Breaking news: Heartland leaker is scientist Peter Gleick, says documents are all real

By Phil Plait | February 21, 2012 8:00 am

The news about Heartland Institute just took a decidedly odd turn. Recently, internal documents leaked from the far-right group revealed their antiscience agenda, including their funding strategy, donor list, and most startlingly a paper outlining their strategy to "dissuade teachers from teaching science".

When these documents were posted, Heartland started threatening the sites hosting them, as well as bloggers who wrote about them including a 71-year-old veteran). This part is very important: Heartland has made repeated claims that the strategy paper is a fake.

Now, the leaker has outed himself: Peter Gleick, a research scientist with the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, which among other things investigates the impact of hydrology on human health and how climate change plays into it.

In his admission, Gleick says he initially received the Institute’s internal documents in the mail anonymously. Given their potential impact, he tried to confirm their reality. How he did so, though, is something of an issue:

In an effort to [confirm the accuracy of the documents], and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.

In other words, Gleick used a false identity to get more information from Heartland itself. This is an interesting situation, to say the least. I’ll note that faking an identity is not necessarily wrong or illegal. And if there is a greater moral good involved, like exposing dirty dealings on issues that have a major impact on people’s lives — say — it might even be understandable. On the other hand, if he impersonated someone real, then this may be a situation of identity theft. There’s also the question of whether he did everything he could to find out the veracity of the documents before taking the path he did. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t have all the information, so I don’t really have an opinion on this. On the other hand I have very little doubt that how people come down on this point will depend very strongly on where they stand on the reality of climate change.

However, how he obtained this information is not really the point. The information on those documents and their veracity is paramount. In his article, Gleick continues:

The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

Emphasis added. Note that Gleick is explicitly saying the strategy document about the Heartland Institute trying to dissuade the teaching of science is in fact real, despite the claims from Heartland saying it’s not. He is also saying he did not make any alterations, so again he is claiming they are actual Heartland Institute internal documents. Heartland has indeed admitted that nearly all of the documents are in fact real, but maintain the strategy document is a fake.

From the standpoint of an outside observer, this boils down in some ways to a he-said-she-said situation. Heartland says the document is a fake. Gleick says it is not. While people on both sides have made arguments for and against its authenticity, the actual evidence we have from both sides is circumstantial. Unless the strategy document contains some sort of traceable information, or the Heartland Institute’s files are opened, there may not be any way to know for sure. However, Gleick has said he can explicitly confirm the documents are the same. I expect there will come a time when he’ll have to do so publicly.

Obviously, some will paint Gleick as a criminal and fraud, and others as a whistleblower and hero. In the NYT blog Dot Earth, journalist Andrew Revkin has already said Gleick’s reputation is ruined and his credibility destroyed, while at least one commenter is already calling him a hero.

However, there are things we do indeed know. One is that the Heartland Institute has a long history of climate change denial. Another is that they were huge cheerleaders of the manufactured Climategate nonsense, involving stolen emails from real scientists, but threatened to sue bloggers when their own documents were exposed in this very similar way. This reaction by Heartland is very telling, in my opinion.

And even that, in the end, is nothing more than a distraction, something taking away from the real issue: the Earth is warming up. This is reality, and this is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence. And the other thing I know for sure is that groups like Heartland, as well as ones like the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Mail, and many, many more, will now double their efforts to sow doubt on that fact.


Related posts:

Breaking news: a look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin
Hip, hip, hypocrisy!
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target
NASA talks global warming
The world is getting warmer
Our ice is disappearing
Climate change: the evidence

Comments (189)

  1. Chris

    After climategate there were calls for investigations, trying to subpoena the scientists records alleging fraud. Why can’t we get a warrant out for Heartland, fraud and libel would seem like nice charges. Obviously I’m no big city lawyer, just a country scientist looking for a little justice.

  2. Mapnut

    If Gleick has done anything illegal and might face charges, but then reveals his name and his actions, I think his violations fall in the category of principled civil disobedience. Even if he’s one of those infamous “scientists with an agenda,” it would be hard to see how he’s advancing his career or making money by his actions.

  3. Doug McLachlan

    Hi Phil,

    FYI, you may want to catch this before the denial camp gets out ahead of what the report actually says – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/canadas-oil-sands-not-so-dirty-after-all/article2343985/

    (Sorry for the cumbersome link.)

    While I anticipate that the anti-science types will try and mis-read and mis-cite the report it might be instructive for the pro-reality camp in the climate change debate to be reminded that we too can suffer from preconceptions (and pre-misconceptions) about how one “flavour” of carbon-fueled global warming may not be as damaging as we had thought and feared. Not suggesting that it still isn’t creating an impact but perhaps not as bad as other, less vilified alternatives.

    Figure that living in Canada, indeed Alberta, we may get this story before it filters to the US media outlets. Money quote: “We’re not giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the tar-sands industry. This is not the purpose of our study,” Dr. Weaver said.

    Best get back to sick, screaming toddler – They Might Be Giants’ CD of Here Comes Science needs to be turned back on. BTW, thanks for the heads up on that one – kid two loves it as much as kid one, and their dad.

  4. Bob

    Now I may be just be a simple country Hyper-Chicken, but this was for the far, far greater good.

    RJB

  5. Paul in Sweden

    Peter Gleick was suspected by fellow bloggers as the instigator of “fakegate” because the language of the malicious document which among other things claimed that the Heartland Institute wanted to “dissuade teachers from teaching science” was very similar to his previous rantings. It turns out that their suspicions were justified.

    It is very possible that after fabricating the screed of the fake document he thought that he should bolster his charade with typical documents found at every 501c organization.

    We now see what Peter Gleick a lecturer of ethics and integrity to the climate community is all about. We can only guess the levels that others in the climate community who are not as ethically focused have stooped.

    See also:
    -http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/
    -http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-confesses/

  6. jjdaddyo

    In the end I’d be willing to bet that Heartland will play the victim to the hilt in the press, but if the docs are authentic, will not take any legal action against Gleick.
    If they did, then people from Heartland would be put under oath about whether these docs are real, etc., and that could open a can of worms for them.

  7. Sam H

    @5 Paul in Sweden and others: here we go :roll:

  8. Ken

    You can bet that Heartland has been taking the time to purge their files. Unlike climate-gate, they are not government scientists, it likely won’t be possible to demand their documents, and they likely are not required to keep any records.

    We need an insider to succumb to guilty feelings, to come out with an independent verification of heartland’s agenda.

    Otherwise, they may just fade away and re-form under some other contradictory / feel good name and carry on with there work of being paid for spreading FUD

  9. yarbles

    This post is what real denial looks like.

    “Note that Gleick is explicitly saying the strategy document about the Heartland Institute trying to dissuade the teaching of science is in fact real, despite the claims from Heartland saying it’s not. ”

    Where in Gleick’s statement does he say the memo is real? Certainly not the part where he says he received it anonymously and has no idea who sent it. So actually the situation is Gleick is saying all documents save one were stolen from Heartland and are unaltered. Heartland does not dispute that. Heartland says the one document is fake. Gleick cannot dispute that because by his own admission he does not know.

  10. Upyouns

    Equating faith based climate change to science is just plain stupid. Geology tells us that the earth has gone through 5 glaciation periods. Humans were not even around for 4 of them. Geology also tells us we started coming out of the last glaciation period about 10,000 years ago. We are not out of it yet, we still have glaciers. When we completely come out of it, the earth will probably continue getting warmer conod does end, it will probable get a lot warmer. The problem with your faith based climate is that is does not have any self correction mechanism to account for these changes as a theory does. It has to be accepted, as is, based on faith. When peer review criticizes it. Instead of answering the criticism or modifying the faith based climate change, the reviewer or review groups are attack. So much for science, theories, the scientific method and peer review. YOU HAVE TRASHED SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

  11. MMM

    While I think that all but one of the documents are real and unaltered, I think it is still not clear if the strategy memo was:
    a) real (and mailed to Gleick)
    b) fake (and mailed to Gleick)
    or c) faked by Gleick

    “says documents are all real” is therefore not quite right: even if we believe Gleick, that still leaves option b as a possibility…

    -MMM

  12. SteveT

    “A greater moral good involved”? Wow, that’s a mighty slippery slope you’re standing on, Phil! That kind of reasoning can be used to justify all kinds of nasty actions and behavior.

    I think what Gleick did was wrong, and will ultimately do much more harm to the AGW side than good. This will be used to discredit anyone associated with him. I think Revkin is right that he has now ruined his career.

    And just to be clear, I am 100% in agreement with the science behind AGW and its dangers. I just think that stooping to the level of the denialists is the wrong way to make our case.

  13. aleksandar

    Truth is… irrelevant. Do any of you think Fox News will spend hours covering this? And that this will get multiple editorials and op-eds in WSJ and Forbes? Media war has been lost, it was unwinnable from the start, scientific views vs. mass media… First world general public has been convinced that global warming is false and that those with environmental concerns are just technology and civilization hating Luddites.

  14. MattM

    LOL!

    So, Gleick uses public information sent to him (using someone elses name), to authenticate a document, because is has the same information????

    That’s ridiculous! Did he ever consider that any information that he could retrieve so easily, could have also been done by someone else? And that such information could be placed in documents to make them look authentic?

    In essence, what Mr Gleick is actually saying, is that there really isn’t anything in the Heartland documents that shows they are authentic!

  15. In the NYT blog Dot Earth, journalist Andrew Revkin has already said Gleick’s reputation is ruined and his credibility destroyed, while at least one commenter is already calling him a hero.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, someone who knowingly does the former for “the right reasons”, can quite easily be considered the latter.

    Consider, for example, what would have happened to Mark Felt’s career had he outed himself while still alive.

    Now, whether or not Gleick has done that remains to be seen. But, Heartland’s reaction to having their own tactics turned against them is quite telling.

  16. Evidence has no place in ideology apparently… :(

    Oh wait, we’ve known that for over a century now, this is just one more datapoint. Thank you for keeping us informed Dr. Plait.

  17. I agree with Phil; what Gleick did was not necessarily wrong, and to the degree it was wrong, it might just be nothing more than a misdemeanor, not a felony. Not a moral slippery slope at all, Steve T. Rather, ethics, like many other things, is often a matter of degrees and gradients, not polarities and absolutes.

    Vis-a-vis a Paul in Sweden, we know that the likes of Heartland continues to peddle documents stolen from East Anglia’s servers without apology; the time is here for pushback, not defensiveness.

    Therefore, I think we ought NOT to follow Revkin’s panic-mongering; if nothing else, the fact that Gleick outed himself, likely over ethical pangs, undercuts Revkin’s panic. http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2012/02/ends-means-justifications-heartland.html

  18. Mike Torr

    @11 “Truth is… irrelevant”

    THIS. RIGHT HERE. This is what’s wrong with the world. I’m not disagreeing, aleksandar. Unfortunately, I fear you are right :(

    The reason the media has convinced so many people in the first world is very simple: they are all lazy. They’d rather hide in their comfortable lives and pretend it’s not happening. So any evidence that it’s not happening is gleefully seized and adopted as a credo.

    What an idiotic species. We really need to re-design our stupid, stupid, biased brains…

  19. DaveS

    BA.. You are of course joking – right?

    You cannot seriously be trying to defend a self-confessed liar and a thief who stole documents from a private entity?

    The main strategy document is clearly a fake and almost certainly written by Gleick to defame and misrepresent HI and no reasonable person looking at the evidence so far would conclude otherwise.

    The correct action at the moment is outright condemnation of such a criminal act, not least because otherwise the whole of the AGW community will be stained by this act – you included.

    Whether Climategate was evidence of criminal acts or not (by a hacker or by Jones/Mann) is irrelevant: Gleick is a self confessed criminal who deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law, not defended in the name of being “green”.

  20. The King of P

    But Phil, you were a head honcho on the James Randi Education Foundation, one of the founding officers is Dayvi Pena aka Jose Alvarez aka First Name Unknown Last Name Unknown. So identity fraud is the very lifeblood of the JREF. Where is your much vaunted skepticism? Do you think for a second that Randi didn’t know about the criminal fraud committed by Pena/Alvarez? Do you think he didn’t help facilitate that fraud? Do you think anything at all excuses this kind of criminality, and the legal and financial hell that the JREF put the real Jose Alvarez through?

    James Randi is the biggest fraud of them all. And you are his accomplice, witting or otherwise. So Pot, stop calling the Kettle black.

  21. Luis Dias

    The analog between clumategate

  22. Wzrd1

    Using the identity of another is illegal, especially when soliciting corporate documents.
    That said, there are quite a few markers in a document that can trace it, part are the regular metadata, part are tags that can actually trace the document back to the computer it was composed on.
    As an example, the Melissa macro virus, the document was traced back to the computer of David L. Smith. All courtesy of the GUID, which is rooted in the network card’s MAC address.
    If the decoded GUID comes back to Gleick, his reputation would be utterly destroyed. If it came back to a MAC address belonging to Heartland (it’s not THAT hard to get that information too), it’s a valid document. There are a host of other data points in the GUID as well, which can further confirm the origination of the document.
    THAT all said, data is data. The DATA shows global warming. That point is ONLY contested here in the US, no other nation disputes it.
    And to be honest, Heartland doesn’t sound like a forgiving group. I’d not be surprised if they went after Peter Gleick for industrial espionage, identity theft, fraud by deception, unlawful receiving of corporate documents and anything else they and the prosecutor can dream up.
    Then seek venue in Texas…

  23. jim braiden

    Wire Fraud- Federal Crime:

    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]

    Mr. Gleick is in a great deal of trouble ideed.

  24. “When these documents were posted, Heartland started threatening the sites hosting them, as well as bloggers who wrote about them including a 71-year-old veteran.”

    While I don’t condone the threat, and can’t say anything about this case since I have not followed it, surely the age and previous occupation of the threatened person are irrelevant? Reminds me of news reports about, say, a plane crash in which “320 people died, including more than 200 women and children”. A death is a death and a threat is a threat. A death is not worse if it happens to a woman or a child instead of a man, and a threat is not worse if it happens to a 71-year-old veteran instead of a middle-aged Bad Astronomer.

    By the way, there is an unmatched closing parenthesis in the second paragraph.

  25. llewelly

    John Mashey’s completely legal, and independent investigations (nearly complete prior to this leak) confirm most of what is in the leaked documents.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax

    It is notable that Mashey’s investigations have revealed a great deal of unflattering information about the various “think tanks” engaged in climate change denial. Among other things, he has shown the Wegeman document contained a great deal of plagiarism. Yet the media has largely ignored the results of his investigations. Legal investigation, it seems, is much less newsworthy, even when what it reveals is as damaging or more damaging.

    (See the recent article in Science, or desmogblog.com , for a complete list of Mashey’s investigations.)

  26. jorge c.

    AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics
    Chair: Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California…

    wowwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    please read:

    David Appell: Peter Gleick admits to illicitedly obtaining the Heartland documents…. and sets environmental activism back 10 years (at least). Link: http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/02/peter-h-gleick-origin-of-heartland.html

    or M.Nisbet http://bigthink.com/ideas/42563

    or Dr. Judith Curry: ” The climate insanity factor has just jumped upwards a big notch.”
    link: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/#more-7310

    or the best: Jonathan Gilligan in Keith Kloor Blog:

    Pure Aristotelian tragedy: A good man commits hubris (attempting to shame those he opposes) and makes a tragic mistake (hamartia), which produces catastrophe and pathos.

    There’s no defending what Gleick did. And worse, his actions will hurt all of us on his political side who have always tried to conduct ourselves honorably.

    I’ve stayed out of the debates over the Heartland documents because I believe they’re as utterly irrelevant as the UEA emails. But everyone who tried to use those documents to shame Heartland and its fellow travelers shares in Gleick’s hubris and should take this, as Aristotle advised all of us to take tragedy, as a cautionary tale.
    Link:http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/21/climate-wars-reach-new-lows/#comment-99931

    HIP, HIP, HYPOCRISY!!!!!

  27. The Bobs

    Heartland will not sue. They will not want to participate in discovery.

  28. Wayne on the Plains

    Clearly, what Gleick did was wrong, and he will likely pay a price for it. The hacking in “Climategate” was also wrong. In both cases I wonder if it was really worth it. Did we really learn anything in either case? We know the the Climategate emails were a non-event, and frankly I haven’t seen anything about the Heartland Institute that surprised me, whether or not that one document is real. What bothers me the most is how easily everyone seems to dismiss the serious breaches in ethics that caused these issues in the first place. Do we really want to live in a world where no one is safe from the prying eyes of others? Would you really want journalists and bloggers going over all of your private correspondence looking for something to “get” you with? I have no problem with protecting whistleblowers when they obtain their information by ethical means, but I won’t defend a thief no matter what their motives.

  29. Jeff

    in my opinion, if you think far-right institute is any different from a far-left institute that is where the mistake is. Left-right same game, they both represent the oil and gas industry and that is why all progress in environment is being thwarted. the little secret they don’t want us to know is that it isn’t left vs. right; but the real dynamic is corporations vs. citizens of planet earth. And like I tell the students, if they lie down with that corporate snake, it’ll bite them if not right now then by the time their children/grandchildren grow up.

    The only ones I trust are ones like non-profit climate central

    Something tells me at their quaterly stockholder meetings, the fortune 500 CEOs don’t have this american indian dictum on their agenda: “we don’t inherit the environment from our ancestors, we borrow the land from our children”. I’m all for the green movement and we teach our students green lifestyles, but in my opinion, that is blaming the citizens instead of the corporations spewing out all this waste.

  30. CJSF

    This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST thing he could have done. It will undo all the progress made since the “climategate” frenzy, and will only polarize the debate more. I can’t believe he thought this would actually help anything. Way to go, man.

    CJSF

  31. Alex Avery

    How dumb do you people think we are?

    Seriously, we’re supposed to believe that criminal fraud and identity theft and a well-orchestrated media campaign to destroy the reputation of a tiny, private group funded with private dollars at a miniscule fraction of the level of the Alarmist-technocrat-scientist elite is equivalent or worse than the stonewalling and intimidation campaign conducted by Mann/Jones/etc. who were
    a) funded with taxpayer dollars
    b) worked at public, taxpayer-supported institutions
    c) and whose communications were totally subject to FOIA law
    d) and whose emails ACTUALLY showed the kind of conspiracy alledged but completely unsupported against Heartland Institute.

    You can’t claim to defend science, reason, and the law when you ignore and trash it repeatedly.

  32. Terry

    What if an investigative journalist had done the same thing? Would we be having a debate over his/her reputation?

  33. Alex Avery

    Terry, Time magazine has already stated that if an “investigative journalist” had done what Gleick did, they’d be fired.

    Illegal is illegal.

    In contrast, there is still EVERY reason to believe that the Climategate emails were not “stolen” from the outside, but rather, “leaked” from inside. Regardless, the emails in Climategate were entirely open to legal FOIA review (and had already been legally requested years before!) and that’s why Jones, etc. instructed Mann et al. to delete any emails they didn’t want anyone to see.

    The scandal of Climategate was that it took a leaker/theif to “out” what should have legally been publically outed years before. Sorry, but the facts are stubborn, aren’t they?

  34. Mark

    Interesting analysis of the document in question by someone with the qualifications to do so:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/megan-mcardle/

  35. Dutch Railroader

    @10 Upyouns – I’ve seen many deniers reply to these posts with non-specific complaints that the scientific method is not being followed by climate scientists, and so on.

    What is true is that the hypothesis of AGW was framed at least as far back as the 50s. Since that time, the CO2 abundance has been increased markedly due to the burning of fossil fuels, accompanied by a significant increase in the average global temperature. In short, this is a clear hypothesis, followed by an experiment, with a clear outcome. Certainly, the prediction and observation of AGW is a classic use of the scientific method.

    With respect to natural climate change. So what? At any epoch the changes in the climate require forcing mechanisms. It just doesn’t happen for the hell of it. If you think that we are coming out of some sort of ice age and that the present warming trend is not due to the artificial increase in CO2 from 270 to 400 ppm in the last 200 years, please demonstrate proper use of the scientific method by framing a testable hypothesis that has not already been discounted.

  36. Richard Snee

    You seem to be minimizing theft, forgery and fraud — which I suppose isn’t surprising, since you’re part of the green-leaning media that gives institutionalized environmentalism a pass because you believe it’s fighting the good fight to “save the planet.” You’re enabling a fanatical fringe movement that’s becoming more uncrupulous, autocratic and extreme by the day. This movement (which has itself become an “industry,” a “lobby,” and maybe even a state-sanctioned religion) needs to be watch-dogged, not lap-dogged. But American journalists — assuming you count yourself as one — seem to be environmentalists first and honest brokers of news and information second. I can imagine the tone this piece would take if the people at Heartland were caught stealing and forging Peter Gleick’s private papers. But I guess the fraud doesn’t stop with Gleick: it’s become pervasive in the Big Green Machine, of which this blog is a part.

  37. Gary

    Noble cause corruption is still corruption. Make all the excuses you need to feel better, but think a minute, is this a lesson you really want the Little Astronomer to learn?

  38. Jeff

    #32 that is an excellent statement of accurate scientific method. I am confident that climate scientists such as at climate central, are using proper scientific method and always have. Obviously, all the confusion that has been introduced into this debate is politically driven talk, not science. A typical incident: about a year ago I saw a rational debate on AGW going on in a senate hearing on C-span; but the turning point that day into confrontation was when the senator from Oklahoma started talking, obviously he was given his marching orders by his state’s oil industry, to throw a wrench into that day’s hearings. That is MO for them.

  39. Alex Avery

    OK moderator: I’m waiting. Just what have I said in my two pending posts to hold them up for over half an hour? You’ve now posted several that were entered after mine.

    Are my posts just too direct and damaging to the Warmist agenda? Play fair and put up my darned posts!

  40. Ron1

    @29 Jeff

    Confused by a whole lot of false equivalency you are if you think Gliek is the equivalent of Heartland.

  41. Alex Avery

    Really moderator: fantastic ethics here with your selective post-hold-up.

  42. Alex Avery

    Wow, you are really afraid of my posts that much? You can’t free up even the first post? We’re coming up on an hour hold-up. Tic toc.

  43. Mickey Reno

    Well, this is the most tortured view of this story I have seen yet. Gleick impersonatated (i.e. stole the identity) of a member of the Heartland Institute’s board. He opened a gmail account in this person’s name. He contacted a clerical person at HI using this false identy, claiming to have a new e-mail address, and solicited the internal documents, which were then sent to him at the fake email address.

    He hasn’t admitted this yet, but it’s a reasonable speculation that he probably then used the rather mundane information in the HI’s 2012 budget and annual meeting notes to FORGE the “smoking gun” 2012 Strategy document, and then printed that document, scanned it to PDF (it was scanned in a +8hr time zone, probably on the west coast), included that FORGED PDF document in with the other real documents, and forwarded the entire bundle to Revkin, DeSmog, TheGuardianUK, etc. and waited for them to do what he knew they would do… publish and chortle over the notion that they now had THEIR turn at a Climategate type release. And now that silly notion is crashing down fast.

    But here, all this is simply blown off as some unimportant details of a noble act of civil disobedience? Gleick stole the documents, he committed identity theft, he forged the most embarrassing document, misrepresenting several key items in that forgery (misstating Heartland’s expectations of Wojick, mistaking a hoped for solicitation with an actual donation by the Koch Bros., et. al), and now has copped only to the identity theft and transmission to the REAL scientits and REAL blogs.

    I will go on record as saying this is a serious ethical and legal breach. Gleick already has a lawyer and a public relations man working to save his bacon. I think he has already lost his spot on the AGU integrity in science effort (the web site has scrubbed his name) , and I wouldn’t be surprised if the AGU boots him altogether. I fully expect the NCSE to boot him, as well. He may have to face criminal and civil prosecutions for this. And all you can say is that he “leaked” some documents. JFC, this is pathetic. And sadly, almost exactly what many people are coming to expect from zealots of the CAGW cause.

  44. Ron1

    @3.   Doug McLachlan

    Be complete. While the author of the paper states that the tar sands are far cleaner that coal and are cleaner than natural gas (and therefore are less of a concern for global warming), he has clearly stated that the tar sands are a concern because they do nothing to mitigate the real problem, our obsession with fossil fuels. Further, he has also stated that his paper addresses only one area of concern, ie.the global temp increasw resulting from consumption of all the tar sands in Alberta ans Saskatchewan. Further, he is alarmed at the adverse impacts on the downstream communities,water use,etc, etc.

    ps. this was typed using my iPad’s built in keypad — what a pain!

  45. Alex Avery- I find it fascinating you would assume I am censoring you without any real evidence of it besides having to wait a little while. Here’s the reality: I have an automatic spam filter that lets some comments through and puts others in moderation, and sometimes I don’t check it for an hour or more while I do other things in my life.

    But now do you see how easy it is to spin a little misunderstanding into a big conspiracy when you don’t have all the facts? Feel free to take away any lesson here you might find.

  46. MikeC

    What a sad day it is for Bad Astronomy.

    You should have stuck to hard science and stayed out of the politics. This article exposes you as an “end justifies the means” type of personality; that Gleick’s behavior can somehow be justified by the target of his behavior or that AGW is a noble cause. How unfortunate.

    And this article is going to look even worse if it’s ever concluded that not only was the Heartland Climate Strategy document fake, but that Gleick was the one who fabricated it. That would indicate his recent confession also contained lies. And frankly, the amateur blogger forensics (not to be taken lightly) point to this as a being a strong possibility.

  47. Alex Avery

    Right, that’s why several posts entered after mine were up in minutes while mine sat there for nearly an hour.

    But, having read Discover magazine since I was about 7-8 and sadly watched its scientific integrity slip while it jumped ever deeper into the extreme-green rathole, forgive me for assuming the worst.

    My sincere apologies, Phil!

    Cheers,
    Alex Avery
    Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues

  48. Chris

    @46 Phil
    Really? You expect us to accept your simple logical explanation, when the images we’ve dreamed up in our heads of a vast global conspiracy seem completely impossible. That’s just part of the conspiracy. You want us to think the conspiracy is impossible, but we’ve on to you. Wait, who’s that at my front door. OMG, it someone dressed up as the mailman. Must be one of the foot soldiers to silence me. I’ll be in my bomb shelter. They’ll never take me alive!

  49. llewelly

    Alex, an hour or two wait for a comment with a link in it is normal for this blog (and in fact my earlier post did not appear until it had been in the moderation queue for about an hour). In fact, I’ve had a number of my comments sit in the moderation queue overnight. This sort of thing is a necessary compromise (thanks, advertisers).

  50. Frank Ch. Eigler

    Gleick is not in a position to say that *all* the documents are real. All he can say is that the ones he stole from Heartland were faithfully reproduced. He is in no position to know the ancestry of the “anonymously provided” and/or “fake” memo (unless he is dishonest about receiving it from someone else).

  51. Alex is quite impressed with himself that he thinks his viewpoint is so persuasive that it’s being censored by The Man. He might want to consider alternative explanations. And by the way, even if his unproven speculations of the Hadley email theft being an inside job were true, that wouldn’t change the allegation of theft.

    Enough with that distraction. It’s very unfortunate that Gleick didn’t simply publish the original anonymous document, and tell people to take it for what it’s worth. Presumably he expected to be accused of faking it, and decided to get corroborating information. That process didn’t work very well.

    Gleick can help himself somewhat by doing everything he can to prove the original doc was truly sent to him. Most important is if the independent work John Mashey did results in investigations of Heartland et al and corroborates tax law violations.

  52. Alex Avery

    Brian, regardless of your spin, one cannot “steal” something that is already owned by the public. Period. So it’s not unproven speculation, its an indisputable fact.

    More corroborating facts: The Hadley emails (Climategate) were created by scientists on the public dime, at public institutes, massively relevant to pending public policy, and were legally and repeatedly requested under the UK FOIA legislation. Non-disclosure is easily argued a crime. None of us know the truth, but it is completely irrelevant to knowing the legality of all this.

    As Mike Reno stated: This (Phil’s) take on all of this is the most tortured illogical take of all. The only similarity to Climategate in this affair is that is blowing up in the face of the Warmers, not the skeptics.

  53. The term to search is “pretexting” — it’ll surprise you if you’re sure you know what is and isn’t ok.

    And once you understand how common it is, you’ll be better able to protect yourself.

    Has everyone forgotten James O’Keefe so quickly?

    “O’Keefe’s actions have stirred a public debate on what it means to be a journalist and on what constitutes good journalistic practice when false pretenses are used. Andrew Breitbart and other supporters say that O’Keefe is the right wing’s answer to a long line of left-leaning “hybrid troublemakers ….””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

  54. Mark Schaffer

    According to sourcewatch Alex hangs out with some real gems of humanity:
    “In 2006, Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, joined Hudson Institute as a senior advisor. Libby, who was convicted as part of the federal investigation into the Valerie PlameGate affair, became a vice president of the Institute. According to the Hudson Institute’s 2008 IRS Form 990, Libby was paid an annual salary of $187,000, plus $10,755 in benefits.[3] [4] Later, in 2009, the Institute advocated for a presidential pardon for Scooter Libby.[5]” By working for Hudson Alex has forfeited all credibility.

  55. jick

    Those who say Gleick’s action will tarnish climate scientists’ reputation, should take a look back.

    Remember when University of East Anglia’s mail server was illegally hacked and scientists’ private emails were brandished in public like dirty laundry, everybody was shocked at the criminal act, and there was a huge backlash against climate science deniers?

    …Umm, no?

    Me neither.

    The science has been settled ages ago… this is a battle of politics. When the other side doesn’t play nice, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.

    I’m afraid Gleick’s career is now ruined, but if the climate change advocates cannot use this opportunity to paint Heartland Institute and every similar denier “think tanks” in bloody red, it will be a career wasted for nothing.

  56. Actually, Phil, Gleick isn’t saying the suspect memo is real — he’s saying he received it anonymously. He can’t both not know where it came from and know it’s real, and Heartland has in no uncertain terms said it’s fake. Of course, a number of other peole also analyzed it and think its fake.

  57. Derek

    This is a very interesting thread, and startlingly similar to what happened last time. Particularly given the blatant credulity and strange double-think that is shared by the late arrivals.

    Phil, do you have any kinds of page statistics that can show where posters that arrive here are being redirected from?

  58. Doug Little

    Wow, the deniers are out in force. I’ll be over here with my bucket of popcorn.

    Everyone seems to be wrapped up in the legality of his actions to confirm the anonymous information sent to him but no one addressing the actual information he has somewhat confirmed. Dirty, despicable possibly illegal, trick… yes, does it change the content of the information… no. Like Brian mentions above, we could possibly have another independent verification of the same information shortly, everybody is just going to have to slowly back away from the keyboard and wait it out.

  59. ron

    ha ha ha “ruined his career.” why arent the people always wrong about everything who have careers in denialism and being well paid shills for a well orchestrated disinformation campaigns ever ruined?

  60. Alex Avery

    Right Mark, avoid the relevant question and attack the messenger. That’s great argumentation!

    Now, back to the issue: how can public property be stolen? Distract, spin, deny — and you accuse us of these tactics!!! How rich.
    Alex Avery

  61. Sledge

    Heartland Institute: “Pay no attention to the reality behind the curtain!”

  62. shunt1

    Phil posted this above:

    “Recently, internal documents leaked from the far-right group revealed their antiscience agenda, including their funding strategy, donor list, and most startlingly a paper outlining their strategy to “dissuade teachers from teaching science.”

    STRATEGY TO “DISSUADE TEACHERS FROM TEACHING SCIENCE.”


    Follow the links that Phil posted to support his statement. Was that not the one that was FAKED?

    What exactly did Phil use as his documentation?


    “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.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20(3).pdf


    Now what was the heading of that FAKED document?

    January 2012
    Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

    So, was this the FAKED document that Phil was using as his reference?


    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.


    I noticed how Phil likes to quote himself as a form of documentation, since most people do not take the time to follow the links back to the primary source.

    Shame Phil, shame. I expected better from you.

  63. First off, I fully believe that climate change is happening largely due to human activity. I am not a denier in the slightest and think those who are generally do so not because of the science, but because it fits better with their political ideology or they are simply misinformed—probably a combination of the two–and those groups are unfortunately shouting from the rooftops trying to misinform others too.

    That being said, the usage of someone else’s name was a poor move on Peter’s part. While I understand that Peter desperately wanted to validate the legitimacy of the documents he received anonymously and while his intentions may have been noble, I fear that this will not help folks recognize that climate change for what it is (real) and that Heartland and similar organizations are working against legitimate science because now there is a completely separate issue to focus on.

    Like it or not, the media loves controversy. The notion of a scientist using social engineering to verify the documents has become the issue because it’s provocative. Sure, the content of the email messages makes Heartland look like the crappy organization they are and that SHOULD be the core issue, but their behavior is not nearly as sexy as “OMG, UNETHICAL DR. EVIL SCIENTIST HAX THE GIBSON AND IS IN UR BASE STEALING YOUR DOODS.”

    In regard to earlier comments about the lack of a backlash surrounding deniers and their hacking role in “climategate”…the right wing is remarkably good at putting out and framing messages. Rove et al are masters at their craft… manipulation and persuasion are their paint brushes and they paint pretty frakking well. The news networks are also so poor at critical analysis and are so worried about appearing “liberal” that I fully expect this to receive substantial coverage regardless of the message’s lack of legitimacy.

    Anyway, I suspect the deniers will not go quietly into the night on this and get back to focusing on the science because that is precisely the area where they know they will lose (simply because climate science overwhelming supports climate change). Their team can now point to a particular person’s action–Peter’s social engineering— where a scientist did something that was, in my view, wrong, and attempt to erroneously use it as evidence of fraud and poor ethics in climate science by association or something. Certainly it’s fallacious and not indicative of contemporary scientific processes, but that unfortunately doesn’t matter in media. What matters is the resulting perception and interpretation by the public (and eyeball volume, of course). :(

  64. shunt1

    Now lets look closely at what the FAKED document actual said:

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

    ………

    Phil claimed that this documented that the Heartland Institute has a STRATEGY TO “DISSUADE TEACHERS FROM TEACHING SCIENCE.”

    In actuality (even if not faked) that document was saying the exact opposite. For way too long, students have been shown only one side of the debate and are not being taught about the actual scientific questions involved. That is not science, because true scientific research is nothing but asking questions.

    Teachers are being dissuaded from teaching anything other that the “official party line” and are often afraid to ask simple science related questions today.

    It is time for a free and open debate with all of the scientists involved. Why are so many people terrified of sharing data and openly discussing the challenges and unknowns in understanding Earth’s climate?

  65. Derek

    No, that’s the one that the Heartland institute claims was faked. There is no reason to believe their claims, especially given their long history of dishonesty and obvious self-interest in the matter.

    I’m surprised that this form of PR seems to be working with some of the credulous masses:

    “Yes, these documents appear to be real.”
    “Even the ones that make you look really bad?”
    “Um, wait, no. Any that make us look bad, those were faked. Yeah, definitely faked.”
    “But everything else is real.”
    “Right, everything is real except the stuff that makes us look bad. That stuff was faked. Obviously.”

  66. brett

    Climategate emails gave us a peak at some of the character traits of our ethically valiant but persecuted climate luminaries.
    Gleick’s Fakegate and confession simply confirmed this with a particular, unequivical case. Gleick great man of “ethical standards in science.” Themis weeps bitter tears.
    And in Phil’s tortured defense of unethical,criminal behaviour, well….
    Phil your scepticism is limited by your own powerful confirmation bias (meaning you actually lack true scepticism). You will fall for it all,hook,line and sinker if it conforms to your template of evil deniers. Steven Mosher who is an advocate of AGW ( if not the catastrophic kind) had pegged the strategy document as most likely faked,gave the technical reasons why, and because of the style and language used had also pegged Gleick as the likely author, and all on the first day.
    Unfortunately by nailing your colours to this shabby and splintered mast, you do your own reputation no good service. I thought much more highly of you. No longer.

  67. Dutch Railroader

    @shunt1

    That is not science, because true scientific research is nothing but asking questions.

    No, science is about answering the questions. A very startling truth of science is that is does answer questions, and once having done so, moves on. If you want to buck the consensus, you had better be rock solid about it and bring something new to the table, and not old matters decided long ago.

    Teachers are being dissuaded from teaching anything other that the “official party line” and are often afraid to ask simple science related questions today.

    There is only one political party that has an official line on AGW, and it is to declare it to be fraudulent. No scientist objects to simple questions. In the case of AGW there is an abundance of web sites with good information. AGW is very simple to understand.

    It is time for a free and open debate with all of the scientists involved. Why are so many people terrified of sharing data and openly discussing the challenges and unknowns in understanding Earth’s climate?

    The scientists involved would be those directly studying the climate. They agree at the 98% level that AGW is real. They have endlessly engaged honest skeptics over the years to the extent that there is strong consensus among scientists that work in related fields that AGW is real. They are tired, however, of interacting with those who will not listen and will not engage them honestly.

  68. Sean Lynch

    All of this adds to the political debate, the confusion and the mis-information.

    This does nothing to further the the study of human impact on the environment and climate. If you are a conservative who supports business (for instance agri-business), you should be interested in human impact on the environment, and on climate. If you are a liberal interested in protecting the environment, you should be interested in the testing of actual solutions before large scale implementation.

    Stunts like this will likely just convince the political factions on either side of their own correctness and and further impede actual research into impact and, if needed, solutions.

    Obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/263/
    (make sure you read the mouse-over text)

  69. shunt1

    63. Derek Says:

    As I said above, even if not faked, it is a good idea for teachers to be presented with the current knowns and unknowns in our understanding of Earth’s climate and not be afraid to ask questions.

    That is what science is all about.

    Do I need to post Dr. Gleick’s confession?

    …………

    But most important of all, I expected better from Phil.

  70. Wzrd1

    @44 Mickey Reno, I agree fully with you on all points save one, he didn’t commit identity theft under the current legal definition (I checked it earlier), but he DID commit wire fraud, which is a federal felony.

    I’ll also say, whenever I’ve commented on the content of the documents, I NEVER commented on the strategy document, as that was the ONLY document that was specifically denied by Heartland and many have described it as “written by a bored teen” in writing style, which is something NOT normally considered coming from a “think tank”. If one wishes to damn them, use the REST of the content. Or better yet, obey the law. YOUR viewing illegally obtained documents is equal in the court to your using known stolen property, then returning it to the thief. It’s called accessory after the fact.
    Which is precisely WHY I have not viewed those documents. If *I* break ethical codes, my career in information security is forever gone, as I cannot be trusted. My government security clearance would be gone as well, for the same reason.

    @Alex Avery, I was going to be polite and ignore you, but…
    You claim that all scientists are paid for by the taxpayer. WRONG! MANY are privately funded, university funded (here in the US, the government doesn’t own universities) and many participating in global climate change research are FOREIGN, hence we don’t pay in tax dollars or in any other way for that research. Or are you of the opinion that the US owns Finland, England, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and many, many more nations who have scientists, both THEIR HOME GOVERNMENT PAID FOR OR PRIVATE FUNDED?
    If you believe the latter, you are hopeless. Especially as the EU just rebuffed the US overtures requesting the EU get rid of the carbon tax on aircraft landing in EU nations.
    Your extreme right shrill screams are ignored and marginalized as much as the extreme left shrill screams are ignored and marginalized. For good reason, you only make a spectacle, yet offer no cogent argument to support your point, other than pointing fingers and calling names. Interestingly enough, names that the communists called the educated during their “cultural revolution”, where all books were burned in the universities and libraries.
    Try using reason over accusation for a change. Try producing EVIDENCE to support your argument.

  71. Mickey Reno

    57. Derek Says: This is a very interesting thread, and startlingly similar to what happened last time. Particularly given the blatant credulity and strange double-think that is shared by the late arrivals. Phil, do you have any kinds of page statistics that can show where posters that arrive here are being redirected from?

    58. Doug Little Says: Wow, the deniers are out in force.

    I’m sure I fit into your little stereotypical view of things, so I’ll answer this. You’re both correct if you intend to say that some non-regular folks are posting here. I’m not a regular contributor on this board. I have visited it before, and found it pretentious and tendentious in it’s approach to complex scientific questions. And so I don’t visit here often. I also occasionally frequent many other blogs, and occasionally I’ll post if they don’t require registration.

    It’s also true that you would call me a “denier” although I don’t think of myself as a denier. But okay, as shorthand, that’s fine, call me whatever you want, if it fits with your narrative of who’s right and who’s wrong, who’s superior, who’s inferior. I’m really very okay with such knee jerk reactions in this regard. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why, and I truly hope they will make the effort. So, end of story, new posters, CAGW deniers, game over, thoughts stopped, right?

    Well, no. I’m actually here to help you. I’m here to give you the opportunity that Phil did not give you, the chance to see that a very bad thing is happening to your side of “the cause.” I want to help you understand it and think about it more deeply, more circumspectly. If you don’t want to, fine. Quit reading now. I tried. I failed. I can live with my failure in not breaking through to you. Go on to the next post.

    … still here?…

    Okay, you’re still reading. That’s good. Let me tell you my history of interest in this story. I’ve followed this story very closely since it broke on the 15th. I first read about it last week on Climate, Etc (Dr. J. Curry’s blog) and have been following carefully since. Her measured take on this is not kind to Dr. Gleick, either, BTW. I’ve followed the document forgery deconstruction on WUWT. Stephen Mosher has done an amazing bit of sleuthing. If any climate scientist wanted a guy in his or her corner, that would be a good guy to get. I’m aware of, and appalled by the work of the NCSE in the area of Climate Change. I’m aware that Dr. Gleick was to have started in the role of chairing it’s board of directors next week (UPDATE since this morning’s post: Gleick has resigned from his new position at NCSE, as I had speculated in my post above. Instant cred for me, right? ;-) Um, actually he was fired, but you know how academicians are never formally fired, right? They’re allowed to resign, quietly. Anyway, that’s a bit of my history of following this story.

    Now I’ll explain how I came here today. This morning I did a simple Google search for “Peter Gleick Heartland” and in adjacent search hits I saw these three headlines:

    Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents – Forbes
    Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate … – NY Times
    Heartland leaker is scientist Peter Gleick, says … – Discover.com

    That’s pretty amazing, isn’t it? Do you notice how the headlines go from Stealing to Deceit to Leak? That headline list speaks volumes, at least it does to a person who doesn’t want to be fed a bunch of propagnadistic crap. I read all three sites. The spin of each was exactly as you’d expect based on reading the headlines. And I fully expected to see spin when I got here. But even with that expectation, I was surprised at how MUCH of the story Phil left out in his article. I mean, I know he want’s to help out his side, but when you leave out critical chunks of damaging truth, I really think you’re intentionally screwing your own readers. Aren’t you? I mean, if you’d read Phil’s story and then went over to WUWT or Climate Etc, and aped his crap, they would laugh you into next week, proving once and for all times, that time travel really is possible (that was a little levity to break up all the cognitive dissonance you’re probably feeling right now). Anyway, as Phil had dismissed outright theft and fraud, magically turning it into a minor little “leak” while completely failing to bring up the forged “2012 Strategy Memo” which caused most of the headlines in DeSmog and TheGuardian articles when this story first broke, I really felt like I had to put in my $0.02 worth, and so I did.

    I hope I’ve given the readers here a chance to learn that there IS a forged document in the bundle of HI docs, that this forged document is the one that has been hyped by DeSmogBlog and the Guardian. And now Revkin and some of those who’s reputations are on the line are looking a bit sheepish, maybe a little worried that their reputations will be sullied by going along with the fakery and thieving. And remember, it’s a good thing to distance onesself from bad behavior when you’re in a political debate/battle in which you actually want to win people over to your side.

    And now I leave you with the hope that you’ll demand from Phil a more objective take on such issues in the future. Help him, no, demand from him, a blog about science issues that hasn’t devolved into a cheap version of the Daily KOS; speaking of which, I also visited there to see what spin they’d apply to this story. Phil P. can take some heart. His spin on this story is now the 2nd worst.

  72. shunt1

    65. Dutch Railroader Says:

    Hey, do you have a video of this fictional scientific debate that was televised and presented to the public. Who were the scientists involved in this fictional debate where all sides were allowed to present their data and analysis?

    Who are those scientists at the 98% level that agreed with the concept of catastrophic global warming which will destroy the Earth and we are at an actual tipping point?

    I noticed how you like to confuse the terms. I do not know of anyone on both sides of the debate that does not agree that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age.

    The debate is about those pesky little details used in the computer models.

    How were the parameters obtained?
    Were they actually measured or estimated?
    What raw data was used and can the analysis be reproduce?

    Valid questions that all teachers should learn about.

    Unless, you want to hide something….

  73. Wayne2

    #63: Um, Derek, have you read the “claimed fake” document? It’s obviously different in style and substance from all the other documents. It contains Gleick-isms. It puffs Gleick, while denigrating some of his opponents. It contains the phrase “dissuade teachers from teaching science” which would never be written from a skeptic: they believe AGW is NOT science, yet the phrase implies the opposite.

    It’s obvious that the document was written by Gleick, from his viewpoint that skeptics are idiots and fools (or worse). He’s only confessed now because several websites saw this and pointed the finger at him, so he’s trying to take a bullet where he wants it instead of where it’s aimed.

  74. No smoke and mirrors

    There is zero evidence that the documents are real, simple speculation. Yet Phil you continue to jump ahead with no proof at all. One word describes this sort of behaviour: Fanaticism.

    #63 “There is no reason to believe their claims…” Yeeees you are absolutely right, there is always reason to believe the ones on your side no matter what they do. It is always the “Others” who are wrong, not us, we never do anything wrong, we are always 100% right, the Others are deniers and liars and give cigarettes to their babies and get money from big oil and are very well funded. We are righteous and doing the good thing, it is the others who will burn in the fires of global warming.
    You warmists are nuts!
    If it sounds like religion and looks like religion, then it probably is religion. Over and out.

  75. CB

    I like how shunti says that even if the document was real it says the opposite of “dissuade teachers from teaching science”, even though it explicitly says it’s using techniques shown to be effective in dissuading teachers from science.

    But that’s because in Bizzaro Land, dissuading teachers from teaching science is the opposite of dissuading teachers from teaching science. And teaching the manufactured non-controversies instead of the actual scientific evidence and issues is the same as teaching good science — even though that’s explicitly not the stated goal anyway.

    I’m really impressed with the level of shilling going on, by the way. Besides regular trolls there’s a whole slew of new, suspiciously similar ones. Good job Heartland (or whoever has been contracted for this work). And I’m sorry for those whose paycheck depends on this. Jobs a job in this economy, though, am I right?

    I can certainly agree with the document that getting teachers to see an issue as controversial is a good way to dissuade them from teaching it. In particular it only matters that the parents see it as controversial — or more likely, see what the teacher would have taught as un-controversially offensive and wrong. Like my friend’s wife who teaches in a small town in Texas, and completely avoids the issue of evolution simply because she knows the parents and knows how that would play. Sad, but true.

  76. Public Property Theft

    Alex Avery, are you seriously unaware how public property can be stolen? Go to the park and take a bench home. Take the slide and move it to the backyard for your kids. Distract & spin indeed. And if your next claim is that physical property is different than intellectual property explain the point of FOIA. There is a process for attaining this material, going outside of that legal process is illegal theft. Don’t believe me, try to illegally acquire NIH emails, and then do what Gleick did and announce publicly you were the one who acquired without permission said emails and use as your defense that it is public property.

  77. shunt1

    71. CB Says:

    So, your view of teaching science is to never present anything that may challenge the official “party line” and any raw data or analysis which may conflict with it should be hidden from the teachers?

    How did Eugenics work out for you?

    Eugenics is the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”, usually referring to the manipulation of human populations.

    Sorry, but I will always ask questions, like a true scientist.

    Now back to your quote:

    “even though it explicitly says it’s using techniques shown to be effective in dissuading teachers from science.”

    Heartland was formed to do the exact opposite!

    How is sharing new knowledge an effective method of dissuading teaching science? Please explain your logic here, because I honestly fail to understand it.

  78. Victor

    This situation isn’t pretty, and AWG deniers are just trying to use it as “evidence” that AWG proponents are untrustworthy. Never mind that the deceiver outed himself, what he did was not particularly illegal, or the fact that the documents he obtained reveal a systematic attempt by the Heartland Institute to deliberately obfuscate the majority conclusion of global warming science. Never mind the fact that a major source of publicity for the Heartland Institute in the past has been the publication of stolen email data ala Climategate.

    So my questions here are simple: what evidence would it take for a denier to be convinced of the basic hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming? What would it take for you (climate change denier) to get on board with the majority opinion of climate scientists?

  79. CB

    I like how teaching the real evidence and issues of science becomes never teaching anything but the ‘party line’. Funnily enough, the party line includes the actual current questions in the state of the art of science — because it’s true science, and in true science sincere informed questions are welcome. Manufactured insincere questions that have already been answered long ago and trail drastically behind real science should not be taught as if the alternative answers deserve equal time.

    It’s as though teachers are talking about cosmology and the many legitimate questions that exist — how do we explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, why is the visible universe dominated by matter and not antimatter — and you are upset that they are teaching all this as though the issue of helio- vs geo-centrism has been resolved!

    The cads! All the totally legitimate questions to the “party line” of heliocentrism are being ignored! Why if only they were true scientists like you, fully uninformed of the facts and willing to ask any question without figuring out if it has already been answered!

    By the way, whatever Heartland was formed to do — and I see no reason to take their stated goal at face value — what they’ve actually done is to run disinformation campaigns designed to create controversy where none existed before on behalf of whoever pays them, like by denying the link between second hand smoke and health risks on behalf of the tobacco industry.

    Meanwhile, real scientists asking real questions do real science.

  80. ND

    shunt1 says: “So, your view of teaching science is to never present anything that may challenge the official “party line” and any raw data or analysis which may conflict with it should be hidden from the teachers?”

    Challenging arguments need to have actual merit. Just because an opposing idea exists does not mean it should be taught. Please see intelligent design as a contrary idea that is rightfully not taught in schools because it has no scientific merit.

    The other issue is that schools are not the scientific arena where science is settled. Pushing alternate ideas (which may or may not turn out to be correct) into high schools turns schools into battlegrounds. It makes no sense to me from the get go. High schools should be teaching well established science. As paradigm shifts occur in the world of science, high school curriculum will get updated.

  81. Neil

    After reading these comments, what I already knew is confirmed. Climate change deniers are nothing more than babbling ignoramuses who will never, ever change their minds no matter what. I’m now convinced that none of you are even capable of changing your tiny little minds, since your anti-science faith and faux-skepticism (meaning, fanatical inability to admit when you are wrong, ever) are such big parts of your personalities.

    With little to no evidence, you have all parroted, again and again, as fact, that the climate gate emails must have come from an inside source. Not only that, but that said inside source was trying to “out” some kind of fraud. None of you even consider that even if it was an inside source, maybe the motivation was simply to clear the air and show that nothing was wrong. Nope, you jump straight to “inside source, whistle blower, and scientific fraud….all with ZERO EVIDENCE. Your claims of “skepticism” fall flat right there.
    You all make grand claims of some great climate conspiracy, with ZERO EVIDENCE.

    Now, something quite similar happens, only this time a known anti-science propaganda outlet is the victim. Instead of taking a cautious, skeptical view, every last one of you jumps to the exact opposite conclusions, again, on little or no evidence one way or the other. Everyu last one of you immediately crows about how the ethical ramific

  82. Neil

    After reading these comments, what I already knew is confirmed. Climate change deniers are nothing more than babbling ignoramuses who will never, ever change their minds no matter what. I’m now convinced that none of you are even capable of changing your tiny little minds, since your anti-science faith and faux-skepticism (meaning, fanatical inability to admit when you are wrong, ever) are such big parts of your personalities.

    With little to no evidence, you have all parroted, again and again, as fact, that the climate gate emails must have come from an inside source. Not only that, but that said inside source was trying to “out” some kind of fraud. None of you even consider that even if it was an inside source, maybe the motivation was simply to clear the air and show that nothing was wrong. Nope, you jump straight to “inside source, whistle blower, and scientific fraud….all with ZERO EVIDENCE. Your claims of “skepticism” fall flat right there.
    You all make grand claims of some great climate conspiracy, with ZERO EVIDENCE.

    Now, something quite similar happens, only this time a known anti-science propaganda outlet is the victim. Instead of taking a cautious, skeptical view, every last one of you jumps to the exact opposite conclusions, again, on little or no evidence one way or the other. Everyu last one of you immediately crows about how the ethical ramific

  83. Ron1

    65.   shunt1 Said: “Why are so many people terrified of sharing data and openly discussing the challenges and unknowns in understanding Earth’s climate?”

    “……………..

    Where have you been since the seventies (like about the first time the global warming discussion arising from the Venus missions was first extrapolated to earth by James Hansen and others)?

    The data and the issues have been debated ad-nauseous since then, and publicly to boot. So Mr. scientist (?), where’s the beef? Citations please for your paranoid statement about a lack of discussion.

    Oh, and do you have a personal hate on for Phil or something? Sure sounds like it.

  84. Victor

    I like PZ Myer’s take on this:
    “You can’t on one hand condemn Gleick for asking for the information and getting it handed to him, while praising hackers for breaking into a server and illegally taking data.”
    ~via Pharyngula

  85. shunt1

    @80. ND Says:

    You do have some good arguments and I honestly want to understand your logic.

    “Challenging arguments need to have actual merit. Just because an opposing idea exists does not mean it should be taught.”

    I agree, but if nobody is allowed to view or evaluate those arguments, then who will ever know which ones are valid?

    That is why I have always called for open and honest debate, with a full disclosure of the raw data and methods of analysis.

    High schools should be teaching well established science. As paradigm shifts occur in the world of science, high school curriculum will get updated.

    We do agree on that subject. High schools should not be the battleground.

    My battle is with those who are dictating the official “party line” and refuse to have open and honest scientific debates.

    As for those who keep yelling “ZERO EVIDENCE” I have to ask them a simple question? How do you know that there is “ZERO EVIDENCE” if no scientist is allowed to present their alternative raw data and analysis to the public?

    What is science all about? Do we dictate who is officially correct according to the current “party line” or do we simply put the raw data and methods of analysis on the table for everyone to evaluate?

    I vote for the honest and open disclosure of scientific knowledge.

  86. Dutch Railroader

    @ shunt1

    Hey, do you have a video of this fictional scientific debate that was televised and presented to the public. Who were the scientists involved in this fictional debate where all sides were allowed to present their data and analysis?

    This is pretty silly, if this is what you are calling for. In astrophysics, which I can speak to, debates happen in the literature, endless discussions among colleagues at conferences, by email, and other venues. I’ve seen any number of consensus conclusions arrived at this way. What we don’t do is stand up in formal presidential-like debates. I’ve seen it done once in a professional setting, and it was incredibly stupid.

    Who are those scientists at the 98% level that agreed with the concept of catastrophic global warming which will destroy the Earth and we are at an actual tipping point?

    Sorry, who said anything like that? No scientist as ever said that the earth would be destroyed by AGW. The 98% refers to the fraction of climate scientists who believe that AGW has been demonstrated, and that’s as far as it goes. Where the tipping point is, what will happen when and if it is reached are all highly uncertain, and there is no consensus on these problems. However, these are real possibilities, and it would be profoundly irresponsible for climate scientists not to advance them prior to 99.9999% certitude.

    The debate is about those pesky little details used in the computer models.

    How were the parameters obtained?
    Were they actually measured or estimated?
    What raw data was used and can the analysis be reproduce?

    Valid questions that all teachers should learn about.

    I have been able to find answers to these questions myself at the level that interests me from a variety of sources on the web, and in some cases by reading the primary literature. Have at it…

  87. shunt1

    @83. Ron1 Says:

    “The data and the issues have been debated ad-nauseous since then, and publicly to boot.”

    Please provide us some links to actual videos of those public debates! I would love to watch them.

    *CRICKETS*

  88. ND

    shutn1 “It is time for a free and open debate with all of the scientists involved. Why are so many people terrified of sharing data and openly discussing the challenges and unknowns in understanding Earth’s climate?”

    Which data? Are you talking about the raw data which you can get yourself from the original sources, without going through the climatologists themselves?

  89. shunt1

    @85. Dutch Railroader Says:

    You just said exactly what I have been trying to say for years now!

    “No scientist as ever said that the earth would be destroyed by AGW. The 98% refers to the fraction of climate scientists who believe that AGW has been demonstrated, and that’s as far as it goes. Where the tipping point is, what will happen when and if it is reached are all highly uncertain, and there is no consensus on these problems.”

    Sometimes it feels like I am talking to little children. I make a simple statement that 98% of the scientists do not agree with CAGW and I get attacked for being absolutely ignorant.

    On the contrary, I know exactly what they agreed to and those of us labeled as “deniers” never argued with such a simple fact.

    As I said, the debate is about those pesky little details that are so vital to the computer climate models.

  90. Ron1

    @84 shunta1

    Who, other than Republican controlled school districts, are dictating party lines, (ie. ID, revisionist history, American exceptionalism, denying AGW, etc)?

    Me thinks you need to step back from your partisan myopia and broaden you world view a wee bit, you know, apply those critical scientific thinking skills.

  91. shunt1

    @89. ND Says:

    “Which data? Are you talking about the raw data which you can get yourself from the original sources, without going through the climatologists themselves?”

    Yup! The raw data as recorded at the weather stations before it was “adjusted” by the climatologists.

    A thermometer is an extremely simple instrument to calibrate. Original records are available without those “adjustments” which are highly debated.

    I work from the original data as it was recorded. If a historical thermometer in a museum is found to be out of calibration, then that is a valid adjustment.

  92. Ron1

    Shunta1

    As a scientist, you of all people should know exactly how to access all the data, all the publications, everything. Further, you also know that your comment about video was simply stupid.

  93. Chris Winter

    “In the NYT blog Dot Earth, journalist Andrew Revkin has already said Gleick’s reputation is ruined and his credibility destroyed…”

    He’s said a lot more than that.

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

    Dr. Gleick’s deception was ill-advised, to be sure. It was unethical and possibly illegal. His reputation is tarnished, and may be ruined, depending on what he does to make amends. But I don’t think this will set back the overall progress of our side much. It hardly compares in magnitude to the long-standing program of deception Heartland has been a part of.

    In particular, I think Mr. Revkin has greatly overstated the impact of Dr Gleick’s rash action.

  94. Ron1

    @93 Shunta1

    For someone claiming to be so intelligent you’re really coming across as daft. For example, I’ve already previously responded to your stupid comment about the weather stations, how we now use IR satellite imagery to gather surface thermal data and I provided you with an overview of how it works — and you’re still repeating your drivel.

    I think you just like to listen to yourself.

  95. Neil

    My bad, please delete previous comment!

    After reading these comments, what I already knew is confirmed. Climate change deniers are nothing more than babbling ignoramuses who will never, ever change their minds no matter what. I’m now convinced that most of you are not even capable of changing your tiny little minds, since your anti-science zealotry and faux-skepticism (meaning, fanatical inability to admit when you are wrong, ever) are such big parts of your pathetic personalities.

    With little to no evidence, you have all parroted, again and again as fact, that the climate gate emails must have come from an inside source. Not only that, but that the inside source was trying to “out” some kind of fraud. None of you even consider that even if it was an inside source, maybe the motivation was simply to clear the air and show that nothing was wrong, since there was nothing at all damning in all those pages upon pages of emails. Nope, you jump straight to “inside source, whistle blower, and massive scientific fraud….all with ZERO EVIDENCE. Your claims of “skepticism” fall flat right there.

    Now, something quite similar happens, only this time a well-known anti-science propaganda outlet with a well-documented history of bald-faced lying for profit is the victim. Instead of taking a cautious, skeptical view, every last one of you jumps to the exact opposite conclusions, again, on little or no evidence one way or the other. You all immediately decide that at least the one paper must be fake, that the fact that it was mostly a composite of known, real papers and known facts somehow doesn’t matter at all, and crowing about how the ethical ramifications of ONE INDIVIDUAL’s actions must reflect on the whole of climate science, while paying not one bit of attention to the mountain of obvious evidence that “climate science skeptics” are full of horsepuckey and driven solely by political and financial concerns.

    You all claim some kind of massive grand conspiracy of scientists, politicians, and environmental groups all around the world with ZERO EVIDENCE, yet you yawn and hand-wave away the well-known fact that pretty much every anti-science group that denies climate science has an obvious political agenda, does absolutely no scientific research, and constantly lies, misrepresents facts, and use the same debunked talking points again and again to fool the ignorant.

    You all seem to think that by ignoring the obvious and constantly crowing and braying, you are superior skeptics…it’s sad and pathetic really, and the only motivation I can see is that you all like to feel superior to others, you have an irrational and rabid hatred for environmentally aware people, and love it when you can try to pass yourselves off as “smarter than the experts”. It sounds like most of you have swallowed WAY too much right-wing propaganda, and gotten used to the flavor of bulls**t. I bet the phrase “dihydrogen monoxide” makes you all giggle like little kids, and makes you feel so much smarter than all those liberals and hippies and greenies and warmists.

    I know that the idea of being responsible for one’s actions, or moderating one’s behavior for the benefit of others is unacceptable to modern libertarians and conservatives (the bulk of deniers), and I know that your pathetic need to be seen as some kind of standard-bearer for truth and reality is a big motivator, but really guys…could you just quit lying so much? It makes your complete lack of both knowledge and morality disturbingly, disgustingly clear.

    Or then again, maybe you should keep at it. Many of us are quite smart enought to see your constant braying and name-calling for what it is…pathetic, and having aboslutely nothing to do with the science of the issue.

  96. Ron1

    @97 Neil

    A tip-o-the-hat to you.

    Cheers

  97. Victor

    @Shunta86 How do you know that there is “ZERO EVIDENCE” if no scientist is allowed to present their alternative raw data and analysis to the public?

    This is a profoundly disingenuous statement. AWG denier scientists have been presenting their alternative data sets, however their methods of analysis or the way they frame their conclusions are always lacking, and better scientists have caught onto this.

    @Shunta93 Yup! The raw data as recorded at the weather stations before it was “adjusted” by the climatologists.

    I’m pretty sure this statement is a load of conspiracy-minded bat guano… and I love it! Keep bringing the crazy and I’ll remain entertained on my work shift.

  98. shunt1

    @84. Ron1 Says:

    I admire and respect Phil Plait and consider his the best source of astronomy new on the internet.

    But sometimes we have to keep him honest…

    …..

    Still waiting to view all those debate videos by the scientists, that the public was able to watch…

    *CRICKETS*

    As for raw data as recorded at the weather stations before it was “adjusted” by the climatologists:

    What the heck did you think Climategate was all about? It originated from a FOIA request for the original raw data as recorded at the weather stations.

    They no longer have the raw data and everything in their historical database is nothing but “value added” adjusted data.

    Do I actually have to provide you with the quotations from the people involved?

    Sometimes, I do wonder if anyone is paying attention.

  99. Wzrd1

    @86 shunt1, do learn how to read. 85 Dutch Railroader explained that in very small words that all should be able to understand, I most certainly understood it quite well.
    In science there is no debate like some high school debating club, there are papers, presentations, articles, e-mails, conferences and even telephone calls to discuss current findings, theories and experiments. Not some silly debate, which proves nothing, as one cannot present massive tables, formulae and complex models at a debating podium. You only exhibit your willful ignorance for all to see, to our disgust.
    BTW, private groups, labs or individuals are not subject to the FOIA. Nor are foreign groups, labs or individuals or even foreign government labs, the FOIA is a US LAW and the US DOES NOT RULE THE WORLD. A fair amount of the data used to determine global temperatures comes from the UK MET. Their data is open to all, their labs and scientists, not. A US citizen cannot FOI the UK for such, a UK citizen can. Just as a UK citizen cannot FOIA anything from the US, a US citizen can. Magnify that times Russia’s weather departments, Finland, a dozen other nations and your “cut and dry” FOIA claim falls flat on its face as a fallacy, as data from ONLY US sources and measurements would be a partial data set. Note the word GLOBAL in the term GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE or even GLOBAL warming.

    72. Mickey Reno, I agree with you on many points (see my first two posts), yet disagree in part in others. Per Phil’s own words “…This is an interesting situation, to say the least. I’ll note that faking an identity is not necessarily wrong or illegal. And if there is a greater moral good involved, like exposing dirty dealings on issues that have a major impact on people’s lives — say — it might even be understandable. On the other hand, if he impersonated someone real, then this may be a situation of identity theft. There’s also the question of whether he did everything he could to find out the veracity of the documents before taking the path he did. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t have all the information, so I don’t really have an opinion on this. On the other hand I have very little doubt that how people come down on this point will depend very strongly on where they stand on the reality of climate change.”
    In THAT, Phil shocked me. Phil obviously does not understand the law, which he DID admit, but Gleick ADMITTED to using the identity of an employee of Heartland for the express purpose of unlawfully (and I DO mean unlawfully, I’ve watched quite a few folks end up in federal prison over the years for such things) obtaining those documents. It’s quite clear under the federal wire fraud laws, such as 18 USC Chapter 63 for a starting point. The ONLY time that is permitted and I’ve personally done so, is when one is asked to do so as part of penetration testing a network, BY THE NETWORK OWNER. There are a boatload of documents that have to be signed before such efforts begin, to protect both parties and to define the scope of permitted actions and attempts. But then, I’m in information security as a trade. :)
    On the upside, I doubt Heartland would wish to cooperate and risk further document disclosure or admitting to which are valid vs what is not valid and I also outlined how to determine who the author is from said documents.
    THAT said, I DO believe in global climate change and a significant human input into it. I just also heartily believe in the rule of law as well. One does not commit a felony in order to secure information. In short, if I see someone stealing a planter from my yard, I don’t stop them by shooting them with an anti-tank rocket! Indeed, in my area, petty theft is NOT permitted to be stopped by battery, let alone lethal force.
    If one suspects a neighbor of harboring drug addicts and using their home as a drug house, one CANNOT break in to prove it. If one does, one is rightfully arrested and charged with burglary. One finds a LEGAL way to accomplish one’s goals. For, in a lawless pursuit of a goal, when does one stop? Burglary? Torture? Assassination? Thermonuclear destruction?
    Obviously not, therein lays the ethical trap. The lack of obedience of the law.
    And if one pursues such a course, one is suspect forever, for if one failed once in such a blatantly simple manner, one can be assumed to ALWAYS fail. It also taints the trust in the documents. Were I contracted to examine the documents, I could ascertain their source, it’s not that difficult a forensic process. But, I doubt a government agency or Heartland would contract me to examine those documents and to be blunt, I’d not work for Heartland. It would be too easy to fall into an ethical dilemma.

  100. Derek

    @74 Wayne: Yes, I have read the document, and your characterization of it is both ridiculous and untrue.

    I am aware that the basic Heartland strategy is, “repeat a lie loudly enough and often enough, and people will believe it is true” – but it’s sad to see it embraced so thoroughly by people such as yourself.

  101. Ron1

    @100. Shunt1

    Spreading a new lie are you? I certainly did not make that statement and I resent you saying I did, although I really do admire and respect Phil Plait and I do consider his blog one of the best sources of astronomy and geek news, wingnut debunking, general entertainment and progressive thought on the internet.

    Furthermore, while I don’t personally know him, I accept that he is completely honest and, like all humans, he does, on occasion, make mistakes. Forgive me Phil, but, I think he makes geek cool.

    Oh, and you still haven’t provided any citations to support your conspiracy hypothesis, and why not? Oh, because maybe it’s all … in … your …. mind.

  102. ND

    @86. shunt1

    My post @81 was only about teaching alternative ideas and arguments in high schools, which was what you were referring to when you said “teacher” in the quote. Any argument of teaching alternates in high school is all about PR and short circuiting the scientific process.

    Outside of that, where real science is really done, I have no issues with alternates being presented and evaluated. And I believe that does happen. And if an alternate has been rejected, one needs to evaluated the reasoning behind the rejection. Too often I hear people use the very act of rejection to imply something is wrong in a field of science.

  103. Jim Howard

    Phil, whatever creditability you had with me with respect to climate change has been destroyed by this post. You clearly approve of fraud and character assassination when directed against AWG skeptics.

    The AGW religion rewards it’s spokesmen well, so please don’t try and pretend that there isn’t a ton of money to made in propagating your religion and burning heretics.

    It’s clear that that AGW zealots are part of a religion, and a hateful religion at that. If you really had ‘settled science’ (as if there was such a thing) you wouldn’t need to continually engage in slander and crazy conspiracy theories to try to silence honest questions and debate on the data.

  104. ND

    @93. shunt1 Says:
    February 21st, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    @89. ND Says:

    “Which data? Are you talking about the raw data which you can get yourself from the original sources, without going through the climatologists themselves?”

    Yup! The raw data as recorded at the weather stations before it was “adjusted” by the climatologists.
    ———-

    Then go get the raw data yourself! Including the ones that climatologists had to sign an NDA to get. You can sign your own NDA if you need to. If I remember right, some of this data can simply be download off the net (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

    In fact, it sounds like you need to be more interested in how they adjusted and processed the temp data, rather than the data itself. Yes? No?

  105. shunt1

    @104. ND Says:

    You and I are in agreement.

    The rest is nothing but how we mutually define some terms as to the proper way to conduct peer review of scientific literature and the publication process. The very act of rejection does not imply that something is wrong with the research.

    Time for me to take a break.

    I am not a good writer and often have a difficult time expressing myself. However, what I try to say is usually valid and verifiable. If I express myself wrong, then simply ask me to clarify. If I am wrong, then I will admit it.

  106. Derek

    @ 105 Jim Howard:

    “The AGW religion rewards it’s spokesmen well, so please don’t try and pretend that there isn’t a ton of money to made in propagating your religion and burning heretics.”

    Yeah, all those scientists rocking their mansions and porsches. Those guys are just rolling in the dough. Not like those honest, hard working oil executives. *rolls eyes*

  107. Victor

    @Jim Howard105

    Bollocks… who’s the one engaging in slander and crazy conspiracy theories? I’m pretty sure it’s not Phil Plait.

  108. Ron1

    105. Jim Howard

    Oh, cry me a river.

    “AGW zealots are part of a religion” blah, blah blah.

    For crying out loud. At least say something new. Your FOX news pedigree is showing when you spout boilerplate right wing talking points.

    Shunt1 is at least entertaining. You are boring.

  109. Ron1

    107. shunt1 Said, ” … what I try to say is usually valid and verifiable.”

    In your mind. (Like I said, shunt1 IS entertaining.)

    ps. Still waiting on your citations.

  110. shunt1

    “Then go get the raw data yourself! Including the ones that climatologists had to sign an NDA to get. You can sign your own NDA if you need to.”

    Scientists only have to sign an NDA for the “value added” adjusted climate data. Most sources of original raw data can be obtained for free.

    Heck try http://www.wunderground.com/ for today’s original and raw recorded data.

    Think about it…

  111. Tony Mach

    Oh, this is so much fun, watching these climate-hacks shoot themselves in the foot. And the cognitive dissonance! All the apologetic post-hoc reasoning!

    Phil, thanks for the popcorn material!

  112. jearley

    Wow. As a teacher, I am amazed at this. Folks, NO ONE gets to tell me what to teach on this subject. I get occasional emails from the the think tanks, offering to give me free DVDs on Global Warming that present only one view of it. When asked, the companies refuse to state who their donors are, citing privacy. I remove them from my accepted mail list. I want to know who is paying for the propaganda.
    I am a good enough scientist to be able to look at the evidence, at the credentials of the scientists presenting the evidence, and also look at the controversy.
    This is all politics, and not science. I am letting my students see what is going on here as a lesson in how science has gotten policized in this country, and then telling them to look ast the evidence and decide for themselves.
    I am going to keep watching this. I hope that my students use this as a way to really think about science, and how to (hopefully) be ready for the day when they are caught up in a controversy.

  113. Stephen Pruett

    There are very few “deniers” of climate change. Climate always changes, and as far back in time as the evidence can take us it always has. During some of those times CO2 was many-fold more abundant than today, yet life survived. In the last century there have been increases of roughly the same slope as the most recent increase, before CO2 was apparently a major factor. Models do not constitute evidence. They are based on assumptions. The most widely used models today assume positive feedback, but the evidence for positive feedback is minimal and recent peer-reviewed papers suggest negative feedback. The current lack of warming (and before denying, irony intended, that it exists remember it has been discussed online by pro-AGW people and admitted by Phil Jones, among others who are not climate change deniers) has persisted now about half as long as the warming that convinced climate scientists that CO2 was going to kill us all. Papers have been published in climate science that are nothing more than mathematically assisted speculation. I am a scientist in another field (biomedical), and I have never even imagined that anyone would publish a paper in which output from an unvalidated model would be fed into another unvalidated model and the output from that model would fed into a third model and then the output would be used to reach conclusions. What conclusion? That climate change will cause millions of Mexicans to migrate to the U.S. due to decreased crop yields. That’s science?!? Keep in mind this is in spite of the fact that no models are skillful at predicting long term climate on a regional basis, particularly in terms of precipitation, but apparently peer reviewers were not concerned about that. Something very unscientific is indeed occurring in the debate about climate, but the worst of it isn’t coming from the skeptics.

  114. jorge c.

    Megan McArdle writes in The Atlantic as a true journalist, scientist and/or skeptics must do :

    “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?

    When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”
    Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

    Dr.Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate fame said:
    ” Schadenfreude is a cheap thrill: fun but ephemeral. Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished.”
    Link: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/21/climate-wars-reach-new-lows/#comments (Post #30)

    Neither of them are “deniers”…

    Do you all understand?????

    Shame on you Mr. Plait. You are neither a skeptics nor a scientist.

  115. shunt1

    @114. jearley Says:

    That is all that people like me have ever asked…

    Keep an open mind and review all the data that is presented. Take the analysis with a grain of salt, because every scientists (both sides) are trying to justify their own jobs. That is how research is conducted today, so always keep that in mind.

    Perhaps I dream of a return of the hobby scientists like Benjamin Franklin who explored science for their own enjoyment. BTW, Ben Franklin did an outstanding job of recording temperature data.

    Original Ben Franklin weather instruments:

    http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/weather/weather.php?cts=weather-instrumentation-benfranklin

    As a teacher, I wish you the absolute best of luck. Keep things honest and teach your kids what they need to know. They will learn the difference, as kids always do.

  116. mk

    @Shunt1…

    Yikes! I’ve been reading with great interest your part in this thread. And MAN that’s a serious thumping you’re taking. Serious question… at what point do you reconsider the life-stance of obvious willful ignorance? My god, man… take that break you talked about and read something in the literature.

  117. shunt1

    @116. mk Says:

    “Serious question… at what point do you reconsider the life-stance of obvious willful ignorance?”

    Rather difficult for me to reply, when I have no idea what specific item you are talking about. It is almost impossible for me to reply when some of my comments are delayed up to 30 minutes for “awaiting moderation” and anything that I post must be approved first.

    That is why I use the “@116. mk Says:” format, so that people can understand who I was trying to reply to.

    So, with that understanding, perhaps my “life-stance” does sound rather ignorant. But, those are the rules on this blog.

    I debate the science, but try my best to never attack the individual. If I may seemed to do so, then I offer my absolute apology. That is never my intention!

    ….

    “take that break you talked about and read something in the literature.”

    Care to tell me exactly what literature you would like me to read?

    Please provide me the exact published articles that you want me to understand.

    Can I then provide you with published literature in reply to that exact same paper, with fully disclosed data and methods of analysis?

    Would you even read the published literature that I provided as a reply?

    Nope!

    So, who is the ignorant one?

  118. Ron1

    @116. Shunt1

    What published literature are you referring to, Dr Zuess?

    ps. Your comments are under moderation when you include an URL. It’s normal.

  119. shunt1

    @118. Ron1 Says:

    “What published literature are you referring to, Dr Zuess?”

    I have no idea what “@116, mk” was talking about, but he wanted me to read some literature.

    Has my “115. shunt1 Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.” posted at 7:21 pm shown up yet?

    Like I said, it can be difficult to talk about a subject at times…

    And yes, I understand the delay with an included URL. But sometimes, that is the only way that I can provide supporting evidence of what I am talking about.

  120. shunt1

    @119. shunt1 Says:

    I know, those were not the actual instruments that Benjamin Franklin used. Just did a quick look and located weather instruments at the Franklin Institute and thought that they still had his original items.

    I should have read the photo captions a little closer. However, please take a close look at the actual dates of those instruments in the museum.

    Quality weather instruments have been around for a long time and can still be calibrated.

    Oh well, the fact is that Ben Franklin did an outstanding job of recording daily weather data as a “hobby” scientist.

  121. Al Cibiades

    What I find astounding (but unfortunately not unexpected and all too typical) is that anyone who thinks that Al Gore and his climate Agog followers are preaching that ole time religion, seize upon the metadata and ethics of a whistleblower and lambaste him with ad hominem and anti-TRUE science, all the while IGNORING the FACT that Heartland Institute’s OWN web pages include the VERY SAME information as the supposed “fake” documents.
    All these “new documents” did was turn up the visibility on the decepticons.

  122. brett

    Jorge @118 understands and nails it. So does Megan Mcardle http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/.
    and for that matters so does Gavin Schmidt.. and Judith Curry etc. Seems Desmog, Phil Plait and the pom pom girls here do not understand the ethical trainwreck that is Peter Gleick and what he has done.

  123. brett

    Al Cibiades @125 now we have climate ‘decepticons’. Priceless. This site just gets better and better

  124. Daniel Rosa

    I distinctly recall that very few “deniers”, not to say none at all, made a comment about the legality or even the ethics of hacking emails when the whole climategate fake conspiracy thing happened. And now, lo and behold, here they are, bitching about the legality and the morality of Peter Gleick’s actions!

    I can’t think of a better and clearer demonstration of the bad faith of the denier camp.

  125. Al Cibiades
  126. shunt1

    The information is now provided to you.

    http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html

    Teachers:

    “When asked, the companies refuse to state who their donors are, citing privacy. I remove them from my accepted mail list. I want to know who is paying for the propaganda.”

    In this case, you now know those answers with the Heartland Institute!

  127. Wzrd1

    @116. jearley Says, you won’t teach what your STATE tells you to do? You won’t teach what your NATION tells you to? What WILL you teach then?
    Sorry to com down hard on you, but you failed to support your teaching format, equaling yourself with the creationists.
    The state OR nation can DEMAND you teach something, YOU can then ADD other items, until the amoral “majority” outlaws truth. It’s all based upon creativity and forethought.
    Think forward enough, you’ll tangle them in their own underwear and be free to teach REALITY to your students.
    One need only consider the trend of one’s adversary and think forward upon their trends, then thing nasty. Think mad dog mean… OK, done with the brief Clint Eastwood impersonation, never was good at it, was only good at ME. :)
    Teach the students to THINK, there is NOTHING more dangerous than someone who can THINK CREATIVELY.
    As in “think outside of the box”, whateverinhell the box LOOKS like. Never saw it, never want to meet it. I’ll THINK my way out of a problem.
    It worked for over 27 years of military experience in special operations.
    I humbly suggest you consider that notion. :)
    And don’t thank me for my service. I did it so that people like you would not HAVE to do it.
    Or my, at the time, upcoming children, or pretty much anyone else unacquainted with such issues.
    I was and remain rather good at such things, but retired after sufficient dings and dents. I trained many, many, many others to hopefully replace me. If one in five achieves, life is good. If ONE excels, live is wonderful!
    I’ll always honor a teacher. As one who taught advanced life support in sparse environments, advanced electronics, PKI encryption and many other topics, I LOVE those who instruct. When the instructor is creative and pragmatic (adapting to a possible adverse environment and turns it inside out on THEIR rules).

  128. Chris L

    What Gleick did does not in any way invalidate the science behind AGW. It does however, do damage to the credibility of Gleick. If Gleick was willing to lie to get most of the documents in question , it is reasonable for others to conclude he might actually be lying about the source of the first document. He’s hardly a disinterested party after all.

    AGW does not need to be defended with lies. The more Gleick is defended for this, the worse real climate science looks to the general public. Science is about truth, not stupid social engineer games. If you behave like a political operative, people will see you as one.

  129. shunt1

    @129. Wzrd1 Says:

    I will not “thank you for your service”, because you and I understand why that statement is almost an insult to us. Hard to explain, but you and I lived through those times when we were absolutely hated for what we did while defending our country.

    Never allowing a military wife to pay for her groceries, is how we thank our active duty soldiers today. Living in a small town, we knew who they were and that is how we honored them.

    Teachers are very important to us and I agree with what you just posted. Not much more that I could add.

  130. Wzrd1

    @129, Chris L, I cannot agree more!
    Lies deserve zero support. TRUTH supports itself, whether by right of survival of those accepting it or by death of ignominy. The latter can be respected by the dinosaurs and dodo.
    The former are those who respect reality, to include the deleterious effects of stepping off of a tall building onto the streets.
    Gleick fardled up and broke the LAW. May the courts have mercy upon him, I would not.
    Nor would I have upon myself, if I did such a thing.
    We have laws for a damned good reason, it prevents lawlessness. Ignore one law, ignore ALL laws.
    If you REALLY want that, move to Somalia. I’ll give you precise coordinates on where to try to live.
    I’ve ALWAYS respected TRUTH. Even if one admits one screwed up to the tune of millions and I have to give an explanation, no biggie. “I screwed up” is acceptable. Lies, BEYOND unacceptable, as one cannot attempt to improve upon the false premise.
    Indeed, four stars worth of General had to eat crow over a screw-up. I don’t envy the men under him who went above and beyond screw-up or even malfeasance of care of prisoners property.
    I’m quite certain said General will be far more merciful than *I* would have been as the CSM, BEFORE said General learned of the screw-up!
    My entire career was spent building upon, “I screwed up, Sir”, with far more successes. FIXING the “oops” is far more important than trying to bury it.
    But then, I am a graduate of the George S. Patton school of diplomacy. Which was a LAST resort, not a first.
    But then, I consider Obama and his reverse of truth. Where he INITIALLY supported carbon taxes, to only go to the EU yesterday and demand they NOT charge the EU carbon tax upon airlines. TALK about reversal.
    But, such is politics in the US. BOTH parties campaigns are paid for by the same multiple sources.
    And “We The People” are not people, only the lawyers and lobbyists sponsors are people, so the constitution doesn’t count for US. Again, as it was 120 years ago.
    Welcome to the past.
    And the steam engine.

  131. shunt1

    I nominate this as the quote of the day:

    “My entire career was spent building upon, “I screwed up, Sir”, with far more successes. FIXING the “oops” is far more important than trying to bury it.”

    Now that does sound like a CSM!

    Kids, do not even ask…

    ……….

    Sorry, WAY OFF TOPIC – but, kinda!

    This old soldier is talking about our code of ethics.

    You never lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do.

    Of course it would happen, but as Sergeants, it was our duty to provide “individual combat training” behind the barracks in the evening.

    Again kids, do not ask…

  132. Wzrd1

    Shunt1, either you did not learn how to read or I failed to learn how to type.
    I did not want anyone to thank me for my service.
    However, I will NOT accept insult for my service. Ever.
    Indeed, I CAN call, in a court of law, the right of combat, as the US courts has NEVER removed it, nor has the congress. DO you wish that, due to your insult?
    We can try it right this week in the court of Philadelphia, quite near where I live.
    MY service, as was my teams, honorable. There were NO dishonorable acts committed by my teams nor myself, we recorded our actions by satellite and UAV.
    I can’t say the same for YOUR service, IF you served, if you did.
    That you disparage my service and that of my men rather suggests something I was considering, due to your phrasing.
    You are NOT a US citizen. Or born in the US, at least.
    From the use of phrase and use of verbs, I see an Asian mind, indeed, I see one particular nation’s “dialect” (said nation has a fair number of dialects, but only ONE is normally used in external communications).
    Indeed, I had many friends, whist in the Persian Gulf region, from all nations surrounding.
    Of point of interest is your choice of verbiage that transliterates interestingly.
    I just have no idea WHY Iran is interested in screwing up the ENTIRE WORLD.
    Of course, I COULD have misread an inherited phraseology, as I have a rather interesting phraseology that Arabs, even Bedouin respect a lot.
    Either I misread it OR I didn’t, but the tensions and impacts are FAR disparate, if the former suspicion of a student is valid. Would YOU discard your grandchild’s future into the midden?
    My grandchild is a toddler, I’ll NOT discard her future, nor my currently unborn grandchild.
    Nor will I disregard the grandchildren ANYWHERE on this planet.
    Did I and my men do “bad things” in the course of defending my nation?
    At times, I still wake up at nights over one accident that resulted in a 5 year old’s death. My tears and his mother’s tears were pretty much equal. As were my men’s. We ALL had children at the time. We set up a pension for her, quietly.
    Did we defend our nation’s interest? ABSOLUTELY! That was our DUTY.
    Would I come out of retirement to protect my nation? Absolutely, but be warned, I’m not very nice, if that were to come about. INDEED, Doctor Who in his worst is nice compared, I’d NOT have a problem with genocide, to protect my nation and the world. I have a binary thought pattern, right or wrong. No gray.
    It’s worked well over well over 27 years of military service.
    And I HAD to know the social/political/religious framework when going into a nation, due to the nature of our duties. I can STILL raise 27 Bedouin tribes to support me, can YOU?

    However, I AM the voice of reason, until reason fails. I WILL agree mutually, teachers ARE where REALITY lives and teachers should NOT be limited in teaching, save for the physical safety of the students (however, I disagree with SOME schools, who insist upon chemistry without chemicals and use M&M’s! WTF, over! THAT isn’t chemistry, titration is. One only need supervise properly the students, as MY class was, as my wife’s class was! NOT use fardling candy! That teaches three greens and a brown tastes like…!

  133. sHx

    @Steven Pruett #117

    “What conclusion? That climate change will cause millions of Mexicans to migrate to the U.S. due to decreased crop yields. That’s science?!?”

    No. That’s xenophobia disguised as science. You don’t like Mexicans? Fine! You’d better cut down on your CO2 emissions then.

  134. Wzrd1

    sHx, I consider it a valid point, warning AND point for PLANNING, not xenophobia.
    I’d WELCOME the new immigrants, as my grandparents were somewhat welcomed, but eventually accepted..
    For, that is what Liberty Island’s plaque espoused for many generations.
    OR, we destroy that island, along with its associated statue of “liberty” and move on to Fascism, as the nation is currently trying to move toward.
    As for the prediction, that is totally correct, no xenophobia involved.
    I’d simply welcome in the new workers. Those who excel, move to the forward. Those who are scientists are FAR to the forward.
    AND I’d cut down on CO2 emissions, as poop in ANY language is poop…
    Good night all, my wife demands my attentions.

  135. shunt1

    @134. Wzrd1 Says:

    Huh?

    CSM, I was supporting you in every way possible. Please read what I typed once again…

    You and I understand the word “DUTY” and may have to do that once again. We lived by a strict code of conduct and have always followed those rules in our military and personal lives.

    We took an oath that will never be forgotten or ignored.

    The rest is history and we are darn proud of it.

    P.S:

    Give Wzrd1 some slack tonight. Those are deeply held feelings that are hard to express unless you are…

  136. Wzrd1

    shunt1, perhaps I misread your statement, I’ll reconsider it tomorrow, as my wife rather commands my attention abed, as it’s late.
    As for history, I did my duty, some things I’m NOT proud of, as they were not very honorable, my trainers weren’t very proud of things THEY did, as they predicted, rightly, thing current and problematic, such as Iran.
    As a few of those instructors were present when Iran turned into the mess WE created, courtesy of the somewhat recently released Operation Ajax AND I was ALSO trained by the agents that trained the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I have quite a talking point that I cannot discuss, but I’ll suggest it is far from honorable, as the term is defined.
    Indeed, said Afghan agent trained me on Somalia, far before it became the FIRST crisis.
    I sat in Djibouti and drank with an AQ operative, turned out later, that was his habit, to see what he could shake loose. He bought a few, he got nothing, it went well.
    I got home again and retired, to take care of my aged father, who was ignoring congestive heart failure.
    NOW, I have THREE houses, one in debt of my father. On in a bad neighborhood in an inner US city. One update, in a rather nice, if rural area.
    I’ll happily accept my father’s debt AND retain the upstate property, then move my fully owned city property’s personal property to any of the above. But then, I spent over $27K to move my property, as it’s far more valuable to us.
    And I’ll end up working until I’m at least 70 to get my money back AND a decent 401K. As I’m 50 now and expended all of my former funds for retirement, I get my crap Army pension and whatever I can get in the real world, which is nebulous at current.
    A highly dangerous combination…

  137. shunt1

    CSM, you have my respect.

    I joined the Army in 1974 and have served with the military one way or another ever since. Vietnam mentality is how I was trained and that has been useful to me all these years.

    I did attend jump school and ranger camp, but soon realized that I was not good enough for that outstanding group of soldiers.

    You may contact me at my personal email:

    huntworksteve@gmail.com

    What we have done over the years in support of our country is something that you and I should be very proud of.

    Perhaps we were together in Somalia after Desert Storm in 1991?

  138. JeremyC

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of politically-motivated shills suddenly cried out in terror and started posting baseless nonsense in the comments at Phil’s blog. I fear something terrible has happened.

    I’ve noticed a decided lack of the usual friendly geekery amongst regulars in the comments here of late… Huh, or perhaps I’m just imagining it =)

  139. DaveN

    Bring on the subpoenas, I say! H.I. may be able to (ab)use any number of strategies, but at the end of the day, let’s see what comes to light…

  140. shunt1

    I know, totally off topic as I stated before.

    Cut Wzrd1 some slack tonight…

    Sometimes you must offer your hand when someone is asking for help.

    Perhaps Phil would prefer to delete those comments that were military related. If so, I would understand and support that choice.

    …………..

    Now back to the geek talk!

    Has anyone watched the video that I posted on:

    128. shunt1 Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 21st, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Never mind, no wonder I was talking about military subjects while waiting for moderation. That video link still has not been posted after over an hour?

  141. Alistair

    Reminds me of the tactics used by Breitbart and his shonky little mate, whatsisname the pimp.

  142. Spence_UK

    Wow, and once again Phil Plait shows he is unable to spot a forged document that is as plain as the nose on his face when that forgery confirms his bias.

    Who knew Phil had so much in common with moon landing hoaxers, who would probably make equally shrill posts “proving” the veracity of a forged photograph? How embarrassing.

  143. Anthony N

    For all those claiming the Heartland Documents are fake, “The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1OHQWK4TJALYxaP8WjUijdBq0rg?docId=b8b17e53a4e041a9b742a79a3f2be5f1).”

    Gleick fell on a sword to bring you the truth. Make it worth his while.

  144. Dave H

    Relevant XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/1019/

    The sad thing is that fanatical anti-AGW commenters will quite happily do the same work for free.

  145. Dave H

    Gleick really needs to release at least some of the text of the email he sent to Heartland. If it shows he specifically requests (by name) the two documents cited in the strategy memo, it shows beyond question that his version of events is accurate.

    Not only that, it starts to become extremely damaging for Heartland. It means that their protestations about the veracity of the document start to look shaky, and indeed they become prime candidate in the search for the source that sent it anonymously to Gleick because it could only have been put together by someone with access to the referenced docs. If that happens, the insistence on referring to this as “fakegate” ad nauseum may well backfire on Heartland’s supporters.

  146. captain swoop

    When a ‘whistleblower’ leaks documents that help your side he is a hero, when he leaks documents that help the other side he is a criminal and should be prosecuted.

    Ever was it thus.

  147. Venture Free

    The whole goal of institutions like Heartland is to throw out as much BS as possible to keep people from coming to a definite conclusion. If that means taking a hit themselves, well that just becomes another jumping off point for more BS. Deny, deny, deny and then accuse, accuse, accuse. In the end, even if all of the documents can be completely verified, they’ll still be able to throw enough BS out there that people will be able to say “Well…I don’t know…” and that’s really the goal. Convincing people that AGW isn’t happening is a bonus, but isn’t really necessary. As long as there is enough doubt to prevent action, they’ve achieved their goal.

  148. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    The realists would now, as far as I know, be in a better position to know the veracity of the leaked DenialGate documents than the denialists were on the leaked “ClimateGate” documents.

    Only the first document on HI’s climate program strategy would have the same “trust original anonymous sources” status, and we now know why it differs in production (being a scan-to-pdf instead of a print-to-pdf, having a different time stamp). And as Gleick mentions, it is based on the rest of the material and factual or he wouldn’t have gotten hold of the rest.

    Going back towards the actual matter we pass the fact that DenialGate is a HI disaster, revealing their underhanded ways, their lone crackpot supporter, and supporting the Mashey action of defrauding the US of tax money. While “ClimateGate” of course were shown to be legit work material several independent times over.

    As for Revkin, his own reputation got a hit with the document release portraying him as “a useful idiot” for the denialists. So of course he would jump on the wrong bandwagon.

  149. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    Over to the denialism:

    #11:

    “Equating faith based climate change to science is just plain stupid.”

    It is an accepted science, whether or not you believe it.

    Oh, and your description of the current climate regime is _way_ off. It wouldn’t come out of the ice cycles until the continents start to assemble a supercontinent again. Or, in this case having AGW pushing it out, as it may be the case. Humans have been present under the last few glacials, depending on how you define “human”.

    #65:

    “Now lets look closely at what the FAKED document”

    Its current status of being legit is better than the “ClimateGate” document leak, thanks to Gleick taking responsibility.

    You are prodigiously trying to take us off track from the real matter, which is that HI is revealed as underhanded politically motivated tax evaders. Humorously I see you later get off track yourself.

    If you haven’t anything productive to contribute to a science site, go away and fake your science interest elsewhere.

  150. Gaebolga

    shunt1 wrote:

    …what I try to say is usually valid and verifiable.

    The fact that shunt1 considers this:

    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.

    …to be “valid and verifiable” is really all one needs to know about the depth and breadth of his scientific understanding of climatology.

    And of course the only reasonable reply to such a patently ludicrous claim is:

    YES, DEAR!

  151. Ron1

    @ 116. jearley Said, ” This is all politics, and not science. I am letting my students see what is going on here as a lesson in how science has gotten policized in this country, and then telling them to look ast the evidence and decide for themselves.
    I am going to keep watching this. I hope that my students use this as a way to really think about science, and how to (hopefully) be ready for the day when they are caught up in a controversy.”

    ………………………………..

    Of course it’s all politics.

    It has been about politics for the last couple of decades, although the advent of the internet has added fuel to the fire for deniers in the sense that the internet has turned every ‘ Tom, Dick and Harry’ into an expert. Further, every opinion gets almost equal promotion and is thus looked at by many readers as being equally valid, even though the positions of the two sides are not equal. False equivalence abounds in the global media.

    Unfortunately, by politicizing AGW, the anti-group has successfully muddied the waters to the point where very busy laypeople (who are barraged with complex and conflicting data and ideas), are overwhelmed. Under these circumstances, people can be forgiven for following the path of least resistance, ie. ‘believing’ what is simple, what is intuitive when reality is (frequently) anything but.

    Further confusing the message that AGW is real are religious belief systems (eg. fundamental pre-millenialist Christianity and some forms of Fundamentalist Islam, for example) and those religious and political leaders who follow these and similar belief systems (ie. Santorum, Palin, et al) and who are actively and publicly opposing AGW based on their religious beliefs.

    Consider, for example, those who believe that the consequences of AGW are good (the tribulation) because they could bring about conflict that gives rise to the great peacemaker (the anti-Christ) who will bring about the end times that they so badly want. Further exacerbating the situation, end times belief leads believers to the short term world view of ‘why bother when we’re going to be raptured in the next five to ten years anyway’.

    As well, the numbers of believers are not small … Consider, for example, something like thirty to fifty percent of the Republican base supports this ideology (as indicated by polling for Rick Santorum in the various political forums this year). Tie this into Tea Party supporters and Libertarians who want to reduce government to the size where they could “drown it in the bathtub” (Grover Norquist), and laissez-faire business boosters as well as corrupt politicians and you’ve the makings of a very media and politically powerful anti-AGW machine in the US and many other nations of the world.

    So yes, it is political and that is unfortunate because most scientists have traditionally tried to stay out of politics, with the result that they and their work have been sitting ducks for those who have, and continue to oppose the scientific data. Finally, however, scientists are starting to fight back …

    Cheers

    ps. For a wonderful overview of the the end times movement in the US, consider checking out Libby Anne’s blog on Freethought blogs. In particular her “The End Times” series of posts.

  152. Daffy

    Ron1, you brought up a very important point that very, very few ever mention: many Christians WANT horrible things to happen, because that means Jesus us coming soon.

    I really have nothing to add to your point, other than I am glad someone brought it up. It’s crazy, but those people are out there. And they vote.

  153. Chris Winter

    Jorge C wrote (#118): “Megan McArdle writes in The Atlantic as a true journalist, scientist and/or skeptics must do :

    ‘Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?’ “

    (Emphasis added.)

    As a true journalist, Ms. McArdle could answer her own question by looking at Peter Gleick’s judgement in matters of science and seeing if it holds up. Instead, she prefers to assume that this one lapse on his part condemns everything he’s done. Where have I seen that sort of thing before? Oh, yes: in the cascade of condemnation of the IPCC over its goof on the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. Or in the totality of Michael Mann’s work being dismissed because of his allegedly flawed work in MBH98. Or in the claim that all of climate science was bogus because of scientific fraud purportedly revealed in the stolen CRU e-mails.

    See the pattern? It’s quite consistent among those who say climate change is nothing to worry about.

    Certainly Peter Gleick made a mistake. He now has owned up to it. Are you seriously comparing his lapse to the intentional campaign of deception of which Heartland is a part?

    You ask us if we all understand. I think we understand better than you. Beams and motes, sir. Beams and motes.

  154. Ron1

    @157. Chris Winter.

    A tip-o-the-hat to you.

    Your comparison comment, “Certainly Peter Gleick made a mistake. He now has owned up to it. Are you seriously comparing his lapse to the intentional campaign of deception of which Heartland is a part?”, is an excellent example of the false equivalent arguments that are so commonly used to tarnish AGW and its proponents.

    Again, well said.

    Cheers

  155. Brian D

    @Chris Winter #157:

    Certainly Peter Gleick made a mistake. He now has owned up to it. Are you seriously comparing his lapse to the intentional campaign of deception of which Heartland is a part?

    Spot-on. And, on a related note, take a look at all the journalists saying Gleick’s scientific reputation is now in tatters. (One of these journalists is Revkin, who you’ll note is positively mentioned in the actual Heartland documents themselves.)

    If Gleick’s reputation is in tatters after one mistake, what about the reputation of the Heartland Institute, who has been hiding behind charitable status while (as the unchallenged documents clearly show) acting as a lobbying body for years?

    Similarly, to all those who are saying what Gleick did was a new low, how does tricking a duplicitous non-profit compare to all the (well-documented) examples of death threats on climate scientists?

    Finally, am I the only one seeing a parallel here to the Pentagon Papers? And a very positive contrast between Gleick’s behaviour after the fact (admitting, regretting, resigning, etc) compared to “FOIA”, the Climategate hacker, who remains not only unidentified but apparently unpursued by authorities?

    Setting aside the monstrous double standard at work here, how would a true skeptic address these concerns?

    I can’t speak for all skeptics, but I can speak for myself. I’m personally discounting the “strategy memo” for now (Gleick’s side of the story suggests it was anonymous, Heartland is accusing him of forging it – insufficient evidence to give it any weight in our evaluation). I would also set aside the concerns about how Gleick got the documents (whether you call it pretexting or identity theft, we’ll leave it to the courts to decide), much as I’ll also set aside the concerns about professional misconduct in handling this case that Heartland’s exhibited (i.e. threatening bloggers with legal action for merely discussing the documents).

    Instead, let’s look at the content of the documents – all of them except the strategy memo appear to be genuine and aren’t being attacked by Heartland.

    And that content? Downright scary. And, by and large, corroborated by John Mashey’s investigation into the public record – basically, they just add some missing names and dollar values to what Mashey was able to find. And those names and dollar values directly contradict what several notorious deniers have said about their sources of funding.

    Seriously. Look at the content. Leave Gleick to the lawyers and judges. See what the content tells you.

    (Honestly, if journalists were doing their job and investigating these “think tanks” instead of just churning out press releases in exchange for “access”, we would already know everything in that content.)

  156. VonZorch

    I do not deny that climate change exists, only an idiot would, it’s been happening for 4.5 billion years. I am also open to the idea that human action has some effect. However given that in both recorded history and geologic record the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is now, I cannot give credence that the human effects are really very significant.
    to those of you who differ, how is it that you do not see that the man who was in effect your sides chief ethicist deliberately committing criminal fraud does not look very bad to those who are opposed or undecided, and blind support of him, instead of repudiating his actions makes you all look dishonest.
    About the Climategate documents, the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit is paid for by the UK’s taxpayers and are subject to their FOIA laws. Every document in the, for want of a better term, leak had been legally and properly requested and CRU had illegally ignored it. There is also some evidence that it was indeed an actual leak, and the release was by someone who had valid access to the server.
    About the open discussion of the merits of AGW, I have heard your side call anyone who did not accept it whole heartedly guilty of “crimes against humanity” or call for revocation of credentials as a meteorologist. That doesn’t sound like they want an open discussion to me.
    As for the raw data much of it is irredeemably compromised, I have been looking for temperature recording stations in my area, all the ones I have seen are sited in the exhaust of building air conditioners or in urban parking lots, can you say, artificial heat source?
    Or the tree ring proxy temperature data that turned out to come from a single tree somewhere in the wilds of Siberia?
    In short every where you turn the AGW gang is seemingly engaged in deliberate dissimulation, suppression of dissent, or even outright fraud. That’s not the best way to get a valid point across.

  157. Jess Tauber

    Obviously humanity is evolving into a race of sockpuppets. But the laws of physics aren’t going to give you a pass. You’ll broil with the rest of us (that is unless I can get my vacation home at the south pole up in time- visit anytime…).

    Gleickogen, uncontrolled, doesn’t help with adiabetes….. (think about it a few seconds)

  158. Ron1

    @160, Jess Tauber said, ” Gleickogen, uncontrolled, doesn’t help with adiabetes…..”

    ………………..

    Groan.

    In the end, Gleick is a hero to me and what he’s done goes a long way to cappin’ all that anti-AGW convection.

    Cheers

  159. jorge c.

    Mr.Chris Winter:
    Yes, in my comment #118, I quoted Megan McArdle, who, yes, is a Journalist. then you wrote, and wrote, and wrote about her, trying in vain to dismiss her thoughts.

    but i must remember you that I too quoted Prof. GAVIN SCHMIDT, of REAL CLIMATED fame. Prof Schmidt is a scientist and he is NOT a “denier”.

    What do you think about what HE said???

    I saw that you did no understood what I said.

    and PETER GLEICK IS THE FAKER!!!!!

  160. Ron1

    @162. Jorge c. Said, ” PETER GLEICK IS THE FAKER!!!!!”

    ……………………………

    Sheez, my eyes hurt.

    How did you ever come to the conclusion that Gleick is a faker? While there are some questions about his behaviour, being a fake is not one of them. If anything, he himself says that he did what he did in order to confirm that Heartland is the source of the documents.

    He put himself on the line to confirm that what he was presenting was not fake, that what he, himself, received from Heartland was the real deal.

    Take your head out of the sand and give it a shake.

  161. Chris Winter

    Jorge C wrote: “What do you think about what HE said???”

    I think Dr. Schmidt has a point, although he overstates the case — probably out of disappointment with a trusted colleague.

    “I saw that you did no understood what I said.

    You’re not a native English speaker are you? That’s nothing against you, but it does apparently limit your comprehension of what you read here.

    Once again, I understand this situation better than you. Here’s the proof:

    “and PETER GLEICK IS THE FAKER!!!!!”

    Sorry; that’s just an emotional reaction. You need to take a break and put things in perspective.

  162. Gunnar

    I can’t help but deplore Peter Gleick’s tactics. I think he has certainly tarnished his own reputation and credibility and probably damaged his own cause more than helping it. He may have also distracted attention from John Mashey’s more honorable approach to exposing HI’s lack of scruples and credibility, and turned the focus away from HI’s well known reputation of obfuscating real science and creating unwarranted doubt about scientific and political realities that discomfit or hurt the profits of its wealthy contributors. This is surely the opposite of what Peter Gleick was trying to do. How could he have been so foolish? Is it possible that someone from HI maneuvered him into trying this in the hopes that precisely this would be the outcome?

  163. Holms

    *HI documents ‘released’, HI claims fakery, suspicion falls on Gleick*

    “It couldn’t possibly be Peter Gleick! Look at all his essays on ethical science, how dare you besmirch his name!”

    *Peter Gleick confesses to obtaining the documents through identity theft, but denies faking one*

    “Wait, Gleick did it? Well, this is a surprise, but this just goes to show how principled he is, waging war against bad science. My hero! Hang on, you’re accusing him of making a fake? It couldn’t possibly be Peter Gleick! Look at all his essays on ethical science, how dare you besmirch his name!”

    Sigh. Essentially, ‘hypocrisy is OK provided it is done by the people I like’.

  164. El Sol

    AGW theocrats circling their Audis and Beemers in panic over Gleick’s disastrous fakery–you people will risk your careers to perpetuate a hoax…is there no weaning you off the NGO- and gov’t-grant teat?

    oy!

  165. Messier Tidy Upper

    A couple of follow up items of possible interest here :

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/faked_heartland_institute_is_a.php

    Apparently one careful study by Brendan DeMille and Richard Littlemore has concluded the heartland memo they claim is faked is not.

    Plus :

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland_institute_under_cong.php

    Congress has a group set to investigate this affair or at least some elements of it.

    Finally, here’s PZ Myers (Pharnygula blogs) typically aggressive take :

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/21/no-sympathy-for-the-devil/

    on the whole issue for those who haven’t yet seen that.

    Hope folks find these interesting / handy /enjoyable. :-)

  166. Gleick is a modern day Daniel Ellsberg!

    And, to the equivocators, dumping a hundred million years worth of sequestration into the environment in 150 years… probably, catastrophic.

  167. dmbeaster

    What a bunch of b.s.

    Gleick wanted to confirm the authenticity of documents anonymously leaked to him. The Heartland Institute will not confirm that directly to Gleick (since they are in the business of lying, and will not communicate with people who can effectively counter their crap), but they will provide the information to some anonymous person by sending the same information to the anonymous person over the internet. There is no fraud, deceit, or anything wrong with this. The Heartland Institute gave the information voluntarily to some stranger over the internet – they had no concern about releasing the information – they just rudely would not give it to Gleick. Except for the one document, Heartland confirm that Gleick’s documents are all accurate.
    So just deal with the fact that the documents show the fraud at the core of climate denial organizations such as Heartland.

  168. Tony Mach

    And from the looks of it, some skeptics are in deep denial about reality.

    Oh, the humanity – our strategic reserves of popcorn are running low.

    @ dmbeaster: Gleick claims to have received from an unknown source by mail (not email) a “document”, no “s” at the end, so singular. He claims to have authenticated that said document (again singular) with the documents (with s at the end, so plural) he received from Heartland (after impersonating someone else – see “HP pretexting”* for reference). At least try to read Gleick’s statement with a critical eye, will ya?

    * “Partially as a result of the case [HP’s pretexting], however, congress passed a law specifically prohibiting pretexting.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hewlett-Packard_spying_scandal&oldid=468460001#cite_ref-22

  169. Lab Four

    Despite the droves of concern trolls whining about Glieck’s reputation, the Heartland Institute (which had a bad rep anyway) has completely destroyed its own reputation by issuing these documents and then trying to claim that one of them is faked. I’m laughing at these deniers that have gotten a dose of their own medicine and now have to try to lie their way out of it.

  170. Holms

    @169
    Are you stupid, or just turning a blind eye? They didn’t send their documentation to ‘an anonymous person’, they sent it to Gleick because he impersonated a Heartland board member.

    That is, he lied, and in doing so made himself a hypocrite and undermined his own and many others’ efforts promoting ethical conduct. That you are willing to overlook his duplicity while condemning HI for lying makes you a hypocrite too.

  171. Ron1

    @174. Holms

    Oh, shut up, you myopic moron.

  172. mnelson

    This diatribe tells me that Discover is just a left wing propaganda outlet. Sad.

  173. John W. Bales

    There is evidently computer forensic evidence that the purported policy paper is a fake. Furthermore, since this questionable document contains information lifted from the documents which Glieck obtained by impersonating a board member of Heartland Institute, it appears that the fake document was fabricated after Glieck obtained the authentic material from Heartland. Since Glieck was the only warmther in possession of that material, draw your own conclusions about who wrote it.

    This is another black eye for global warmthers and could balloon into a full-blown scandal. Those supporting Glieck might be wise to put some distance between him and themselves.

  174. ray4ausa

    The Heartland Institute is nothing but a front for fossil fuel producers and their paid “scientists”. This is a story about the truth being given to society while the perpetrators deny any involvement. Why should they tell the truth, it would mean everybody would finally see what their industry is doing to our environment and THEY SURE DO NOT WANT THE LIABILITY. The TRUTH is not pretty and now we know exactly who and why the DENIERS at the Heartland Institute do what they do. We should bankrupt them financially because they are surly bankrupt in honesty.

  175. Samuel

    Only 1.3 million came from corporations. Additionally only a quarter of their budget went to global warming issues. So no, not a fossil fuel front.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20(2).pdf

    (169)Messier Tidy Upper
    “Congress has a group set to investigate this affair or at least some elements of it. ”

    No
    1) A congressmen wants to investigate Indur Goklany for conflict of interest.
    2)Heartland openly lists him as a contributor, which suggests what he is doing isn’t illegal
    http://heartland.org/indur-goklany

    “Apparently one careful study by Brendan DeMille and Richard Littlemore has concluded the heartland memo they claim is faked is not.”

    Meanwhile people who believed they were fake were able to (correctly) predict Gleick was the leak because of the characterists of the document. In science this is called predictive power.

    (162) Ron1
    “How did you ever come to the conclusion that Gleick is a faker? While there are some questions about his behaviour, being a fake is not one of them. If anything, he himself says that he did what he did in order to confirm that Heartland is the source of the documents.

    He put himself on the line to confirm that what he was presenting was not fake, that what he, himself, received from Heartland was the real deal.”

    WRONG. Gleick said the anonymous document and the documents he requested from HI weren’t fakes. He never said he released the anonymous document. Writing a fake document is perfectly consistent with what he said.

    Read what the man and his lawyer said, not what you want him to say.

  176. Holms

    @175
    Myopic? As in, I should act on the assumption that all data is suspect unless it agrees with the AGW version on which I happen to have settled? I see you subscribe to the ‘ends justify the means’ school of thought. I take it then that I should excuse any untoward behaviour provided the person doing it shares my ideology?

    Utter bilge.

  177. Charles X

    The ‘strategy memo’ is a fake. All the evidence points to it.

    And as it is the only document among the released that illustrates any smoking gun, there is no need for Heartland to defend anything.

    This is all about Peter Gleick and the Alarmists’ attempts to discredit global warming skeptics through lies and forgeries.

    Game, set, match.

  178. Michael

    I would love to hear from the chief of climatology at MIT, again. The last time he talked in Washington (Dummy Center, not the state), Al Gore called him a shill for the oil companies. Mr. Gore is always known for all his excellent insights into science history and issues … NOT!

  179. Undeniable

    I rarely visit this blog these days (too much hot air) but: [In the voice of The Simpson’s Nelson] “HA-ha”

  180. Chris L

    “@162. Jorge c. Said, ” PETER GLEICK IS THE FAKER!!!!!”

    ……………………………

    Sheez, my eyes hurt.

    How did you ever come to the conclusion that Gleick is a faker? While there are some questions about his behaviour, being a fake is not one of them. If anything, he himself says that he did what he did in order to confirm that Heartland is the source of the documents.

    He put himself on the line to confirm that what he was presenting was not fake, that what he, himself, received from Heartland was the real deal.

    Take your head out of the sand and give it a shake.”

    Well let’s see. Gleick has already admitted to doing something that is legally a crime in some places (identity theft to execute a social engineering hack), so it isn’t completely unreasonable to think that he may have (in an “ends justifies the means” sort of way) also actually used those documents he social engineered to create another (more damaging) document. Since that damaging document is the one document he didn’t get from Heartland directly (heck of an oversight for a would be social engineer), it’s the one document that can not be confirmed as being real. Hmmm, what a coincidence.

    You see, that’s the way most people are going to see it. If he was willing to lie about A because he’s a believer, he might just be willing to lie about B. The authenticity of document is now very much in question. Declaring it a fake is not as unreasonable as some seem to think.

  181. Steve Metzler

    The Heartland Institute: spitting in the face of humanity since its inception. How can anyone condone what they do? But now that what they do (for any corporate sponsor that will pony up) has come to light… oh, look… all the libertarians come rushing out of the woodwork to defend them. Well, a big *pfft!* to that.

  182. Samuel

    Come to light? The Heartland insitute was entirely open about what they do.

    On second hand smoke (2007)
    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/11/01/wheres-consensus-secondhand-smoke

    Asbestos (2002)
    http://heartland.org/editorial/2002/09/22/testimony-asbestos-litigation-0

    Inconvient Truth (2006)
    http://heartland.org/policy-documents/july-2006-inconvenient-truth-about-al-gore

    These are all displayed on their site. How can anyone consider them hidden?

  183. Chris L

    Steve,
    This isn’t about Heartland, as I doubt anyone here (me included) gives a damn about them. By doing what he did, Gleick has made himself the issue. They became the victim of a social engineering attack, with Gleick as the identity thief. A reasonable person can conclude that someone willing to risk breaking the law would not be above outright fraud as well. That makes the key memo suspect. He has hurt the cause because he will now be used as exhibit A when those skeptical of AGW discuss the ethics and honesty of AGW proponents. Defending his actions does not help either.

  184. Abraxas

    “A reasonable person can conclude that someone willing to risk breaking the law would not be above outright fraud as well. That makes the key memo suspect.”

    Weird! You weren’t here writing that when some anonymous hacker stole the “climategate” e mails. All this concern for the Heartland heartbreakers’ honesty is mere concern trolling.

  185. sHx

    Here is the latest:

    So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.

    The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland’s Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. Peter Gleick then obtained additional material from Heartland, which came to him at his request but all to easily to be explained as a mere oversight on the part of some administrative or secretarial staff. The only thing missing here is evidence that Bast or Mosher or someone suggested to Peter that he verify the memo by asking for related documents from Heartland. But that would be too easy.

    Anyway, it now seems clear that the document, the allegedly faked internal strategy memo with the most damning text in it (but nothing really different from what is shown in other verified Heartland documents) was fed to Gleick, presumably in an effort to engineer his downfall as an incipient board member of the National Center for Science Education.

    Brilliant. Heartland: 1 … NCSE: 0

    -http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#more

    So it is conspiracy after all. Peter Gleick never wrote the fake document, and man never walked on the moon.

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 »