Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute's climate change spin

By Phil Plait | February 15, 2012 7:00 am

The Heartland Institute — a self-described “think tank” that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle “Heartland Insider” has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

[UPDATE: Heartland has confirmed that some of the documents are real, but claims the strategy document, which I quote below about teaching strategy, is faked. This claim has not yet been confirmed or refuted. DeSmogBlog has more info.]

These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.

One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:

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

That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.

When it comes to all this, the comparison to “Climategate” springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

These new documents, though, look different, especially given that quote above. The next few days should be very interesting as people start digging into them, especially if they prove to be authentic.

And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit. Back in 2009 when they were trumpeting Climategate, Heartland said:

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.

That claim from them is nonsense, but it will be interesting to see how happy they are when the tables are turned, and “reporters, academics, politicians, and others” look into their documents. And around that same time they also said:

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws.

Again, none of that is true. But that claim about freezing out others sticks out, especially in light of another of these leaked Heartland internal memos which says,

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

Emphasis mine. Yes, that sounds like a group interested in promoting “sound science”.

Wow. Just, wow.


Related posts:

- Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured
- Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.
- New independent climate study confirms global warming is real
- While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower
- A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target

Comments (204)

Links to this Post

  1. Red Alert: Leaked documents reveal the corporate funders behind far reaching climate denier campaign : Tree Alerts | February 15, 2012
  2. The sleazy politics of spin » drew minh | February 15, 2012
  3. Filtración revela la estrategia y quien patrocina al Instituto Heartland (quien niega el cambio climático) | Tecnocápsulas | February 15, 2012
  4. Spotting Controversy Before It Starts: Leaked Documents Expose Climate Skeptics Plan To Influence Educators | February 15, 2012
  5. Texas Next Science Curriculum Battle?: Leaked Documents Expose Climate Skeptics Plan To Influence Educators | February 15, 2012
  6. Fischio » Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it | February 15, 2012
  7. Heartland Institute: Hey Kids, Have a Smoke and Denial « Global Warming: Man or Myth? | February 16, 2012
  8. #DenialGate – Get it All Here « Climate Denial Crock of the Week | February 16, 2012
  9. UPDATE: Heartland uses ‘Deniergate’ to fundraise as corporate donors distance themselves from right-wing think tank. : Tree Alerts | February 16, 2012
  10. Escolas dos EUA contra o Aquecimento Global? | Blog de Astronomia do astroPT | February 16, 2012
  11. The real Climategate: Heartland’s hypocrisy on display | Hot Topic | February 16, 2012
  12. Links – Microsoft caught funding anti-science and manipulating education through a sleazy tobacco PR firm. | Techrights | February 16, 2012
  13. The send-packs-of-lawyers strategy | Planet3.0 | February 18, 2012
  14. What goes around comes around to climate denialists « Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants | February 21, 2012
  15. Guest Post: Circles of Meaning, Labyrinths of Fear « The Wild Hunt | February 21, 2012
  16. Breaking news: Heartland leaker is scientist Peter Gleick, says documents are all real | Space News Place | February 21, 2012
  17. The “Smoking Guns” of climate denialism | xu1892 | February 22, 2012
  18. [ECP] Educational CyberPlayGround K12 Newsletters | cyberplayground | February 24, 2012
  19. March Madness – UNDENK | February 29, 2012
  20. Political Irony › Giving Themselves a Hot Foot | May 5, 2012
  21. Heartland | Climate Etc. | September 27, 2012
  1. Can we call it “Denialgate”? Can I get credit for that name?
    Wait, damn it, Skeptical Science has come up with that already!
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1294
    My possible 15 minutes of fame have just been flushed down the drain! Damn you skeptics!

  2. Mark

    I’m sure we’re all being very skeptical about the authenticity of these documents, and rightly so… but I hope they are being looked into with a fervor, and I am very interested in seeing what comes of this.

    We’ve already seen skeletons come out of closets; Scientology had their Fair Game policy, the Discovery Institute had their Wedge documents. Is this going to be the end-game for the Heartland Institute? I’ll be keeping a close eye.

  3. Now that’s what I call a “climategate” hacking! ;-)

    Let sunshine be the best disinfectant. 8)

    @1. Mark : You mean like how the Moon Hoaxers had the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites too? ;-)

  4. nothere

    I promise to be skeptical as soon as I can stop smiling.

  5. Oh & for anybody placing any credence in the original “climate gate”manufactroversy see:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=15&feature=plpp_video

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=related

    Plus, oh yes, click on my name too for my personal favourite takedown of them complete with unfortunate guinea pigs and aliens – and the “Invincible” Black Knight. :-)

  6. When will these outright charlatans and frauds stop with their insanity. Do we need another (Republican, George W. Bush appointed) Judge Jones to give them a smack down of elloquence that calls their particular brand of deciet “breathtaking inanity”?

    Regarding manufactroversy, are you familiar with this article? http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/ :D

  7. thetentman

    I would be willing to wager that should these documents prove authentic that it will not slow the Heartland Institute down one bit. Since when has truth, justice and the American Way mattered one bit to them and their ilk. They will just disregard anything they do not like and proceed as normal. Just watch. It’s like water off a ducks back. But thank you Phil for keeping us informed.

  8. Childermass

    Not covered on the web sites of FoxNews, CNN, or NPR.

  9. Yuval Kfir

    I despise the Heartland Institute, but to be fair, the quote about “dissuading teachers from teaching science” _is_ a wee bit out of context: what they’re saying (as far as I understand) is that teachers are reluctant to teach science which is “controversial and uncertain” (such as creationism, I suppose?) Therefore, if they show climate science to be controversial and uncertain, teachers will be dissuaded from teaching that particular science.

    @Mark (#1) – yeah, right, endgame for the Heartland Institute… as if their audience has cared about facts before this. (What #2, Messier Tidy Upper, said…) Even if the documents are authentic, who’s going to care?

  10. Nigel Depledge

    @ Larian Le Quella (4) -
    Sadly, I don’t think a court case is likely to be coming any time soon to show the opposition to climate science for what it is.

    There is a major difference between the opposition to the teaching of biology and the opposition to the dissemination of climate science – and that is the motivation of those4 opposed to the science. For biology, the opposition came mostly from religious fanatics and their “alternatives” were easily shown to be religious argument dressed up in new wording. The opposition to climate science comes from the protectionist attitude of the fossil fuel industries, which (a) have very deep pockets indeed, and (b) have no specific religious agenda.

  11. Now traditional memo to all the climate contrarians out there – please, please, for your own sakes check here :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    & here :

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#sense

    & also here :

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    Plus click my name to see what NASA has to say on this topic.

    Or look back over past threads and see what’s been said before here too.

    Before you comment and make dreary stale claims that have been debunked repeatedly and long ago.

    Don’t embarrass yourselves – really. Stop think, research what you’re about to claim, think some more, reflect on it and only *then* if you’ve got something really groundbreakingly new that you haven’t seen debunked already then *maybe* say it here. It’s also worth asking yourselves again and again – Just how dumb do I think expert climatologists really are?

    PS. Drinking game time everyone – for every one of the claims listed by Skeptical Science alone that gets cited here after this comment appears – take a swig of your poison of choice? ;-)

  12. Childermass

    Phil, you forgot to mention that these guys also used to work for Philip Morris denying the science on Cigarettes.

  13. When I saw this pop up yesterday I developed a great feeling of schadenfreudelicious.

    But cue the denialist apologists in 3… 2… 1..

  14. uudale

    “…effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    WTF?

    The wording of these documents causes me to be skeptical of their authenticity. Like Mark (#1), I agree this needs to be investigated thoroughly.

    Although nothing surprises me anymore.

    Post edit: After re-reading the first excerpt, one can almost take it to mean that THEY mean that GW proponents use controversy and uncertainty to dissuade teachers from teaching science.

  15. What does it mean to be “reliable anti-climate”?

    Is that like living in an airless void?

  16. Kevin Kirby

    “Warmist?” Is that supposed to be a slur?

  17. JohnW

    “Wow. Just, wow.”

    Really? I mean, really?

  18. Two issues. First, you don’t need to scare quote “think tank”. It is one. You may disagree with it completely, but they are a legitimate think tank.

    Two, your damning quote is most likely simply missing the word “climate”. They are not proposing end of science completely in schools.

    There is no reason to be sensational. The Heartland Institute is almost certainly wrong on all accounts, but this type of response accomplishes nothing.

  19. Apparently, surprise surprise, a number of prominent skeptics are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute including Bob Carter from Oz and Anthony Watts….
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html

  20. ‘warmist’ – love it.

  21. Calli Arcale

    I wish I could say I was surprised, but this is exactly what the Discovery Institute was doing with Creationism and “Intelligent Design”. In fact, I suspect that’s where they got the idea.

  22. Turboblocke

    The leak includes a list of donors: http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf

    I’m amazed at some of the corporations listed there.

  23. “Warmist”…

    One of the ways right wingers try to marginalize their opposition is making the claim that your view is a “religion”. Thus making it appear that their opposition is as irrationally devoted to what they want to believe as they are. I guess they don’t see the irony in making the idea of religion itself a bad thing.

    The difference between the right and everyone else is that the right doesn’t have actual evidence or actual facts backing them. Their opposition doesn’t need to have “religion” because they can produce facts and evidence.

    So they will attempt to conflate science with religion by calling us “Warmists”.

  24. Utakata

    ….I guess it’s better to be a “Warmist” than a Christian then. /shrug

  25. Tensor

    @#6 Childermass, nor, for some reason, at Anthony Watts’ blog. After all, he jumped all over the Climategate documents, why not these? Watts up with that?

  26. Peptron

    Here comes my post-hoc psychic powers:

    Funny, but when I heard about Heartland making a lot of noise about Climategate, I couldn’t help but feel that they were doing that to take attention away from something else.

  27. Bob

    Mother. Of. Crap.

    Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage!

    OK, thanks for the opinion fuel. I’m going to write to local/national media outlets now. I encourage you all to do the same. Ask them to look into it, to make sure that it is a real leak. What about Ira Flato? Don’t you and he have a timeshare together, Phil? Or have met once? :)

    RJB

  28. Anthony Watts on the take for $90K from Heartland according to the article I linked to above (comment still in the moderation queue as I write this).

  29. DennyMo

    re: “Warmist”

    Every group in a public policy debate tries to name themselves and their opposition in a manner that makes their side appear to be the more rational/compassionate/etc., and the opposition the deceptive (or deceived) evil-doers. So we get:

    Pro-life vs. pro-death or pro-murder or anti-life
    Pro-choice vs. anti-choice
    Warmists vs. denialists

    And the list could go on; just consider all the names Rethuglicans and Demoncrats have for each other…

  30. Nigel Depledge

    I think it is worth holding off any substantial reaction to these docs until their authenticity has been verified.

    So the most useful thing most of us can do at this point is wait and see.

  31. Being anti-climate is kinda like living chemical-free.

  32. @24.Denny Mo : Make that – Pro-choice vs. pro-coathanger & criminalised but still common only now riskier and far worse abortions. :-(

    Come to think of it, I am a “Warmist” given that I prefer a planet that is “warm” NOT overheated and suffering from continually rising Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating caused by ever escalating Greenhouse gas emissions. “Warm” is what we are – or were – climate ~wise before the HIRGO phenomenon kicked in. Y’know in neither an “icehouse” nor “hothouse” state.

    Also “Alarmist” – because, umm, its better NOT to raise the alarm when you think something is really going horribly wrong (or about to?) and just pretend its not happening instead? When the evidence is saying its happening and we should be taking action not ignoring reality?

    As supposed insults go, meh, they’re not too bad really. :-P

    BTW. What no climate contrarians commenting here yet? :-o

  33. Ken

    MY My my…

    Considering the FACT that NOTHING practical is or will be done to alter the ongoing increase in CO2, other greenhouse gasses, and other actvitites that alter climate….so what?

    As for the controversial “gotcha!” items quoted…they’re “ho hum”:

    1. Climate change & “climate science” IS CONTROVERSIAL…in case nobody noticed this blog entry is one of scads addressing just that controversy…but here Plait in effect tries to say its not “controversial”

    2. “The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.” What’s false about that? Anglia has persisted in violating UK laws on Freedom of Information requests–asserting that the data is not releasable due to agreements with other countries…later conceding they “lost” some of the data. Elsewhere e-mails–and overt boycotts of some journals–document unassailably that attempts have been made to “blackball” some authors and/or publications.

    Oh…and Phil Jones e-mail requesting others (Briffa & Mann) to delete e-mails wasn’t an attempt to conceal, obfuscate or lie … illegally? Recall that M. Mann responded that he did not abide by P. Jones’ request??

    And recall the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which reports directly to Parliament, is on record as acknowledging clear & compelling evidence of FOIA violations — and the lack of inquiry that resulted was due in large part to the statute of limitations having expired.

    EVEN if all that turns out inconclusive, there is absolutely no way of denying that the resulting hullaballoo involving multiple government inquiries by muliple government agencies of multiple countries on multiple continents is “not controversial.”

    If so-called “climate scientists” (a self-proclaimed title as no such degree or formal credential exists, yet) actually behaved themselves well and performed rigorously NONE of that ‘non controversy’ would ever happen.

    Its entirely because of thier ham-handed & sloppy techniques that many people doubt their competence.

    That, and the decade-long, and continuing, absence of continued warming increases (and similarly stalled sea level rises) contrary to model forecasts….and that after the warming that was actually observed up to that point fell far far far short of the original & subsquent warnings.

  34. @Ken, the only controversy is that there is evidence and facts supporting one position, and the other side putting their fingers in their ears and yelling “NO THERE ISN’T” at their top of their lungs. Phil nails it with the manufactroversy characterization. It’s all sophistry on the part of denialists (much like evolution or vaccines. There is no real controversy, only diehard ideologues…).

  35. OmegaBaby

    @Ken – “If so-called “climate scientists” (a self-proclaimed title as no such degree or formal credential exists, yet).”

    Wow…thank you Ken for enlightening me. I’ll have to tell my friends from Penn State who got Climatology degrees that they were all conned, and that there’s no such thing as “climate science”. I’m sure they’ll be disappointed in wasting all those years in college for a non-existent degree.

  36. Robert of Ottawa

    The usual BADTHINKING. Lysenko would be happy with such brain washing. The Warmistas are funded with billions of dollars, mostly tax-payers’.

  37. Wow, “reliably anti-climate” really says it all, doesn’t it? It’s gonna be really hard to put a positive spin on that. I mean, that’s right up there with, “Oh, yes! I love the smell of near-extinction!” on the Disney villain scale.

  38. BTW. What no climate contrarians commenting here yet? :-o

    Then right on cue in comes #28. Ken. Umm, that wasn’t a request dude. :roll:

    1. Controversial? Yeah, evolution is “controversial” in some areas too as is the reality of the Moon landing and what “really” happened on 9-11.

    2. Oh for pity’s sake. Watch this clip here :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-freedom-of-information.html

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3xazJ5gnhE

    Please. They kinda answer what you’ve said there. I guess you could still argue your side on
    that but then how do you explain the recent record arctic ice melts the hottest yeraon record being 2010, the hottest La Nina year being last year, the global retreat of glaciers and shift of species and rise in extreme weatehr events & all the other multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the reality 98% of climatologists accept?

    and the decade-long, and continuing, absence of continued warming increases ..

    Really? .. Really? :roll:

    That canard? I don’t know where you’re getting your info from but it sure ain’t rocket scientists like these :

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/jan/HQ_11-014_Warmest_Year.html

    real ones. Plus look at the youtube clip – 1998 Revisited by Greeman3610 – linked to my name.

    The world has been warming – and if you’re going to make the extraordinary claim that it
    isn’t you’ll need some really extraordinary evidence to back that up. Have you got any?

  39. Colleen

    Our local Sigma Xi chapter (UNM, Albuquerque) is hosting Fred Singer tomorrow, looks like according to these documents he is on the payroll for Heartland. It is sad that a scientific organization is hosting him, without any discussion from other climate scientists. I am going to try to get some info together tonight to send them an email about my concerns. I just hope that the faculty from the Earth and Planetary Science department can make it over to the lecture to ask some questions, as I know most of them are pretty upset about this selection of a lecturer.

  40. Jon Harrington

    Ken, with no last name, you can pick up your check from the Heartland now. You can join the rest of the merchants of doubt.

  41. Ken, the only controversy is amongst politicians and their handlers, who are blatantly employed by well funded organizations that are in the very businesses to be impacted if we were to attempt to get climate change under control.
    Indeed, the latest lunacy is that global warming is good, as it prevents us from entering the upcoming ice age!
    Your attitude and view are the very thing your countryman, George Orwell was attempting to warm. For indeed, in your view:
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

  42. Jack

    Climategate! Just love it.

    The truth is out. People are waking up to the truth.

    Thank you — there is a God to watch over good people.

    What a wonderful world.

  43. This is a worldwide problem that the locals here in Cosa Rica are aware of. They have a lot at stake. 78% of their electricity is from hydro power. If rainfall lessens here, they are in a world of hurt as power demand is rising 12% annually.

    The Heartland Institute is not only affecting the health of the American public as they did in the smoking campaign. They are now tampering with the health if the planet. All for some funding and perks from big oil.

  44. Kris

    Climate change is all about making us afraid. Fear has always been how governments control populations.

    We should all be wary of things that are sold to us with fear as the motivator, and we should question the motives of those that sell it to us with fear.

    Fear mongers always have an agenda….educate yourself by tracing the fear monger’s agenda back, and see who is getting paid as a result.

  45. toffer99

    Now who’d like another glass of Schadenfreude?
    Everybody?
    Terrific, I’ll just go and open another bottle or three.

  46. Gary

    Ah, Phil. Never let the truth get in the way of partisanship. It’s a pity you can’t apply the same standards of criticism to both sides of the argument. I wonder if you even have the capacity to examine and honestly judge your own motivations. All I see is your overriding emotional reaction to this information. I know you think scientists should be passionate about their endeavors. Yet passion blinds one to self-conceit. You make skepticism a game rather than a mode for finding truth. Sad.

  47. Jeff

    politicians “spin” , I call lie.

    global warming has left us scientists and into the hands of the politocs. “Spin” will now rule the discussion. Except for a few sane blogs like this one.

  48. Frank

    Nothing new here, really. There’s good books out there regarding all these cover-up attempts that rise and fall all the time. Thinktanks come and go, dead scientists sign their name wherever the lobbyist companies please etc etc.

    Good one to start with is Hoggan’s Climate Cover-up (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854)

  49. Mary

    Phil: can we turn this into a donation drive for NCSE, the way we did with PP just recently?

    http://ncse.com/

    Could use some big guns to get that word out.

  50. J. D. Mack

    Gary, you may be a troll, but I’ll bite.

    Do you have a frickin’ point?! What a bunch of vague statements. Lay your cards on the table and say what you mean or don’t bother posting.

  51. Sledge

    @32

    I have no problem with a scientist being passionate about his/her work and even vigorously defending it. The problem comes in with statements like:

    “This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

    Once you prevent criticism of an idea, it is no longer science. It is religion. Although in this case it is the worst combination of religion and politics.

  52. Bob

    I guess only when the “spin” makes the deniers look bad is it reported here.

  53. Derek

    @Gary and Ken

    You guys almost had me. Then I realized that you guys can’t be serious. Excellent satire of the idiocy that climate deniers spew. Like when Gary accuses Phil of exactly what he (Gary) is doing, letting emotion and ideology get in the way of the facts. Or when when Gary goes for the big guns and criticizes Phil’s skepticism. That is exactly the kind of garbage they would say. Good job guys!

  54. Gizelle Janine

    Just go to NYC and tell me what you think. It makes me want to pass out just trying to humor the statement “Global warming doesnt exist” in anyway. Please, get me a coffee so I can think again. I think the air is getting to people around here, seriously.

    There’s additionally a huge obesity problem here and I think that might be significant… :D

  55. Right wingers think it’s all about the money because right wingers have no actual principles. The ONLY thing they care about is the money and they think everyone thinks like they do.

    I love this statement from Kris: “Climate change is all about making us afraid.”

    Wrong. It’s about alerting us to a problem so that we can take steps to solve it as much as we can.

    Or do you, Kris, believe that every time somebody tells you there is any kind of problem their ultimate motivator is scaring you so they can control you? If I tell you that you need to regularly check the oil in your car or that your home A/C filter is clogged is that so I have some power over you and I get funding for that from somewhere?

    Or could it be that I’m telling you about a problem so you can do something about it?

    I seriously hope you people mature some day. You’re doing nothing but holding everyone else back and making problems far worse than they need to be. The people who you are defending ARE NOT on your side. You’re not going to get a seat at the big kids’ table with them.

  56. Gizelle Janine

    When you have a 50 degree winter in Brooklyn, dont tell me nothing’s wrong like I have no perception. That’s all that really needs to be said. It scares me when people in the scientific community say things like “Global warming is a myth” when all you have to do is visit a state like NY. Specifically. Sorry, but 10 years ago we had fall, 10 years ago we had something like a winter. It’s depressing, sad and pathetic that people posess brains but dont know how to use common sense, instead walk through this state, going OH HOW NICE. It’s usually people like that who influence intellengence like that, wanting to walk through life blindfolded and delaying the inevitable because they cant progress ANYTHING or choose not to because of lack of ability. Sorry guy, not everyone can be a doctor, and not everyone has a brain.

    Denial is the devil’s bag of candy 2 days after halloween, my advice is just let them all jump off cliffs willingly. All I personally want to do is watch…

  57. Sledge

    Dammit. The numbers changed. That should be @Gary.

  58. Tsuujin

    Gary’s post, filtered and reworded for accuracy:

    “I don’t agree with climate change, but due to a startling lack of evidence to support my side of this argument I have no means of contributing to legitimate debate. Allow me to instead attack you at a personal level regarding your legitimacy in this topic.

    On this also I have no empirical information, so here is a stock statement which uses rhetorical questions to hide my lack of actual insult and seems to make me appear superior to you.”

  59. Crispin in Waterloo

    @15. uudale Says:
    February 15th, 2012 at 7:09 am

    >“…effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
    >
    >WTF?
    >
    >The wording of these documents causes me to be skeptical of their authenticity. Like Mark (#1), I agree this needs to be investigated thoroughly.

    +++++

    Agreed. It looks like the text has been edited. Whenever things are a ‘bit too convenient’ it is reasonable to ask for more detail.

    The comments above recomnending that http://www.skepticalscience be visited for any reason at all demonstrate a lack of experience. John Cook’s site is so badly manipulated that he has even edited OLD posts (!) to make those he perceives as his emenies look bad, and to edit in better responses. If you post there, your text may not appear as you typed it, edited to weaken you arguments. Even it is does, if it proves embarassing to him later, you may find it re-edited or purged to remove the evidence. It is listed at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com at the bottom of the list as “Unreliable’ for this very reason.

    RealClimate is an embara$$ing joke. As usual, fellow peons, just follow the money. I just loved that ‘con$en$u$’ thing. A con$en$u$ of the funded. Quelle surprise.

  60. Iman Azol

    “With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million respectively, how can lovable underdogs like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million? ”

    http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

  61. amphiox

    CafeenMan, Kris probably thinks that if you tell him his car needs an oil change you must be a used car mechanic trying to scam him into paying extra for unneeded repairs.

    Because that’s what HE would have done. The political allies of the climate denialists are the ones that raised the use of fear to control populaces to an art form, after all.

    The utter transparency of how they project their own odious motivations onto the other side never ceases to amaze.

    It’s continuously amusing watching the paid shills of the oil lobby harping about following the money. Follow the money indeed.

  62. Rich

    @48 and others.

    Just in case there is any doubt that the Heartland Institute is a right wing, conspiratorial cabal, in the same document can be found their road map for reinforcing those who supported Wisconsin Act 10, which stripped most of the collective bargaining rights from public employees.

    But hey, what’s not partisan about that, Gary?

  63. amphiox

    Bravo Ken, bravo. Your incoherent screed more vividly demonstrated, by putrid example, every single one of Phil’s assertions regarding the manufactroversy than all our supportive posts combined.

    You have brilliantly illustrated, by starkly odious example, exactly what Phil was talking about.

    Thank you, thank you, for proving Phil’s points (every single one).

    And now that your job is done, you can go away.

  64. I haven’t read the comments to see if others have already pointed this out, but (taking things at face value) there’s another difference between this and Climategate: In that case, the e-mails were obtained illegally via hackers, whereas in this case the documents were leaked by an insider. We can argue that the leak was a breach of trust, possibly even a breach of contract, and we could conceivably debate the ethics of that… but it was NOT illegal, unlike what the Climategate hackers did.

  65. I prefer they just return to teaching the children ‘critical thinking’ and allow the students to derive conclusions based on multiple resources.

    It is terribly clear to any rational human being that the global warming card is being abused by both sides!

  66. Esper

    If these are legit then they are the new Wedge Document.

  67. That point about dissuading teachers from teaching science seems to say the same thing in context that it does in isolation.

    It shows they know they’ve got nothing: if they really believed ‘warmist’ climate science was wrong, they’d want to teach the right science, not ‘show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain’ and dissuade teachers from teaching.

  68. EricTheEngr

    @Phil Plait:
    The Climategate scientists are still under assault, and the groups attacking them are still using Climategate as a talking point, even after those scientists were cleared by six official investigations. Michael Mann gave a talk about the climate change challenge as part of the Penn State Speakers Forum. I live near State College, and I heard the attack ads on the radio, implying malfeasance in Mann’s conduct and urging listeners to call university president Rodney Erickson to request that Mann be barred from speaking. You can read about it at:
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/02/417815/coal-powered-pac-runs-harrassment-campaign-against-climate-scientist-michael-mann/
    The Saturday edition of the Centre Daily Times also printed a letter from George Ellis, supposedly the president of the Pennsylvania Coal Association, which refers to Mann as a “disgraced Climategate figure”. I’m guessing that these groups really hate Mann’s new book.
    My point is this: Heartland’s methods and motives (lying to advance the interests of the fossil fuels industry) were always obvious to people aware of the facts surrounding climate change. But the fabricated “Climategate scandal” reinforced a belief system that climate change is a myth. This is why it can still be used to attack these scientists; the facts do not matter. The money behind Heartland will graft itself to a new patronizingly wholesome name (like “The Common Sense Movement”) and continue its campaign. So if these documents don’t produce anything that can be prosecuted or otherwise result in strong legal action that can deter this kind of activity, they don’t matter either.

  69. Gus Snarp

    Does anyone else find it disturbing that David Koch also funds the dinosaur wing at the American Museum of Natural History and the PBS program NOVA? Does he simply see the need for science educated citizens, but think he can teach anti-science on climate change without affecting overall scientific literacy, or does he have a secret agenda in funding AMNH and NOVA?

  70. shunt1

    YES DEAR!

    ****************

    PRESS RELEASE 11:45 AM – source http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

    FEBRUARY 15, 2012 – The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Communications Director Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

    The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

    Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

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

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

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

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

    Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.

    Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

    But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

    Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.

  71. James Evans

    Re: Comment #34

    If anyone would like to read more of Ken’s confused, self-contradictory opinions about climate change, go over to Pharyngula (it just has to be the same person…same condescending “my my my” verbiage, even):

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/09/faster_than_predicted.php#comments

    Warming and CO2 levels will increase “A LOT,” and we need to focus on adapting to the resulting changes, according to Ken, but thankfully, in the same virtual breath, he assures us that our preparation for such drastic upticks somehow simultaneously will be effortless. Makes perfect sense to me. Wait, what?

    He further instructs us that Arctic warming threatens only “a few species,” and they’re merely “species affecting next to nobody except as zoo exhibits.” Good news. Especially for the Inuit who often rely on these zoo exhibits for their very survival.

    Perhaps most interestingly of all, Ken tells us that Phil himself addressed the “clumsy ineffectual and outright fraudulent tactics” of climate change alarmists in this speech he gave:

    http://www.vimeo.com/13704095

    Wow, who knew? I mean, I totally misinterpreted Phil’s meaning the first time I watched it.

    Thanks for all the enlightening gems, Ken.

  72. Spellbound

    Did the author verify this with Heartland to make sure he’s not the victim of a hoax? No?

    Shame, that.

    http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

  73. weaver

    This is the problem with “Science for Sale” that both sides are guilty of practicing.

    The problem here is not Global Warming, the problem is the proposed solution, the levy of a tax on our own economy. Once again the emotional Left has been fooled into supporting a solution that does not address the problem and will only succeed on making the 1% richer through the Chicago Climate Exchange (GE invested 10 Billion already).

    The tried and true method of addressing poor corporate behavior such as pollution, indentured labor/child labor and product dumping is the import tariff. A pollution/labor standard tariff would allow first-world nations the margin to produce goods at home, where pollution and labor standards are observed. Instead of tax solution which harms all consumers, the tariff only harms those who insist upon purchasing the imported product from countries that violate polution and labor standards.

    To avoid the tariff, foreign companies can be invited to manufacture in a country with first-world pollution and labor standards, or improve their country’s record on enforcement. To the contrary, under the tax solution, producers will just pay the tax and reduce the living standards of the workers. Under the tariff solution, polluters would see a shrinking share and in many cases cease to exist as a free-polluting entity.

    In this manner, the Climate Change (tariff) solution creates a worldwide competition as to whom can produce the cleanest product — instead of a tax that harms everyone.

  74. FYI, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of the documents:

    Revkin told POLITICO on Wednesday that he’s been able to confirm that the documents are legitimate

  75. shunt1

    “Revkin told POLITICO on Wednesday that he’s been able to confirm that the documents are legitimate”

    How was he able to confirm? Was he the source of the documents?

    Please provide a link to the actual statements from Andrew Revkin, because his actual words may become important.

  76. brett

    now that the cohort of Pom-Pom girls have had their breathless little “oh my god,..like WOW” moment, those who would like some adult commentary of aspects of this issue should hop on over to Lucia’s blackboard. Cue the the sacred refrain from the carbon death cult brotherhood in 3..2..1.. “denialist,big oil funded,creationist,rightwing………BLASPHEMER!!!’ Actually Lucia supports the AGW hypothesis (but probably not the catastrophic version) Really apart from the astronomy (the science, wonder and beauty of which Phil communicates brilliantly and why I still continue to come here)this site is turning into what it purports to combat closedminded,non critical, group think. Thus endeth my vent–cheers brett

  77. MartinM

    Climate change is all about making us afraid. Fear has always been how governments control populations.
    We should all be wary of things that are sold to us with fear as the motivator, and we should question the motives of those that sell it to us with fear.
    Fear mongers always have an agenda….educate yourself by tracing the fear monger’s agenda back, and see who is getting paid as a result.

    Ironically enough, Kris’ comment is a textbook example of pure fear-mongering.

  78. I don’t have the actual source of Revkin’s words. Just the paraphrase posted by Politico. He will probably write something in the next day or so.

  79. VinceRN

    I guess I understand that if they are keeping it up it’s important for people on the side of science to keep it up too, but repeating the same arguments over and over on both sides get’s frustrating. Seems like both sides are preaching to the choir and that none of this will change anyone’s view on the matter.

    I’m sot saying stop, just venting a bit.

  80. Spence_UK

    Heartland claim some docs are real, but the memo Phil quotes is fake. Be interesting to watch this evolve. I’ve given a link to the press release but it is caught in the spam trap.

  81. Mike

    It’s all about the money. I suggest that everyone send a message to those donors who received their donated money from YOU and tell them that you don’t care too much for it. I just sent Verizon a letter, but one letter from one customer won’t bother them much.

    A simple letter writing campaign can be effective, but not as effective as one that includes the threat of dropped business.

  82. shunt1

    Personally, I want to see full disclosure from everyone involved with the Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change debate, to include their raw data, methods of analysis and sources of funding.

    I see absolutly nothing wrong with the release of information from everyone involved.

    It keeps the debate honest…

  83. Leon

    “And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit.”

    Payback’s a b*tch, isn’t it? This sure is a sweet bit of news. It’s so–shall we say, heartwarming–to see them strung up by their own emails after they tried to do it to others.

  84. MartinM

    Heartland claim some docs are real, but the memo Phil quotes is fake.

    Seems rather unclear what the point of faking the memo would be. There’s nothing there that the other documents don’t establish, unless I’m forgetting something obvious. Which is certainly possible, to be fair.

  85. shunt1

    “Yeah, it is expensive to put out propaganda, but cheap to tell the truth (you terrible person you). Thank God we live in the Internet age.”

    “I hope this story gets wide publicity: all these warmist hysterics at the shock/horror discovery that the evil Heartland has an annual budget of $6.5m (c.f. Greenpeace’s measly $310m) and has the temerity to actually fund people who share its views. Why are these well-heeled warmists so concerned about a tiny, ill-funded organisation? It illustrates perfectly their lack of confidence in the validity of their claims and in the real strength of their position.

    And as Heartland is, I believe, the only body of any significance promoting CAGW scepticism, this torpedoes those assertions about “a well-funded, highly organised denial machine”. Is Big Oil asleep – where’s the massive funding?”

  86. Much of the content of the Strategy memo is not just repeated in the other documents, but has been confirmed by 3rd parties mentioned in it.

  87. Tony Mach

    It is amazing how many millions they had! One things for sure, for that money, one couldn’t buy UEA’s CRU or Penn State’s Michael Mann – not by a long time. And compared with Heartland’s Millions, Greenpeace looks like a small shack.

    Good that you are publishing the material that was stolen/hacked/whatever from them. That’ll teach them deniers how to behave morally the next time they get stolen/hacked/whatever material from Jones et al.

    And Phil, I told you before, please add more flames to the planet.

  88. Daffy

    Shunt1, so you have no problem with them lying because their budget is relatively low?

    How persuasive.

  89. Spence_UK

    MartinM, good question, and we may never know the answer. Random speculation is both fun and pointless, so here are four possibilities from the top of my head, all of which are probably wrong:

    Possibility 1. Heartland are fibbing and the memo is real

    Possibility 2. The leak was by a climate sceptic who buried the fake document to show gullibility of environmental advocates

    Possibility 3. The leak was by an environmental advocate who wanted to boost the story a bit

    Possibility 4. The leak was by a wag who has no axe to grind in the climate debate but saw an opportunity to wind loads of people up on both sides of the debate in one go

    Options 1-3 strike me as being prone to backfire / own goals. Option 4 would be funny though.

  90. shunt1

    @Daffy Says

    What lies?

    Please provide specifics and actual documents that validate what you just stated.

    I fully support the honest disclosure of all raw data, sources of funding and methods of analysis.

  91. Ken L

    @ shunt1 #74

    Are you really that far behind in understanding the difference between denialism and skepticism? And the nature of true skepticism?

    Or are you scared your name will be revealed on Heartland’s payroll?

    Hilarious.

  92. Tony Mach

    And “2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf” sure looks fake. Not even well done. More like medium rare.

  93. Windy

    It sounds like Heartland will be taking legal action against those that posted the fake document(s).

  94. The strategy pdf looks like a faxed document. If it is a fake, much of the content is real. Some parts of of it are repeated in other documents, and other portions have been confirmed by 3rd parties. No link because it keeps getting eaten by the spam filter.

    My guess is that it is real, but was obtained through a different channel from the other documents. Heartland has a long history of fibbing, so why should they stop with this?

  95. Tony Mach

    Hey now, the Free To Choose Medicine’ campaign makes me sick. That is an direct attack against evidence-based medicine.

    From their website:
    “Deaths from an approved drug become a top story for the nightly news and can lead to Congressional inquiries. Avoiding such negative publicity is the overriding goal of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The resulting extreme tunnel focus on safety causes delayed access to innovative drugs, which in turn causes millions of people to suffer and many to die needlessly.”

    That is pure quack talk. Orac, where are you?

  96. Spence_UK

    There are considerable differences between the strategy doc and other docs. The other docs typically have usernames recognisable as HI board members, and are largely tagged as created around mid to late January.

    The strategy doc has no such tags – although clearly as a scan it may well have been produced by different software. However, the “created” date is not mid-January like the others, but 24 hours before the “last modified” date – to within five minutes or so.

    While it is possible that Heartland are trying to pull the wool over our eyes, the evidence before us looks a little fishy, and advocates on both sides of this emotive debate are prone to stretching the truth.

  97. ctj

    Iman Azol @64:
    thank you for the global temperature fluctuation chart you linked. the precise correlation between temperature fluctuations and lots of things dying is precisely why global warming is so scary.

    and by the way, you can’t compare to the total funding of environmental advocates to what is merely a mouthpiece for the polluting industries. and it’s one of many. heartland is a single-function outlet; those environmental groups don’t have the luxury of such a narrow focus.

    shunt1 @74:
    claiming a document is fake is an effective mechanism for managing the media response to its dissemination, particularly where as here heartland knows that it will be extremely difficult to verify it. it is likely intended to evoke the scandal over bush’s nat’l guard service records.

    weaver @78:
    anti-scientists like heartland love to promote false equivalency, because they’ve learned that the media love the “both sides do it” argument. no climate scientist is getting rich for highlighting the serious nature and impacts of AGW. but you do highlight the very real risk of industrial and financial interests hijacking climate protection efforts for short-term gain. that’s really the root of AGW: pollution is an externality, and too often in economics, short term gains that are easily quantified in dollars trump long term losses that are measured more in lives or health than in clear monetary terms.

  98. shunt1

    ” shunt1 #74

    Are you really that far behind in understanding the difference between denialism and skepticism? And the nature of true skepticism?

    Or are you scared your name will be revealed on Heartland’s payroll?

    Hilarious.”

    *************

    Are you kidding me? Have you never read a single thing that I have posted over the years?

    “Denialism and skepticism” are YOUR terms and have nothing to do with those of us who have actually worked in the field for decades now. Personally, I am a trained meteorologist and software engineer with 40 years of experience in these fields.

    Often, some of the raw meteorological data that has been “adjusted” by organizations such as GISS and HadCRUT were measured and recorded by myself.

    I request full disclosure of the raw data, sources of funding and methods of analysis.

    …….

    Phil Plait puts his name and honor out for everyone to review and see every day. I respect and honor that and will do the same.

    I have never been shy or ashamed of saying exactly who I am!

    Shunt1 = Stephen R. Huntwork

    Do you want my current telephone and home address also?

    P.S:
    A star party vacation at my home in Fort Collins would not cost you $5,000 a week! LOL

  99. I didn’t read all the responses, and perhaps, someone has made the same response, but when Ken @ 34 wrote:

    If so-called “climate scientists” …

    I nearly fell over! Ken, one of the pioneers of climate science published his magna opus back in the 20′s, and curiously enough(at least for the, more, learned deniers), one of his primary theses was that climate was a function of geography.

    Ken, “Climate Through The Ages” is available through Penquin books. Buy it, and read it! Then, you will be a little more informed.

  100. Kris @ 46 wrote:

    We should all be wary of things that are sold to us with fear as the motivator, and we should question the motives of those that sell it to us with fear.

    Really?!?! You’re not a child of the 50′s, 60′s, or 70′s are you? Google “duck and cover”; mutual assured destruction was real. I don’t know about you, but I trusted my parents. And, I trusted Jack Kennedy.

  101. David L. Hagen

    Phil Plait
    You continue to quote a fraudulent document. As such you are complicit in that fraud. You are furthering destroying the integrity of science by your reprehensible actions and will have to answer for it before “the Supreme Judge of all the world”. Your actions are a disgrace to science and journalism.
    The Heartland Institute posted:

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

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

    For further details exposing such gutter journalism see WUWT.

  102. Luis Dias

    What’s really funny is seeing so many good fashioned well behaved skeptics like Phil Plait and his acolytes jumping the shark like this.

    Nevermind that the Heartland institute has already dismissed the controversial memo as a fabrication, why not go ahead and make a splash against the deniers, without caring if it’s actually true or not?

    And here people are trying to say this is “like” climategate (or worse, even denying any wrongdoing in climategates, what a farse).

    You people are jokes.

  103. gss_000

    @Shunt1
    “I request full disclosure of the raw data, sources of funding and methods of analysis.”

    Got to ask, though, if this is your comment:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/11/the-cloudy-warming-earth/
    Comment #9:
    “Wish that I could share the actual images taken each day, but the data is huge. But when you are imaging 2,000 square miles at 0.5 meter resolution each day, the data is more than even the internet can handle.”

    Hmmm….so every climate scientist has to give all their data up and all their methods, but you have said your own work is too much for the internet to handle. Interesting.

  104. Messier Tidy Upper

    @47. toffer99 :

    Now who’d like another glass of Schadenfreude? Everybody? Terrific, I’ll just go and open another bottle or three.

    Cheers! I’ll drink to that! ;-)

    @46. Kris :

    Climate change is all about making us afraid. Fear has always been how governments control populations. We should all be wary of things that are sold to us with fear as the motivator, and we should question the motives of those that sell it to us with fear. Fear mongers always have an agenda….educate yourself by tracing the fear monger’s agenda back, and see who is getting paid as a result.

    See who’s getting paid and where the money trail leads back to – funny you should mention that here! ;-)

    Now, yes okay, govts do exploit fear for their own agendas and political ends – but :

    I) The people who are raising & expressing mostconcern about Human Induced rapid Global Overheating are Climate scientists NOT governments. Indeed, a lot of governments esp. inthe US are trying todownplay the concern and pretend it isn’t even happening.

    II) Sometimes fear is healthy and appropriate and even helpful. Its a natural emotion that triggers our flight or fight reflexes and give sus a focus and awareness of danger that may be lifesaving. Fear isn’t always a bad thing if its justified and if it doesn’t stop us thinking clearly and reacting optimally.

    III) What matters isn’t teh emotion so mucha stheevidence. What does the evidence and our reason tell us is happening here. We’ve noticably increased the amount of carbon dioxide inthe atmosphere from 280-300 ppm or so to about 390 ppm and rising fast. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas and basic physics tells us it will trap extra gheat. We’ve obsered rising global temperatures over teh pasty thirty or forty decades with eachgetting successively hotter. We’ve observed global change ssupporting the HIRGO theory. We’ve accounted for possible alternatiev causes sucha s volcanism and solar cycless and Milankovitch cycles and know those aren’t to blame. Allteh evidence is strongly pointing totheconclusionthat Global Overheating isrealand serious and we ignore it at our peril. What emotion(s) then would drive us to ignore this physical reality?

  105. shunt1

    “My instinct is that the CAGW crowd will find that they are opening a debate that they do not want opened. [...]”

    “I think you may be right. They are giving publicity to a non story that is going to force them to answer questions that they had hoped had gone away long ago. Strikes me, having ploughed through the “news items” that the “journalists”, in attempting to expose “Heartland”, are exposing their loyal readers to “the dark side” in an easily digestible format. It’s all beginning to look like a massive own goal. “

  106. @110. Messier Tidy Upper – February 15th, 2012 at 5:35 pm :

    D’oh! I suck at typing – and allowing enough editing time to fix the typographical errors. Mea culpa. :-(

    Make that :

    III) What matters isn’t the emotion so much as the evidence. What does the evidence and our reason tell us is happening here? We’ve observed rising global temperatures over the past thirty or forty decades with each getting successively hotter. We’ve observed global change supporting the HIRGO theory. We’ve accounted for possible alternative causes such as volcanism and solar cycless and Milankovitch cycles and know those aren’t to blame. All the evidence is strongly pointing to the conclusion that Global Overheating is real and serious and we ignore that at our peril.

    For clarity instead, sorry.

    @49. Jeff :

    politicians “spin” , I call lie. global warming has left us scientists and into the hands of the politocs. “Spin” will now rule the discussion. Except for a few sane blogs like this one.

    What? I’m not sure I understand what point exactly you are trying to make here. [Puzzled]

    @108. Solius : “You’re not a child of the 50′s, 60′s, or 70′s are you? Google “duck and cover”; mutual assured destruction was real.”

    Heck, add the 1980′s to that list too. I grew up then and vividly remember being afraid of a Nuclear Holocaust with the threat of a USSR-USA thermonuclear exchange wiping us all out and ending the world as we knew it. As a boy the thought of a nuclear armageddon was often on my mind. I wasn’t alone in that either – one of the most moving pieces of theatre I ever saw was a high schol performance by my fellow students onthat topic which stillgive sme chills and one of the first novels I read was Children of Dustby Louise Lawrence powerfully relating a nuclear exchange and the horrendous aftermath. Followed shortly after by War Games by David Bischoff with similar themes.

  107. shunt1

    Messier Tidy Upper:

    Can you try one more time?

    Which form of “spin” is ruling the discussion today?

    From my perspective, the people who have been spinning like tops are now being exposed.

    What is your name?

    Those like myself have never been ashamed to say who we are and why we stand by our analysis of the data that has been presented in the Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change debate.

    Off topic:

    I was one of the soldiers guarding the West German border during the Cold War. We knew exactly how deadly that would be if Russia decided to cross the border.

    Every month, we would practice retreating in defeat and on the third day, fire our tactical nuclear weapons. At that time, even 155 mm artillery had tactical nuclear weapon shells that we practiced firing every month.

    2/78th Field Artillary, Bamberg Germany. 1974 – 1978

    Oh yes, that “duck and cover” was something very real to us!

  108. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ 113. shunt1 : Sure.

    What form of spin – well we’re seeing that exposed hence the title and opening post here aren’t we?

    Yes, all sides of politics spin.

    Meanwhile scientists do actual science publishing peer-reviewed evidence based papers. Have you read those or understood what the consensus of 97% of practicng climatologists is?

    If 97 out of 100 doctors recommended you did something differently because it was going to be potentially really bad for your health – would you just ignore them?

    Who do *you* think are being exposed? Looks to me like its the heartland Institute and Climate Deniers.

    What relevance is my name? My username here is a whimsical astronomical pun and references the fact that like many I’m a messed up, messy human being trying to tidy up and do as best I can in life.

    Those like myself have never been ashamed to saying who we are and why we stand by our analysis of the data that has been presented in the Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change debate.

    Me too. Although I have changed my views based on evidnece over time. I used to be a climate contrarian myself once. I was taken in by Ian Plimer – who I’ve talked to inperson – for a while then I got arguing here and other places and gradually, painfully, learned better.

    Excuses? Nah. I don’t think I need any. I’ve followed logic and the eveidnce and accepted where its lead me, I’ve tried to argue for my beliefs and been willing to alter them to suit the evidence eventually.

  109. Messier Tidy Upper

    Funnily enough guess what I found seraching for a citation for the Children of the dustnovel :

    http://filtnib.com/2008/07/09/climate-change-apocalypse-now/

    See also – but with SPOILERS be WARNED – its wikipedia page here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_the_Dust_(novel)

    Plus see :

    http://www.amazon.com/WarGames-David-Bischoff/dp/B000K0FOY2

    For the WarGames novel which doesn’t seem to have a wikipage unless I just missed it somehow.

  110. David L. Hagen

    Regarding Heartland, Anthony Watts declares: “They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.” Yet Hansen takes $1.6 million from outside groups. Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
    So the scandal and bias is obviously with climate alarmists!

  111. David L. Hagen

    Why is Phil Plait so eager to direct attention to some very small funding -only about 1% of that to Greenpeace, Sierra Club and NRDC.

    With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million respectively, how can lovable underdogs like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million?

    Is Phil trying to divert attention from the real evidence – that climate is not cooperating with the IPCC? The last decade temperature trend is only 0.006C/decade, only 3% of IPCC’s fabled 0.2C/decade. Lucia finds:

    The trend since 2001 is 0.006C/dec a decade and is positive but below the nominal multi-model mean trend of 0.2C/dec. If we use “red noise” to model the residuals from a linear fit, and test the hypothesis that the true trend is 0.2C/decade we would reject the a trend of 0.2C/decade as false based on falling outside the 2-σ confidence intervals.

    Will he dare confront this evidence?

  112. shunt1

    Messier Tidy Upper:

    Oh, your name is not that important. I was accused of hiding my name in a previous posting and got rather upset about that. If Phil exposes his name and honor, then I will do so also. That is only fair.

    “Have you read those or understood what the consensus of 97% of practicing climatologists is?”

    Can you tell us EXACTLY what the consensus of 97% actually agreed to????

    a) Has the Earth warmed in the last 100 years? Yup!
    b) Has human civilization contributed to that warming? Yup!

    But, that is not the same as “Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change” and you will have a very difficult time getting those same scientists to agree with that.

    When I was in Germany, we would get weather information so that our artillery could hit the target with the best accuracy possible. When I return to Fort Benning, I requested assignment to the combined military weather school and was eventually accepted. After graduation, I was assigned to White Sands Missile Range and served there for 14 years.

    Anyone in the military that was trained for weather analysis attended the same school, no matter which branch you were in. Most of my teachers were Navy or Air Force and years later, we all knew each other during the first Gulf War.

  113. shunt1

    Eventually my talents were diverted into inventing new weather instruments for the Army.

    We invented the wind instruments that are currently mounted on every M-1 Abrams tank. That was a rather difficult task, since it could not have any moving parts and must survive harsh environments.

    We invented LIDARS that could sample and measure the atmosphere at a ranges up to 10 km. When Mt Saint Helen’s erupted, we tracked and measured the volcanic plume all the way to North Carolina. Everyone was surprised at how rapidly the volcanic plume lost altitude, since it did not fit any of the computer models.

    I was tasked to measure cirrus clouds and determine if they increased or decreased the albedo of the Earth. They increased the albedo, but that is not what the funding agency wanted to hear. That was the first time that I was forced to use weasel words like: “it is not inconsistent with the models” and had to keep my mouth shut, while not actually publishing a lie.

    Long rant and I could tell you horror stories of how climate studies are often conducted and published.

    Clue: Always watch for those little weasel words…

    “Hey, I never actually said that. Read what I wrote in my book in 2007!”

    So, what is your name?

  114. Remo

    “[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    I will give Heartland the benefit of the doubt in that the statement’s intent may differ from what it appears to state on its face. As an example on the other side, the words “hide the decline” proved to have a different meaning than a simple textural analysis would imply.

    Nevertheless, given that Heartland appears to be on the wrong side of both theory (starting with black body and the absorption and emission spectra of gases) and facts, I would not be surprised if Heartland intended what appears to be the plain meaning of its words.

  115. shunt1

    When it comes to astronomy, nobody has my respect more than Phil. Other than some minor things like intercepting an asteroid using a gravity assist from Jupiter, we have never diverted on any astronomy related subject.

    When Phil crosses the line into politics and my field of knowledge, then I will call him on his errors.

    That is only fair and proper for honest scientific debate.

    As I have said many times, I consider Phil to be a friend and would be honored to take him and his wife out to dinner some evening.

  116. shunt1

    To borrow and adapt a quote from Margaret Thatcher, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single scientific argument left.”

  117. shunt1

    @Remo Says:

    “As an example on the other side, the words “hide the decline” proved to have a different meaning than a simple textural analysis would imply.”

    The tree ring analysis was not matching the actual station reported temperature data. They edited out the data that was showing a decline in the tree ring interpreted temperatures that conflicted with an actual rise in measured data.

    Hence the term “hide the decline.”

    Even little children could understand this one…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQ70is-RPM&feature=player_embedded

    Like I have offered before:

    Participate in a star party at my home in Fort Collins and we can view the actual trees used in Michael Mann’s tree analysis the next day after a three hour drive.

  118. Bruce

    @ 59 Gizelle Janine:

    So warm weather proves global warming? But when Al Gore gives one of his joke speeches during a blizzard I hear, “oh, that’s weather, not climate.” So I guess weather can be used as an argument for global warming only when it helps the warm-mongers.

    As for the Heartland documents, much ado about nothing. Since Phil easily blew off the Climategate evidence, the same must be done here.

  119. John Mashey

    1) The strategy document has little information beyond that found in the funding and budget documents.
    It certainly fits Bast’s style and is consistent, but easily could have been written by anybody with the other docs in hand. I’d suggest ignoring it.

    2) The other documents mesh very well with Fake science, fakexperts, funny financials, free of tax. They filled in a few holes, but really added little new, except to confirm continued funding by tobacco companies and a few other tidbits of minor funders.

    3) Appendix I explains Anonymous Donor … DONORS CAPITAL/TRUST, a front for the donors.
    pp.57-59 shows the numbers and itemizations.

    4) Regarding education, see Fig. W.4.1, which gives a chronology of articles. Besides 20 cases of half-page “Crichton is Right!” ads, and 85 satellite temperature deceptions, there is a PARENTS Category.
    That shows a big uptick in education-related articles after Gore’s Nobel. Check out the excerpts of issues tagged in that chronology.

    a) 7 ads “Is your child being indoctrinated or educated? First one had picture of young girl, but maybe that wasn’t strong enough, so they switched to pictures of Al Gore.

    b) 9 ads for Sovereignty International’s DVD. You can learn about them in “Fake…” as about the guy who runs it:
    ‘Michael Coffman earned a PhD in forestry, worked for Champion International (paper). He has taught Biblical prophesy and his 1999 digest “predicted what was eventually called 9-11.” In addition:
    “Sovereignty International helps many different organizations to bring a positive message of how national sovereignty, free market enterprise, private property rights, and traditional values are superior to the global treaties and agreements leading to global governance being proposed by the United Nations in September, 2000.” He gave one of the blurbs for the NIPCC report.
    But, See for yourself. Anyway, they were pushing this for schools, but it didn’t take very well.

    c) They gave 14,000 copies of Jo Nova’s “Skeptics Handbook” to US school board presidents.

    d) But I guess this didn’t work, so they hired a non-climate-scientist who worked for coal-funded fronts to write a whole curriculum, apparently mimicking “teach the controversy” used by creationists.

    e) But actually, there’s a closer connection, p.159:
    ‘Z.2007.04 -9 James M. Taylor
    School District Rejects Gore Film
    “On January 9, 2007, the Federal Way Public School District temporarily blocked its teachers from showing Vice President Al Gore’s global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, without presenting a “credible, legitimate opposing view.” The order was passed after Frosty Hardison, a Federal Way parent, complained about the movie’s use in his daughter’s class. Hardison was quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer citing Biblical predictions of the age and end of the world, and saying neither condones Al Gore’s view points being taught within school.[6] The Board cited its policies on the teaching of controversial issues, neither of which provide for a moratorium.[7][8] On January 23, after two weeks of criticism in the local and national scene, the Board backtracked and repealed the moratorium, but still insisted that opposing views need to be considered.”
    Hardison was quoted in an article 01/10/07: 778
    “Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”

    Actually, Taylor’s article was already wrong when published. Read “Fake” p.159.

  120. shunt1

    I will post the following:
    ………………….

    As a follow up to the post Notes on the Heartland Leak, I’ve prepared some notes on the PDF document “2012 Climate Strategy” that Heartland says in their press release is a fake among the other documents distributed. They say specifically that:

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

    Here is a screencap of the top part of that document, which was printed, and then scanned, unlike any of the other documents which were direct to PDF from word processing programs:

    There’s been a lot of scrutiny in comments on various blogs, and I’ve given some scrutiny to the document as well, comparing it with other documents in the set. I’m in agreement that this is a fake, here is why:

    1. It is the only document in the set that appears to have been scanned rather than produced by a PDF document publisher such as Adobe Distiller 8.0 or 8.1 which were both in document properties on other documents. For example compare the two document properties side by side. I’ve placed arrows marking distinct differences:

    2. The metadata in document properties in the document said to be faked have been sanitized. Why cover tracks? This could possibly be due to the leaker not knowing how to remove other metadata in standard PDF, but knows if he/she scans it on an Epson flatbed scanner and saves it to the scanner’s memory stick/flash drive port, there will be no personally identifiable information.

    3. One of the first questions I asked Joe Bast of Heartland when I saw this printed then scanned document was “do you not shred your trash”? His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”. That suggests a paper copy never existed in the Heartland office. The fact that none of the documents contains any personal signatures lends credence to this.

    4. It doesn’t read like a strategy document, as it mixes strategy with operational details and commentary.

    5. It gets the operational details ( budget) wrong – especially the points about my project, rounding up to $90,000 from a very specific budget number of $88,000. This suggests trying to inflate the number for a purpose. There’s no evidence of rounding budget numbers in any other document in the set.

    6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense. This contrasts with purposeful language in the other documents. This one sentence in particular has gotten a lot of attention:

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

    I can’t imagine pitching “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.” to a board of directors at a meeting. It is a sure recipe for a public relations nightmare.

    7. There are punctuation errors throughout it, suggesting it is not a professional document. There’s an overuse of commas for example. The formatting is different than other documents in the set, with a left justified title. All other Heartland documents have a center justified title. Fonts for titles don’t match either. The “2012 Climate Strategy” document has a different font.

    8. The ”2012 Climate Strategy” is the purported “smoking gun” that provides commentary and context missing from the other factual documents. Without this framing document, the other documents and what they contain, are rather bland. Without it, there’s not much red meat to dangle in front of people that would tear into it.

    9. The document misrepresents the positions of Andrew Revkin and Dr. Judith Curry. This seems to come from a point of speculation, not from a point of certainty.

    10. Most of the documents were prepared by Joe Bast, listed as author “jbast” in the PDF document metadata and done around 8AM on Monday, January 16th. One document, “Board Directory 01-18-12_0.pdf” has an author “ZMcElrath” ( a Heartland employee according to the Budget document) and was created on Wednesday January 25th at 1:04PM, within working hours just like all the others.

    The document in question the ”2012 Climate Strategy” has a timestamp of Monday, Feb 13th, at 12:41PM, just one day before “DeSmog Blog” released the documents on their website. The timeline disparity doesn’t make a lot of sense for documents that were supposedly mailed to a person posing as a board member (according to an alleged email snippet on Keith Kloor’s website) to trick someone at Heartland to email them the package of documents. Here it is:

    Dear Friends (15 of you):
    In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.

    It both corroborates and is corroborated by the leaked Heartland documents, which reinforce Mashey’s conclusion that Heartland is a for-profit public relations and lobbying firm that is operating with non-profit status by misrepresenting the nature of its activities in its own tax filings.

    It would have had to have been sent sometime between 12:41PM Chicago time on Monday Feb13th and Tuesday Feb 14th 16:39 (Pacific Time) when the first comment appeared on DeSmog Blogs first post on the issue. According to David Appell’s blog, Keith Kloor says it was sent yesterday (Feb 14th), which is after the creation date for the “2012 Climate Strategy” memo of “2/13/2012 12:41:52 PM. Which means DeSmog blog had the documents only a short time.

    Appell also writes: Desmogblog Had Leaked Docs For Only an Hour

    I guess I’m behind on this, because this afternoon Politico reported that Desmogblog received the documents yesterday (2/14) and “The blog posted them about an hour later without contacting the Heartland Institute for confirmation.”

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5826D160-4705-4D72-A0BB-44C8C2EDA7DC

    So they received them after the suspicious memo was scanned (according to its metadata). Which doesn’t prove its not fake, but at least the timeline isn’t inconsistent.

    Appell also thinks the document makeup is suspicious and does his own metadata analysis.

    Summary:

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

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

    The question to ask then is this: who benefits the most from the existence of such a document? A disgruntled employee? Hardly. Such things often backfire. And, who would know best how to craft such a document for maximum public impact? I think the answers are there, but the question needs to be asked. From what I hear, Heartland is going for criminal prosecution and/or civil liabilities on this one. They certainly have a case.

    All of those news outlets and bloggers that regurgitated this document and the claims in it without checking for the veracity of it first are going to have some defending to do to. The Guardian seems particularly vunerable.

  121. shunt1

    Sorry Phil, but I am not able to provide the full links which were provided in the original source.

    Next time my friend, please take some time to validate your original sources of information.

    All that I have ever demanded is rather simple:

    Provide the original raw data, document the sources of funding, and allow access to the software that was used for the data analysis.

    Why is that so darn difficult?

  122. Nigel Depledge

    Robert of Ottawa (37) said:

    The usual BADTHINKING. Lysenko would be happy with such brain washing. The Warmistas are funded with billions of dollars, mostly tax-payers’.

    And the evidence to support your contention is what, exactly?

    If you follow the money on the denialist side, though, you pretty much always end up at Big Oil. But that’s OK, because those multi-trillion-dollar corporations all have our best interests at heart, right?

  123. No smoke and mirrors

    Oh no! It appears as the “smoking gun” document was faked after all. Yeah, no need to apologize to the parties that you all wrongfully attacked… Phil, Wow, just wow. Pathetic.

  124. Luis Dias

    Wow just wow.

    Still no apologies for jumping the shark like this Phil?

    Wow. Just wow.

    And you dare call yourself a skeptic. Did you fact checked your accusations before shooting?

    Or did you just take DeSmogBlog’s words at face value? And still call yourself a “skeptic”?

    I am disappoint.

  125. Luis Dias

    Hmmm….so every climate scientist has to give all their data up and all their methods, but you have said your own work is too much for the internet to handle. Interesting.

    It seems people here are completely oblivious to the difference between private individual efforts and public-funded scientific works, and to the different demands we should have from them.

  126. Gunnar

    @shunt1
    Are you defending the The Heartland institute and claiming that they are an honorable, purely altruistic institution with only the best interests of all humankind at heart? Even if some or all of the “leaked documents” Phil mentioned in the above article are faked or taken out of context, doesn’t the fact still remain that this institute is notorious for such things as being the paid shill of big tobacco companies trying to cast illegitimate doubt on the detrimental to health effects of cigarettes, entirely discredit this organization? Or do you deny that they have been guilty of promoting pseudoscience of various kinds for the benefit of wealthy, disreputable businesses and organizations? Given this shady history of theirs, would it really be so surprising if at least some of the documents in question were real?

    The very fact that the Heartland Institute seems to be so heavily involved in the climate contrarian movement tends to put an indelible, ugly stain on the credibility of the whole movement. If you are basing any of your scepticism about the reality of AGW on the findings and claims put out by that institute, what does that say about you? If I were an honest AGW sceptic, I would try to distance myself as far from the Heartland Institute as I could, and would in no way try to defend them!

    If you are a climatologist yourself, you are apparently in the 2-3% minority who deny AGW, or at least, that it is a serious problem that needs to be acted upon. Why should anyone give your view more credence than that of the 97-98% of climatologists who agree that it is a real and potentially dangerous problem? If you are not a climatologist yourself, it is even more questionable that you should be given more credence than those who are.

    The fact still remains that the only way to prove with 100% certainty that AGW is real and potentially catastrophic is to do nothing about it and and just let the catastrophy happen. That would be insane! Especially when many of the proposed remedies, such as weaning ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels, reducing waste and improving energy efficiency have such great potential benefits–even if AGW really were some kind of hoax. Given even a slight chance that AGW could prove to be very damaging, and the potential benefits of the suggested remedies, even if AGW turned out to not be really worrisome, why would any sane person argue so strongly against attempts to address and ward off the potential consequences of AGW (unless they were in the imploy of or held stock in the fossil fuel industry)?

  127. brett

    Nigel @128– drive a car? ever fly in a plane ? ever use public transport ? use electricity ? use a computer ?own a house? buy food ?use medical services? use educational services? list goes on and on and on and you can trace them ALL back to, or the products of ….BIG OIL… the great satan of the green fundamentalist fringe dweller. So as a befouled end user of the products and being in a spiralling co- dependant relationship with…BIG OIL ..Nigel when shall you renounce your use of these unclean things and also renounce your inherent hypocrisy. Are you really so blind that you need the evidence pointed out FOR you, of the vast sums spent on promoting Catastrophic AGW by various NGO’s, various government departments, individuals such as Al Gore? (well Al uses other peoples money doesnt he?)And is not brother AL ( the John the Baptist of the carbon death cult.. the one crying in the wilderness) set to become our first green “Carbon Billionaire?”.The blessings of carbon indulgences and prosperity doctrine at its best. But no, maybe you inhabit a dark, cold and isolated cave, cut off from BIG OIL and its seductive but Gaia destroying ooze . And being thin and weak from spiritual fasting and self mortification for your carbon sins, are unable to crawl out and peer feebly at the real world through red , blinking,tear filled eyes. Renounce the corrupting works of MAN Nigel and never be tempted to follow the trail left by the blood money of our grandchildren, it will crush your heart and embitter your soul.It all leads to BIG OIL.. BIG CORPORATION…BIG CAPITAL… RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY… All is deceit and all is corruption. Do not think too deeply on these things Nigel… just repeat softly, in an icy whisper, the sacred mantra of the DIVINE CARBON DEATH CULT…..BIG OIL/DENIER…BIG OIL/DENIER…BIG OIL/DENIER…BIG OIL/DENIER….then more faintly as the rapture comes upon you….big oil/denier…big oil/denier..big oil/denier………These words shall transport and protect you

  128. Nigel Depledge

    Erik (69) said:

    It is terribly clear to any rational human being that the global warming card is being abused by both sides!

    So, I can see how the GW “card” is being abused by those in the pockets of the oil corporations, but how is it being abused by the climatologists who have found a problem and are trying to alert the rest of us to that problem? Exactly?

  129. Nigel Depledge

    @ Shunt1 (74) -
    Well done, you have earned your Heartland paycheque.

    Or were you expecting the Heartland would maybe own up to such damning documents if they had been leaked by an insider?

    Personally, I will await independent verification of these docs.

  130. Nigel Depledge

    Brett (133) said:

    Nigel @128– drive a car? ever fly in a plane ? ever use public transport ? use electricity ? use a computer ?own a house? buy food ?use medical services? use educational services?

    Yes, what of it?

    [the] list goes on and on and on and you can trace them ALL back to, or the products of ….BIG OIL…

    There is a difference between, on the one hand, acknowledging that a problem exists and making a start to transition to – for example – electricity from renewables and, OTOH, denying that the problem exists.

    The fossil fuel industries have been following the example of the tobacco industry from about 30 years ago – they are spending money to cast as much doubt as they can on the validity of the science, regardless of the ultimate impact this might have. This has been shown over and over.

    Besides, what does your tirade have to do with the question I posted in #128, asking to see some evidence that – as Robert of Ottawa (37) claimed – climate scientists are profiting to the tune of billions of dollars?

    the great satan of the green fundamentalist fringe dweller.

    Irrespective of your hyperbolic dismissal of the position, a problem exists.

    So as a befouled end user of the products and being in a spiralling co- dependant relationship with…BIG OIL ..Nigel when shall you renounce your use of these unclean things and also renounce your inherent hypocrisy.

    Yeah, whatever.

    Are you really so blind that you need the evidence pointed out FOR you, of the vast sums spent on promoting Catastrophic AGW by various NGO’s, various government departments, individuals such as Al Gore?

    Al Gore is irrelevant. He isn’t a climatologist, nor does he receive government grants for climate research.

    And, yes, I do need to have evidence presented that the claim – that climate scientists are profiting from AGW to the tune of billions of dollars – is worth the electrons in which it is typed. Why do you blithely accept the claim?

    [irrelevant claptrap about Al Gore omitted]
    But no, maybe you inhabit a dark, cold and isolated cave, cut off from BIG OIL and its seductive but Gaia destroying ooze .

    Or, it could be that I have never seen anyone present evidence to support the claim that climatologists are profiting to the tune of billions of dollars from AGW.

    Did you even think of that?

    [Additional irrelevant hyperbolic ranting omitted]

    You know, it’s funny how you used so many words and did not make one rational point.

    If you have a point to make, then make it, and back it up with actual evidence. If you are merely here to insult people, then you don’t deserve any more of my time.

  131. Nigel Depledge

    weaver (78) said:

    The problem here is not Global Warming, the problem is the proposed solution, the levy of a tax on our own economy.

    The problem seems to be, you’ve listened to too much anti-AGW propaganda.

    Taxation is but one proposed solution among dozens.

    Did you have a point to make?

  132. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (80) said:

    Please provide a link to the actual statements from Andrew Revkin, because his actual words may become important.

    Did you not notice that Silence (79) did post a link?

  133. Nigel Depledge

    Brett (81) said:

    Actually Lucia supports the AGW hypothesis (but probably not the catastrophic version)

    I’d be interested to hear what you consider the non-catastrophic and the catastrophic version of AGW are? Any chance you could post a quick summary for discussion?

  134. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (88) said:

    Personally, I want to see full disclosure from everyone involved with the Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change debate, to include their raw data, methods of analysis and sources of funding.

    I see absolutly nothing wrong with the release of information from everyone involved.

    It keeps the debate honest…

    So, your way of keeping things honest is to start out by distrusting everyone, is that right?

    The anti-AGW side has made a big thing of how climatologists get big bucks for perpetuating the AGW conclusion, but I’ve never seen any evidence to support this.

    If anything, the evidence shows the opposite. Every single climate scientist who gets renewed government funding could be earning a lot more by becoming an account (for instance).

    When you look at professional salaries and compare different industries, science is right there at the bottom. I am not aware of any profession that requires professional qualifications comparable to a PhD but that pays worse than science. To be fair, “science” covers a wide range from astronomers and particle physicists through to those involved in drug discovery for pharmaceutical companies, but I’d be prepared to wager a small sum that even those scientists employed by Big Pharma could be earning more if they had instead chosen to be accountants or lawyers.

    So, sure, scientists want to keep their funding coming in, but all this means is the same old modest salary. As a supposed motivation for international conspiracy and fraud, it is tragically laughable.

  135. Gunnar

    @Brett
    Admittedly, the discovery and availability of initially cheap fossil fuel reserves has undeniably led to unprecedented prosperity for a large portion of humanity. Unfortunately, this cannot go on much longer without undesirable consequences. We now have or are developing technologies that can potentially free us from greatly lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and this is a very good thing. The sooner we get on with developing and implementing these new technologies, the better off we will be. For one thing, we are running out of fossil fuels, like it or not. From the time we first started exploiting fossil fuels, our usage of them starting increasing at a rate of about 7% per year. This means our usage approximately doubled every 10 years. Obviously this cannot continue very much longer. If you do the math, you will find that this means that every 10 years we used as much oil as we did in all of previous history. At this rate, if it could continue, even if the yet unused, accessible oil were 8 times greater than all the oil that has ever been used in the entire history of civilization (which even oil company geologists will tell us is extremely unlikely), we would run out of oil entirely in only 30 years or so.

    This means that whatever you believe about the reality of AGW, we have no choice but to find and develop some other way to provide our energy needs, if we are to have any chance of maintaining anything close to the standard of living and prosperity to which we have become addicted.

  136. Chas, PE SE

    “Warmists”–???

  137. John EB Good

    (…)and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop (…)

    Wait, wait, wait!!! Phil… Did I miss several years of advances in the scientific method?

    If so, can you tell me exactly when science became a matter of «opinion»?

  138. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (97) said:

    I fully support the honest disclosure of all raw data, sources of funding and methods of analysis.

    Do you?

    Or do you only claim this because a common AGW denialist tactic is to demand raw data from climate scientists and then do some half-assed and inappropriate analysis that seems to show a different conclusion?

    It’s funny how no-one makes any kind of an issue of scientists only publishing papers containing analysed (as opposed to raw) data until climate denial came along. Do you support the same thing for particle physics? Evolutionary biology? Molecular biology? Organic chemistry? If so, where do you suggest that scientists should put all those data?

    As it happens, most science journals these days require that authors state their funding source and state potential conflicts of interest. Do you demand the same of those who critique climate science without recourse to the primary literature?

    To be brutally frank, your attitude sucks and your demands are an insult to the integrity of scientists everywhere. Science is self-policing. Where a scientist commits scientific fraud, he/she will be found out by other scientists. Therefore, a consensual conclusion such as the core finding of modern climatology is as reliable and trustworthy as pretty much any widely-supported scientific conclusion, such as quantum theory, general relativity and the germ theory of disease.

  139. David L. Hagen

    Phil Plait
    You continue to quote that fraudulent document even when there is clear evidence that it is a fraud.
    Notes on the faked Heartland document
    You fail the foundational requirements for objective journalism and impartial science.
    Can you rise to the level of professional conduct?
    Or should we leave you in the gutter?

  140. Spence_UK

    It’s funny how no-one makes any kind of an issue of scientists only publishing papers containing analysed (as opposed to raw) data until climate denial came along.

    BS. Access to computer codes and raw data is becoming an increasingly important to a wide range of scientific fields, not just climate change. In fact, most fields complain when they are told they can’t make details of their science available (e.g. the recent debacle over ferrets with bird flu).

    Victoria Stodden has done some great work in making raw data and computer code available across a wide range of disciplines. (You’ll have to google her stanford web site, as this will go into the spam filter if I link to it). Check out some of her work.

    Do you support the same thing for particle physics? Evolutionary biology? Molecular biology? Organic chemistry?

    Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

    If so, where do you suggest that scientists should put all those data?

    Oh, I dunno, how about this place called THE INTERNET? Ever heard of it?

    Seriously, 20 years ago volume and cost of data storage was a huge obstacle. Today it just isn’t with the very narrow exception of one or two highly specialised applications.

  141. Can you tell us EXACTLY what the consensus of 97% actually agreed to????

    a) Have cancer rates in people gone up in the last 100 years? Yup!
    b) Has human civilization contributed to that in increase in cancer? Yup!

    But, that is not the same as “Cancer is caused by smoking” and you will have a very difficult time getting those same scientists to agree with that.

    Climate deniers: Making 9/11 Troofers look smart by comparison.

  142. James Evans

    Re: Comment 110

    Luis Dias Says:
    February 15th, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    What’s really funny is seeing so many good fashioned well behaved skeptics like Phil Plait and his acolytes jumping the shark like this…You people are jokes.

    An even funnier event is when a bloviating commenter COMPLETELY misses Phil’s careful and thoughtful language AT THE VERY START of his post:

    The Heartland Institute…has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands…“Heartland Insider” has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland

    And, mind you, Heartland has fessed up to about 90% of this mess, but backed off the really damning strategy doc, even though most of its content has been confirmed by independent authors, and is replicated in other material like their budget that they CANNOT shake their heads all guilty-like and say, “Oh, no, we didn’t create that one. Nope. Dunno, must be faked or sumpin. Yeah, that’s it.” They haven’t even clarified what it is in that strategy document that disagrees with their mission statement and rankles them so! You would figure they’d want to correct those inexcusable, glaring differences immediately, and fill us all in on what their true objectives are, rather than let misstatements rule the day. And, no, just saying something is faked/altered and threatening suit does NOT cut it (as in shunt1 Comment #74). You need to tell us exactly what it is about the allegedly faked/altered doc that differs with your org’s real intentions/concerns. And you do not need to wait for the president’s return from Palm Beach, or wherever, to complete THAT simple exercise, or pass it off on the rest of us to do the necessary research/clarifications. Someone in the boardroom needs to grow a spine and relate to the general public honestly without threat, while the Big Shot’s away on vacation. Good grief.

    Being that he has allowed for the possibility that documents were falsified, despite Heartland’s bizarre behavior/response making it look like, in the end, nothing was actually faked/altered, Luis, Phil’s skeptic credentials are alive and well, thank you very much.

  143. llewelly

    The DeSmogblog article shows the major points of the strategy document can be independently confirmed. The accuracy of that document is not a single point of failure in the case against HI.
    However, evidence that the leaked strategy document was wrong, in whole or in part, would nonetheless be a major PR win; the press loves a scandal, and much of it is funded by fossil-fuel industry advertisers, who would love to see some news in their favor. If HI can establish the leaked strategy document is altered, they stand to gain a lot by doing so, and it thus interesting they have yet to offer anything more than vague claims.

  144. Gaebolga

    shunt1 wrote:

    Are you kidding me? Have you never read a single thing that I have posted over the years?

    Yes, we’ve read what you’ve posted; it’s why we know you really don’t know what you’re talking about regarding climate change and the science behind it.

    I seem to recall you posting this quite recently:

    shunt1 wrote:

    I stand by my statement. The single most important factor in Earth’s climate, [sic] is the change in it’s [sic] albedo over time. Period.

    Truly, what can anyone say to that except:

    YES, DEAR!

  145. jick

    Brett (@135) said:
    >>> drive a car? ever fly in a plane ? ever use public transport ? use electricity ? use a computer ?own a house? buy food ?use medical services? use educational services? list goes on and on and on and you can trace them ALL back to, or the products of …scientists.

    There, fixed it for you.

    By the way, wasn’t public transport supposed to be the agenda of evil socialist ecofacists pushing people to give up their God-given right for driving Hummer to work every morning?

  146. thomas mc

    The Conservative War on Reality is nothing new, that’s been their M.O. for decades.

  147. Jake

    Funny how people discount and never disprove the people who validly question Human caused global warming, but never question the people that spew predictions and hypothesis in the belief that humans are causing any kind of global warming. What’s even more funny is how every year many of these unchallenged claims are disproven, like so far this year we have found that the polar bear’s population is booming and that U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” HAS BEEN DISPROVEN!!! Seems the Himalayas haven’t had any significant melt in the past 50 years!! Just keep blindly following the left and you might find your self at the bottom of a cliff. I could go on forever with valid questions and proof that humans are not a significant factor in and global warming. On the otherside, I’m sure you all could too, which proves there is plenty to dispute over this topic and the argument is far from over. This is why these ONE sided teachings in school over climate science is bad, it makes our children ignorant and could be viewed as Indoctrination. At the vary least refute, and show both sides, that is how real science is.

  148. MartinM

    I could go on forever with valid questions and proof that humans are not a significant factor in and global warming.

    The fact that you haven’t even started rather precludes the possibility of going on.

  149. Jake

    MartinM, I apologize for not being clear enough for you, I was pointing out that there is plenty proof that human caused global warming claims have some serious issues with their “science”, yes even providing a few examples for you, yet the people who challenge them are chastised. My stance on the topic can be implied, but I didn’t state who is right and who is wrong, I merely suggested that if you look, there are plenty of valid questions opposing this theory.

  150. Gaebolga

    Jake wrote:

    MartinM, I apologize for not being clear enough for you, I was pointing out that there is plenty proof that human caused global warming claims have some serious issues with their “science”, yes even providing a few examples for you….

    [Emphasis mine]

    Yeah, see, that’s your problem right there.

    The only verifiable claim you’ve made in your last two posts is that the IPCC’s 2007 Working Group II report states that the Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate,” which is something that anyone can verify is an accurate quote by checking the document you indicated.

    Attaching the words “HAS BEEN DISPROVEN!!!” at the end of that sentence isn’t actually proof of anything except that you’re trying to be vehement and that you’re ignorant of certain common conventions regarding written communication.

    Likewise, claiming “Seems the Himalayas haven’t had any significant melt in the past 50 years!!” isn’t an example of anything except that you seem to be fascinated by exclamation points.

    Which makes your claims above – the ones where you “pointed out there is plenty of proof” and “even provided examples” – rather obviously and laughably false.

    If I make the assertion that you walk around without a functional temporal lobe and that your intestinal tract terminates in your mouth and then try to tell you that I’ve “point[ed] out that there is plenty proof that [you're horribly deformed], yes even providing a few examples for you,” I trust you can see that I’m actually just full of it.

    I leave it to you to draw the obvious parallels and conclusion.

  151. Daffy

    I find it interesting that so many people here actually oppose new technologies replacing oil dependence.

    Makes me wonder if 200 years ago ox breeders were as opposed to the idea of oil production as an energy source. “I tells ya, Clem, that gooey black gunk will never replace a good ol’ reliable ox. I mean, get serious—you can depend on an ox!”

  152. Jake

    @Gaebolga
    All that drivel and all you can offer up are insults and unfounded assumptions on my physical traits, I feel bad for you.

    Seriously, I’ve offered more info into my claims than many posters on this page have, yet I have not ousted them or insulted them in anyway. Seeing that you don’t seem to scrutinize posters equally shows possible signs of bias and hypocrisy. I also feel bad that these text boxes are limited to ascii, therefore I am unable to draw things in crayon for you. To disprove means to prove wrong, and the IPCC’s conclusion has been found wrong. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122)
    Also it is a commonly known fact that global warming supporters believe that the we are killing off polar bears, when a recent study points that polar bear populations are on the rise. (http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/canadian-government-finds-polar-bear-population-up-50-from-three-years-ago/). I’m going out of my way and going far beyond what supporters on this site have done, yet still it will not be enough for you i fear, as you probably never will accept any information supporting the claim that humans are significantly causing global warming could be wrong.

  153. nomuse

    shunt1 Says:

    “Provide the original raw data, document the sources of funding, and allow access to the software that was used for the data analysis.”

    You are a moron.

    I would be unable to do that for any of the creative work I have done this year. Does that mean that none of that work exists? Does that mean that none of that work was any good?

    Why can’t I? Because the original materials (recordings) do not have general releases and I do NOT have the right to release them to any and sundry. I only had limited rights to use them within the institution. I also had only limited mechanical rights in those cases involving copyrighted materials; again, I was only permitted to use them within a limited context.

    Furthermore, the software packages I used are commercial (and shareware) software; all under license and registered to me. I do NOT have the right to give you free copies of any of these.

    This is strongly analogous to the situation confronting the targets of this disingenuous request, as has been explained here and elsewhere multiple times. (It appears to be a popular tool — I seem to recall a creationist or two applying for “all the data, all the tools” with a similar faux-naivete.)

    That you use it here means you either have an entirely flat learning curve, selective listening, or are choosing a path of dishonesty.

  154. The “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” document (which Heartland Institute says is a forgery) is the one that the shocking quotes come from. I noticed several suspicious things about it:

    1. It uses the term “anti-climate” to refer to Heartland’s own position — a derogatory term which neither Heartland nor any other climate skeptic outfit ever uses to describe their position.

    2. It is written in the first person, yet there’s no indication of who wrote it. (Have you ever seen a memo like that?)

    3. The PDF is time-stamped with a Pacific Standard Time timestamp: 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 But Heartland is in Chicago (two timezones away), and none of its directors are in the Pacific time zone. Most are in Illinois, and none are in or even near the Pacific time zone.

    So it appears likely that, as Heartland claims, the document really is a forgery, and a clumsy one, at that.

  155. Andras

    Not sure if the pdf is a fake or not, but simply verifying the existence of a Dr. Wojick there should help.

    Also, if true, how in the hell do we let someone who is anti-science consult at the “Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the DOE?

  156. Gunnar

    @Daffy #158 (at the time I posted this)

    “I find it interesting that so many people here actually oppose new technologies replacing oil dependence.”

    Yes! This is one of the things that makes me most strongly suspect the driving motive behind the AGW contrarian movement. Why would anyone who does not directly benefit materially from mankind’s continuing dependence on rapidly depleting reserves of fossil fuels, whose price is sure to rise at an accelerating rate, not favor developing new energy technologies that are inherently so much cleaner and potentially much less expensive (at least, compared to the surely much inflated future costs of continued reliance on fossil fuels)?

    “Makes me wonder if 200 years ago ox breeders were as opposed to the idea of oil production as an energy source. ‘I tells ya, Clem, that gooey black gunk will never replace a good ol’ reliable ox. I mean, get serious—you can depend on an ox!’”

    Yes! And I am sure that farriers and buggy whip manufacturers were quite dismayed at the great decrease in demand for their services and products when the automobile began to be increasingly popular and ubiquitous.

  157. Gunnar

    I should have added that the time window which we have to develop and implement the needed technologies to replace our dependence on fossil fuels is shrinking at an accelerating rate. So again, regardless of what is true or not true about AGW, failure to rapidly develop and implement those technologies is very nearly insane!

  158. All that drivel and all you can offer up are insults and unfounded assumptions on my physical traits, I feel bad for you.

    Don’t care.

    Seriously, I’ve offered more info into my claims than…

    Don’t care. Make your point.

    Seeing that you don’t seem to scrutinize posters…

    Don’t care. Stop whining. Make your point.

    I also feel bad that these text boxes…

    (yawn)

    To disprove means to prove wrong, and the IPCC’s conclusion has been found wrong.

    Not according to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    Also it is a commonly known fact…

    Spare me your “commonly known facts”.
    I don’t care.
    Just stick to the mainstream science.
    Like NASA, for instance.

    I’m going out of my way and going far beyond…

    Then perhaps you could go a little extra and head to the NASA website?
    Let me help you with that.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    … you probably never will accept any information supporting the claim that humans are significantly causing global warming could be wrong.

    NASA?
    Hello?

  159. brett

    Nigel @ 141 I guess the quickest and easiest way to descibe what i believe to be catastrophic or non catastrophic global warming would be to contrast the positions of two scientists. Richard Lindzen would represent the non catastrophic viewpoint and James Hansen would represent the catastrophic version. My personal view is much closer to Lindzen than Hansen. Hope this clarifies–cheers

  160. GregS

    “I find it interesting that so many people here actually oppose new technologies replacing oil dependence.”

    Let’s be honest. Wind and solar schemes are simply not sustainable. They require massive subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers to operate, so to keep those subsidies flowing, hundreds of million of dollars are pumped into climate hysteria. After all, who in their right mind would pay for a windmill when a gas-fired power plant producess electricity so much cheaper?

    As soon as a sustainable alternative is found to fossil fuel, Heartland and the skeptics will be the first to embrace it.

  161. Daffy

    GregS,

    Your use of the word “scheme” seems to me to indicate a bias right out the gate. And a technological advance will not (probably) come as a “Eureka” moment; it will come as a result of much research and trial and error. With Heartland and their fellow pseudo skeptics resisting every step of the way.

  162. CoryT

    Reading these comments reminds me of that old saying -”never argue with a fool, those watching might not be able to tell the difference.”

  163. shunt1

    @152. Gaebolga Says:
    February 16th, 2012 at 9:20 am

    ***************

    Yes, we’ve read what you’ve posted; it’s why we know you really don’t know what you’re talking about regarding climate change and the science behind it.

    I seem to recall you posting this quite recently:

    shunt1 wrote:

    I stand by my statement. The single most important factor in Earth’s climate, [sic] is the change in it’s [sic] albedo over time. Period.

    Truly, what can anyone say to that except:

    YES, DEAR!
    **************

    Oh, are we going to get another lecture that there is no such thing as the dark side of the Moon?

    Or that I do not know the difference between its and it’s? That is best scientific evidence that you have?

    PROVE ME WRONG! Is the temperature warmer on a sunny day or when it is cloudy, as I have claimed?

    Sometimes it feels like I am talking to little children.

    ********

    It’s is a contraction for it is or it has.

    Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.

    And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its’.

    A simple test
    If you can replace it[']s in your sentence with it is or it has, then your word is it’s; otherwise, your word is its.

    Another test
    Its is the neuter version of his and her. Try plugging her into your sentence where you think its belongs. If the sentence still works grammatically (if not logically) then your word is indeed its.

    Examples
    It’s been good to know you. Contraction: it has
    It’s a bird! It’s a plane! Contraction: it is

    The dodo bird is known for its inability to fly. Possessive pronoun: its inability = the dodo bird’s inability

  164. shunt1

    @166. nomuse Says:
    February 16th, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    *************
    shunt1 Says:

    “Provide the original raw data, document the sources of funding, and allow access to the software that was used for the data analysis.”

    You are a moron.

    I would be unable to do that for any of the creative work I have done this year. Does that mean that none of that work exists? Does that mean that none of that work was any good?

    Why can’t I? Because the original materials (recordings) do not have general releases and I do NOT have the right to release them to any and sundry. I only had limited rights to use them within the institution. I also had only limited mechanical rights in those cases involving copyrighted materials; again, I was only permitted to use them within a limited context.

    ********

    Now, let me show you how it should be done!

    ********

    Berkeley Earth has just released a new version of the Berkeley Earth dataset, which is more comprehensive than the version released in October 2011, and fixes some bugs in the initial release. You can access the new dataset here: http://www.BerkeleyEarth.org/data.
    The new dataset includes:

    Additional data not included in the first release of the dataset (e.g. early data from South America, data through 2011, etc.)
    TMIN and TMAX (in addition to TAVG)
    Intermediate versions of the data (including multi-valued, single valued, with and without seasonality removed, with and without quality control)
    Source data in a common format, as well as links to the original sources
    All files are in Text format, but if there is enough interest we can also provide them in Matlab. Steven Mosher has independently put together a R function to import the Berkeley Earth data, which is available here:

    http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BerkeleyEarth/index.html

    In making these data accessible to professional and amateur exploration we hope to encourage further analysis. If you have questions or reflections on this work, please contact, info@berkeleyearth.org. We will attempt to address as many inquiries as possible, and look forward to hearing from you.

    Best regards,
    Elizabeth Muller
    Founder and Executive Director
    Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature

  165. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ shunt1:

    I’m not sure what you mean to say here.

    The data of climate science is available as raw data as much as possible, but as any scientist knows they go into analysis with a lot of corrections for instrument behavior et cetera so are useless in a trust analysis. Your own link shows what is done and what an undertaking it is to follow it.

    Climate science is better than most sciences in this regard, because it is unfairly criticized by denialists. Your own link shows how much is done to alleviate that.

    The basic point is that climate science and its result is accepted science. If you propose an extraordinary claim to suggest otherwise you need extraordinary evidence to make the claim go home. But your own link suggest you have only access to the same data that has resulted in ~ 20 000 peer reviewed papers supporting AGW and ~ 0 rejecting it.

    So what is your point really?

  166. Mark Schaffer

    Why is anyone paying attention to what something calling itself “Shunt1″ posts? Let him/her/it come clean about who they are and what their educational background is. Until then, DON’T FEED THE TROLL!

  167. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 120. shunt1 :

    Messier Tidy Upper: Oh, your name is not that important. I was accused of hiding my name in a previous posting and got rather upset about that. If Phil exposes his name and honor, then I will do so also. That is only fair.

    Okay I guess but, wait a second there – Are you saying Phil Plait – the name he blogs under, writes books as and has appeared on TV as is not his real name but a psuedonym instead? :-o

    As for honour being exposed, I’m not sure what you’re referring to there, the BadAstronomer has always struck me as a very honourable and ethical person in his dealings with, well, me and everyone else here.

    “Have you read those or understood what the consensus of 97% of practicing climatologists is?”
    Can you tell us EXACTLY what the consensus of 97% actually agreed to????
    a) Has the Earth warmed in the last 100 years? Yup!
    b) Has human civilization contributed to that warming? Yup!
    But, that is not the same as “Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change” and you will have a very difficult time getting those same scientists to agree with that.

    Will I?

    I would add a (c) to that summary of yours above which is :

    c) Is this Global Overheating a serious issue that needs to be addressed by somehow reducing Greenhouse gas emissions or we’ll find conditions for our planet get worse?

    I am fairly certain that most climatologists will agree that (c) is the case.

    If you think otherwise then what is your supporting evidence to show that isn’t the case?

    When I was in Germany, we would get weather information so that our artillery could hit the target with the best accuracy possible. When I return to Fort Benning, I requested assignment to the combined military weather school and was eventually accepted. After graduation, I was assigned to White Sands Missile Range and served there for 14 years.Anyone in the military that was trained for weather analysis attended the same school, no matter which branch you were in. Most of my teachers were Navy or Air Force and years later, we all knew each other during the first Gulf War.

    Sounds like you’ve had a pretty interesting life and seen some awesome and fearful things in your career. I am somewhat impressed and you have my respect for your military service but I’m not sure I see the relevance to the current discussion.

    @121. shunt1 :

    Eventually my talents were diverted into inventing new weather instruments for the Army. We invented the wind instruments that are currently mounted on every M-1 Abrams tank. That was a rather difficult task, since it could not have any moving parts and must survive harsh environments. We invented LIDARS that could sample and measure the atmosphere at a ranges up to 10 km. When Mt Saint Helen’s erupted, we tracked and measured the volcanic plume all the way to North Carolina. Everyone was surprised at how rapidly the volcanic plume lost altitude, since it did not fit any of the computer models. I was tasked to measure cirrus clouds and determine if they increased or decreased the albedo of the Earth. They increased the albedo, but that is not what the funding agency wanted to hear. That was the first time that I was forced to use weasel words like: “it is not inconsistent with the models” and had to keep my mouth shut, while not actually publishing a lie. Long rant and I could tell you horror stories of how climate studies are often conducted and published.

    Ah, now I see some connection but still fairly tenous. You say you can give us horror stories on how climate studies are often conducted and yet you are keeping those back from us rather than relating them here.

    Why? If you have such horror stories then please elaborate and explain them here. Also if these stories are so bad, why haven’t they and the individuals responsible been publicly exposed before?

    Clue: Always watch for those little weasel words…
    “Hey, I never actually said that. Read what I wrote in my book in 2007!”
    So, what is your name?

    My username here is Messier Tidy Upper. ;-)

    Your username is shunt1 otherwise known as *what* in Real Life, again?

    @124. shunt1 :

    To borrow and adapt a quote from Margaret Thatcher, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single scientific argument left.”

    Good quote – and a good reason to avoid personal attacks which I try to do. :-)

    Shunt1, you seem to think albedo is the most important factor in climate, I’d say it is certainly *an* important factor – and a key feedback – but it is not the sole one and not one whcih is necessarily the main trigger or driver for climate change because albedo changes based on things like ice melt and desertification which occur as a result of various other things like warming seas and deforetastion and yes, increased GHG emissions. If we change the planet’s albedo by, say, removing the Arctic sea ice or reducing it greatly in extent, don’t you think this will therefore have significant negative consequences and if not, why not?

  168. Messier Tidy Upper

    @181. Mark Schaffer :

    Why is anyone paying attention to what something calling itself “Shunt1″ posts? Let him/her/it come clean about who they are and what their educational background is. Until then, DON’T FEED THE TROLL!

    In fairness, Shunt1 has provided some background biographical information in comments #120 & #121.

    I don’t agree with Shunt1 but I do NOT consider Shunt1 to be a troll either.

  169. Gunnar

    Speaking of albedo as a factor in global warming or cooling, if albedo were the main factor, it seems to me that makes it difficult to explain why Venus, which both has a much higher albedo than Mercury and is much farther from the Sun than Mercury is so much hotter than Mercury. But it is also my understanding (someone correct me if I am wrong) that an object with low albedo both absorbs heat faster and radiates excess heat away faster than an object with high albedo. Thus, while it would take an object with a high albedo a longer time to heat up than one with a low albedo (all other things being equal), once heated up, it would retain heat longer when environmental conditions change enough to permit it to cool again (this applies mainly, of course, to radiative heating and cooling rather than convective or conductive cooling).

  170. Common Sense

    Climate science is at best a guess. You call it science, but if that is true why can’t the weatherman get the 10,5,3 day forecast right? Because you are GUESSING.

    As Climate ‘science’ is scrutinized it is continually trying to redefine itself so it remains RELEVANT… not correct.

    The global record shows MANY peaks and valleys with respect to global temp variances yet now these normal cyclical events are ‘evil’, ‘man made’ and must be stopped. If you were TRULY A SCIENTIST YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT FACT. But for either ego or money (most likely money) these climate scientists engage in a soap opera worthy of network tv.

    So as it is today, all the ‘science’ is doing is rehashing questionable data sets and trying to get what they want out of them.

    I’m sure both sides are just a guilty.

    As for “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” your own site says the same thing I do…. short term (5-10 years) the temp is up, slightly longer term (15 years) the temp is up SLIGHTLY. Expand that out to a term that is significant to the age of the earth its just another blip.

    And I’m still waiting for the ICE AGE I was promised back in the 70′s.

  171. Mark Schaffer

    Messier, Please look into the history of LIDAR and ask your self if “Shunt1″ is telling the truth. Since we don’t know who the poster is why should any story told by it be believed without independent verification?

  172. Firesyde

    It’s clear Heartland isn’t looking at the same science the rest of the world is. Good luck with that. Something is obviously happening to the world’s climate. I just suppose that the changes in the environment just happen to correspond to the arrival of industry is a coincidence. This kind of propaganda didn’t work to well for the Nazi’s, I can’t see it working out any better for these guys.

  173. I find it odd that at least 2/3rds of this article is commentary on excerpts of a document that are claimed to be false, with zero corroboration to the claim of falsehood – especially when the authenticity of the document was thrown into question in the opening paragraph. This is worse than ‘he said/she said’ because it’s, “He said(but was lying)/she said(but was lying), and I’m not actually sure either said anything”. Why not just mail this one to the Enquirer and avoid stinking up discovery magazine?

  174. Dan

    sue me pls, im bored.

  175. Grish

    Yeah, me too. The Heartland Institute is full of liars and sociopaths.

  176. Mark Schaffer

    Heather,
    Please point to any field research on climate disruption that Heartland has done.

  177. @186. Common Sense Says:

    Climate science is at best a guess. You call it science, but if that is true why can’t the weatherman get the 10,5,3 day forecast right? Because you are GUESSING.

    Climate and weather are two very different things.

    Weather is inherently chaotic and can’t be predicted accurately past a certain span – but within certain ranges. eg. where I live we’re very rarely if ever going to experience days of snowfall or sub-zero temperatures.

    Climate, OTOH, is predictable within certain ranges and whilst it is complicated we can say for example that the arctic ha s atypically cold climate where you’ll get blizzards, strong winds, subzero temperaures versus a jungle which has a climate of hot steamy conditions with regular afternoon thunderstorms and so forth.

    The global record shows MANY peaks and valleys with respect to global temp variances yet now these normal cyclical events are ‘evil’, ‘man made’ and must be stopped.

    Nobody is saying past natural climate changes based on well-understood factors like the fainter younger sun, volcanic activityand Milankovitch cycles were “evil” although many of them – on astronomical and geological timescales – resulted in mass extinction events. Look up Snowball Earth for example.

    What is happening now is different because the evidence is saying we are responsible. What we are doing is adding a lot more gases that physics tells us will trap extra heat and sure enough, the world is warming up despite reduced solar activity, Milankovitch cycles being the wrong phase for warming, etc .. This will lead to changes that make, well, common sense. Make the world warmer with ice caps melting and the extra water will raise sea levels. Glaciers that used to supply water steadily disappearing means water supplies will become irregular. More heatwaves mean life will be harder for crops which may well die – as may many vulnerable people.

    “Must be stopped” well not necessarily. Firstly, there’s an amount of thermal inertia that means that like a fast moving truck or train we literally cannot stop the climate change immediately and its is going to continue a while even after we’ve taken action to reduce it.

    Secondly, science is telling us that the consequences of climate change will be overwhelmingly negative. Climatologists are warning us that sea leevls will rise, biodiversity will be diminished, deserts will likely grow, extreme weather events will occur more frequently and more intensely and so on. If you don’t think those are bad things, then you can advocate we let them happen. I think you’ll find yourself outvoted but that is one option you have. Denying the problem exists however, when the scientific experts are all saying it does is dishonest and flat out wrong.

    If you were TRULY A SCIENTIST YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT FACT. But for either ego or money (most likely money) these climate scientists engage in a soap opera worthy of network tv.

    Really? :roll:

    Most climatologist go into the field, work and study hard, recieve death threats & harrassment, work at universities and in the field all just for money which, really, isn’t as lucrative as, say, banking, law, medicine or many other careers? If youwant toearn money there are many ways, climatologists, far as I know aren’t overly well paid and are excessively harrassed and hounded.

    As for “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” your own site says the same thing I do…. short term (5-10 years) the temp is up, slightly longer term (15 years) the temp is up SLIGHTLY. Expand that out to a term that is significant to the age of the earth its just another blip.

    Expand it over human history – and prehistory and the last few million yeras thoughand its pretty worrying. That’s enough isn’t it?

    And I’m still waiting for the ICE AGE I was promised back in the 70′s.

    That’s a crock – click on my name for a good clear debunking of it. No, the climatologists did NOT “promise” an ice age back in the 1970′s. Even back then – and earlier still – they were concerned about the possibility of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating.

    Please do some research and check the facts because what may seem “common sense” may actually not be that sensible on closer inspection at all.

  178. johnathan birks

    Phil, what part of “fake” don’t you get? The “smoking gun” has blown up in Gleik’s face. He is guilty of, at the very least, mail fraud. How you and your fanboys can canonize this man for unethical and illegal behavior is shocking.

  179. Sean Inglis

    The money quotes here concerning supposed undermining of teaching come from the one document that HI assert is a fake, and that Gleick claims was sent to him anonymously.

    It is also the same document that lead people – through various stylistic quirks, tics of punctuation and bizarrely undue prominence – to point the finger at Glieck as the distributor of the documents he obtained by impersonating a board member in the first place.

  180. Daniel J. Andrews

    Heartland pulls a Gleick in 2007, pretending to be someone else, attempting to obtain documents they weren’t entitled to (unsuccessfully), and then posting about it and putting up the recording of the conversation (they didn’t tell the person they were recording the conversation).

    desmogblog.com/heartland-double-standard-institute-tried-scam-greenpeace-internal-documents

    From the letter sent to Heartland,

    To recap, the Heartland Institute used a false organizational identity in order to obtain an internal document. It also surreptitiously recorded a telephone conversation (illegally, I
    believe, if it was done from your home state of Illinois) then posted it online to attack me
    in the same sort of privacy invasion you’ve been complaining about.

    Does any of this sound familiar? It should, not only because your organization did all
    this, but it recorded itself doing exactly what you’ve been howling about was done to
    you. I’m calling on you to show the same level of post-action forthrightness of Dr. Gleick,
    admit what you did, and re-post the audiotape of the full conversation.

    As usual, deniers do not hold themselves to the same standards (scientifically or ethically) that they hold others to. Gleick did wrong. He admitted it. Let’s see if Bast takes responsibility and apologizes for this attempt to pull a Gleick (still waiting for apologies for misrepresenting stolen emails, privacy invasion, misrepresenting their film while shooting, deleting data from scientific publications to make them say something they originally didn’t, ….)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »