Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

By on February 22, 2012 in News 54
Peter Gleick

Peter Gleick. Photo: Sgerbic (CC)

Andrew C. Revkin reports in the NY Times’ Dot Earth blog:

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 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 …

Read More: NY Times’ Dot Earth blog

, , , , , ,

  • Andrew

    Doesn’t seem any more scandalous than how the Climategate memos were obtained.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Heartland Institute is a corporate polluter front group financed by the Koch brothers. Does anything more really need to be said?

    • Jin The Ninja

       no. it’s patently obvious to everyone but…

      • lj

        second that

      • Camronwiltshire

        It’s not that just how they were obtained, it’s that the supposed information spread is contrived and false.  The Climate gate emails are massively different in order of importance and actual relevance to crime.  The hoax of the leaks essentially reveals nothing and has been used as a ploy to slander.  This is what is required when the science is not in your favor and you have been repeatedly exposed for ignoring scientific protocol, avoiding FOIA requests and repeatedly manipulating data, for example the Mann hockey stick graph.  >>Become informed if you dare ;)  
        http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

        • Mysophobe
          • Camron Wiltshire

             The inadequacy of the MBH98 methodology for climate reconstructions was later independently confirmed in other publications, for instance by Lee, Zwiers and Tsao, 2008[16] or by Christiansen et al., 2009.[17]  http://www.blakemcshane.com/Papers/aoas_rejoinder.pdf  
            Did you read the McIntyre McKitrick paper?

          • Mysophobe

            I read it and replied on the other thread.  In it and the NAS investigation of Mann I found no evidence to back up your claim of intentional data manipulation or your implication that Mann’s intention was to deceive.  I also read your link which attempts to discredit the IPCC and found several outright fabrications or manipulations of easily disproven fact unrelated to the “controversial” science or politics of climate science.  One reference cites a 1996 survey that found a majority of scientists believed humans have at least some influence on the climate.  The results of the survey were either misread by the author in amateurish fashion or intentionally distorted with the intention of deceit.  The most humorous “evidence” in your link was a letter from Monckton, opening with his claim that he speaks for the house of lords.  He’s not a member of the house of lords.  He has been sent several cease and desist letters.  I’d be happy to provide you with more examples, there’s plenty to be had.  Why the deception?  Does it call into question the integrity of the entire skeptic movement and their science?  By your own standard it does.

        • Mr Willow

          it’s that the supposed information spread is contrived and false.

          Not according to the article. 

          “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. ”

          If you want to call his methodology in obtaining the documents into question, that is a different matter altogether—because it’s really that much different from James O’Keefe dressing up like a pimp to expose an organisation’s (alleged) fraud, or even police using fake names in chat rooms to catch child molesters—but the information released, so far as this states, is accurate.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            “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. ”  
            Except that they don’t….Read this please.  Saying it confirms what the known forgery states, and actually confirming of course are not the same.
            Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.
            1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.  Most articles that disseminated the contents of the fake memo have included updates, reporting Heartland’s statement that the memo was fake. Many have argued (incorrectly in my opinion) that the assertions in the fake memo are supported by the actual documents and left their articles unchanged. Some articles have been changed. Few have been removed. The status as of Feb 18 is reviewed by a commenter at Judy Curry’shere.ConclusionThe ramifications of these events are unfolding.In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.http://climateaudit.org/2012/0…

            Like
            Reply

          • Mr Willow

            Hey, nice copy and paste job; and yet you somehow thought it impertinent to edit in spaces between your points. 

            Sorry, but I don’t have any real interest in debating this; not because I think you’re silly (well, I do, but that’s an aside), or even because I don’t think I can make a point, but because I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter one bit to me if this particular memo is fake, not only because have there already been leaked memos showing corporate donors to organisational denial and instating confusion on the issue (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/20/memo-exposes-secret-list-conservative-donors-plotting-campaign-democrats-climate-change/ ), as well as memos leaked that indicate their purposes to “Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties” (1998 memo from American Petroleum Institute [http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/pseudoscience-and-astroturfing-three-leaked-memos/ ]), but because I could care less about global warming or climate change, and more about pollution in general. 

            In truth, global warming could very well be some hoax that creates the perception of a dire need in the control of pollution levels—an attempt to force public fear and outrage to end pollution—but it wouldn’t matter because pollution, in itself, is doing unequivocal harm to the environment that is beyond dispute.

            See: fracking, deforestation, dumping of toxic waste, the irreparable damage coal mining is doing by blowing up mountains, the act of burning that coal dirtying our air, as well as the occasional industrial accident such as the BP oil spill in the gulf that (nearly) destroyed the entire ecosystem and put hundreds of thousands (at least) out of work. (or look at this: http://disinfo.com/2011/10/pollutants-linked-to-450-increase-in-risk-of-birth-defects-in-rural-china/ ) 

            But I guess it will be alright, because at least we’ll still have our leaders—the wealthy and privileged! *cough* http://disinfo.com/2011/11/in-polluted-china-the-elite-breathe-purified-air/ *cough* 

            Although, knowing corporate proclivities in doing all in their power to obscure or distort or distract from their true intentions, wouldn’t one expect them to say they’re fake? Denial of incriminating documents is their bread and butter.

            I also find it interesting that with Gleick’s fact-checking—he got the document (one that matches the one annonymously mailed to him) directly from the Heartland Institute, according to the article—as well as HI’s assurance that the memos are fake, the HI is threatening lawsuits on anyone discussing them online (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/19/1539259/heartland-institute-threatens-to-sue-anyone-who-comments-on-leaked-documents ).

          • Mysophobe

            When he compared himself to Galileo yesterday I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            ?? Oh you mean when I explained again that science is not majority rule and with good reason.  This is why Galileo was more powerful than the entire Catholic Church, because his reason was sound.  Sorry that made you throw up in your mouth a bit.   Try tums.

          • Mysophobe

            Your comparison to Galileo would be apt if he began by claiming on a hunch that the catholic description of the universe was a hoax, but could provide no evidence to support his claims.  Not discouraged, he returns with one far fetched explanation after another, only to be proven conclusively wrong by the church.  Finally, he gives up and proclaims that the orthodoxical description of the known world is correct in it’s entirety, with the exception of the firmament being slightly higher.

            I think you guys were much better off when you were simply saying that climate science was a made-up discipline and that climate change theory in it’s entirety was a giant hoax.  It required almost no effort to defend and it was impossible to argue against.  You could just throw things at the wall and hope they’d stick.  If not, on to the next one.  Best of all, any mouthbreather with an internet connection could get on board with it.  Where you went wrong was when you started playing the game by their rules.  Now you’ve been assimilated.  You’re arguing the science on their terms, not yours.  Now you have to prove how you reach your conclusions instead of seeking out proof to match your preconceptions.  You’ve been painfully slow to adapt and respond, arguing against minutiae  in papers from over a decade ago as the cutting edge science of climate change moves further and further from your grasp.  You should have started training an army of contrarian climatologists years ago but alas, it’s too late.  Now in the 11th hour you’re demanding a seat at the table when you were claiming the table didn’t even exist a few years ago.  Pardon me while I laugh.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            I will laugh at your strawman with you. Nice try.  Sorry your belief system is shored up by liars, thiefs and charlatans like David Blood, Al Gore, Michael Mann and now this Gleick fellow.  Glad you are ok with ignoring the big picture if it challenges you to think differently. I won’t confuse you with someone worth discussion or dialog with in the future.

          • Mysophobe

            I didn’t mean to hit a nerve. I sort of regret posting that or wording it the way I did, just what was on my mind at the time. I’m a huge Galileo fan and found it rather insulting to his memory, but agree to disagree. It should be noted that your response above employs the exact same tactic. In my defense, I have made an honest attempt to look at everything you’ve asked me to with an open mind, I just can’t ignore bias and distortion when I see it. Lacking an advanced scientific background, all I can go by is my BS detector. My honest observation is that the material you’ve had me look at does not even come close to overturning the established science. Isolated cases do not a trend make. For better or worse, when established scientific theory is beind challenged the burden of proof is on the accuser. Unlike a court of law however, there’s no beyond a reasonable doubt requirement for either party. It’s all about putting forth the best explanation given the evidence at hand. Maybe that’s where your confusion lies.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            I believe your “honest” observations exluded data that offends your preconceived notions.  But again believe whatever you want.  You didn’t really answer anything, you just posted articles as though having done so constitutes refutation….All it supports is you know how to use google.  Congratulations!

          • Mysophobe

            Hello kettle, my name is pot. Pleased to meet you. What exactly was it that I was supposed to answer again? I was under the impression that you wanted my honest opinion regarding the links that you googled, I gave you that. I feel like I’ve been more than forthcoming, considering the bizarre spectrum of both nuanced and ham handed arguments you’ve thrown at me. You’re all over the map. If you were hoping I’d be a dead sounding board on which you can refine your arguments for future use, you should look elsewhere. I feel I’ve already assisted you too much in that regard. My gift to you.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/#more-15602  < Read that and try to understand what is being said rather than dry humping your own strawmen to death….

          • Camron Wiltshire

            Mr. Willow, you’re blinded by your ignorance again.  You obviously have ignored or don’t understand the response I posted above, you then ran off on an illogical tangent and expect me to take you seriously.  

            Their is much evidence to support that gleick fabricated the “anonymous” memo in question (if you read the information that is)  also it does not in fact line up with the forwarded documents he received due to his admitted identity fraud.  

            These truths must be too inconvenient to pierce your ideological helmet.  

            Also I do include spaces, disinfo’s blog system is notorious for smooshing posts together.

            I think it’s obvious to say you haven’t read the material I posted and have no interest in admitting when you are mistaking in any degree at anytime.

          • Mr Willow

            Ignorance in respect to what, exactly? Ignorance of the science behind Climate Change/Global Warming? If so, then yes, I am ignorant of the majority of the data because I am not interested in the data! 

            That is why my tangent probably seemed illogical, because you are trying to prove the documents were altered, and by extension disprove climate change, absolving corporate influence on data by saying they don’t have any—because if the documents Gleick exposed were accurate, it proves the Heartland Institute was involved in an elaborate scheme to spread false information and induce public confusion and doubt over GW—when I have no interest in proving climate change exists, only in the very perceptible effect pollution has on the environment and it’s inhabitants. 

            If you actually followed a conversation, you would notice that I wasn’t debating GW, or even necessarily the veracity of these particular documents. 

            First, I pointed out that, according to the article you posted, which mentions nothing of the documents themselves, Gleick only used deception in obtaining the documents. Nowhere in there did he admit to altering anything, nor was there any conclusion by the article’s author that the documents were faked, only implying that the method by which the documents were obtained “leaves his reputation in ruins.” He prints Gleick’s admission that he used someöne else’s name to obtain a memo identical to one anonymously mailed to him (that’s called fact-checking, it’s underhanded, but again, there is little difference between that and the police using false identities trolling sites searching for pedophiles). The author never disputes his account, and expects the very fact that he used deceptive methods to obtain the documents to be the ‘gotcha’ moment of the narrative. 

            You then respond with a bunch of bullet points trying to disprove the documents’ validity, which I (a) have no interest in and (b) read the first time I was on this thread, in your reply to Anarchy Pony. Again, you assume I’m trying to make the point that the documents were fake, when I only pointed out, by Gleick’s statement in the article, and the article’s author never disputing, that the article never claims they were. 

            To this, I seek to clarify my position in caring very little about the GW debate and more about the adverse effects of pollution in general upon the world’s various organisms (providing links). 

            I also point out that the validity of these particular documents are irrelevant—along with HI’s denial of said validity—because not only is it perfectly natural for a corporation (or corporate front group in this instance) that profits through the destruction and pollution of the environment to deny the validity of documents that involve them in the dissemination of misinformation concerning GW and/or pollution in general—since, as I also admit, the GW panic people are trying to induce could very well be an attempt to force emotion into the debate, incensing the public “Oh my god, we’re all going to die if we don’t stop polluting!”—but also because there have been memos leaked since the late 1990’s (again, I provide links) that show corporations have been involved in the dissemination of misinformation, and have used the media to intentionally confuse and divide public opinion on the matter.

            And then you accuse me of ignorance and having an ‘ideological helmet’, which is fine, since I don’t care about GW, and I need a helmet to protect me from others’ ideology. 

            Case in point: also it does not in fact line up with the forwarded documents he received due to his admitted identity fraud. 

            How exactly does the fact that he used identity fraud invalidate the content of the information he received directly from the Heartland Institute!? Also, given corporate penchant for blatantly lying and covering up evidence of their own deceit—and again, that claimed the memo fake well after the information was released—who’s to say they (HI) didn’t alter their own document to produce discrepancies in the two memos?

            Beyond that, we are having, it seems, two very different conversations. Yours seems mired in a yearning to ‘prove them librul, aktivist scientists wrong’—and by extension prolonging our reliance on fossil fuels and a centralised power grid—mine concerns reduction of the very immediate and visible harm pollution is doing to the planet. 

            Which one of those is ideological?

          • Jin The Ninja

            unless somehow being disturbed by ecocide by way of pollution* is ideological…which to me is a very human reaction to a very un natural process; then it surely must be the other points and speaker, who constantly despite a thin libertarian rhetoric- panders to corporate personhood and rejects anything even remotely leftist (which means humanist, holistic or logical) on the basis of IDEOLOGICAL grounds.

          • Misinformation

             You may have said this somewhere further down the line, I can’t remember but, pollution and climate change aren’t necessarily the same thing…or maybe not at all.

          • Jin The Ninja

            that`s the point i keep re-iterating, on this article i said it 3 times, and i`ll say it 100 more. it`s not about ACG- it`s about the effect of western civilisation, capitalism, and immense industrialisation on the environment (pollution) whether from industry or simply consumerism.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            So again, you have not read the article and rather than doing so you’ve just shit your pants apparently?  here is the link, go read it and then talk to me 
            http://climateaudit.org/2012/0…

          • Mr Willow

            Okay, despite my lack of interest in the validity or non-validity of the documents, I read through the e-mails—linked to through the top story on CLimate Audit—which seem to indicate that (surprise, surprise) not only that he was sent the ‘budget and fundraising’ information on February 6, but interestingly found the e-mails—as well as an ‘explanation’ of the e-mails—displayed on a webpage sponsored by the Heartland Institute. (
            http://fakegate.org/ ) Why would anyöne take anything on that page seriously, when all the information is being framed by the very group the documents incriminate in spreading misinformation? 

            And not only that, but the individual running Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre, just happens to work in the mining field—as both a mining consultant and mineral exploration—and just happens to be the new Chairman of the Board of Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre  [http://www.trelawneymining.com/management-directors {in case Wikipedia isn’t ‘authoritative’ enough}]) That’s the guy you trust to be unbiased in discussing Global Warming, Climate Change, or (as I have been) pollution in general? The same guy who, if pollution—and crimes against nature in the form of mountain destruction at the hand of mining companies more specifically—were delt with in any meaningful way, would lose a ton of business? 

            Are you serious? 

            Talk about a conspiracy. . . 

          • Jin The Ninja

            i apologise for constantly replying to you when your posts are not directed at me, but the hypocrisy is too great to ignore. mention anything about climate change and suddenly you’re ‘defending al gore’ speak against the koch bros and you’re positing a ‘false dichotomy.’ or refute data and you’re ‘ignoring the science.’

            it’s ridiculous, but good on you for maintaining a steady and intelligent pen.

          • Mr Willow

            speak against the koch bros and you’re positing a ‘false dichotomy.’ or refute data and you’re ‘ignoring the science.’

            Or are accused of having an ‘ideological helmet’. 

          • Jin The Ninja

            oops, forgot that lil nugget o’ wizdumb.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Nailed it :-)

        • Jin The Ninja

          “Department of Economics”

          Economics is a societal construct. They aren’t known for much except proliferation of the market. I’ve noted this critique in much more nuanced way before. An economist =/= scientist. tsk tsk.

          at a 2nd tier school, known for parties and their business co-op program no less.

          “become informed if you dare”

          i could say the same to you, as you’ve chosen to ignore best part of my posts which relate a holistic relationship between people and the land.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            You go first Jin.  Read the report and rethink what you are supporting because it fits your other preconceived ideologies.

          • Jin The Ninja

            What am i supporting? Tell me. I don’t care about AGW, i care about the environment. it’s really two distinct conceptions.

          • Jin The Ninja

            and did read the report, as I noted his department and that i thought an economist does a very poor job understanding the relevance of man on the earth and very good job of defending the market and man in context to the environment.

    • Camron Wiltshire

      I would say yes.  

      The Fake Confidential Strategy Memo
      On or before Feb 13, the “unknown person” or an associate (who subsequently called himself Heartland Insider), fabricated a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo”. Its pdf version was created on Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time.
      Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.
      1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.
      2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)
      3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.
      4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.
      5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.
      6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.
      7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.
      8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.
      Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.
        Most articles that disseminated the contents of the fake memo have included updates, reporting Heartland’s statement that the memo was fake. Many have argued (incorrectly in my opinion) that the assertions in the fake memo are supported by the actual documents and left their articles unchanged. Some articles have been changed. Few have been removed. The status as of Feb 18 is reviewed by a commenter at Judy Curry’shere.
      Conclusion
      The ramifications of these events are unfolding.
      In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.
      Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.
      As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

      http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/#more-15602

    • Camron Wiltshire

      PS> You are wrong
      2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)

    • Camron Wiltshire

      1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.
      2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)
      3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.
      4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.
      5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.
      6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.
      7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.
      8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.
      Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.

  • Mysophobe

    I read it and replied on the other thread. You presented the M&M study to bolster your claim of intentional data manipulation in the context of implying willful deception on the part of Mann. I have found nothing that supports this claim. I also read the link you provided that supposedly documents IPCC malfeasance. I came across several easily disproven factual errors and exaggerations unrelated to controversial material almost immediately. A letter disputing a survey which found a scientific consensus on humans being at least partially contributors to climate change in 1996 was grossly distorted and misread in amatuerish fashion. The most humorous “evidence” is Monckton’s letter in which he claims to speak for the house of lords as a member. He is not a member of the house of lords, they have sent him several cease and desist letters. Will you hold your sources to the same rigorous standards you apply to Mann?

    • Camron Wiltshire

      So of the 50 articles you read how many exactly in the last 24 hours?
      Of those which exactly did you take issue with?  I don’t doubt that amongst 50 articles outlining why the IPCC is no more to be trusted than anyone in the private sector, that you may find less than strict observance to journalistic integrity.  Of course this does not imply that ALL articles are therefore incorrect as that would be a composition fallacy.    You’ve not provided a source the material you are referencing so I have no context for what you are saying either way.  I think it’s rather obvious that Mann is using underhanded tactics to avoid authentic independent confirmation of his research.  Perhaps this is why even when random noise was applied using his algorithm they produce a hockey stick 99% of the time over 10,000 computations.  I find it hard to imagine that that is just a coincidence to be dismissed given that it simultaneously dismisses the tree ring data that supports the MWP was warmer as part of it’s calculation.  I also cited the work of other scientists not linked to Mann who are not his graduate students, have not worked with him for 5 years, and have not co authored papers with him previously as had those who supposedly challenge the findings of M&M.  

      We can hair split all day.  I prefer to see the big picture.  That being, humans are having an as of yet undetermined effect (the debate is not settled) on climate, does it require the creation of a trillion dollar derivatives industry which studies have shown would do nothing to off set mankinds CO2 emissions, & is not proven to actually stabilize climate no matter how much we think this is the case.  Remember we don’t control Solar output, we don’t even yet comprehend fully why we shifted out of the last ice age so suddenly let alone the MWP with any sort of consensus amongst scientists.
      GIven hat there is a serious political interest at the heart of the IPCC to find that human kind is in fact responsible for an accelerated climate, it would behoove everyone interested in science winning out rather than politics for an independent alternative to the IPCC with no financial stake in the game either way to arbitrate for both parties.  You will of course find those who challenge the assumptions of the IPCC overwhelmingly have sought just such a solution (As M&M presented at the end of the aforementioned paper in conclusion) being that this has been denied as a possibility by the IPCC I think it becomes rather obvious that they are incapable and unwilling to let the science speak for itself.

      You are welcome to your opinion either way.  I offer you this as a means to contextualize the entire argument while providing ample literature for you to immerse yourself with if you so desire to continue the conversation further. 

      Please watch the following presentation and review the peer reviewed literature it is derived from here http://cargocollective.com/sacredgeometryinternational/Climate-Change  There are 4 parts I believe and if you have any specific scientific questions for the author I would be happy forward them on your account.

      Best wishes.

      • Mysophobe

        The peer reviewed material is the google docs link?  I watched the first three interview segments on YouTube, couldn’t find the fourth.  The first thing that jumped out at me was Carlson stating his belief that the sun will ultimately be found to be the primary cause of the current warming trend we are observing.  He didn’t really go into detail, but i found this claim to be a bit strange.  On another topic, in the context of asserting that CO2 levels have been higher in the past for the sake of casting doubt on the uniqueness of recent CO2 increases, he states that 100 gigatons of carbon is locked up in marine sediment and sedimentary rock, most of which must have originated in the atmosphere.  He’s right, it did.  Millions of years ago when there was a volcanic atmosphere.  He seems to intentionally omit that part for the sake of sowing uncertainty in climate science.  Watch it yourself, it’s pretty clear in context.
        He repeats the familiar meme that cap and trade will devolve into a derivatives market.  He takes it one step further and claims that it will be just like the mortgage backed securities meltdown.  From what I understand, cap and trade would create a regulated commodity trading market very similar to that currently governing oil futures.  This is a completely different animal from an asset backed securities market, let alone one hyper-inflated by complex financial instruments such as credit default swaps.  If this is not willful fear-mongering on his part, it does displays a lack of critical thought on the topic.
        With regards to climategate, he states that CRU refused to release their station data and a FOIA request was declined, in the context of demonstrating complicity between the government and the IPCC et al in suppressing and manipulating information.  As I’m sure you know, FOIA requests can only be made to executive branch departments, not to private research institutions, even ones that are partially funded by the government.  The actual FOIA request was made to the DOE for correspondences with CRU.  Not station data directly from CRU as Carlson claims.

        Honestly, my general impression of this interview series is that it is clearly agenda driven.  Way too much political gamesmanship for what is supposed to be a science discussion. Carlson comes across as parroting readily available information rather than applying critical thought to the subject.  When I look at the body of work you’ve exposed me to, combined with your comments, I can’t help but be reminded of an echo chamber.  Often you seem to be working off of a list of talking points as several times you’ve retreated your position back to your “trillion dollar derivatives and pointless taxation” boilerplate in the middle of an unrelated topic.  Nothing personal, just my observations.  Carry on.   

        • Climate Gate

          You have this strange penchant for rewriting everything to fit your bias.  I think it is an disturbing and obvious pattern.  I will just go with the most clear example as I don’t want to waste all day clarifying things for you, just to have you recontextualize everything to fit your own apparent agendas.

          First of all.  The Heartland memos, the real ones, don’t confirm the hoaxed letter at all.  I’ve posted this oh about 4 times now.  Let’s not move the goal post all over the place.  Let’s just focus on that subject as again it proves you have an apparent inability to understand facts that don’t support your bias.

          Read this (Again, for the first time and please stop wasting everyones time)

          “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. ”  Except that they don’t….Read this please.  Saying it confirms what the known forgery states, and actually confirming of course are not the same.Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.  Most articles that disseminated the contents of the fake memo have included updates, reporting Heartland’s statement that the memo was fake. Many have argued (incorrectly in my opinion) that the assertions in the fake memo are supported by the actual documents and left their articles unchanged. Some articles have been changed. Few have been removed. The status as of Feb 18 is reviewed by a commenter at Judy Curry’shere.ConclusionThe ramifications of these events are unfolding.In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.http://climateaudit.org/2012/0…

          Your basically just spreading propaganda because it appeals to your emotions I take it.  The memo is hoax.  The stolen articles don’t say what Gleick would like everyone to believe.  He is the source and he has a terrible bias and financial incentive to protect his world view.  

          The following rejoinder comes to mind. (Thanks Eric D)
          “Nah. I just figured that debating the merits of (anything) with you would be like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, you’ll just knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and strut around like you’re victorious. 

          So I didn’t bother.
          That pretty much says it.  I’m not wasting anymore time on you mysophobe.  I tried but you play the same games over and over and I

          have a life outside of this site to attend to.  I’m sure you will respond with another misrepresentation of my argument and do the whole pigeon shit/strut routine to your own amusement and satisfaction.  I prefer interacting with folks who are genuinely interested in honest dialectics.  Sadly there are very few amidst the slew of trolls on this site.  

          • Mysophobe

            Yeah, probably best to ignore everything I said above and make an excuse to head for the door. I’ll readily admit that I was playing games. YOUR games. If you read closely, you’ll realize that I threw every dishonest tactic you tried to use on me right back at you. How you never noticed is just beyond me. Claiming intellectual superiority in a humorous way is as lame of an argument now as it was when Eric used it on Jin. And yes, I do entertain myself. You entertain me too. Honest dialectics? Now that’s funny!

  • noah way

    Kill the messenger. Now if only we realized that politicians are  messengers …

  • Liam_McGonagle

    “Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files”

    . . . “IN OBTAINING” . . .

    Sophistical ad hominem is literally written all over the title of this thing.  It is the last resort of B-listers and 3rd-stringers who either can’t recognize an actual argument on the merits or don’t care about the difference.

    Try again.

    • Camron Wiltshire

      Look up Gonagle.
      BOOYAKAAAAAA!

      • Jin The Ninja

         what?

        • Liam_McGonagle

          He/she/it apparently has never seen the word “sophistical” before and got it confused with “sophisticated”, which is the hillariously ironic sentiment he/she/it apparently attaches to him/her/itself.

          That’s my first guess as to the intention.  Words and phrases like “BOOYAKAAAAAAAAA” are usually a dead giveaway that the writer has no idea what he/she/it is talking about.  Probably some kind of vitamin deficiency, too.

          • Calypso_1

            I’m leaning towards a glutamatergic deficiency.

        • Calypso_1

          In the grips of jungle fever Wiltshire believes he is now shooting at people over the internet.  He so wants to be like his father.

  • Misinformation

    Solutions, solutions, anyone have any solutions?

    • Mysophobe

      Correspond only through the VPN from now on?

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Given the moral fiber (completely absent) of the groups he’s in opposition with…I’m not sure any act could be considered unethical enough to match or even rival them. These are people who will ‘Breitbart’ anything at any time…resorting to unethical means to acquire proof of their fraud barely even rates on the Richter scale of Wrong.

  • Camron Wiltshire

    For all those unaware.  Not only has Gleick admitted to stealing information via ID fraud also the lies spouted by various mainstream media are in fact not supported by the evidence.
    “The Fake Confidential Strategy Memo
    On or before Feb 13, the “unknown person” or an associate (who subsequently called himself Heartland Insider), fabricated a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo”. Its pdf version was created on Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time.
    Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.”
    http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/#more-15602
    1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.BOOYAKA!

    • Mysophobe

      While I admire your resolve in defending the HI, I have to question your thought process here. It’s impossble to call into question the content of the fake document without making some reference to the genuine material. You seem to be laboring under the belief that the fake memo is damning but the 2012 Budget isn’t, when in reality the 2012 Budget would be a bombshell by itself. Or that the dishonest way in which the material was obtained will overshadow the content. Sure, you will be successful in deceiving some passersby into assuming that the entirety of the charges against HI are false, but those aren’t the ones you need to convince. They say that in a situation like this, you must get out in front of the story. Curious how you think what the HI, you and others are doing accomplishes that? The way I see it, addressing the content of the 2012 Budget head on is the only way to stop the bleeding here.