 1099 form), which were created in the Central time zone, where Heartland is headquartered. Just by the bye, Peter Gleick’s organization, the Pacific Institute, is located in the Pacific time zone.

Gleick says he received the strategy memo from an anonymous third party. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, contrary to DeSmog Blog’s editorializing in the guise of reporting, Gleick does not claim to have authenticated the strategy memo:

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. 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 [emphasis added].

The materials Heartland sent Gleick ’confirm many of the facts’ in the strategy memo because the memo is mostly a pastiche of phrases taken from other documents. But note, Gleick does not say that Heartland mailed him the strategy memo. He also implicitly acknowledges that not all the facts in the strategy memo are confirmed by the other documents. Indeed, as we have seen, the 2012 Fund Raising Plan conflicts with the strategy memo’s assertions regarding the amount and kind of Koch’s 2011 donation.

The only part of the strategy memo that comes even close to scandalous (unless you make the question-begging assumption — Gleick apparently does — that climate skeptics are a scandalous bunch) is the statement that “it is important to keep” scientists like Gleick ”out” of Forbes magazine. Spotlighting this statement, DeSmog Blog accused Heartland of hypocrisy, because the Institute had blasted CRU scientists for trying to keep skeptics out of the peer reviewed literature. But the statement in question is so silly it casts additional doubt on the strategy memo’s authenticity.

How on earth could Heartland keep opposing views out of Forbes? Is Heartland the think-tank tail that wags the financial-empire dog? The “confidential” memo implies that when Heartland President Joe Bast says “jump,” Steve Forbes says “How high?” Anyone credulous enough to believe that probably also believes global warming is a planetary emergency even though annual deaths and death rates related to extreme weather have declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since the 1920s.

In an open letter published in the UK Guardian, seven scientists prominently identified with Climategate take a ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ tone about the bogus Heartland scandal. They write:

So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.

The Climategate Seven compare apples to oranges — an old rhetorical trick that has no place in scientific discourse. Michael Mann and the CRU gang are funded by taxpayers. Consequently, their data, methodologies, and work-related email are subject to freedom of information laws. The Heartland Institute is a privately-funded organization. Consequently, its internal decision and planning documents are not subject to FOIA.

As we know from the Climategate emails, Phil Jones and CRU scientists stonewalled FOIA requests for years to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methodologies. That was a bona fide scandal, not only because such conduct is prima facie illegal, but also because scientists who deny independent researchers the opportunity to reproduce (invalidate) their results attack the very heart of the scientific enterprise.

Leaking the CRU emails — for all we know the work of a genuine whistle blower — was the only way to (a) produce documents responsive to valid FOIA requests, (b) expose CRU’s willful evasion of FOIA, and (c) subject CRU research products to the indispensable test of reproducibility.

There is no analogy between Climategate and the theft of the Heartland documents because (1) Heartland has no legal obligation to share its internal deliberations with the public, and (2) unlike collusion to evade FOIA, strategizing about how to raise money is not a violation of either law or professional ethics.

Update: Steven Mosher speculates, based on textual analysis, that Gleick wrote the fake strategy memo he claims was sent to him by an anonymous source. See Mosher’s comment #89946 on The Blackboard and related threads at ClimateAudit.Org: comment #342939, comment #324959, and comment #325062.

Obama and Gasoline Prices

sppibob — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:23:04 +0000

Carbon Hypocrisy: Michelle’s ski trip marks 16 Obama vacations

sppibob — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:36:35 +0000

Source: Wash Examiner

First lady Michelle Obama skis at Buttermilk ski area on Saturday in Aspen, Colo. The first lady is spending Presidents Day weekend in Aspen with her daughters, Sasha and Malia. (AP Photo/Aspen Daily News, Chris Council)

First lady Michelle Obama’s weekend jaunt to Aspen, Colorado for a President’s Day ski holiday with her daughters Sasha and Malia makes the 16th time members of the first family have gone on extended vacations during their three years in office.

Their stay at the home of a major Chicago fundraiser for President Obama makes the fifth time the first lady and her daughters have taken a break from Washington on their own. Only once has Obama had a long weekend out of town and alone, celebrating his 49th birthday in Chicago in August 2010.Accounting for trips out of Washington for several days, the total number of vacations Washington Secrets tabulated is 16, 10 where the family was together, such as for Christmas and summer vacations, one by the president and five by the first lady. Not included were Camp David visits or trips like the first family’s New York City date night in May, 2009.

According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.

Critics and even some in his own party say the vacations present a bad image at a time when many Americans are struggling to get by during the recession. According to recent Harris poll, only three in 10 said they plan to take a vacation lasting longer than a week in the next six months, and that number has been dropping during the recession as people worry about the costs of vacations. Other polls have found that less than half of all Americans take all the vacation time they earn because they can’t afford trips.

The Obama Vacation List

– President’s Day 2012, Michelle and the first daughters in Aspen, Colorado to ski.
– Christmas 2011, the first family in Hawaii for an extended vacation.
– Summer 2011, in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., for the annual beach break.
– June 2011, the first lady, her mother and daughters traveled to South Africa and Botswana.
– President’s Day 2011, the first lady and first daughters travel to Vail to ski.
– Christmas 2010, in Hawaii.
– August 2010, the first family traveled to Panama City Beach, Fla., for some sun and fun at the beach.
– August 2010, Obama spent the weekend alone in Chicago for his 49th birthday bash.
– August 2010, the first lady and daughter Sasha traveled to Spain for a mother-daughter vacation.
– August 2010, summer vacation again at Martha’s Vineyard.
– July 2010, the first family went to Mount Desert Island, Maine.
– May 2010, the first family had a four-day trip to Chicago.
– March 2010, first lady and daughter spend Spring Break in New York City.
– Christmas 2009, Hawaii again for the annual break.
– August 2009, at Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon for a short vacation.
– August 2009, their first summer vacation as first family at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

sppibob — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:30:34 +0000

Source: NYTimes

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Peter Gleick

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. 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.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

The Heartland Institute had already signaled that it plans to seek charges and civil action against the person who extracted its documents under a false identity. Foreshadowing today’s events, on Friday, Ross Kaminsky, a senior fellow and former board member at Heartland, posted a piece on the American Spectator site naming Gleick as an “obvious suspect.” Now they have their man.

I won’t speculate on how the legal aspects of this story might play out.

Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents: Letter from General Counsel

sppibob — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:49:24 +0000

Source: Heartland Insitute

February 18, 2012
By e-mail to: editor@desmogblog.com
By Federal Express to:
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle
Editor
DeSmog Blog
9527 13th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98117-2303
Re: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-str

ategy
Dear Mr. DeMelle:
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
- continued -
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle
February 18, 2012
Page 2 of 2
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

DeSmog Blog’s Bogus “Exposé” of the Heartland Institute

sppibob — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:34:44 +0000

Source: http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/17/desmog-blogs-bogus-expose-of-the-heartland-institute/#more-13089

Earlier this week, the climate hysterics at DeSmog Blog and ThinkProgress tried (but failed) to manufacture a scandal by posting board-meeting and fund-raising documents stolen under false pretenses from the Heartland Institute, the Illinois-based free-market think tank. You can read Heartland’s response to the document heist here.

In the climate debate, Heartland is perhaps best known as organizer and host of six international climate conferences and as publisher of Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The Heartland conferences transformed the disparate ranks of climate-alarm skeptics into a confident, energized, networked movement. The NIPCC report and related publications not only debunk Al Gore’s “planetary emergency” but also provide the only comprehensive, fully-documented alternative to the alleged “scientific consensus” represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So it’s not hard to understand why eco-bloggers are desparate to sully Heartland’s good name and damage the Institute’s funding. But, it turns out, one of the documents is a fake, one of the facts headlined in the exposé is an error, and all that the documents show is what everybody already knows: Heartland seeks financial support from like-minded individuals, foundations, and corporations to combat climate alarmist propaganda, and, to its credit, generously seeks to help fund other worthy organizations to build the larger movement of which it is a part.

DeSmog at first tried to make hay out of the supposed revelation that Heartland received a $200,000 donation from Koch Industries. This is scandalous only if you subscribe to the following ‘logic’: Oil is evil, therefore Koch is evil, therefore anyone who gets Koch donations is evil (or at least tainted). If the DeSmoggers really feel this way, then I would ask that they please stop driving vehicles that run on hypocrisy.

In any event, the $200,000 figure is wildly inaccurate, casting grave doubt on the authenticity of the document, titled “Confidential Memo: Heartland 2012 Climate Strategy,” in which it appears. As DeSmog now acknowledges, Koch gave Heartland $25,000 in 2011, not $200,000, and the donation was for Heartland’s health care program, not its climate science program. Extra, extra read all about it, Koch funds 0.5% of Heartland’s $4.6 million budget!

Heartland says the strategy memo is a forgery. Megan McCardle of The Atlantic reports that electronic analysis of the document indicates it was created by someone living in the Pacific time zone, unlike the other documents (aside from the IRS 1099 form), which were created in the Central time zone, where Heartland is headquartered.

The same faux strategy memo also has Heartland stating that “it is important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes magazine. DeSmog accuses Heartland of rank hypocrisy:

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

But there’s no there there if, as Heartland avows and evidence suggests, the strategy memo is a fake. Besides, the supposedly incriminating statement makes no sense. How in the world could Heartland keep opposing views out of Forbes? Is Heartland the think-tank tail that wags the financial-empire dog? When Heartland President Joe Bast says “jump,” Steve Forbes says “How high?” If the DeSmoggers believe that, then I’ve got some carbon offsets I’d like to sell them.

Citing one of the genuine documents, DeSmog Blog spotlights the monthly stipends Heartland paid to Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter — author/editors of the 800-page NIPCC report and the 400-page interim (follow up) report. Why are these payments anybody else’s business? And how exactly are they the stuff of scandal? Here in America, people don’t usually work for free. IPCC-affiliated scientists also get paid. The difference is that IPCC scientists are funded via coerced contributions (taxes) whereas NIPCC scientists are funded via private voluntary donations. That makes NIPCC funding morally superior.

Finally, DeSmog Blog and ThinkProgress accuse Heartland of hypocrisy because the organization, which applauded the leak of the climategate emails, now decries as criminal and despicable the theft and publication of its internal documents.

If I catch the gist of this criticism, DeSmog and ThinkProgress think government-funded researchers have a right to practice secret science whereas privately-funded organizations have no right to privacy.

In any event, here’s the obvious fact that DeSmog and ThinkProgress ignore. Government-funded research is subject to freedom of information laws; the internal deliberations of privately-funded research and advocacy groups are not. As we know from the climategate emails, Phil Jones and the gang at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) stonewalled FOIA requests for years to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methodologies. That was a bona fide scandal.

Leaking the CRU emails — whistle blowing — was the only way to (a) produce documents responsive to valid FOIA requests, and (b) expose CRU’s willful evasion of FOIA.

There is no analogy between climategate and the theft of the Heartland documents because (1) Heartland has no legal obligation to share its internal deliberations with the public, and (2), unlike collusion to evade FOIA, strategizing about fund raising is not a crime!

Bob Carter wins the cartoon war :-) A very sweet win.

sppibob — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:21:23 +0000

Source: Joanne Nova

Thank you DeSmog! Without FakeGate we would not have had this cartoon. (Readership est 850,000)

Cartoon by John Spooner. The Age.

On Wednesday I mentioned the Carter/Flannery disparity in wages:

And if Bob Carter receives an honorarium type amount of $1500 a month, the pull of those big dollars must be powerfully tempting for people like Tim Flannery who struggle along on about $1200 each day he works.

On Saturday after he scores flack in other articles, satire restores the balance in favour of Bob Carter. (Now was that in The SMH too?)

Message to DeSmog and that faker… whatever credibility you had…

A comment from Bulldust after my last post on this:
Jo, I am almost ashamed of you … you know full well Flannery has far more sources of income than that pitiful $1,200 a day … heck that would barely keep him in champagne and caviar. … February 16, 2012 at 6:56 am

(Bulldust, forgive me! I have at least blogged about the Panasonic-Flannery connection: Cheap Influence in National Politics: How Panasonic buy time on our public broadcaster. But thanks for those links.)

Flashback: Who Owns These Two Houses?

sppibob — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:17:35 +0000

Source: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/who-owns-these-two-houses/

Original posting date: 04/28/2009

Neither you nor I will ever be able to own a house like either of these.

However, it does provide us with a startling example of environmental friendliness that may raise your eyebrows.

Keep in mind, the average size for a family home in the U.S. is around 2300 square feet.

This image shows a 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month, this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ‘snow belt’ area. It’s in the South.

This image shows a residence designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature that current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern.

Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. This collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. The heating/cooling system is so efficient that initial plans to install solar panels were canceled.

The first house in the top image covers more than 10,000 square feet and is at Belle Meade, an upscale city suburb of Nashville, Tennessee, and is the home of the ‘Environmentalist’ Al Gore.

The second house is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas and it is the residence of the former President of the United States, George W. Bush, who we are endlessly told is a noted environmental vandal.

Gee! Sounds a little like an inconvenient truth to me.

Sometimes people can tend to mention things that enhance their own points of view, and this may seem to be one of them, but, hey, if you don’t believe me, go here to this link and check for yourself. It’s all true.