You may have heard about Climategate, the stolen emails that showed some scientists were so concerned about climate change that they were willing to distort their findings so they would be more sensational? Welcome to Denialgate, which reveals some of the secrets of one of the shadowy, billionaire funded, AstroTurf think-tanks who has driven scientists to desperate levels of PR to get the truth into people’s heads.
DeSmogBlog has documents you can go through that will help confirm that doubt around climate change is entirely contrived by the 1%, the billionaires who control public debate through mass media and media manipulation.
Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”
(emphasis added)
Ha Ha!
-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.
“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”
An AstroTurf agency called Heartland accidentally leaked was tricked into giving its secrets to a third party (Peter) who leaked them to DeSmogBlog. A multi-millionaire (or billionaire), who is still anonymous, gives the agency more than $1M/year to operate, as do the Koch brothers who give hundreds of thousands.
Their purpose is to create doubt about science regarding climate change.
For bonus hilarity I’ve included a portion of a comment from frequent AbandonedStuff.com commenter Klem. Klem is a climate change denier, and jester-in-residence.
For years now I have wondereed [sic] if the alarmists were correct, and now that question has been answered. It does not pay to be a climate skeptic. It has been the greens who have been well funded all along.
Its [sic] amazing that climate skepticism has been this successful considering how little money is required.
Here’s a “little money” according to Klem:
“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
Who doesn’t get paid $1667/month just to keep mentioning that everything is okay with burning lots of fossil fuels? That little amount would certainly not influence anyone.
UPDATE: Information about the source of the Heartland documents has since come to light. The scientist, Peter, mentioned in DeSmogBlog’s summary, tricked Heartland into sending the documents while using a fake name, and has admitted doing so.
UPDATE:
Heartland’s influence at Carleton U in Ottawa is being investigated.
UPDATE II: More Canadians funded by Heartland.
UPDATE III: Heartland struggling to stay afloat.
Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff 
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!! Al Gore was worth approximately $15. million when he was vice president. Now that he is involved in the carbon trading scam he’s worth . . . . OVER $300. million. Who has the most to gain scaring the hell out of people? FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!
Imagine an Oscar winning filmmaker, and rich person, becoming richer with great to modest success in his professional life? Why, that isn’t at all what people would expect. Oh wait, it is.
Follow the money, indeed. Don’t stop looking after your eyes bug out at Gore. The Kochs don’t base their money spending on promoting facts that could cause people to change their destructive behaviours.
Ha ha ha!! :) and Gore does???? Gorebulls ‘Incontinent Truth’ was made to enrich himself… at least the Kochs employ 90,000 real people!!!
Wow Saskboy, you wrote directly to me. I am honoured.
Oh by the way, I noticed quite alot of coverage in the news and bloggersphere yesterday regarding HeartlandGate or DenialGate or whatever it’s called. However, I’ve also noticed considerably less coverage today. It is recieving almost no traction with the public. I’d say in a few days it will be forgotten.
OTOH, Climategate was over 2 years ago and people still talk about it.
No matter how much the alarmists try to keep it alive the public has now made up its mind and anthropogenic climate change is dead. It’s time to throw in the towel Saskboy ol’ pal.
cheers
Your honoured friend, Klem.
It’s not about traction, it’s about truth, Klem. You know what else’s had traction with Americans once? The Iraq war, because the media told them there were WMD.
Denialists base their position on lies, financed as Heartland’s papers show in Black and White. It’s not a real difference of opinion, it’s a dangerous deception.
Sassy sez “Denialists base their position on lies, financed as Heartland’s papers show in Black and White.” As opposed to the alarmist position based on identity thief and forger Peter Gleick lying and falsifying those VERY “BLACK AND WHITE” pages!!!
Priceless!!!
Red Jeff, Peter didn’t retract the information, he merely says he now regrets he had to use deception to obtain it. Show me otherwise, or stop commenting. And stop calling me “Sassy”, there’s someone else here who posts by that name so you’re only going to end up causing confusion.
Yeah most criminals regret their actions when they stand before the court. Doesn’t stop them from being criminals in the first place tho’!
About as believable as the other con’s tears of attrition also!!! :)
Also, how could the Gleickster retract a forged document he forged without admitting he forged it!!!! Ha ha!!!
Anyhoo, the last thing I expect from alarmists is the retraction of a forged document. To an alarmist truth and honesty are secondary memes to “The Cause”.
I already updated the story with the new information. There’s still no information that confirms the documents are fake. If anything, Peter’s post confirms they are legitimate, and he’s staking his reputation and name on it rather than let Heartland get away with further deception and witch hunting to find who they were tricked by.
Sask, you are a comedian I’ll give you that much!!! Ha ha ha!!!
When you say “Peter’s post confirms they are legitimate, and he’s staking his reputation and name on it…”
What (now long gone) reputation and (discredited) name would that be??? :)
Bernie Madoff is claiming innocence and he’s “staking his reputation and name on it…” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the Gleickster sez himself “Heartland has established itself as a coordinator of climate denial efforts, as a publisher of a discredited pseudo-scientific attack on climate science called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and as organizer of a conference that brings together groups and individuals that work against the science and policy of climate change. Their irresponsible actions in this cherry-picking exercise substantially diminish even further Heartland’s claim to be any kind of honest broker of serious scientific skepticism on the topic of climate change.” http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2011/02/09/misrepresenting-climate-science-cherry-picking-data-for-political-purposes/
As opposed to Peter ‘Responsible Honest Broker’ Gleick.
Then again it was the Gleickster that gave Alphonse Gore his memorable line… “No more words. “The debate is over,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, in Oakland, Calif.”
That’s science allrighty!!!!!
Is this all you have?
Now that this ‘document’ has been shown to be a fake, this post makes very little sense. It should also be noted that all personal contact information was redacted in the Climategate emails while that same info was released in the fake-gate ones. Sad but but not unexpected.
Where, and how has it been suggested that is the case?
Where? Lets see… everywhere, for one. How? Well….. because of the total and complete lack of even a shred of confirming evidence.
Perhaps if you had read the papers you would have noticed that “…Koch brothers who give hundreds of thousands. Their purpose is to create doubt about science regarding climate change.”. Even though the money was for health care issues.
Here’s my “little money” comparison “between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S” http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/#ixzz1mZ1FzmOc
Then again, this is just reality.
Everywhere? Shouldn’t be hard to give a link to one other person to describe how it was faked then?
Only want one?!!? :)
“If the faked document happened to be produced by a climate activist or scientist (as some are already suggesting), then the leaked Heartland documents will go down in history as one of the more spectacular own goals in the history of the climate debate (with the consequences proportional to the stature of the faker). The faking is likely to overshadow whatever legitimate questions may have been raised by the release of the documents. Imagine what would have happened if the UEA hacker/leaker had made up a few emails to spice up the dossier.” http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/02/reality-is-not-good-enough.html “More generally, the episode already illustrates much of what has become of the activist wing of the climate science community — Apparently, reality is not good enough, so it must be sexed up.”
More? Megan McArdle senior editor for The Atlantic, who describes herself as “I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland’s position on global warming. I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it… caveats out of the way, here’s why I think that memo is probably fake:…” http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
Second instalment “No, if it is indeed true that the document was scanned on the west coast, then I think we can say with a very high degree of confidence that it is a fake…” http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
Such is reality.
So 1 of the many appears to be faked according to The Atlantic, but what about the others?
You’ve only commented on the fake memo ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy‘. Also, you only asked for one reference even tho I gave you more.
By others did you mean “Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S”? (referenced above)
Any idea who wrote the fake memo?
Peter Gleick is being questioned to see if he is responsible for the fake memo. In accordance with warmist logic, this MUST mean he is guilty and therefore the onus is on him to prove his innocence or obviously he is guilty.
Then again, Peeps is the same guy who lied when he claimed to have read Donna Laframboises book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert (IPCC Exposé)” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005UEVB8Q/ref=s9_simh_gw_p351_d0_g351_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0QPGT4YSV9M8C5ECDB8S&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846
Sad, but once again reality.
Ha ha ha!! So Peeps Gleick has admitted his guilt!!! ”
suspicion will only grow that Gleick falsified the original document now that he has admitted using deception to get the additional memos. (And just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.)” http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/#ixzz1mzRvpJvE
Just as I said. An alarmist without a shred of integrity.
Par for the course… of course!!
I love DesmoggyBlogs tag line “Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” Meanwhile ‘The Hockey Team’s’ heart(land) felt letter of commiseration http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf written by Aaron Huertas.
Who is Aaron Huertas you ask? “Aaron Huertas: I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. My interests include communicating science and the ongoing interaction between our genetic ancestry and our modern technological society. I also watch a ton of TV series.” Doesn’t a press secretary do PR work?
Such is reality. Sad but true.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana.
The New York Times’ headline, including the phrase “Fake but Accurate,” became a widely-used derisive comment for the fiasco that became Rathergate… the faked story of the Killian documents by CBS about George Bush.
DesmoggyBlog’s brilliance? “The DeSmogBlog has no evidence supporting Heartland’s claim that the Strategic document is fake. A close review of the content shows that it is overwhelmingly accurate (“almost too accurate” for one analyst)…” http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s-bird-it-s-hockey-stick-it-s-faked-document
Yeahhhhhh… the ol’ fake but accurate defense…. indefensibly.
Alarmist burden of proof precautionary principle from DesmoggyBlog… “if the Heartland Institute can offer any specific criticism of the Climate Strategy or any evidence that it was faked and not, actually, written on Joe Bast’s laptop, printed out and scanned, we would be pleased to consider that evidence.”
Yup, supply proof of our false accusation and we will CONSIDER the truth.
Priceless!
Why don’t you just call this episode ‘Fake-gate’ as everyone else is now doing?
So which is it? DesmoggyBlogs tag line “Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” or alarmist beliefs “…driven scientists to desperate levels of PR…” ?
Or, is it like global warming itself… hot/cold, flood/drought*… one/both!?!?
*to paraphrase Everclear “everything to everyone”!
Wow! Peter Gleik (AKA Mr. Climate Crock of the Week, AKA Mr. Integrity in Science) confesses to stealing the doc’s. Law suits on the way. See you in jail Peter.
Wow, wow, wow!
It is so great being a climate denier. This is fun!
https://saskboy.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/ethical-oil-is-communist-owned-oil/ how ethical is it to do business with Chinese/Iranian oil companies, by the way?
And which jail will he be seeing you in, exactly? How long are you away for?
Putting scientists in jail for…social engineering?
Reprehensible. There is nothing inherently wrong with social engineering in this manner, although if it is true that he’s sexed up the document that might be different(but shouldn’t be illegal). Bringing this kind of information to light is necessary in a free and open society. It is Heartland’s chill on speech that needs to be legally opposed.
JoNova has won the Australian/NZ weblog award!
ClimateAudit has won the 2012 Canadian weblog award!
Tallblokes talkshop has won the auropean weblog award!
Wattsupwiththat has won the best science and technology award, and Lifetime Achievement award!
Gee, I don’t see Skeptical Science, Real Climate or whayever this disinformation site is. Looks like skeptics swept the bloggies!
That’s quite a consensus!
And not one of them had to commit a felony to win. ;)
To quote the gap-toothed internet hick in the article “Ha Ha (pointing finger)”.
It was tooooo obvious that this was a forgery… we deniers don’t talk “anti-science”. We deniers insist that REAL science be taught in the schools. No “dissuasion” of science… that’s alarmism.
Considering that the proof is “soooooo overwhelming” why is it that alarmists need to outright lie to enforce their narrative? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Peeps has been trying to insinuate himself into the climate discussion for some time now (see Donna Laframboisse above) and is one of the ‘new breed’ of left wing scientists, in the best Lysenko and eugenic styles, who is out to save the planet… through control of your life. He will say and do anything to become one of the new ‘climate superheros’, out to save humanity. The science worlds Justin ‘Beeber’ out to dethrone yesterdays AerosmithandJones. Mann of man.
It is sad that many people have not a clue of what science really, really is. That they are so science and math illiterate that they will grasp the wildest fantasies just to pretend they do.
So you’re taking the stance that he tricked Heartland… Into sending a forgery?
Ha ha ha!!!! That’s a cracker Sassy!!! :)
Just think…. how incompetent is the alarmist community? Considering……….
(in millions)
Heartland funding………………….. $6.5
Exxon funding……………………… $24
Greenpeace………………………. $310
Sierra Club………………………… $100
NRDC………………………………… $95
Yet less than half the people believe in man mad global warming?
Every ‘science academy’, every government, every school, all media…. yet 30 million blows your theory out of the water.
That level of incompetence and you expect us to follow ‘the word’ of alarmists????? They’ve already now shown us their inept capabilities through their abject and epic failures. Follow them if you want, Canada has freedom of religious belief, just don’t expect me to pay your way.
I think an apology to The Heartland Institute is in order. One of equal size to the accusations. Thats what those with integrity do. Then again we’ve seen how Peter Glieck measures integrity.
The theory is not “blown out of the water”. At worst, this one case of unmasking the villain has failed. Until I have more time to catch up and see just what may have been faked, and which docs are legit, I’m not about to take your version of events very seriously.
Batman doesn’t apologize to The Joker when The Joker gets away, does he?
Don’t take my word for it at all Sassy! Thats what science is all about! We deniers keep telling you guys that :) !!!
Take The Heartland Institutes word for it… “We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.”
Or you can read Peter (I’m a big fat liar) Gleicks’ confession in his own words at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
Either way, you’ve been conned, the blow is more a ‘suck and blow’ it turns out!!!
The funniest part is that alarmists are still bamboozled and even with a confession haven’t caught on! Ha ha ha!!! Then again it takes time to penetrate stuff that thick! ;)
Red Jeff, your position is not supported in the article you linked to. The only thing that Peter says was faked was the identity he impersonated to get the documents revealing the Heartland is a front to spread misinformation about climate change, and does no climate research.
“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.”
Peter’s only caveat was that he was unable to verify the source of the original file sent to him. Heartland could confirm the information in it, but won’t.
—-
Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick
Ha ha ha!!! Only a true adherent wouldn’t be able to understand an outright confession!!!! Sad but yer pals at RealClimate (Gavin an’ the boys) have already admitted Gleicks’ career is over.
Get a mitt, get in the game mah boy!! ;)
On the Contrary!!!! When you say “At worst, this one case of unmasking the villain has failed…” you are totally wrong…
Peter Gleick has been found out, unmasked and forced to admit his criminality!!! The legal inquiry was a total success!!!! (and it only took 7 days… unlike the Climategate whistleblower!!!!)
And where do you get this number, and why do you include it?
“Exxon funding……………………… $24”
Ha ha ha seriously?????? Ha ha ha!!!
You’re so very eager to provide solid references for your dubious claims, aren’t you?
Exxonsecrets is the source. That and Exxon’s $100million donation to Stamford’s renewable energy school! This was given to me by an alarmist without even realizing his own culpability at being bribed!!!
You aren’t making sense, can you be more clear? What’s $24M [sic] listed as “Exxon funding” for? Does that include the $100M you listed below? Not everyone is as well versed in conspiracy theories as you are, you’re going to have to be more blunt and use fewer clever nicknames and inside jokes.
How incompetent is the alarmist community? Considering……….
Climategate 1… 2years, 3months, no suspects.
Climategate 2… 4months, no suspects.
Fake-gate……… 7days, Peter ‘Make-Believe’ Glieck busted.
Mikey Mann sues Professor Tim Ball for saying he should be in “the state pen, not Penn State” but Peter Glieck thinks it’s OK to commit identity fraud if the end justifies the means. All this while he crusades on outing “climate deception”. “Ah what a tangled web we weave…”
Have you started writing the retraction yet?
***PS. Never forget when you point a finger 3 always point back!! ;)
Peter Glieck and the ‘integrity’ of science… “He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).
The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.” Judith Currie http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/#more-7302 (included is 4 links to Peter Gleick’s views on integrity and sciece, 1 before congress)
What was it that Peter Gleick said about Barry Woods? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Speaking of integrity, how’s that retraction coming? :)
Its now being called GleickGate.
Just keeping you up to date.
cheers
I’m hurt. Firstly I deliver to your blog the name of the culprit 2 days before he is forced to admit his crimes. 2 days before any other media knows the truth, a 2 day head start for your site to be noticed, yet you are still intent on believing the lies rather than the true facts.
Rather than appreciate the ‘heads up’ that I delivered to your lap you still would rather play the victim of the hoax instead of the discoverer.
Secondly you should appreciate my exposing the corrupt science you’ve hitched your wagon to.
You’re welcome.
PS. How’s the retraction coming? :)
Priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A 44 line accusatory post and a 3 line mea culpa admitting it was a total fabrication.
Have you apologized to Klem yet? It’s obvious you owe him one.
A quick note from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health…
“The webblog ‘Saskboy’ has been tested and confirmed as ‘integrity free’ pertaining to the climate change debate” http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/news-releases
It’s not a fabrication though, only the means to obtain the information included impersonating someone so Heartland would email documents. And I’ve clarified that. If you have information that the documents are fake, the broader media community would be interested in what you have to say.
Why would I apologize to Klem?
Worth repeating…
You’ve only commented on the fake memo ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy‘. Also, you only asked for one reference even tho I gave you more.
By others did you mean “Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S”? (referenced above)
Or you could just click ANY of the above links!!! :)
Yet none of those confirm there are any fake documents. Right?
Your defense of an admitted identity thief, and forger is unconsionable. There’s not much point of showing you more proof of the crime when the alarmist written links I’ve provided weren’t read and the criminals confession pooh-poohed. I guess it’s an indictment of a broader character that this is the case.
Gleickgate’s dry run was his fabricated book revue of Donna Laframboise… probably to see how much he could get away with. Inserting himself into the middle of the forgery to be the center of attention, sort’a Clifford Olsen like, yeah, thats the kind of name and reputation to believe in.
I’m equally as impressed with DeSmoggyBlogs 1 hours worth of confirmation before it’s rush to judge and publish the forgery. Thats urinalism at it’s best… considering its motto is “Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” I think we can both agree they are the PR they speak of!!! ;)
Sad though, as an alarmist spokesman for honesty and integrity it turns out that he had none.
Your comparison of a scientist desperate to save the world, with a serial killer, is mind boggling. You’ll find, but probably won’t see (due to your heightened state of willful blindness) that climate change deniers will be more comparable to serial killers, for their intentional delay of pollution reductions.
Actually I was refering to their similar narcissistic tendencies. Not deeds.
Heaven forbid I bring an angry Holocaust upon deniers with my comparison! ;)
“Longtime Democratic operative Chris… Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73099_Page2.html#ixzz1mzXRBEbw
Gore-Lehane-Gleick…. Nahhhhhhhh, no bedmates there.
Prairiekid’s FOLLOW THE MONEY, the very first comment, now seems eerily prophetic……….. or should I say profitic??? ;)
I love Gleickgates (non)apology… “I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials… (then 9 lines of ‘wah-wah-wah it wuz their fault) Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case.” Popycock!!! :)
Use your own brain and look at the timeline…
“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy… (inserted by me “the memo, which was created via an Epson scanner at 3:41 PM on February 13th. ” http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/)… I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. (inserted by me, same source, “PDFs that Heartland acknowledges, almost all of them were created by printing to PDF on January 16th, the day before Heartland’s board meeting. There is a Board Directory that was created on the 25th of January, also by printing to PDF).”
Face it, you were had. Look on the bright side, he’s got Al Gores PR man riding shotgun… and everyone knows how much the Gorester is admired and respected! Snort snort snort!!! ;) So much for a winner of a MacArthur genius award!!! :) :)
Amonst other things, this is what alarmists swallow… (via Gleickgates (non)apology) “I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.”
While the truth is in fact “In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/#more-57134
“Oh what a tangled web we weave…………….”
“………………… when first we practice to deceive.”
Gleikgate turned down the offer of debate… while preaching to the faithfull he wanted it!!!
How Jimmy Swaggart can ya get!
Best response to Gleickgate yet! :) “Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s (National Center for Science Education) board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.” http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/source-heartland-leak-steps-forward-007220
BUT!!!!!! NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented “they show that NCSE was right to broaden its scope to include the teaching of climate science. There really are coordinated attempts to undermine the teaching of climate science, and NCSE is needed to help to thwart them.”
In short, yeah we were had but we believe it anyway!!! :) :) :)
Such is eco-religeous climo-faith!!! ;)
To Red Jeff and Klem, I have read through your post, looked at all of the pages you linked to, but I think that you are both prematurely declaring a victory for your side. The agreed facts are that Dr. Peter Glieck has admitted to calling up the board of the Heartland Institute claiming to be one of the board members and asking for copies of some confidential documents. He may have admitted to fraud, misrepresentation, although I think that identity theft is a bit of a stretch (he didn’t steal any credit card or Social Security numbers, or at least he has not yet been accused of these things), and may well have ended his academic career.
But the notion that he in any way altered the documents or made up one entirely from scratch has not yet been substantiated, and he has not admitted to it. The links you cited were just the conclusions drawn by people who are on your side politically, and not established facts, in spite of all the howling laughter on your part. When you say “everyone” is calling this story a fake, again, you mean conservative libertarian types. Online, it is so easy to find people who think like you, and start rumours and quickly agree that they are true (and there are millions of you I’m sure). That is what I think you have done here.
And it is certainly premature to say that Glieck is going to jail for this. You may be disappointed if he gets off with a small fine or gets off altogether, and you will go off saying that the trial was somehow tainted or fixed. Of course, if it is proven that he did alter the documents in any way, then I would capitulate and say you were right, and we were wrong. We’ll just have to wait.
“you will go off saying that the trial was somehow tainted or fixed”
The trial will be tainted or fixed!!!
Hi Looney! Thanks for your response! As you have said Gleick committed fraud and misrepresentation (by his own admission) and assumed anothers identity to obtain goods that belonged to someone else of which he was not entitled. This is identity theft plain and simple, thats why he has retained a criminal lawyer, John Keker. Had I done the same actions to obtain a fraudulent mortgage or someones bank deposits I would be equally charged. To the courts, what he stole is not important… only that the crime was committed. I do agree with you tho’, his academic career is over.
I disagree completely with your view that “The links you cited were just the conclusions drawn by people who are on your side politically… conservative libertarian types. ” I have taken great pains to quote only liberal and alarmist opinions… Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr. and ecocentric blog can hardly be considered “conservative or libertarian”. Likewise Megan McArdle describes herself as “I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland’s position on global warming. I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it… caveats out of the way, here’s why I think that memo is probably fake:…” Again this is in no way the ‘conservative’ view. Megan’s column relies heavily on facts dug up by David Appell, a noted UK alarmist (who I’ve had many on-line discussions with). I would most reccomend you reread the Atlantic pieces by McArdle.
Other citations are by DeSmoggyBlog, Huffington Post, National Center for Science Education and Exxonsecrets. Again not the most ‘conservative’ of publications! ;) . Denier cite’s are also there as I couldn’t find references for the quotes I was showing.
So as not to be accused of “starting rumours” I have provided all relevent citations and notations. My advice would be for you to do the same in future! ;)
All the best….. Jeff
Um Saskboy, so how come you haven’t threatened to ban Red Jeff yet?
He’s given you far more grief than i ever have and yet he has received no ban threat. What gives?
Well in all fairness, Saskboy has more tolerance than web hosts at alot of other sites. I’ve been booted from Deep Climate already and I’ve only posted on a couple of pages. Red Jeff wouldn’t last a day over there.
He hasn’t completely worn out his welcome, yet. He’s made an attempt to at least back up his (incorrect) opinion that the Heartland documents are fake, which is ridiculous since Heartland claims that the information contained in them puts their people at risk due to the details contained there-in. Fake information would put no one at risk except the leaker (Peter) and why would he do that, then confess to the unethical means of obtaining them?
An ATTEMPT to back up my opinion????? Surely you jest. In over 60 comments to this post there are a total of 17 citations… I’ve listed 16 of them (94%)!! That my friend isn’t opinion, that is refered to as proof!!! :)
I don’t want anyone to take my word as gospel, hell my wife doesn’t believe anything I say either!!! :) :) !!! And that’s the way it should be. I don’t present an opinion… I present a line of reasoning with evidence to back it up.
Heartland says the released documents… donor list, employee list, personal contact information etc. puts people at risk because of threats from irrational nutbars in the alarmist community. Exactly the same as nutbars in the ‘denier’ community threaten alarmist scientists. Surely you couldn’t be living under a rock so long as to not understand this?!? As of yesterday the lead post at ClimateProgress was about threats to Rajendra Pachuri’s life from just those nutjobs!
To pretend, or worse believe, that alarmists are as pure as the driven snow is down right delusional.
I would respectfully ask, what ‘scientific’ value is releasing donors or personal contact information???????????????? Yeah, as alarmists say, ‘it’s all about the science’!!!!
Surely, Saskboy, you can’t be so obtuse as to not understand why people would be concerned for their safety when their personal information is released in conjunction with a FORGED MEMO designed to inflame passions (which is exactly what it did to you and you fell for it!!!).
I thought it was overtly obvious as to why Gleick confessed but I guess I should fully explain it…. as can be seen above (accompanied by proper citation) he was being questioned directly on Feb 19th (see date stamp on my comment to R. Shearer) a full 2 days before he came clean. In reality he was already busted before the week was out and decided (with PR help?) to try to make the best of a bad situation.
Saskboy, you do your integrity no favours when you declare a post “UPDATED”, cross out a minor phrase (accidentally leaked) and insert the crux of the post (…secrets to a third party (Peter) who leaked…). By adding at the end a 3 line ‘correction’ explaining that the previous 44 line post is a pile of hogwash is equally rediculous.
Lastly, why would he confess to stealing but not forging the documents? My guess is that the man is so stupid so as not to realize the seriousness of the crime, in America, of wire fraud. In Texas it can get you a life sentence. But it is Peter Gleick…. and he’s no rocket scientist! ;) !
Pals always…………………. Jeff
Yes, attempt. A poor one.
“Heartland says the released documents… donor list, employee list, personal contact information etc. puts people at risk because of threats from irrational ”
So faked personal information puts (fake) people at risk? Get your versions straight, or take off and troll somewhere else.
At least my 16 citations are a tad more substantial than the 2 cite DeSoggyBlog book report that this post was based on! ;) !
Also may I remind you that your entire post was based on the forged document “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy”.
Lastly which of the following words didn’t you understand… “Surely, Saskboy, you can’t be so obtuse as to not understand why people would be concerned for their safety when their personal information is released in conjunction with a FORGED MEMO designed to inflame passions (which is exactly what it did to you and you fell for it!!!).”?
When you read that and say “So faked personal information puts (fake) people at risk?” It’s clear you didn’t understand any of it. What would you like me to clarify?
You’re skipping over the obvious point, that if the contact information is real, so is the rest. If it’s not real, then Peter didn’t steal anything successfully, despite the trick he pulled.
Again, that statement defies both logic and common sense. It would be the same reasoning as saying ‘teacher, I got the first answer on the test right so ergo all my other answers are right too!’.
In your opinion is that also “obvious”?
Hi Klem! I have been warned about using nicknames for people tho!!! I think nick’s are funny and allow people to become familiar with each other… a more personal touch.
I agree with you 100%, Sask is way more tolerant than most web hosts. Then again it’s easier to censor a commenter’s writings than disprove them. Especially when the commenter is right!!
I’ve been banned on the flimsiest of excuses including “negativity”!!! Shades of the old Soviet style of “defeatism” or “bourgeoism”!!!
I think I got banned from Deep Climate because the host said I was wrong too often or something like that. Lol!
That’s why you two are treading on thin ice here too. Jesters only serve a purpose if they are the side show, not if they try to hog the stage.
As opposed to those that commit wire fraud and most likely forgery who are lionized and given the stage ;)
It doesn’t mean as much, since DeSmogBlog has done the analysis, but here’s the reasoning behind why the memo is not fake:
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
Again, a book report. I do note in the article a complete lack of ANY confirmation of authenticity. NO one has shown it to be genuine. NO one has shown it’s in any way real!!!
Nice of you to put in a reference tho’ ;). That and the ‘update’ shows that I’m at least getting through to your common decency. I know you have it in you.
Ummmmmmm….. How can you spin this…..? “in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion.”
True or false?
Deniers Take a Major Blow- Gleick apologized to NCSE for his behavior
[Administrator note: remaining comment deleted for being repetitive claptrap]
Ahhhhh censoring! I was wondering how long it would take you to counter the truth by voiding the proof!!!
Moderating. You have dozens of your comments posted here. You were warned that hogging the stage would lead to this. You aren’t offering any proof, you’re repeatedly offering your opinion based on other feeble opinions and the false statements of an outed Denial Machine organization that their real budget isn’t public now, but they’d like it not to be.
You’re clearly passionate about this subject, but you reduce the utility of my blog by posting so much claptrap, daily. Get your own blog to pollute.
Megan McArdle, one her third post on the subject, says “And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier. I would probably have thrown that memo away. I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what? That Heartland exists? That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible?” Duhhhhhhhhhh! http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/some-more-thoughts-on-heartland/253449/
I see you have remained strangely silent on this subject (like the rest of the alarmist commenters) since this first ‘damning’ post, yet, climategate 1&2 still remain prominent in your discussion a full 2 YEARS after their release ;)
I guess the old adage of “truth will prevail” is showing it’s appropriateness!! :)
It’s completely sane to expose the inner workings of criminally dangerous organizations that lie about a critical issue of our time that has the potential to destroy civilization.
By criminal are you refering to FORGERY, wire fraud and identity theft… Peter Gleicks crimes?
Criminal, as in the intentional destruction of critical life support ecosystems, leading to extinctions and suffering.
Oh, I thought you were talking about about real crimes and real laws (of which Heartland Institute has been charged with breaking none) rather than emotionally ficticious and imaginary ones you’ve ‘invented’! :) :)
By the way, I missed the trial, can you tell me who got convicted for extinguishing the dinosaurs? My moneys on Exxon! Ha ha ha!!!
I’m leaving that dino comment to show future readers what sort of nonsense comments of yours I’ve been removing to make this somewhat more readable.
Alarmist McArdle gives alarmist bloggers, activists and scientists a most profound schooling on ‘loose’ alarmist morality with this sage advice… “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.” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
Then again, we didn’t need Gleickgate to confirm alarmist lies, we’ve had their Climategate confessions for over 2 years!!! ;)
How much money is Peter Glieckgate getting? After all, the money train taints words doesn’t it?
Glad you asked!…….
[Administrator note: remaining comment deleted. I didn’t ask. Get your own blog, your repetitive attacks have grown much too numerous and tiresome, and I don’t have time to verify them so I’m not about to host your potentially libelous material.]
I hope you’re not worried about potential libel because I’ve sent across this web page to the Heartland Institute!
You should be hearing from them this afternoon!!!
Not to worry tho’ the (cited) information that you censored is a matter of public record on file with the EPA. They, as public servants, are held accountable to the truth….. unlike others! ;)
That is the MO of Deniers like yourself, and Heartland: SLAPP and libel chill, while creating doubt about the truth, to cause enough indecisiveness to give bad actions a free pass. It’s a bit like someone in a position of power being caught in a crime, but because of the presumption of innocence (and peoples skepticism they feed on), they remain on their job doing more damage until they’re finally shut down years later, profiting the whole time from the crime.
Destroy what is real and true, build the corrupt system in its place, and even after caught and punished, continue to benefit because the real system is gone and it’s deemed easier to just work with the crippled mistake.
Priceless!!!! Censor truth and blame libel!!!! It sure isn’t stopping you printing outright lies about the Heartland Institute. Yet, at the same time you censor statements that are a matter of public record at the EPA for fear of ‘legal action’.
I’ll give you credit, it takes cahones to be as hypocritical as you admit to! ;)
As for the system you espouse, built on censorship and control, i think I’ll keep advocating for the old one. The one based on freedom and democracy.
I didn’t say that about the EPA, and you know it.
It’s your unfounded comments about Peter’s character that are potentially libelous.
You can’t back Heartland, your heroes, and pretend to be a fan of democracy when their existence is a testament to the distortion of that political ideal.
Just a legal note… When you describe the theft as “… tricked into giving…” you show a basic ignorance of California law, specifically (California)Senate Bill 1411 “Senate Bill 1411 would make it unlawful to knowingly and without consent credibly impersonate another person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means with the intent to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud another person. SB 1411 brings us up to date by making these forms of cyber impersonation a punishable offense.
SB 1411 would add upon existing criminal penalties by providing a civil remedy, whereby anyone who suffers damage or loss as a victim of false impersonation perpetrated through the Internet or other electronic means may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief.” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1411_bill_20100927_chaptered.html
I hope this helps both your and Looneys understanding of law.
You’re welcome………………… Jeff
[Administrator note: I’m leaving this only because it provides some factual information. I don’t agree that that specific law is intended to apply in a case where someone, for investigative reporting purposes, uses deception to obtain information for the public good.]
Luckily for us the courts get to interpret the law, not people protecting their ‘heroes’!
Indeed, it is lucky.
I find it funny that the words attributed to deniers (from your article) “…it is important to keep opposing voices out.” is a lot more applicable to the alarmist mindset.
[Administrator note: rest of the comment deleted. Anyone can see from this comment thread that you’ve more than made your point. If you can’t do it in under 30 comments, you’re not doing so well.
Stop wasting our time by putting more oppositional junk here in mass quantities, and get your own blog to dump on and link to with your username link instead. You may only leave less voluminous comments occasionally and non-repetitively.]
Red Jeff, don’t comment here again today, don’t question my integrity again, and stop wasting our time. It would be hypocritical of me to let you continue to comment here today after I’ve already said your obsessive posting is coming to a close. And it’s rich that you’d question my integrity while you support Heartland.
“And it’s rich that you’d question my integrity while you support Heartland.”
Who did Heartland defraud? (Noone, and don’t try and claim they have unless you are prepared to press and possibly face charges.)
Are you not the party defending an admitted criminal? (Yes.)
Pretty obvious who is lacking integrity here, and it aint Red Jeff!
“Criminal, as in the intentional destruction of critical life support ecosystems, leading to extinctions and suffering.”
Break out the straight jacket! We got another ‘James J Lee’! lol
And you need not censor me, I prefer to stay away from the insane.
Good luck with your wacky worldview. ;)
I’ve seen your comments elsewhere, and would be rather pleased not to see more of them here, as they add no value.
I do think it’s better to defend someone who confesses to a crime that serves justice, than to be on your side of defending criminals who deny their actions hurt innocent people.
Anyone who has even the slightest interest in this subject knows full well that Heartland is fraudulent as fuck. Heartland is fraudulent at its very core.
‘Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises “input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics”.’
That is a textbook case of scientific misconduct. The whole *purpose* of Heartland is to spread FUD for its funders.
Heartland performs the same duty as any green advocacy group, they speak for their members, but without resorting to criminal activity like Gleick. They don’t need to, they have science on their side.
Greenpeace managed to even get some of their propaganda into AR4. Remember Himalayagate? Pachauri was warned repeatedly that it was pure propaganda and yet he allowed it to be published.
Talk about defrauding the public, and the whole world.
You guys are going to look ever so much sillier as the world continues to cool. Climate change deniers.
“Gator” has had two additional comments removed. He’s technically free to post again, but when he does it will only be more repetitive trolling, complete with nonsense threats, because that is all he has to offer.
Am I ready to “press charges” [sic]? No doofus, because I’m not a Crown Attorney, and just who would I charge, with what?
If you’d like to see his gleeful troll-collaboration with Red Jeff [also not technically banned, just completely unable to contribute meaningful, non-repetitive responses], here it is:
# Red Jeff 2012-02-26 12:53
Ha Ha!! Gator, if you and Mark want to have a little ‘alarmist’ fun, I recommend you make a comment here saskboy.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/denialgate-climate-change-deniers-take-a-major-blow/
It took me 4 days to get banned commenting on Gleikgate! I at least forced him to put a correction (update) to his totally ficticious alarmist accounting of wire fraud, forgery, identity theft errrrrrr “trick” that the Gleickster performed.
Hide the decline an’ all!!! :D
The boy’s about as smart as a bag of hammers and gets exceptionally upset if you question his integrity!… which he obviously lacks! The fun part is he’s 4 days too thick to realize the mickey is being taken out of him!!!
PS…. I married a francophone Richard… ‘Reeshard’ mes ami ‘Reeshard’… tabernaque calice!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
# Gator 2012-02-26 14:08
Hey Jeff! Did you contact HI? If you didn’t, I will. That boy is a lunatic! :lol:
They are so very unhinged. I cannot imagine going through life without principles, and reason.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
# Red Jeff 2012-02-26 16:07
8th word Gator?? :D :D :D !! Yer gonna’ give him cardiac!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
# Gator 2012-02-26 16:12
If the lightning doesn’t hit his tin foil hat first! :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
# Gator 2012-02-26 17:32
Well that didn’t take long. My second comment was deleted. :lol:
climatechangedispatch.com/home/9988-97-of-scientists-say-humans-are-responsible-for-climate-change
I take it the hat has not been hit yet.
Gator, go away. You lie. You said you didn’t want to hang around the insane, implying that I am. So either you’ve changed your mind about my mental health, or you’re a liar. I’ll let my readers decide.
You think I am enjoying this? I said I ‘prefer’ to stay away.
Read much?
[Administrator note:
“Gator 2012-02-26 10:58
Hey Mark! I know your pain. I have been banned from more sites than I care to remember, and not for inflammatory comments, but because the weenies had no answer to my questions. Then of course, once you are banned, the weenies have a field day knowing you cannot reply.
Adam does a wonderful job staying on topic, sticking to the hard science and is a saint amongst posters, I do not have his patience. Those who repeatedly bleat nonsense get on my nerves, fools who refuse to learn are not something with which I can abide.
Besides, laughing at silly and ill informed warmists is such great fun!“
Keep lying, liar. Just do it somewhere else.]
What lie?
You are beyond warmist. There are warmists who view Gleick’s deceit beyond the pale. You have lowered yourself substantially by siding with Peter. I’m not laughing, I would not have made any further comments except that you ingaged me, and what you are doing is reprehensible.
It’s not funny.
Speaking of warmists who condemn Gleick’s fraud…
“AGU President’s message
We must remain committed to scientific integrity
27 February 2012
During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/agu-president-on-gleicks-shocking-fall-from-grace-his-transgression-cannot-be-condoned-regardless-of-his-motives/
One more reason why WUWT is a bloggie winner, and you are not.
Pingback: Parade of Disgraceful Conservatives | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff