Cyberbullying Scientists: Using Threats in an Effort to Silence the Discussion on Climate Change

 Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Recently, the Wall Street Journal refused to publish a letter on the subject of climate change that was signed by 255 scientists—all of whom are members of the United States National Academy of Sciences. The WSJ chose instead to publish an opinion piece titled No Need to Panic about Global Warming that was written by 16 “other scientists.” It has been reported that the 16 “other scientists” include engineers, a physician, a retired airplane designer, a retired electrical engineer, and astrophysicists. Also included among the “No Need to Panic” authors are two men—one who questions whether smoking causes cancer (Richard Lindzen) and another who does not believe that asbestos is a health hazard (Claude Allegre).

According to Media Matters, most of the scientists who signed the WSJ op-ed do not publish peer-reviewed papers on climate research. In addition, more than a third of them have links to fossil fuel interests.

Peter Gleick, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow, wrote an article for Forbes descrying the WSJ’s actions.

Gleick wrote:

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”

Serious doubt has been cast on the actual expertise on climate science of the signers and on the accuracy of the content, here and elsewhere, and the strawman arguments and technical flaws of their opinion piece are evident to anyone actually versed in the scientific debate. For example, their op-ed has fundamental errors about recent actual temperatures, they use false/strawman arguments that climate scientists are saying climate change “will destroy civilization,” they launch ad hominem attack on particular climate scientists using out-of-context quotes, and so on. Formal responses are in the works, and will be available from a variety of groups in the next day or so. [Just as an example, as pointed out here previously, and at the Union of Concerned Scientists: the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. The reality? 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.]

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, the letter that was signed by the 255 scientists, spoke of their concern about the recent escalation in assaults on scientists—especially climate scientists. They said that the assaults on both climate science and scientists came from climate change deniers who “are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.” The scientists called “for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

Not long ago, I was disheartened to learn that climate scientists in the United States and in other countries have become victims of cyber-bullying. In 2010, Douglas Fisher wrote an article for Scientific American titled Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned. Fisher spoke of how climate researchers have to purge crude and crass emails that they find in their inboxes every day. Some consider purging such correspondence as a task they must deal with as part of the job of being a climate scientist. Others, however, “see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.”

Clive Hamilton, an Australian author and academic said, “The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate.” Gavin Schmidt, a scientist who works for NASA, said that “organized, ‘McCarthyite’ tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful.” He added “‘Frivolous’ Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers’ time.” Schmidt claims that the worst things of all are the “‘intimidating letters’ from congressional members threatening dire consequences to scientists working on climate change.”

Last month, MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel, a Republican and the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate program, received a “frenzy of hate male” after a video that featured an interview with him was published by Climate Desk.

**********

VIDEO LINK: Not all Republicans are climate deniers (In the run-up to the New Hampshire primary, former Rep. Bob Inglis, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel, and other Republicans talk about why climate action is a conservative value)

**********

Mother Jones reported that the emails contained “veiled threats’ against Emanuel’s wife—as well as other “tangible threats.” Emanuel said, “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.” He added, “What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all. I thought it was low to drag somebody’s spouse into arguments like this.”

The Guardian reported last June that Australian climate scientists had been receiving death threats. As a response to the large number of threatening emails and telephone calls, the Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra moved some of its “leading climate scientists to a secure facility…”

Ian Young, ANU’s vice-chancellor, said, “Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time. These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.” Young added that “scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street.”

Canberra Times reported last year that more than 30 researchers in Australia—including ecologists, environmental policy experts, meteorologists, and atmospheric physicists—told the paper that they had been receiving a “stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.” Some of the scientists installed upgraded home security systems and switched to unlisted phone numbers because they were fearful that their homes and cars might be damaged.

One researcher even spoke of “receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.”

One climate scientist, who did not want to be identified, told ABC News that a dead animal was once left on his doorstep. He said he now travels with bodyguards at times. David Koroly, a professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Science, told ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. He said, “It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.”

Addendum: An Excerpt from Cowards in Our Democracy: Part 1, Written by James Hansen, Climatologist and Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Today most media, even publicly-supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility. Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces — all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.

Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?

I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media.

SOURCES

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science (Science Magazine)

WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists (ThinkProgress)

Climate Scientists Rebuke Rupert Murdoch: WSJ Denier Op-Ed Like ‘Dentists Practicing Cardiology’ (ThinkProgress)

The rise of anti-science cyber bullying (ThinkProgress)

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened in a “Frenzy of Hate” and Cyberbullying Fomented by Deniers (ThinkProgress)

Price Of Truth: Limbaugh Operatives Encourage Abusive Hate Mail At Female, Evangelical Climate Scientist (ThinkProgress)

Climatologist James Hansen on “Cowards in Our Democracies” (ThinkProgress)

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1 (Columbia)

The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery (Media Matters)

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal (Forbes)

Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned: Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of being a climate scientist (Scientific American)

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened In A “Frenzy of Hate”: Kerry Emanuel’s inbox was flooded with menacing emails after Climate Desk’s video on Republican climate hawks. (Mother Jones)

The Inside Story on Climate Scientists Under Siege: Michael Mann reveals his account of attacks by entrenched interests seeking to undermine his ‘hockey stick’ graph. (Mother Jones)

While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower (Discover Magazine)

WSJ War on Climate Science continues with 16 prominent (but not in climate science) Scientists (Firedoglake)

Australian climate scientists targeted by death threats (Climate Science Watch)

ABC World News: Climate Scientists Claim ‘McCarthy-Like Threats’ (Climate Science Watch)

Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers: ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming (The Independent)

Australian climate scientists receive death threats: Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls (The Guardian)

Climate change denial’s new offensive: Global warming is wreaking devastation, but Big Oil won’t give up profits without a planet-destroying fight (Salon)

337 thoughts on “Cyberbullying Scientists: Using Threats in an Effort to Silence the Discussion on Climate Change

  1. Great article Elaine. The WSJ is a bought and sold employee of climate deniers. The citorial board should all resign in shame. How can you call yourself a real newspaper when you won’t show both sides of the debate?

  2. It is truly amazing how a wholely empirical issue has become one driven by extreme emotion reaching similar levels as the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

    It’s astonishing to hear about the attacks and threats agains scientists.

    Thank you for this posting.

  3. Climate change is an emotive issue for fossil fuelers. They were losing the debate. That’s profit and control threatening Highly emotive points.

    But hell, i won”t see it in my life said the mammoth that froze in Siberia in one days time, and found later by scientists.

    Great job.

  4. There is Big Money involved here. The oil, gas and coal industry is going to fight this tooth and nail. They do not want alternative fuel research to go forward if they can help it. The whole industry is being run like a crime syndicate, using some of the same methods.

  5. They seek out leaders to attack by dirty methods.
    The problem is they don’t have any point people exposed to hold responsible.
    Not that one could expect the DoJ to do anything. Nor is there a McCarthy to censure, assuming the Senate is still capable Not even a resolution of support, not one of censure of this re-born threat.

  6. Who would have thought Harold was giving money to this…he is so damn cheap….

    I will make a note to about Microsoft….they give software to any 501 that requests it….. the KKK can get it….as well as Susan G. Komen….

  7. My complaint on this issue, as shown in several comments upthread, is the economic, or political suppositions, when, what Elaine has shown is clearly a psychological problem, not merely a financial or misdemeanor-mischievousness problem.

    There are, no doubt in my mind, suicidal ECOCIDAL and mass-murder energies afoot concerning this issue.

    They, in turn, are stimulating people who are seized by paranoia and other fears, which delude them, into a sometimes literal attack on the messengers because they do not like the deadly serious message.

    For those interested, I have a series ongoing which criticizes those who do not yet grasp the seriousness of the mass suicide-mass murder aspects of these events.

    It is high time we change “follow the money” into “follow the psychosis” …

  8. Climate change is natural and inevitable however we are making a difference. We need to fully understand the impact we have and indeed can have but we also need to work on adapting to it, which will involve a process of predicting what will happen.

    If we fail to adapt humans will go the way of the dinosaurse and we’ve only been around maybe a 10th of the time so far. Pretty crap for the most intelligent species.

    Roll on the age of the lizard people, I reckon they’ll get it done and will be around for several million years and travel to the stars and have new colonies long before our sun burns out.

  9. Very interesting piece ! But so sad and scary
    To know that so much power is there to avoid
    The facts and to hold back on the resources to
    Fix our problems – that’s why we have those dedicated
    Scientists – to try to save our earth. Shame ! Wish
    We could see what those great 255 minds had to say ?
    Please try to publish the letter.

  10. Dredd,
    You have something there, as a cancer survivor; one of the first reactions to a serious life threat, IS DENIAL. EXTREME DENIAL. I experienced it.
    So why not a population too. Or significant parts of it.
    Any solutions other than just showing the way to survival or lying about it.

    A personal note: At fourteen I was struck down when the auditorium was informed by the visiting scientist that the ujniverse would end in heat death. Since then there have been more proximate threats. But the first one was tough to take.

    Thanks again Elaine M.

  11. Who among us has heard of Barre Seid? I had not heard of him until this afternoon while reading an article by Samuel Henderson.

    To sum up, Barre Seid is an immensely secretive, but immensely wealthy, right wing oligarch who funds climate denial issues. He is from Chicago, Companies he owns or controls include Trippe Manufacturing (makers of Tripp Lite surge protectors, power supplies and related products) and Fiber Bond of Michigan City, IN. Seid’s net worth is unknown, but he is believed to be a billionaire or multibillionaire.

    Here is Henderson’s article, complete with multiple links (the text in orange typeface are links). This is REAL reporting, not the pablum fed to us by corporate media which seems to be increasingly controlled by people like Seid and his ilk.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/18/1065989/-Who-is-the-Anonymous-Donor-behind-Denialgate-Here-s-one-possibility-?detail=hide

  12. The water has gotten warmer here in the Pamlico Sound in the past five years. The government knows all about it because they put thermometer on us along with the tracking device as we bop around.

    Franklin & Eleanor
    Talkin Dolphins sitting in for
    TalkinDog

  13. Dean Fox,

    You are so right, this is, if the view looking back is anything to go by, an inter-glacial period. And predictions are that we have only at best 10,000 years to go until the next. Most have heard this at one time or another.

    But what was interesting to me was a TV program which I couldn’t follow up on what was “demonstrated”.
    An anthropologist stood below the chalk cliffs of England and drew 4 lines in the sand. They represented the four glacial periods there, In between them he place 3 replicas of homonid remains which had been found in each layer, as it were. Now he said we were talking about hominid eradication and return over a period of X million years. This didn’t jibe with other theories of man’s trip out of Africa after the latest melting some 15,000 years ago.
    Any thoughts on that?

    And Elaine M., can you help on searching for a video or article supporting earlier occupations than the latest by mankind.

    PS It seems that the Neanderthals were not there. which seems peculiar.
    As their remains are dated to 200,000 years ago and all over W, and E. Europe.

    As your interests dictate.

  14. TalkinDog,

    I know where Pamlico Sound is. And I know why it has gotten warmer.
    It’s because of all the hog raising and dumping of urine and faeces into the rivers feeding the Pamlico. Haven’t you as a young dog bathed in´the baby pool and noticed the temp was higher there.

    And if it’s not Pamlico, so it is another sound that got so polluted from the pig farms that fishermen got skin diseases from working there. If the fish were edible don’t remember.

    Or is an old Raleigh boy off base? I only watch the news from over here.

  15. pete,

    you’re borrowing trouble….. when your mom get home you gonna get in real big trouble…. you don’t have any right to discuss ron paul, if you do discuss ron paul you will get a back hand across the face, if you get a back hand across the face you will have to cowtail to post any further links to ron paul…. do you understand those rights as they have been explained to you….. do you still wish to discuss ron paul…..

  16. ‘Kerry Emanuel… received a “frenzy of hate male”’

    Dammit! Isn’t it about time we had some gender equality in the hate?

  17. Did they expect anything else from WSJ? The editorial side of the page has been a haven for paleo-conservatives since long before Murdoch bought it. They would have had a better shot if they’d bought an ad instead. Obviuousky, WSJ prefers something that is “paid for” one way or another.

  18. Idealist: We talkin dolphins work the Pamlico Sound and gurgle and burgle into the TalkinDolphin machine which gets converted into this written drivel. We are standing in for TalkinDog whose TalkinDog machine is broke down.
    The word here in the Sound is: the pig farmers blame Weyhauser Lumber Company and the Lumber Company blames cities on the Trent and Neuse Rivers who dump sewage into the rivers. The Ciy of New Bern blames the feces, not the temperature rise, on the swimmers who fart under water at the beaches. We dolphins notice that some boats of all sizes dump their feces overboard, whether in port or not. Betty and I can only attest the this later outrage or outage. All in all it makes for green slime in the morning. Ike and Mamie blame the pig farmers, Harry & Bess blame the lumber yards, Jack & Marilyn, whoops, Jacki, blame the boaters. That is about the size of it. Gurgle.

    Gerald & Betty
    TalkinDolphines standing in for
    TalkinDog

  19. TalkinDog standins Gerald and Betty,

    Do they let people swim in the sounds? Wow. How healthy is that, for them.
    Thanks goodness you can go up for air, since they ain’t none in them waters. Seen any fish up gulping desperately?
    Coming up for air there, you’ve probably noticed that beautiful swamp aroma: half paper mill, quarter moonshine burnin’, and quarter pig shit. And don’t tell me those downstream from Raleigh drink out of the Neuse.

    Boat dumpers are like the folks on the Ganges; drink it, shit in it, bathe in it, boat in it, burnt corpses in it……don’t seem to hurt them none.
    A little shit never hurt nobody. I know what, they think it’s holy. Get ur preacher to pray over it. Guaranteed. Is that you laughin’ I hear?

    They claim that Stockholm’s effluent is fully sanitized. Tell that to the fish who left here long ago. Now there’s only seasonal catches of small herring, and they’re so full of mercury that once a month eating is max, and forbidden for children and pregnants.

    Warn TalkinDog that we won’t let ours drink when the algae blooms, nor kids to bathe. Poisonous for dogs! We haven’t had kids drinkin’, it’s too salty for that.

  20. Wow 38 comments as of this posting and no bdaman. No one should be allowed to deny climate change. 97 percent of climate scientist agree that man is the cause. The other 3 percent should be court ordered and be banned of speaking publicly about it. Global warming is a threat to all humanity. We are having our warmest winter ever.

  21. And then there are the killjoys who say this is only an inter-glacial period.
    The last cold period was over 200,000 years plus or minus.
    Enjoy it while you can, ha ha ha, they say, on the way back to their icebox.

  22. Lets get some things straight here.

    No significant warming in approximately the last 15 years.

    The U K Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Center released new data back in mid January and it confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    To help confirm this we have Phil Jones who was quoted back in 2010 as saying for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Then we look at Climategate in where Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC’s lead author on climate change science wrote an e-mail that states. ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.’

    Now you maybe wondering what is the UK Met Office and what is the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Center.

    From wikipedia: The Met Office (originally an abbreviation for Meteorological Office, but now the official name in itself), is the United Kingdom’s national weather service, and a trading fund of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Part of the Met Office headquarters at Exeter in Devon is the Met Office College, which handles the training for internal personnel and many forecasters from around the world. The current chief executive is John Hirst. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the National Meteorological Library and Archive are also parts of the Met Office.

    and

    The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is a component of the University of East Anglia and is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.[1]

    With a staff of some thirty research scientists and students, the CRU has contributed to the development of a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including one of the global temperature records used to monitor the state of the climate system,[2][3] as well as statistical software packages and climate models.[4]

    So this is your first lesson on whether or not the globe has warmed in the last 15 years. This is now an indisputable fact. end of discussion on whether or not the planet has warmed or not in the last 15 years. To be fair a Climatological year if you will is generally accepted as a total of 30 years.

  23. As for Bdaman, don’t talk loudly, but the last I saw he was talking to himself on an otherwise empty thread. Smart trick of somebody.
    Something titled Christianity versus Paganism. The last is a lie of course.
    But I did see him, and ran……

  24. Bdaman,
    I see you have no avatar. Is that because you find nothing comparable?
    Or that the lens of devices filter out the truth eminating from you?
    Shall I continue?
    Ask, and ye shall receive in just measure. Making up half perceived scripture verses on the way.

  25. Now lets shift over to CO2 for a moment and compare it to lesson #1

    In 1995 the approximate level of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 350ppm, the so called safe zone. 350ppm is what many scientists, climate experts claim to be the safe zone for CO2 in our atmosphere. So based on that assumption the less CO2 in the atmosphere the better. Can everyone agree on this? It is after all another indisputable fact that in order to achieve this we must reduce carbon emissions through the reduction of burning fossil fuels. CO2 has increased unabated the last 15 years and is now close to 400ppm. So all though atmospheric CO2 has increased we see that there is no increase in temperature.

  26. Thanks, Bdaman–but I’ll take the word of 255 scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences on this issue.

    BTW, what do you think of the cyber-bullying of climate scientists and the threats made against them in order to silence the discussion on climate change? After all, that was the point of this post.

  27. I think it’s bullshit because the theory that CO2 causes everything it’s blamed for is bullshit thats what I think and if you have to be bullied to be reminded of that so be it. Sounds like Al Gores the science is settled and there will be no more debate in reverse :)

  28. Now back to your lesson. We have already discussed that CO2 at the level of 350ppm or less is considered to be the safe zone. See the website 350.org for more info. The first full year of instrumental recording of CO2 was around 1960 at a level of approximately 315ppm. Your homework is to research all that CO2 is known to make worse below, when did they happen and was the ppm of CO2 near or below the so called safe zone.

    The Worst Hurricanes
    The Worst Earthquakes In History
    The Worst Floods
    The Worst Volcanic Eruptions
    The Worst Tornadoes
    The Worst Outbreaks of Epidemic Disease
    The Worst Wildfires
    The Worst US Winter Storms and Blizzards

    http://www.epicdisasters.com/

    And yes CO2 and Climate Change can be linked to all of the above.

  29. A few years ago the New York Times did something similar. They published a front page article about a financial planner who applied for a life insurance policy with a multi-million death benefit–with the intent to sell it to the life settlements industry. It was entitled something like, “Late in Life a Bonanza.” Nevermind that this is illegal. The NY Times made it seem like the next best thing to recovering your youth. AND refused to publish any letters critical of this, including one from professor emeritus Joseph Belth.

    Is it any wonder so many newspapers are losing subscribers, when they cannot be trusted?

  30. Bdaman,

    I see. It’s your opinion that’s it’s perfectly fine to bully someone who disagrees with your opinion on a subject. That is definitely a good way to try to stifle discussion on a subject. You seem to think you’re smarter and have more knowledge than all those scientists. Delusion of grandeur?

  31. Who’s Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?
    By BRYAN WALSHTuesday, Oct. 04, 2011
    Time
    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html

    Excerpt:
    It’s one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it’s worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does. One of America’s major political parties has, in effect, adopted denial as policy. How did we get here?

    As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That’s the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. “Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades,” Dunlap and McCright write. “The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.”

    For those who’ve followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there’s not much new in Dunlap and McCright’s chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV.

    All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don’t straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are “unsettled” and that “more research” is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That’s made all the easier because whether you’re quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don’t like pain.

    “It’s reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking,” write Dunlap and McCright.

  32. Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32912.html

    Excerpt from Part 1: Climate cyber-bullying:

    All threats have to be taken seriously, and at times warrant calling in the police. The police are able to trace anonymous emails to their sources and take action against those who send them. The police are now advising those who received abusive and threatening emails to resist the immediate urge to delete them and keep them in a separate folder for future reference.

    Climate campaigners have also noticed a surge in the frequency and virulence of this new form of cyber-bullying. The following was received by a young woman (who asked that her name not be used):

    “Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?

    “Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.”

    Another campaigner opened her inbox to read this:

    “F**k off!!!

    “Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!

    “F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!!”

    *****

    Excerpt from Journalists hit:

    Journalists too have become the victims of cyber-bullying. I have spoken to several, off the record, who have told of torrents of abusive emails when they report on climate change, including some sufficiently threatening for them to consult their supervisors and consider police action.

    One was particularly disturbed at references to his wife. Another received the following from someone who gave his name and identified himself as medical representative at major pharmaceutical’s company:

    “You sad sack of s**t. It’s ok to trash climate change sceptics yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, you become a vindictive, nasty piece of s**t not able to face the fact that you’re wrong about climate change and you’re reputation is now trash.”

    Anonymous emails are usually more graphic.

    “Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!”

    *****

    Excerpt from Net rage and free speech

    The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate or to change what they say. While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate.

  33. Koch Political Group Brags About Bullying GOP Lawmakers Into Denying Climate Science
    Wednesday 7 December 2011
    by Marie Diamond
    http://www.truth-out.org/koch-political-group-brags-about-bullying-gop-lawmakers-denying-climate-science/1323283179

    Excerpt:
    In its cover story this week, the National Journal explores a curious phenomenon: while the science supporting climate change has only gotten stronger, the onetime Republican consensus on the issue has fallen apart. The reason, quite simply, is the right-wing polluter Koch Industries and its political front group Americans for Prosperity.

    As Political Correction notes, just three years ago, Republicans including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) all expressed a belief in human-caused climate change. Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even supported legislation to reduce carbon pollution. But all of these prominent leaders have since joined the rest of the Republican party “in a sudden and near-unified retreat to silence or denial.”

    What’s changed for Republican politicians is “the influx into electoral politics of vast sums of money from energy companies and sympathetic interest groups”:

    Republicans have long had close financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry, of course. Between 1998 and 2010, the oil-and-gas industry gave 75 percent of its $284 million in political contributions to Republicans. […]

    Among the most influential of the new breed of so-called super PACs is the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, founded by David and Charles Koch, the principal owners of Koch Industries, a major U.S. oil conglomerate. As Koch Industries has lobbied aggressively against climate-change policy, Americans for Prosperity has spearheaded an all-fronts campaign using advertising, social media, and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who will ensure that the oil industry won’t have to worry about any new regulations.

    AFP President Tim Phillips proudly takes credit for the GOP’s turnaround and readily admits that his group threatened politicians with “political peril” if they “played footsie” with green solutions:

    Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, says there’s no question that the influence of his group and others like it has been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science…“We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you…buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process—the conventions and the primaries—are suspect of the science. And that’s our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.”

    Thanks to AFP “science has become political,” Phillips says, and “most of these candidates have figured” that out. AFP used to claim, “We’re not arguing the science of climate change,” but got bolder as it gained more influence, boasting, “if we win the science argument it’s game, set, and match.” With AFP menacing lawmakers in the background, threatening to choke off campaign money and dangling their political careers in front of them, it’s no wonder so many Republicans have willfully ignored the indisputable truth of climate change.

  34. Ms. Elaine it really doesn’t matter, bullying, funding, consensus, everything the warmist/alarmist want to say, claim, or profess they are losing the battle when it comes to the climate change debate and little ol David ( Heartland Institute) is kicking Goliath’s ass. Less people today believe that man plays a major role in climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels. How can this be when 97 percent of climate scientist agree, hoax,hoax. Then to top it off part of the solution to the problem was to create cap and trade. Thats done, as world carbon markets have collapsed. Next was green technology and in the last year those companies are going bankrupt one after the other. So regardless of which side you are on, we are going to see ppm of CO2 continue to rise past 400 very soon, well above the 350ppm safe zone. What happens if we reach 500ppm and the world is warmer and there is no increase in major disasters what will you say then?

    And because of this administrations policies towards drilling I hope you enjoy the price of gas as Iran has now stopped selling crude oil to British and French companies as of today. So each time you pump a gallon of $5.00 gas possibly higher just remember you are helping to solve a non existing problem. Oh and don’t forget your electric bill in the next year it’s going up to as we eliminate coal fired plants while Germany goes back to burning it as they phase out all nuclear power by 2022. Oh and China they will continue to burn it until the midnight oil.

  35. AN,

    Great clip….. you went all day without mentioning ron paul….. did you click on the link to ron paul….. OS did not click on the link to ron paul…..

  36. Bdaman,

    I’m not interested in who is kicking whose ass. I’m interested in learning the truth. People can choose to bury their heads in the sand. They can ignore the scientists who are trying to get us to address some very serious issues. The deniers may try to shout down and bully the scientists down. That won’t change the facts.

    *****

    “Less people today believe that man plays a major role in climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels.”

    Fewer people believe in climate change today. And why is that?

    I remember a time back in history when the Catholic Church punished those who believed that the sun was the center of the solar system. That knowledge didn’t fit into the church’s view of the world. The church controlled the discussion and silenced those who were enlightened–just as the fossil fuel industry, the Kochs, and others are working to silence those who would enlighten us.

  37. Oh and us deniers feel like we’ve been bullied for years. I get bullied all the time here just because of what I post. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander but at least we don’t commit forgeries by adjusting the global temperature up or fraudulent documents as we’ve just seen with the Heartland episode. Can’t beat them at their own game so they have to lie cheat and steal to try and win the argument.

  38. Fewer people believe in climate change today. And why is that?

    Because it’s a lie , HELLO

    It’s real simple Ms. Elaine look at it.

    They say that 350ppm is the safe zone. Obviously less is safer. Agree ?

    Then how can this be when, look for yourself,

    http://www.epicdisasters.com/

    that the worlds worst disasters happened when it was below 350 ppm. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. We are at 400ppm or damn close. Europe is yet again having another record cold and snow event. With global warming there’s not suppose to be any snow. Remember Dr. David Vitner from the Climate Research Unit told us 12 years ago snow would soon be a thing of the past. In the last three years we’ve had snowmegeddon, snowpocalypse and Europes record winters three years in a row. So what do they tell us now. Global Warming actually makes it cold. In other words no matter what you say CO2 is blamed for everything under the sun when people are now seeing it is the sun which controls the climate in the first place.

  39. Bdaman,

    You feel like you’ve been bullied for years. I don’t think I have bullied you in any way. I disagree with your position on climate change. I will support my position. I will express my opinion on the subject. That isn’t bullying.

    This is a blog. We have discussions here about various and sundry topics. We are not scientists with expertise in a field who are being bullied daily and having our lives and our families threatened. I don’t see how you can compare people’s criticism of your stance on climate change on this blog with what has happened to the scientists.

  40. Secret papers turn up heat on global-warming deniers
    Purloined, secret documents suggest the Heartland Institute could have lobbying plans, in violation of IRS rules
    By Nina Burleigh
    http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/singleton/

    Excerpt:
    Heartland, which bills itself as anti-regulatory and libertarian, annually produces climate change “denier” conferences and pays expenses for elected officials to attend. For example, the budget shows that Heartland allocated $304,704 for scientists supporting its contrarian views in 2012.

    One of these scientists is Fred S. Singer, a physicist and National Weather Bureau satellite center founder, who is said to receive $5,000 a month. The same day as the document leak, a science watchdog named John Mashey released a detailed investigation into Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project, indicating that he failed to properly fill out income forms for the foundation. Singer has previously worked with Heartland arguing that secondhand smoke is harmless. One of Heartland’s funders, according to the documents, is Phillip Morris.

    Other scientists, researchers and pseudo-scientists on the Heartland payroll include a former California TV weatherman, Anthony Watts, who runs an anti-climate change science blog called WUWT (Watts Up With That). Heartland budgeted him $90,000 for a “special project.”

    On his blog yesterday, Watts admitted taking an unspecified sum:

    Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.

    The Heartland budget allocates more than half a million dollars for “government relations” and another $800,000 for communications. Besides the big-budget annual climate conference, another $25,920 was budgeted for eight “Heartland Capital Events” identified as “events in state capitals for elected officials,” at $3,240 each.

    As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Heartland is legally barred from using its tax-free income of $7.7 million to lobby for or against legislation. The fact that the group appears to be intending to do just that could transform the group’s ongoing public relations disaster into a legal problem. Heartland’s activities are no surprise to environmentalist watchdogs, but actual proof of moneys spent on lobbying activities might affect their legal status, if the IRS bothers to investigate.

    Besides trying to influence public (and lawmaker) opinion on fossil fuels and climate change, Heartland works on other overtly political projects that have nothing to do with climate change. The group gave $612,000 for something called “Operation Angry Badger,” aimed at the nonscientific goal of supporting Wisconsin’s anti-union Gov. Scott Walker, who is targeted for recall by progressives.

    Worried that liberal (and, in their view, overpaid) public schoolteachers are turning young minds green with impunity, Heartland planned to pay a coal industry consultant named David Wojick about $25,000 per quarter, to create a curriculum to counter global warming education in schools.

  41. Ms. Elaine I think out of all the posters here you have treated me the most fairly out of all. Thats why I have always addressed you as Ms. Elaine out of respect. And from your side you do a fantastic job of providing the info for the argument. This is not the first time I’ve told you this. But lets just look at some facts.

    Lets look at hurricanes to start. Based on everything you’ve studied and read, do you agree that with the increase of CO2 hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones are suppose to become more frequent and stronger. Remember Al Gore who is not a climate scientist says that Katrina type storms will become the norm. Katrina was in 2005 and atmospheric CO2 in 1995 was around 350ppm to 360 ppm closer to 360. We are now near 400ppm.

    Question: Is world wide Tropical Cyclone activity increasing.

    Answer: 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records. Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.

    Question: How long has it been since the last major hurricane strike on the U.S.

    Answer : On June 1st 2012 it will be 2416 days since a major hurricane has struck the U.S. and this shatters the previous record set back in the early 1900’s. The number of days will likely increase by about 90 plus days as we typically do not see major Atlantic Hurricanes until late August.

    So as you can see although CO2 continues to rise unabated there is no correlation in re to Al Gores claim.

    Next up Tornadoes

  42. Elaine M.
    Great stuff. This of course is not getting any media space on MSM, or?
    Can we get youhootube to start a part where partisan slams using documents can be shown?
    We need a channel like it.
    I’m not a Facebooker either, although Obama campaign is, and others corps. etc are there. Is there a place there for this?
    ( i don’t know what turley’s spread factor is, but it’s probably only the faithful.
    how to reach the plebes, the voting ones is my polylemma)

  43. Bdaman,

    I don’t know why you keep bringing up Al Gore. I am not one of his acolytes.
    I listen to what the great majority of scientists have to say on this issue.

  44. Ms. Elaine you do realize the amount of money that you point to in your comment is miniscule to the amount of money the alarmist/warmest collect.

    And they are still losing the battle to convince the public that man is the cause. Beside they forged some of the documents so who knows what is real or not. Read the Article at the Atlantic.

  45. Thats because the documents were obtained by fraudulent means then forged to fit their view after they didn’t find what they were looking for.

  46. Al Gore is the face of the Global Warming debate. He’s the one telling high schoolers that when it comes to climate change don’t listen to them.

  47. Bdaman,

    Agreed that Elaine M is a straight-shooter, even giving you the dope.
    But you are not a scientist, nor a well-informed layman, in spite of your obsession with the subject.
    Hurricanes and typhoons (cyclones) are not solely determined by warming.
    There are as yet not fully established connections between such factors as El Nino and La Nina which effect them as well.
    You consider only the view from the USA, as many folks do.
    If you look at the whole world the pictures is another one. Storms, unusual rains in places where they’ve never been recorded before (Chinese western desert terrain) and other phenomena at least give some work to unite with a stable climate as you preach. And most of it seems confined to the Pacific and its rim countries. Maybe it’s the earthquakes causing it. Or have you considered alien death rays?

    But once opinionated, always opinionated. Are you banned from all other blogs. Oe do you divide your graces. My sympathies, whatever.

  48. Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute

    After yesterday’s post on why I thought that one of the documents in the Heartland leak was a fake, I discovered that David Appell had been investigating along the same lines. Appell, however, looked at one thing that hadn’t occurred to me: where the PDF was created. One of his commenters elaborates:

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

    When the Atlantic writes an article and sides with Heartland you know its bad.

  49. World Wide Tropical Cyclone Activity remains at thirty year lows four years in a row. I’m not a climate scientist and neither is Al Gore but that doesn’t stop him from talking about it.

  50. Bdaman,
    I wonder what is the point of it all. Is it the pursuit of TRUTH?
    What is the practical result that you fear?
    Would going over to non-fossil fuels, and saving them for an emergency, DAMAGE the world/USA economy? Our moral cultural structure?

    What is the point of opposing “warnists”? Moral, vegetable, mineral, or ecological, or finally human TRUTH which you possess and espouse adamantly.

    A new name for your? “Adamantly yours”.

  51. Question Are tornadoes becoming more frequent.

    Answer: This is a question I’ve talked with tornado researchers and scientists about several times over the last decade or so. They agree that we are almost surely are not getting more tornadoes, but we’re hearing a lot more about the ones that do occur. The statistics do show an increase in tornadoes over the years, but the increase has been in numbers of weak tornadoes.

    What seems to be happening is that small tornadoes that weren’t being reported to the National Weather Service are now being reported because people are more aware of tornadoes.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/watorhty.htm

    More tornadoes due to “global warming”, if such a thing happened, would be more tornadoes in Canada, where they don’t usually occur. NOT in Alabama.

    It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

    Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/more-tornadoes-from-global-warming-thats-a-joke-right/

  52. When CO2 was below the safe zone of 350ppm

    April 3, 1974 : 148 Tornadoes In 24 Hours

    In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have…

    Title of the Article: Another Ice Age ?

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1mrWpkLN7

  53. Bdaman,

    “Al Gore is the face of the Global Warming debate.”

    Maybe to you he is–but not to me. No person is the face of the debate as far as I’m concerned. It’s the facts that are of greatest import.

  54. Gene,

    When the shoe is on the other foot:

    Climate change doubter Heartland Institute documents leaked
    By Neela Banerjee
    February 16, 2012
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-climate-deniers-heartland-institute-documents-leaked-20120216,0,3932985.story

    Excerpt:
    Known largely for its work for the tobacco industry and its annual convention of climate change doubters in Washington, Heartland has asked the media to refrain from publishing documents obtained under false pretenses and from jumping to conclusions based on material taken out of context.

    “Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that,” Heartland said on its website. “But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

    That’s not quite how Heartland saw things in November 2009, when someone hacked the correspondence of some of the world’s leading climate scientists working with the University of East Anglia in Britain and released thousands of emails, with the intention of suggesting that researchers had massaged data to show that the planet was warming.

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

    Every independent panel that has looked into the East Anglia emails has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. British law enforcement, with the help of the U.S. Justice Department, continues to investigate the hacking case.

    Heartland says that a document in the recently released mix, entitled 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy is a fake. But several of the key points the document makes are backed up elsewhere. Most notably, in a fundraising document, Heartland identifies one of its priorities as reshaping the discussion of climate change in classrooms.

    The document says, “Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective.”

    Heartland is working with a consultant named David Wojick to develop a K-12 curriculum “to help teach the scientific debate regarding climate change.”

    In an email, Wojick said he approached Heartland to fund his project, which would help educators “teach one of the greatest scientific debates in history. This means teaching both sides of the science, more science, not less.”

    The problem is that there is very little debate among the world’s climatologists about the vast body of peer-reviewed data that has shown that human consumption of fossil fuels has led to a warming of the planet. The debate in the United States is largely political.

    Wojick has been “a part-time support contractor for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information since 2003, working to help the office manage and organize its electronic databases. He has never advised or conducted research for the Department on climate change or any other scientific topic, and the office he works for is not a research organization,” said Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department.

    Wojick is not a scientist. His academic background, he said, is “in the logic (or philosophy) of science.”

    If Heartland goes with Wojick’s project, it would come at a time when science teachers already feel increasingly nervous about teaching climate change because in some places it is becoming as politicized as teaching evolution.

  55. Heartland Institute Greets Denialgate With (Wait For It) More Denial
    http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2012/02/heartland-institute-greets-denialgate.html

    Polluter front group the Heartland Institute is claiming it’s the real victim of Denialgate. But as Jean Chemnick reports for E&E News (sub. req.), Heartland is providing little evidence to support its contentions:

    The embattled Heartland Institute has roundly condemned journalists for writing about or posting a climate change strategy memo earlier this week that, while attributed to the organization, Heartland says is a “total fake.”

    But the memo was released late Tuesday night together with other budget and fundraising documents that the right-leaning think tank says appear to have been written by its president and mentions programs that are also detailed in the other documents.

    The memo in question notes, for example, that one anonymous donor plans to pony up $100,000 to allow Heartland to develop a curriculum for schoolchildren that would “focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain.” The project is to be spearheaded by consultant David Wojick. The same project is mentioned on page 18 of the budget of the fundraising plan, which Heartland says may be genuine.
    An Associated Press investigation also finds no reason to doubt the Denialgate documents’ authenticity.

    Heartland’s bleating about documents which it apparently willingly handed over to someone posing as a board member stand in stark contrast to its gleeful reaction to hackers stealing the emails of climate scientists, which remains the subject of an active criminal investigation. As Zachary Shahan at PlanetSave.com writes, “Three years of nonsense and praise for ‘Climategate’ combined with the continual misrepresentation of what it actually was, and now the Heartland Institute wants to call in the referees and have us all sit peacefully in a thoughtful moment on how wrong it is to steal information and misrepresent people?”

  56. INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group’s climate efforts
    By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
    http://www.wral.com/news/science/story/10741778/

    Excerpt;
    WASHINGTON — Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

    More than $14 million of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man, according to the leaked documents prepared for a meeting of the group’s board.

    Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change. Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren’t accurate, but declined to be more specific.

    As detailed in the papers, Heartland’s plans for this year included paying an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach school children that mainstream global warming science is in dispute, even though it’s a fact accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization. It also pays prominent global warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature records website.

    “The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on Jan. 17,” Heartland said in a statement. “The authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.” The institute singled out one of the six documents — claiming to be a summary of efforts on the issue of global warming — as a fake.

    Because Heartland was not specific about what was fake and what was real, The Associated Press attempted to verify independently key parts of separate budget and fundraising documents that were leaked. 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.

    David Wojick, a Virginia-based federal database contractor, said in an email that the document was accurate about his project to put curriculum materials in schools that promote climate skepticism.

  57. Heartland Republicans call for Heartland investigation
    February 18th, 2012
    http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/18/heartland-republicans-call-for-heartland-investigation/

    Excerpt:
    From the heartland, a group of Republicans have made an open call for a serious investigation of the leaked heartless Heartland Institute documents. In the press release (reproduced in full, absent specific contact information, after the fold), they emphasize the need for conservatives and conservative institutions to engage in truthful discussion of climate science issues and a move away from anti-science syndrome “as William F. Buckley once said, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.””

    While Heartland Institute has threatened legal action against those who even comment on the material that Heartland emailed to an unknown recipient and the two pages (out of 100) that Heartland claims is not theirs, these Republicans emphasize that

    Such heavy-handed posturing should not dissuade journalists and commentators from thoroughly covering the leaked documents and reporting on the efforts of Heartland and others to manufacture a scientific controversy about climate change where none exists.

    They also contrast Heartland’s outrage at the rays of sunshine lighting their internal budget and other documents with their gleeful embrace of the theft (and selective/misleading quoting) of East Anglia University emails:

    Heartland’s moral outrage about leaked documents this past week was glaringly absent following the 2009 release of hacked climate scientists’ e-mails that was dubbed “climategate.” In fact, it fully participated in a media campaign that misrepresented the e-mails and raised unfounded questions about scientists’ integrity.

    Note that these Republicans do not see Heartland Institute, who they do praise for some of its activities (”While Heartland has done commendable work in other policy areas, such as risk management …”), as a real think tank since as they state that “Heartland [is] a PR and lobbying organization”. This perspective, enlightened by the leaked documents, have led to complaints to the IRS about Heartland’s tax free status due to its lobbying activities.

    They lay out how Heartland has worked to foster false uncertainty over climate science in the American public and how this merits attention in the public to the same extent that “ClimateGate” received (far) too much attention from Faux News to the front pages of the nation’s newspapers.

    Heartland’s strategy, and its reliance on funding from individuals who have a vested interest in undermining climate science, must be brought to the public’s attention to at least the same degree as the so-called “climategate” emails were. The opinions and knowledge of far too many Americans remain influenced by erroneous reporting about the content of those e-mails.

    The Heartland documents detail plans to prevent earnest scientific research and opinions other than their own from gaining public exposure. They even go so far as to gin up a science curriculum designed to “dissuade” public schoolteachers from teaching science—a shocking plan to undermine education and turn our public schools into mouthpieces for agenda-driven propaganda.

    After complimenting Heartland (as above) for other issues, they lay out their problem with Heartland Institute’s climate science work

    its climate operation has become a public relations servant of special interests—sowing confusion, misrepresenting science, and spreading distortions that pollute what should be a robust, fact-based debate about climate change.

  58. OK sorry Republicans for Environmental Protection. Couldn’t find the article.
    And sounds like Americans for Progress, in his case, a honey pot for environmentalists who need a snow job to get’em to vote Red.
    Wasn’t expecting any congressmen or RNC to have put that out.
    Nice to cite anyway.

  59. It’s the facts that are of greatest import.

    Thank you MS. Elaine and the facts show that with the increase in atmospheric CO2 Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones and tornadoes are not on the increase. IN FACT both are on the decrease as CO2 increases unabated.

    Lets look at floods.

    Flooding disasters primarily as a result of typhoons or hurricanes have been excluded from this list and are instead included on the list of worst hurricane disasters.

    The top five deadliest floods occured below the 350ppm safe zone.

    1.
    Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1931
    Death Toll: 1,000,000 to 3,700,000

    2.
    Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1887
    Death Toll: 900,000 to 2,000,000

    3.
    Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1938
    Death Toll: 500,000 – 900,000

    The 1938 flood of the Huang He was caused by Nationalist Chinese troops under Chiang Kai-Shek when they broke the levees in an attempt to turn back advancing Japanese troops. The strategy was partly successful. By 1940, the Japanese were essentially in a stalemate with Chinese forces.

    4.
    Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1642
    Death Toll: 300,000

    Chinese rebels destroy the dikes along the city of Kaifeng, flooding the surrounding countryside.

    5.
    Ru River, Banqiao Dam, China
    1975
    Death Toll: 230,000

    Lets look at the top 5 U.S. worst floods again all occured below the 350ppm safe zone.

    1.
    Johnstown, PA
    May 31, 1889
    Death Toll: 2,200

    2.
    Mississippi Valley
    January and February 1937
    Death Toll: 1,100

    3.
    Ohio River
    March, 1913
    Death Toll: 700

    4.
    Santa Paula, CA
    March 12, 1928
    Death Toll: 450

    5.
    Rapid City, SD
    June 9 – 10, 1972
    Death Toll: 237
    Flash flood

    Again how can the worlds leading climate scientist proclaim that 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 or lower is the safe zone.

  60. Speaking of worst hurricane disasters with the exception of Katrina 4 of the top 5 occured when atmospheric CO2 was below the 350 ppm safe zone.

    1.
    The Great Galveston Hurricane
    Galveston, Texas
    September 8, 1900

    2.
    San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane
    Florida
    September 16 – 17, 1928

    3.
    Hurricane Katrina
    Louisiana, Mississippi
    August 25 – 29, 2005

    4.
    The Long Island Express
    North Carolina to New York
    September 20 – 22, 1938

    5.
    The Great Labor Day Storm
    Florida
    September 2, 1935

    Again how can the worlds leading climate scientist proclaim that 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 or lower is the safe zone.

  61. Later we will be covering the worst US Winter Storms. Just a hint, the majority happened when atmospheric CO2 was below the 350 ppm safe zone. We will ask the same question. How can the worlds leading climate scientist proclaim that 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 or lower is the safe zone.

    Please don’t let the facts get in the way on why the heartland institute and the rest of us deniers do what we do.

  62. How about the fact that carbon retains heat and heat destabilizes complex systems? The fact that the immediate threat of global warming is unstable weather (like we are currently seeing worldwide) and that the long term threat of global warming is climate shift? The fact that nothing you’ve said changes the chemistry or math behind these facts and it is that very chemistry and math that leads the world’s leading climate scientists to proclaim that less carbon is better for atmospheric stability?

    Yeah. But the funny things about facts is they need to be relevant. The facts you just quoted aren’t relevant. Don’t let the facts get in the way when you can argue by non-sequitur and say “people died in floods and hurricanes before increased carbon emissions” as if that’s relevant, Bdaman. So what?

    The issue isn’t that people didn’t die from bad weather before carbon content of the atmosphere was raised by burning hydrocarbons. The issue is that bad weather kills people period and adding carbon to the atmosphere retains heat and adding heat to complex systems causes them to destabilize resulting in unstable weather patterns when we’re talking about the atmosphere: bad weather that isn’t predictable and becomes more frequent as more heat is added to the system until the climate shifts and the sky effectively breaks in such a way as to destroy or greatly impair civilization’s ability to make enough food to feed everyone.

    The facts are important.

    Too bad you can’t tell the relevant ones from propaganda.

  63. idealist,

    I found the following at Climate Science Watch.
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/19/republicans-for-environmental-protection-vs-heartland/

    The REP statement, minus specific press contact information:

    February 17, 2012

    Heartland Climate Operation Deserves Scrutiny

    After a recent leak of internal Heartland Institute documents describing a purported campaign to sow doubt about climate change science, Heartland claimed one of the documents might be fake, threatened anyone who even comments on the leak with legal action, and vowed to seek compensation for damage to its reputation.

    Such heavy-handed posturing should not dissuade journalists and commentators from thoroughly covering the leaked documents and reporting on the efforts of Heartland and others to manufacture a scientific controversy about climate change where none exists.

    Heartland’s moral outrage about leaked documents this past week was glaringly absent following the 2009 release of hacked climate scientists’ e-mails that was dubbed “climategate.” In fact, it fully participated in a media campaign that misrepresented the e-mails and raised unfounded questions about scientists’ integrity.

    Heartland, a PR and lobbying organization, runs well-funded campaigns that seek to persuade Americans that peer-reviewed scientific research regarding climate change is suspect and that the conclusions of such research should be ignored. Its efforts in the so-called “climategate” controversy were more of the same.

    Subsequent investigations by independent experts, of course, showed that the sensational “climategate” allegations against scientists were groundless. The “climategate” brouhaha was a manufactured controversy—which, unfortunately, accomplished its goal of sowing public doubt and confusion about climate science.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot, and if the leaked Heartland documents are authentic, they leave no room for interpretation.

    Heartland’s strategy, and its reliance on funding from individuals who have a vested interest in undermining climate science, must be brought to the public’s attention to at least the same degree as the so-called “climategate” emails were. The opinions and knowledge of far too many Americans remain influenced by erroneous reporting about the content of those e-mails.

    The Heartland documents detail plans to prevent earnest scientific research and opinions other than their own from gaining public exposure. They even go so far as to gin up a science curriculum designed to “dissuade” public schoolteachers from teaching science—a shocking plan to undermine education and turn our public schools into mouthpieces for agenda-driven propaganda.

    While Heartland has done commendable work in other policy areas, such as risk management, its climate operation has become a public relations servant of special interests—sowing confusion, misrepresenting science, and spreading distortions that pollute what should be a robust, fact-based debate about climate change.

    That’s not conservative. As William F. Buckley once said, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.”

    Climate change is an opportunity for conservative organizations to actually be conservative, by acknowledging facts and laying on the table conservative policies for dealing with the climate issue.

    If any of the released Heartland documents are not authentic, Heartland should be able and willing to provide solid proof. If, as the evidence seems to indicate, the documents are real, the media has an obligation to report on the plans they describe and their troubling implications for a democratic society.

    Jim DiPeso
    Policy Director
    Republicans for Environmental Protection
    http://www.rep.org

    Republicans for Environmental Protection
    Growing a Greener GOP From the Ground Up

  64. global temps continue to set record highs.

    arctic ice gets thinner every year

    but if there’s snow outside your house then it doesn’t matter.

  65. Fact, James Hansen says that 350ppm or less is the level to which we will all be safe from impending disaster due to Global Warming/Climate Change.

    Fact, most of the worlds worst disasters happened when CO2 was below 350ppm.

    Fact, CO2 is approaching 400ppm and statistical global warming has stopped since 1997

    Those are the facts

  66. Gene you are totally lost. The theory goes like this Gene. As CO2 increases the planet will warm. As the planet warms hurricanes/tropical cyclones will increase in numbers and strength. Katrina type hurricanes are will be the norm. There will be more flooding because as the planet heats up it will evaporate more moisture creating more rains. Tornadoes will become more frequent and stronger F5 to be the norm. Earthquakes will happen more frequently as the land heats up and cracks. And so ao and so on. Oh and all the ice at both poles will melt leaving the seas to rise 30 feet. Got it? so because of this more people die. So if all this happens when CO2 increases then the reverse must happen when it decreases hence the claim 350 ppm or less is the safe zone.

  67. “Reckless Disregard for the Truth”, Show me what I posted is false.

    Focusing On Unknowns While Ignoring Known.What I’ve posted are the knowns.

    Fact, James Hansen says that 350ppm or less is the level to which we will all be safe from impending disaster due to Global Warming/Climate Change.

    Fact, most of the worlds worst disasters happened when CO2 was below 350ppm.

    Fact, CO2 is approaching 400ppm and statistical global warming has stopped since 1997

    Those are the facts or call them knowns if you want doesn’t matter.

  68. All the True Believers out there….

    Let’s get back to the original premise of the article. What about the organized personal attack on scientists and researchers? On the occasions Bill O’Reilly has a climate scientist on who disagrees with the Fox news propaganda line, Billo makes sure the scientist’s email or contact information is put up, along with urging viewers to call them and ‘set them straight.’ This is the source of some of the hate mail. Climate change denier web sites are also culpable as well.

    When is it OK to threaten or harass researchers and their families because of his or her published research?

  69. When is it OK to threaten or harass researchers and their families because of his or her published research

    Only when your part of Occupy, you know that worldwide movement that’s growing stronger everyday..

  70. I have no idea what you are talking about. I repeat, when is it OK to threaten a scientists family, including his kids?

  71. “Fact, most of the worlds worst disasters happened when CO2 was below 350ppm.”

    Again, irrelevant.

    “Fact, CO2 is approaching 400ppm and statistical global warming has stopped since 1997″

    Not a fact according to data others have presented, but rather your opinion. That statement doesn’t even pass the basic logic of chemistry. As long as the carbon content of the atmosphere is increasing, the heat load is increasing. As long as the heat load is increasing, global warming hasn’t stopped.

  72. Climate Scientists Claim ‘McCarthy-Like Threats,’ Say They Face Intimidation, Ominous E-Mails
    By DAN HARRIS and CHRISTINE BROUWER
    May 23, 2010
    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/climate-scientists-threat-global-warming-proponents-face-intimidation/story?id=10723932#.T0HqTBxVNwc

    Excerpt:
    Scientists See Political Campaign by Senator

    Many climate scientists, however, say the most disturbing recent example of what they call intimidation is not anonymous hate mail.

    Rather, they point to a governmental report released in February by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal climate skeptics in office, which names 17 climate scientists and argues some of them may have engaged in “potentially criminal behavior.”

    Inhofe’s report referred to an incident late last year known as “Climate Gate,” in which e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia in Britain gave the impression some climate scientists may have been trying to hide flaws in their research. Several subsequent investigations have exonerated the scientists’ work.

    One section of Inhofe’s report outlined the laws the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act, which the report noted could be punishable with imprisonment of “not more than five years.”

    Climate Scientist: ‘Modern-Day McCarthyism’

    “It’s reminiscent of other periods in American history,” Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climatologist named in Inhofe’s report, told ABC News. “People were smeared not on the basis of anything they did but just by powerful people seeming to … insinuate that they’ve somehow done something wrong.”

    Mann agreed.

    “Some of the attacks that are being made against climate scientists smack of modern-day McCarthyism,” he said.

  73. Sen. Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists
    Posted on February 24, 2010 by Rick Piltz
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/24/sen-inhofe-inquisition-seeking-ways-to-criminalize-and-prosecute-17-leading-climate-scientists/

    Excerpt:
    Senator James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has gone a step beyond promoting his long-notorious global warming denialist propaganda. He is now using the resources of the Senate committee to seek opportunities to criminalize the actions of 17 leading scientists who have been associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. A report released by Inhofe’s staff on February 23 outlines this classic Joe McCarthyite witch-hunt: page after page of incorrect and misleading statements, a list of federal laws that allegedly may make scientists subject to prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department, and a list of names and affiliations of 17 “key players” in the “CRU Controversy” over stolen e-mails and their connections with IPCC reports.

  74. Good morning, Elaine M.
    My comment was not a challenge, or a querulous complaint. Rather wondering why the link to the Rep org did not lead right. Was so curious even so to find a REP org which used environmantalist language.
    I thought Republican thought was wrought of whole iron nowadays and all was approved by the Kochs before publication.
    Now that you did that extra work, thanks and commendations in general.

  75. Elaine, Thanks for another great posting. I followed a couple of your links on the Heartland Documents, and then their links and came to:

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

    which has all of the docs in PDF format listed and down loadable in a little box at the bottom of their posting. Easier than opening the PDF’s on other sites and then saving them; its all right-click. Download ’em all and peruse at your leisure.

    Their fundraising plan [link immediately below] and the list of donors they want to reach and their fundraising methods is kind of interesting but # 6. Major Project Fundraising is fascinating for the info it gives you about their interests and activism. Heartland has its dirty little fingers in a lot of pies and # 6. covers them well. Very good reading:

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

  76. HERE IS SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KNOW, YES, YOU!!!!

    Before returning to the main thread allow me one important comment.
    It is about factors acknowledged by ALL climate scientists.

    OUR CLIMATE IS NOT A LINEAR SYSTEM.
    All here have used statistics as though it is a linear system. Add so much more CO2 and you get so much temprature rise. Thus giving Mr Linear thinking Bdaman the mandate to collect events/catastrophes and use them to prove that they have not increased with increasing CO2 content. Well, climate (and weather also) does not work in such a fashion.

    Climate and weather are non-linear systems. There is an excellent book written some 35 years ago called Chaos. It explains to the layman, such non-linear systems. 2+2 does not equal 4; it may be 5, or 3, or minus 2.
    Such are the nature of non-linear systems. To summarize this book simply can’t be done.

    Simply, don’t set limits, then assume 2+2=4, and expect it to work.

    In addition, as said previously, climate is multi-factoriala and most of them are separate non-linear systems. These respond at different thesholds, rates, bands of action, etc.; depending on different input variations, etc.

    Climate models are very complex, and no one model does it all. The scientists, and who else can we depend on; not the church or Heartland, are content that their models are the best so far, and even these models are limited by the relatively short range timewise and the variation of the input factors so far experienced.

    This is my attempt at showing that you can’f decide the vitamin C content of an orange by the waxiness ot the skin, try as you may.

    And it is not a 2+2 world. In fact the world is fractal. That’s why you can experience looking at clouds from an airplane and can’t know the size of a specific cloud using our usual sense and normal visusl “rules”. Clouds, like mountains, seashore lines, etc. scale up and down without dependency on size.

    And fractals are just one part of non-linear systems.

    Other than his other many faults, this is why you can’t use 2+2=4 and defeat Bdaman.

    Hope you could get through this. Would some competent writer like OS or Gene H, etc please summarize for those who didn’t??? If deemed worthy.

  77. PS
    Don’t confuse non-linearity with complexity, please. Complexity says there are many mini-systems working within the climate system.
    Non-linearity is completely different. Both co-exist, and combine to add to the difficulty.
    The many systems are avidly studied but difficult to determine, because the world is the lab; no scale is available for experiments.
    For me personally, the reactions of nature is the best proof of climate warming to me; both in terms of response and non-response.
    Typical responses: Movements of plant, insects and animals (armadillos) due to climate change. (Don’t confuse intentional and accidental transport which co-exist with climate change)
    Typical non-responses: The inability of the earth to compensate for increased mehane exhudation due to the warming of artic tundra over time.

  78. Bdaman, Tornadoes. There were several tornado events in the aughts that were of note in just the U.S. I remember the last few and recall thinking that we (the better half and I) could be in deep s*** due to them if the storm didn’t break north at the county line. They did, we got lucky.

    The 8 year hiatus of F5’s was put to rest in ’07. These are notable events. If weather events are simply a mechanism whereby energy is dissipated and equilibrium is restored then they are significant to illustrate that there was dis-equilibrium to the point that notable events took place.

    Most tornadoes spawned from a hurricane: The greatest number of tornadoes spawned from a hurricane is 117 from Hurricane Ivan in 2004

    What was probably the longest track supercell thunderstorm tracked 790 miles (1,271 km) across 6 states in 17.5 hours on March 12, 2006 as part of the March 2006 Tornado Outbreak Sequence. It began in Noble County, Oklahoma and ended in Jackson County, Michigan, producing many tornadoes in Missouri and Illinois.

    Before the Greensburg EF5 tornado on May 4, 2007, it had been 8 years and one day since the US has had a confirmed F5 or EF5 tornado. The last confirmed F5 or EF5 hit southern Oklahoma City and surrounding communities during the May 3, 1999 event. This is the longest interval without a F5 or EF5 tornado since official records began in 1950.

    The 2010 New Year’s Eve tornado outbreak was a tornado outbreak that developed on the night of Thursday, December 30, 2010 with most of the activity on Friday morning, December 31, and a few tornadoes in the early hours of Saturday, January 1, 2011. Many tornadoes developed in a large portion of the central United States from Mississippi northward to Illinois. At least 9 people were killed as a result of the tornadoes, and it is the deadliest tornado outbreak in the US in the month of December since 2000 and one of the largest December outbreaks ever recorded.

    The April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak has broken the Super Outbreak’s record. The National Weather Service reports that the outbreak produced approximately 359 tornadoes, with 207 of those in a single 24-hour period. 335 deaths occurred in that same 24-hour time period. The outbreak has also helped smash the record for most tornadoes in the month of April with 771 tornadoes, more than double the prior record (267 in April 1974). The overall record for a single month was 542 in May 2003, which has also been broken.

    And there was also the May 22 tornado that flattened Joplin Missouri and killed 161 people.

  79. “Fact, CO2 is approaching 400ppm and statistical global warming has stopped since 1997″

    GENE

    “Not a fact according to data others have presented, but rather your opinion. That statement doesn’t even pass the basic logic of chemistry. As long as the carbon content of the atmosphere is increasing, the heat load is increasing. As long as the heat load is increasing, global warming hasn’t stopped.”

    Hey Bozo do you not read ? Maybe making the letters bigger will help you.

    THE CLIMATE RESEARCH UNIT UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA RELEASED NEW DATA IN JANUARY CONFIRMING THE TEMPERATURE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 1997.

    or how bout this handy dandy graph.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    Or maybe you’d like to play a game of connect the dots?

    Go here to play Bdaman’s connect the dot game

    Bdaman1, February 19, 2012 at 9:04 am

    That statement doesn’t even pass the basic logic of chemistry. As long as the carbon content of the atmosphere is increasing, the heat load is increasing.

    CO2 is not the main driver of temperature. It’s a trace gas, HELLO

    But it is blamed for everything.

  80. “Fact, most of the worlds worst disasters happened when CO2 was below 350ppm.”

    Again, irrelevant.

    Are you sure your smarter than 99% of people in a room ?

    Then why do we have a safe limit of 350ppm set by one of the worlds leading climate scientist. What will it keep us safe from. Please don’t tell me it only has to deal with temperature.

  81. GENE

    As long as the carbon content of the atmosphere is increasing, the heat load is increasing.

    and at what level ppm of CO2 would suffice to make us safe.

  82. Bdaman, I was without power for 6 days due to this storm. Much of North St. Louis, was without power for 2 weeks:

    “Heat wave of 2006 derecho series

    The heat wave of 2006 derecho series was a series of severe wind events associated with powerful thunderstorms, known as derechos, that occurred in a five-day period between July 17 and July 21, 2006. The first storms took place across a wide swath of north-central and northeastern North America stretching from the Upper Midwest, through much of Ontario and into the northeastern United States. Another round of storms affected the middle Mississippi River Valley, notably the city of St. Louis, Missouri, which took a direct hit twice by powerful derechos. During the period, over 3,000,000 people across the region were left without power from the storms, some more than once and some did not have power restored for weeks after the event.”

    There was another derecho event to the north in July that affected some northern states and parts of Canada, primarily Ontario.

    It looks like there have been 17 such events between 1969 and 1999 and 19 between 2000 and now. Pretty impressive.

    Europe has has 9 such events since 2002, 1 in 1995 and in Brazil between 16-18 January 2005, 540 million trees were felled as a result of a massive derecho. That goes beyond ‘impressive’ into ‘awesome’ territory.

    Again, extreme events. The 1999 to 2011 has not been quiet as some of your postings upthread might indicate. To my totally unscientific mind all of these extreme events mean that there is a lack of equilibrium being corrected. The more extreme the event, the greater the lack of equilibrium. I chalk it up to global warming and think people are in some good measure to blame for that.

    I got all of the specific info in my 2 postings from Wikipedia. I remembered several tornadoes from the relevant time period and the series of storms in 2006 but without the trusty ol’ Wikipedia I would never had had the dates, magnitude or the info about derecho events. Just assume everything with a date in the first posting is a direct quote. I got busy removing the reference numbers (which were oddly spaced in my text editor) and didn’t add quotes. I started searching for ‘St. Louis without power for weeks’ and ‘Missouri Illinois tornadoes’ and all roads led to Wikipedia. And I learned a new word: derecho.

  83. Thank you idealist 707 for your comment. Although it was a little hard for me to follow, your reference to the orange was very good and you bring to mind a thought with your post.

    How far in advance can the models tell us where the next rains will fall.

    How far in advance can they tell us where the next thunderstorm will develop.

    How far in advance can they tell us where the next tornado will touchdown.

    How far in advance can they tell us where the next hurricane or tropical cyclone will form.

    How far in advance for the next earthquake, volcano on an on and on.

    There are many scientist/researchers dedicated to each field mentioned above who have studied for years in their disciplines but we are to believe climate scientist are special some how. They can tell us based on models what will happen hundreds of years from now when the rest can’t tell us within 72 hours. You see climate models are no different then weather models. A weather model is run over and over again on a daily basis. Each time the scenario it lays out does not happen in the manner it predicts it has an effect on the next run of the model. If it predicts low pressure to develop in a specific local and it does but a few miles away then the modeler has to correct it. If it is forecast to move North but moves NW the modeler has to correct it. So on and so on.

    The other point you make me thing of is the complexity of the climate system itself. Everyone knows this but in order to save the whole entire system we must get rid of only one culprit, CO2. It causes everything under the sun. If we can maintain it to say 350ppm we will all be saved from impending doom. The polar bears will be happy that the ice will stop melting. :)

  84. Idealist707, Your point regarding non-linear systems is valid. .5 degree of worldwide warming does not translate into 2 more (or less snowfalls and 1 more, or less, hailstorm per year as a rule- scale it up for each increase. I recall over the last several years pretty nice weather and mild winters punctuated by serious weather events and just plain weirs stuff like a New Years tornado this year. I went looking for some of them to reply to Bdaman and when it came to tornadoes the fact that there had been a good number of extreme and even record-breaking events in the last 10 years is what caught my eye. Same for the storms.

    The USDA has issued a new plant hardiness map (planting guide printed on most packs of seeds) that shows a steady move northward in planting zones in the last 26 years. Along with armadillos. It’s getting hotter.

    (If you have the right software fractals are some of the coolest things around.)

    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/long-overdue-plant-hardiness-map-hothouse

  85. Lotta

    The word “derecho” was coined by Dr. Gustavus Hinrichs, a physics professor at the University of Iowa, in a paper published in the American Meteorological Journal in 1888. A defining excerpt from this paper can be seen in this figure showing a derecho crossing Iowa on July 31, 1877. Dr. Hinrichs chose this terminology for thunderstorm induced straight-line winds as an analog to the word tornado. Derecho is a Spanish word which can be defined as “direct” or “straight ahead” while tornado is thought by some, including Dr. Hinrichs, to have been derived from the Spanish word “tornar” which means “to turn”. A web page about Dr. Gustavus Hinrichs’ background has been created by National Weather Service Science and Operations Officer Ray Wolf, and he provides more details about Dr. Hinrichs’ development of the term “derecho” in the late 1800s. He also mentions how the term “derecho” became more commonly used in the late 1900s.

    Although not well known I think they’ve been around alot longer since 1888. Not sure if there are any graphs showing the frequency of occurrence.

  86. Morning Lotta :)

    The USDA has issued a new plant hardiness map (planting guide printed on most packs of seeds) that shows a steady move northward in planting zones in the last 26 years. Along with armadillos. It’s getting hotter.

    No one I know disputes that the planet has gotten warmer. If I say I don’t believe in global warming it doesn’t mean I don’t believe the planet has been getting warmer. It’s the reason in dispute.

  87. Saudi Arabia cuts oil output and the price for a barrel of crude moved to $105+ yesterday. This on top of Iran cutting it’s oil supply to the UK and France. We really needed to drill baby drill because the price of gas is going to get absurd. There are people that compare Obama to Carter. Lets pray that there won’t re long lines at the pump this summer.

    One of the most recent projects is the XL Pipeline that would coulda sent a signal out that we will shift from depending on foreign oil.

    But…………..

    One of America’s foremost climate scientists says that if the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline is built to tap the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, the impact on the Earth’s climate will be devastating.

    “Essentially, it’s game over for the planet,” said James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is quoted by reporter Jane Mayer in the Nov. 28th issue of “The New Yorker” magazine as making the statement to environmental activist Bill McKibben.

    Building the pipeline would hasten the extraction of exceptionally dirty crude oil, using huge amounts of water and heat, from the tar sands, which would then be piped across the United States, refined, and burned as fuel, releasing a vast new volume of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, reporter Mayer writes.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Game-Over-For-Planet-if-by-Sherwood-Ross-120105-783.html

    However…….

    Coal, not oilsands, causes global warming: study

    By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

    Date: Sunday Feb. 19, 2012 12:40 PM PT

    One of the world’s top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta’s oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

    “I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I thought it was larger than it was.”

    http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120219/bc_coal_oilsands_climate_change_120219/20120219/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

  88. Idealist 707, In my previous comment to you I gave you an example of weather models and how they must be updated.The other was my reference to climate scientist and how special they are in being able to accurately forecast the climate which really is weather because they are forecasting what the temperature will be. The only difference between a weatherman and a climate scientist is a weatherman gives you a seven day forecast and a climate scientist gives you one that can go past 70 years.

    Anyways, One of the worlds leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen testified before congress in 1988. It was the middle of summer and to give the effect that the planet was heating up they turned off the ac system and opened the windows to let the heat in. During his testimony he submitted his paper link here.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    In this paper he shows a graph of what the temperature does over time. He gives three scenarios as to what will happen with the increase in atmospheric CO2. It’s located on page 7 and identified by 5 year running mean. This was his forecast.

    Here is actual as compared to.

    He is actually running below his best case scenario C even though there has been no reduction in CO2. There are numerous other predictions he has made that are now wrong. There are lots of predictions that lots of other scientist in the global warming community have made that have been proven wrong. Of course it doesn’t help when the main body the IPCC gets proven wrong time and again even though they employ the worlds leading experts.

  89. Gene this ones for you as well, from Salon.com

    Tuesday, Oct 23, 2001

    Stormy weather
    Floods, droughts, hurricanes and disease outbreaks — an expert explains why climate changes give us yet another reason to find terror in the skies.

    Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

    While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/singleton/

    If you do the math the writer says he met 12-13 years ago. The article was written in 2001. He talks about him testyfing in congress which was 1988. The question posed was “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”

    His response

    “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    1988 plus 20 years is 2008. Lets give the guy a break maybe he meant 30 years which would be 2018. Either way if you do the math it is another prediction that has FAIL written all over it.

    Especially since sea level is now falling.

    NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

    In other words even if the sea was to resume it’s measured rise prior to this pothole which was a little more than an inch each decade, do you know how many years it would take for his prediction that the Westside highway would be under water ?

    Stay tuned for the answer. Hint If I live to see a 100 I won’t see it in my life time.

  90. idealist,

    I’m not looking to defeat Bdaman. I know I’m not going to change his mind. He is a “true believer.” The point of my writing this post was to show how the climate change deniers are trying to silence the scientists–which I find a situation akin to what the Catholic Church did centuries ago to Galileo and others who tried to enlighten the world.

  91. “who tried to enlighten the world.”

    Believe it or not MS. Elaine thats what we are doing and we are winning despite the record billions of dollars spent to convince people otherwise. So much that the California Academy of Science has taken down there Climate Change exhibit because of apparent lack of interest.

  92. FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.

    The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312-377-4000. (NOTE: The Heartland Institute’s first response to the posting of stolen and faked documents can be found here.)

    “We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.

    “For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.

    “We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”

    Joseph L. Bast
    President
    The Heartland Institute
    jbast@heartland.org
    312-377-4000

  93. Heartland to Desmog blog

    It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

    1. The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

    2. As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

    3. Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

    Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

    Very truly yours,

    Maureen Martin

    General Counsel

    original Heartland PDF is here: Tier One – DeMelle

  94. No to the fact that the theory of Global Warming is a scam. You know what I’m saying. On a side note have not seen Ms. Blouise post. She O.K.

  95. Bdaman,

    What’s your point about the Heartland Institute? That it’s a hypocritical organization?

    Maybe you missed this:

    Climate change doubter Heartland Institute documents leaked
    By Neela Banerjee
    February 16, 2012
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-climate-deniers-heartland-institute-documents-leaked-20120216,0,3932985.story

    Excerpt:
    Known largely for its work for the tobacco industry and its annual convention of climate change doubters in Washington, Heartland has asked the media to refrain from publishing documents obtained under false pretenses and from jumping to conclusions based on material taken out of context.

    “Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that,” Heartland said on its website. “But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

    That’s not quite how Heartland saw things in November 2009, when someone hacked the correspondence of some of the world’s leading climate scientists working with the University of East Anglia in Britain and released thousands of emails, with the intention of suggesting that researchers had massaged data to show that the planet was warming.

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

    Every independent panel that has looked into the East Anglia emails has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. British law enforcement, with the help of the U.S. Justice Department, continues to investigate the hacking case.

  96. Heartland Feels The Heat Over Anti-Science Climate Change Strategy
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/16/what-happened-at-heartland/

    Excerpt:

    The Heartland Institute yesterday lashed out at the blogosphere for reporting on the contents of leaked documents that appeared on DeSmogBlog late in the night of February 14. It was material that, if legit, implies Heartland is guilty of spreading dangerous disinformation simply to make a buck (something it has long accused climate scientists of doing).

    Heartland, a nominally Libertarian “think tank”, is one of the loudest voices in the climate-change denial choir, yet its prepared statement contained, among threats and hedged denial, this appeal to the better angels of our nature:

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

    Yes, let’s think of what just happened – and why stop 24 hours ago (or, more accurately, 48 hours ago at this point)? Why not go back a decade or even two? Or a century? Or longer?

    Let’s think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which aggregates research from thousands of scientists and then summarizes it in conservative assessment reports that have been vetted hundreds of times over before being released to the public.

    Let’s think of the people who attack the IPCC – people who have no qualms about pulling isolated sentences out of early drafts of thousand-page documents and then using them to try and discredit an entire body of research.

    Let’s think of climate scientists – geeky types who, for the most part, grew up with a sense of wonder at the world around them, devoted their lives to learning, and now spend their time modeling clouds and currents or digging into ice sheets.

    Let’s think of the community of climate science – which spent the last century modeling the skies and the seas as early generations grew old and died and subsequent generations carried on, tested the theories, discarded the ones that didn’t hold up, and kept the ones that did.

    Let’s think of how the notion emerged that man’s activities were first going to alter the atmosphere, then might be altering the atmosphere, and – finally – were almost certainly altering the atmosphere.

    Let’s think of how this evidence slowly began to mount across the scientific community, how it came into focus from data points across the globe, from ice sheets and tree rings to physical measurements.

    Let’s think of how scientists – as is their wont – questioned this evidence, attacked it – “honestly disagreed” with it – until they had no choice but to acknowledge that their worst fears were, in fact, coming true.

  97. Does Heartland receive government funding and or they a government entity. The emails from climategate are emails written by government employees on government equipment and should of been made public by the initial FOIA request instead of acting like children crying that they were being bullied to release the info. As you mentioned the matter is still being investigated how the climategate e-mails became public, by hacker OR a whistleblower. So we don’t know 100

    Heartland the documents were stolen under false pretenses. HUGE DIFFERENCE

  98. You think it was fine for someone to hack into the CRU’s server and steal a large quantity of data. No one hacked into the Heartland Institute’s server or computers.

  99. Elaine, Bdaman, et al,
    thanks for the read.
    I felt that Bdaman’s comparison between CO2 rise and temp rise, storm incidence etc would not correspond to non-linear systems, which both climate and weather are. And using linear based counter arguments to rebut him also would miss the complexity problem

    Bdaman, were it so simple to revise models, then any high schooler could replace the scientist. I have only only an “appreciation” of astronomical models on both long and short time scales, and large and small size scaled.
    These models are far from being as complex as meteorological and climate ones. And yet they are judged in peer reviewed journals, and are constantly tested against hundreds of competing models. The Big Bang is only one such model, and just as controversial as global warming.

    As for CO2 being your own nemesis as causal factor, what have you got against it?
    You state: ” No one I know disputes that the planet has gotten warmer. If I say I don’t believe in global warming it doesn’t mean I don’t believe the planet has been getting warmer. It’s the reason in dispute.”

    What reason or model do you endorse? Or is it just a temporary deviation weather wise from the overriding climate we usually have, which you endorse?

    Where do you stand on the possibility of a new ice age?
    Enlighten us!

  100. Ms. Elaine you just said yourself the matter of climate gate is still under investigation. They do not know if it was hacked or released from the inside.

  101. Idealist 707 it’s becoming clearer that the sun is the main driver of temps.

    In re to models answer this. How accurate was Hansen worst case scenario ( A ) in the example laid out here Bdaman 1, February 20, 2012 at 8:18 am

  102. Great article, Elaine. If a society understands and values science and the scientific method, there are only two possible explanations for the extraordinary efforts to attack scientific consensus. The first is religion, as exemplified by the resistance of primitive Christianity to evolutionary biology. The second is economics, and that is what is at play in the climate science dispute.

  103. Elaine,
    I think the only ideology involved is the idea that corporations must make as much money as they can, notwithstanding what damage they are doing to the planet. Follow the money.

  104. Coal-Powered PAC Runs Harassment Campaign Against Climate Scientist Michael Mann
    By Brad Johnson on Feb 2, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/02/417815/coal-powered-pac-runs-harrassment-campaign-against-climate-scientist-michael-mann/

    A coal-industry astroturf group is running a public campaign to harass Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann for his “radical agenda” of climate science. The Common Sense Movement/Secure Energy for America Political Action Committee (CSM/SEAPAC) has established a website asking people to criticize the Penn State Speakers Forum for allowing Michael Mann to speak about the climate change challenge. “Join us in calling on the administration to disinvite the disgraced academic,” the group says on its Facebook page.

    On the webpage, CSM/SEAPAC accuses Mann of “manipulating scientific data to align with his extreme political views on global warming”:

    On February 9th, the Penn State Forum Speaker’s Series is featuring Professor Michael Mann in a speech regarding global warming. This is the same professor who is at the center of the ‘Climategate’ controversy for allegedly manipulating scientific data to align with his extreme political views on global warming. Join us in calling on the administrators of Penn State to end its support of Michael Mann and his radical agenda.

    The suggested text for the letter to editor says Mann is “conspiring with his left-wing cronies to intimidate and silence those who would dare to question his intentions,” tarring Mann with “questionable ethics” and “extreme political activism.”

    Michael Mann, one of the most most respected scientists in the field of paleoclimatology, has been the victim of a long-running harassment and intimidation campaign by right-wing ideologues and conspiracy theorists, including political and legal threats by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. After hackers stole emails from a climate unit in Great Britain, climate deniers renewed their attacks on Mann, forcing several academic inquiries, all of which debunked the slanderous charges.

    SEAPAC is a wing of the Pittsburgh-based astroturf group Common Sense Movement, which is running the “I Am Coal” campaign. Contributors include James Clifford Forrest III, president of coal company Rosebud Mining, David Young, president of the Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association, and the top executives of Swanson Industries, a West Virginia mining equipment company.

  105. Price Of Truth: Limbaugh Operatives Encourage Abusive Hate Mail At Female, Evangelical Climate Scientist
    By Brad Johnson on Feb 1, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/01/416510/price-of-truth-limbaugh-operatives-encourage-abusive-hate-mail-at-female-evangelical-climate-scientist/

    Excerpt:Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech University, has been besieged by vituperative and disturbing hate mails at the behest of right-wing operatives. Hayhoe was pilloried as a “climate babe” by hate-radio host Rush Limbaugh for her participation in a planned book edited by Newt Gingrich on a conservative response to the threat of manmade global warming. Climate-denier Chris Horner tried to force Texas Tech to turn over all of the “activist” Hayhoe’s records related to the book. Climate-denier operative Marc Morano, a former employee of Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), published her email on a screed-filled website, encouraging attacks on Dr. Hayhoe.

    Texas Climate News has published disturbing excerpts of the frightening, hate-filled messages she received as a result of this intimidation campaign:

    – you are nothing but a liar; you lie

    – AGW is a hoax […] Where are the facts? Prove your unproven hypothesis. Prove it. Show the world. You can’t. You are a fraud. […] Your name and the names of the other warming alarmists will be mud as the years go forward. You are a disgrace. You are a nut.

    – DUMPED FROM GINGRICH’S BOOK HA HA HA […] IT’S A GREAT START!!! SEE YA, FRAUDSTER – GET A REAL JOB, MCDONALD’S IS HIRING

    – Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile […] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. […] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.

  106. I say you but your La times link

    Every independent panel that has looked into the East Anglia emails has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. British law enforcement, with the help of the U.S. Justice Department, continues to investigate the hacking case.

    Although stated here and other places as hacking there is no definitive proof at this time that it was hacking.

  107. Ethical Analysis of Disinformation Campaign’s Tactics: (1) Think Tanks, (2) PR Campaigns, (3) Astroturf Groups, and (4) Cyber-Bullying Attacks.
    By DONALD A BROWN on February 10, 2012
    http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2012/02/ethical-analysis-of-disinformation-campaigns-tactics-1-think-tanks-2-pr-campaigns-3-astroturf-groups.html

    Excerpt:
    II. Conservative Think Tanks.

    As we saw in the last post, conservative counter-movements evolved as a reaction to the social movements in the 1960s and 1970s on the environment, civil rights, human rights, and woman’s rights when conservative philanthropists began to fund, typically through their family foundations, the establishment of conservative think tanks to wage a war of ideas against the progressive gains made by the social movement. (Dunlap and McCright. 2011:149)

    Conservative think tanks are non-profit, public policy research and advocacy organizations that promote conservative ideals such as “free enterprise,” “private property rights,” “limited government,” and “national defense.” (Jacques et al., 2008: 355).

    It was the conservative think tanks, the key organizational component of the conservative movement that launched a full-scale counter-movement in response to the perceived success of the environmental movement and its supporters. (Jacques et al., 2008: 352) Some conservative think tanks aggressively mobilized between 1990 and 1997 to challenge the legitimacy of global warming science. (McCright and Dunlap, 2003: 349) While many fossil fuel and energy related corporations including ExxonMobil joined conservative foundations in funding the conservative think tanks, the major financers of the right-wing think tanks recently have been conservative foundations, some controlled by people such as Richard Mellon Schaife and David Charles Koch, as well as other conservative philanthropic foundations. (Dunlap and McCright. 2011:149) Both the conservative philanthropic foundations and the corporations funding these think tanks sought to protect unregulated free markets and therefore had a strong interest in undermining scientific claims that support the need of governments to regulate the private sector in regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Some of the most engaged think tanks working to foreground scientific uncertainty about climate change have included:

    • National Center for Policy Analysis • Heartland Institute • National Center for Public Policy Research • Competitive Enterprise Institute • Marshall Institute • Cato Institute • Centers for a Sound Economy Foundation • American Enterprise Institute • Reason Public Policy Institute • Foundation for Research On Economics and the Environment • Pacific Research Institute • Claremont Institute

    (McCright and Dunlap, 2010: 508)

    As we shall see, the tactics of some of these think tanks have often been ethically problematic. Some of these think tanks have often:

    (a) sought to emphasize the unknowns about how human actions may affect the climate system while ignoring what is known, (b) repeated untruthful claims about climate change science, (c) manufactured bogus scientific claims by such strategies as organizing dubious scientific conferences and paying for scientists to produce criticisms of mainstream climate change science, and (d) widely published scientific climate change claims that have not been subjected to peer-review.

    Those conservative think tanks that deploy these tactics both to protect the interests of their corporate funders and advance the ideological positions of their conservative philanthropic supporters. And so, these think tanks are not serious scientific organizations that consistently promote an unbiased scientific search for the truth, a goal of responsible scientific skepticism, but advocacy organizations engaged in advancing the agendas of their financial backers.

    According to McCright and Dunlap some conservative think tanks frequently have:

    • Obfuscated the results of scientific research by:selectively promoting publications of contrarian scientists with positions at odds with the scientific consensus;
    • Funded contrarian scientists to produce reports that are often not peer-reviewed.
    • Misrepresented the results of scientific research by spinning the results or committing errors of omission.
    • Manipulated the results of scientific research by editing government agency reports prior to publication.
    • Suppressed (by stalling or canceling) scientific reports from government agencies
    • Attacked individual scientists who work at public and private universities to discredit their work.
    • Worked to silence, censor, or otherwise target individual scientists who work at government agencies by influencing what they can say and to whom they can say it to.
    • Enabled politicians to hold seemingly open-ended investigatory hearings where results were pre-determined.
    • Exploited the mass-media’s “balancing norm” to promote fringe scientists’ views to near parity with mainstream scientific consensus.

    (McCright and Dunlap, 2010; 508)

    Some of the specific think tank tactics have also included the following:

    • Emphasizing unknowns

    As we have seen in the last post, a major tactic of the disinformation campaign has been for participants to publicize a few issues in climate change science about which there is some scientific uncertainty while ignoring the huge number of well-settled climate change facts that are not in serious scientific contention. To foreground scientific uncertainty in the public’s understanding of the state of climate change science, a major tool employed by the conservative think tanks has been the production of an unremitting flow of printed material ranging from books and editorials designed for public consumption to policy briefs aimed at policy-makers and journalists, combined with frequent appearances by spokespersons on TV and radio. (Jacques et al., 2008: 355).

    In these publications, the science these think tanks use is not always bogus. As George Monbiot writing for the Guardian notes:

    On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study – such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling….They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you. (Monboit, 2006)

    Out of 141 books published between 1972 to 2005 that promoted environmental skepticism, 130 had affiliations with conservative think tanks. (Jacques et al., 2008: 360). The number of books connected to think tanks have continued to increase over the last four decades not only in the United States but also in Europe, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. (Jacques et al., 2008: 361)

    To support the claim that the consensus view on climate change is weak, conservative think tanks routinely rely upon contrarian publications that stress scientific uncertainty about climate change while ignoring the scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that humans are affecting the climate system. (McCright and Dunlap, 2010: 111). As we have seen in the last post, stressing what is not known while ignoring elements of climate science that is not in contention is misleading and therefore ethically troublesome.

    There are many facts about climate change science that are not in contention. These include:

    • The undisputed fact that if greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations increase in the atmosphere there will be increased absorption and re-radiation of heat energy or what is usually referred to as climate “forcing.”
    • The initial forcing of each greenhouse gas is known precisely even though there is uncertainty about final global warming at equilibrium or “climate sensitivity.”
    • Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere in direct proportion to human use of fossil fuel and activities that release greenhouse gases.
    • The planet is roughly warming as expected as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase.
    • The CO 2 in the atmosphere is largely coming from fossil sources. There are several robust lines of evidence to support this including carbon isotope evidence.
    • Although the models to predict future warming will always contain uncertainties that will limit the ability to predict impacts precisely, they have roughly accurately been predicting observed warming.
    • There are numerous attribution and fingerprint studies that point to human causes for warming.

    Now these uncontested facts do not absolutely prove that future warming described by the IPCC will happen as predicted, nevertheless these uncontested matters clearly are support for the conclusion that human-induced climate change is a significant threat. Thus, to claim there is no evidence that humans are threatening the climate is a falsehood.

    The materials produced by the conservative think tanks often rely upon a handful of cherry-picked studies by contrarian scientist that ignore the evidence on which the scientific consensus position is based. (McCright and Dunlap, 2010: 112) Such tactics are not consistent with reasonable skepticism but constitute deceptive misinformation.

  108. Bdaman,

    Is the price of gas is up?

    What about wheat and corn?

    Many homes in this country have lost value.

    Many resorts in the NE are having a bad ski season due to warmer weather.

    Those climate scientists are the cause of all kinds of problems. We had better bully and threaten them some more!

  109. If you can’t drum up support for the denial propaganda wagon train, try to scare ’em about high gas prices by saber rattling.

    How very . . . predictable.

  110. Bdaman,
    Gas prices are not up because of refinery issues. The demand for gas is at a seven or eight year low. It is Wall Street that is inflating the cost of oil and gas.

  111. Those climate scientists are the cause of all kinds of problems. We had better bully and threaten them some more!

    It’s what happen to people who consistently lie

    it’s for the greater good.

  112. Raff they are up because Iran has cut supply to the UK and France. They are up because Saudi Arabia has cut there output after promising not to let oil rise above a $100 a barrel.

  113. A U.S. House subcommittee will hold hearings on how the potential closure of three Philadelphia-area refineries that represent half of the refining capacity in the Northeast could affect national security.

    U.S. Representative Patrick Meehan, a Republican from the region, is concerned the closures could increase the risks to domestic critical infrastructure and threaten supply shortages in the case of a global crisis. He met on Wednesday with about 250 United Steel Workers and Boilermakers union refinery workers and their families who came to Washington to protest the loss of their jobs.

    Last week, U.S. Senator Bob Casey called for a probe on the impact the refinery closures will have on prices for gasoline and diesel.

    “Two of our local refineries have closed and one is slated for closure – together they account for 50 percent of the Northeast’s entire refinery capacity,” said Meehan.

    The three refineries are within a 12-mile (19-km) radius in southeastern Pennsylvania. The United Steel Workers says as many as 2,500 jobs will be lost directly related to the plant closures with tens of thousands ancillary and service related jobs also at risk once plants close.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/refineries-usa-security-idUSL2E8DG9E220120216

  114. The U.S. must stop burning fossil fuels to stop the non existent global warming theory. However this will not stop other countries from doing so. We will ship our oil and coal to Germany and they will burn it for us as they phase out all nuclear power. It’s for the greater good.

  115. Am I grasping at Straws? I’m not but your buddies who are promoting the global warming scam are. if lil ol Heartland Institute with their miniscule amount of funding from the Koch brothers who’s money went to healthcare not climate change prompts someone to fraudulently pose as an executive to get an employee to email company info and then not finding exactly what they wanted had to forge documents to make it appear more damning than it actually was, I would say that is an example of grasping for straws. I’m just merely informing you that like CO2 gas prices continue to rise unabated.

  116. Raff I posted a link that shows refineries are closing in the NE. You posted there are no refineries issues.

    I post Iran has cut supply to the UK and France, Saudi Arabia has cut there output oil rise above a $100 a barrel. So this is a reduction in supply and then you want to tell me about demand.

    To which I throw my hands in the air and sarcastically say that’s great because you say it’s all Wallstreets fault. Talk about grasping for straws. I love you, but come’on man :)

  117. Now I remember I was giving O.S. shit yesterday when it was you.

    Your the one who said Occupy is world wide and growing everyday.

    I got news for you, Poof they’re gone

  118. I remember a great tennis player who won the Wimbledon five years in a row. He started 8 years old by playing against the garage door.

    It worked for him.
    But here? Naw, you have to wipe the crud off the ball everytime it comes back. And somebody initialed the ball with BDM.
    Some creep I guess.

    A waste of time. Unless you like being Sisyphus.
    LOL Elaine. Getting your ducks in a row for a better occasion?

  119. idealist,

    One must commend Bdaman for his persistence. He likes trying to push a huge chuck of granite up an inclined plane. He believes it’s good exercise. That’s how he developed his Bdiceps, doncha know?

  120. Thanks for the update Gene. Glad to see them get involved in the process instead of trampling ( literally) other peoples rights, destroying property, committing crimes that include bodily harm and disrupting the daily lives of ordinary Americans even though it really was for the greater good. “I’d buy that for a dollar.” Name that movie.

    Now lets talk about who the real bullies are. What is a bully. Someone who will beat you up if you don’t submit.

    BREAKING: Peter Gleick Confesses

    FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

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

    An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

    A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

    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.

    Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

    We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

    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.

    # # #

    For more information, contact Jim Lakely, communications director of The Heartland Institute, at 312/377-4000 or jlakely@heartland.org.

    Joseph Bast
    President
    The Heartland Institute
    One South Wacker Drive #2740
    Chicago, IL 60606
    Phone 312/377-4000

    Email jbast “at”heartland.org

  121. The confession

    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

  122. ” Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

    There is no debate the science is settled 97% of climate scientist agree it’s mans fault. (Another Lie)

    Whats the old saying, If you can’t argue the facts argue the law, and if you cant argue either discredit the witness.

  123. Peter Gleick 2001

    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. “No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, we will not be able to avoid some impacts of climate change.”

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/010205/archive_005736.htm

    Peter Gleick 2012 re confession

    Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

    and

    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.

    WOW !!!!! First no debate and now we need a rational public debate and we need it desperately.

  124. WOW talk about words coming around full circle.

    Peter Gleick 2006

    San Francisco – Attacks on scientific integrity are increasing and seriously threaten wise public policy, according to a panel assembled Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

    A major problem, according to Gleick, is that funding sources for research are not routinely made public, especially when private corporations are providing the funds.

    Meanwhile, over the past four decades, government funding for scientific research has steadily declined relative to corporate and private funding.

    “Corporate-funded research is not necessarily bad,” Gleick said. “Much good research is sponsored and funded by industry.”

    It becomes a problem when the resulting data is manipulated to produce a desired result, he added.

    Both Gleich and Kennedy emphasized that it is essential for scientists to reveal personal financial ties to industry that might influence their conclusions. The same is true for those who review manuscripts.

    http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/scientists-debate-censorship-of-data/article_f38e0dac-5cbf-5ea7-ac58-eb466772b5e7.html

  125. From the above comment Glieck said

    “It becomes a problem when the resulting data is manipulated to produce a desired result, he added.”

    Which is exactly his problem now. Heartland is gonna put him in jail or make him into a turn coat.

  126. One only has to read the screeds from the deniers to know the truth of the admonition from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Eight thousand scientists from 50 countries around the world met in Vancouver, BC this past week. The headline coming from this meeting is, “Stark warning emerges from summit: science is ‘under siege’”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/21/stark-warning-emerges-from-summit-science-is-under-siege/

    I go back to the original question. When is it OK for deniers to threaten and bully scientists and their families in order to protect the financial interests of people like the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other billionaire industrialists?

  127. The answer is never OS the problem is do you know how many people will be out of work if the Global Warming scam is exposed for what it truly is, A SCAM.

    Lets argue the facts and not if’s

  128. Ms. Elaine I was being facetious when I said that. We could go on and on about the fluff. When is it o.k. to steal an identity or fake one to obtain personal and private company data and when it doesn’t fit your agenda forge documents. Like Gene responded to me in re to Occupy when they are committing crimes destroying property so and so on. When is it ok to do this ? When it’s for the greater good under the guise of free speech. Thats why I say argue the facts and not the if’s.

  129. Fact: Artic sea ice extent is worse than we thought

    From the Greenland Climate Research Center plotting the last 7 years. It’s getting much worse.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.

  130. Bdaman, more red herrings.

    How about let’s see the full reports from the eight thousand scientists from fifty countries. You know full well the next comprehensive meteorological reports are due out later this year. You seem to have some difficulty grasping the difference between reporters and their sources.

  131. Sierra Club took $26M from natural gas

    This is more than 1000 times what Koch gave to Heartland

    Former Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope often spoke warmly about gas as an alternative to coal in power plants. But now, the group is considering calling for natural gas to be phased out by 2050 — about 20 years after it wants coal eliminated.

    Now, Brune says the group definitely isn’t a fan of natural gas, due to concerns over hydraulic fracturing.

    http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/02/07/sierra-club-took-26m-from-natural-gas/

    They may not be a fan of natural gas but they sure a big ol fan of dem greenbacks.

  132. Bdaman,

    “Ms. Elaine I was being facetious when I said that. We could go on and on about the fluff.”

    Are you now saying that you were being facetious when you said that you thought is was okay to bully and threaten scientists?

    What is the “fluff” that you are talking about?

  133. Elaine et al,

    Just woke up from a nap, so late getting in here.
    Hilarious. I thought BDM was exercising the only muscle he has, between the ears. He must be on speed. Or did somebody install a new battery.

    OS, That one will be much used in debates, LOL.

    So Gleick (?) confesses, gets endless headlines (as long as MSM is following the Republican script), and raises awareness about CW for the already aware. The others will only hear “scientists are crooks, and they admit it too!”.

    Does the Pope own the world? I’m wondering if he’s not thinking of a revivalist movement. Motto: “Burn Gallileo, burn”
    Again the anti-Catharist instructions: “Kill them all, let God decide.”

  134. Scientists Denounce Climate Change Denial, Censorship
    By Stephen Leahy
    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106834

    Excerpt:
    VANCOUVER, Canada, Feb 21, 2012 (IPS) – Amid revelations of a well-funded U.S. organisation’s plans to deliberately distort climate science, scientists and journalists at a major scientific conference called on the Canadian government to stop its muzzling of scientists.

    For the past four years, the Canadian government has been denying timely access to government scientists even when their findings are published in leading scientific journals, said scientists and journalists in a special session of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science meeting here in Vancouver, British Columbia.

    “The Canadian public doesn’t know as much as they could about science and climate change,” said Margaret Munro, who is a science writer for Postmedia News, based in Vancouver.

    “The more controversial the story, the less likely you are to talk to the scientists,” Munro told IPS.

    Last year, journalists from around the world were denied access to Canadian government scientist Kristi Miller, who had published a groundbreaking paper on the decline of salmon populations in western Canada in the journal Science.

    However, lobbyists for the oil and gas industry appear to have direct access to scientists, according to emails obtained under access to information legislation. Internal government documents reported an 80-percent decline in Canadian media coverage of climate change since 2007 when the new Stephen Harper Conservative government put restrictive policies into place.

    “It is unacceptable that the Canadian public sits back and allows access to the science they’re funding to be denied them,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria.

    When the science community starts having “panels about the muzzling of scientists, you know the situation is pretty desperate,” Weaver said.

    Media provides the public with information so they can make informed decisions. But without timely access, the media cannot perform its role, he said.

    “When government muzzles scientists for political reasons, it cuts at the fundamental principals of good science,” said Stephen Hwang, professor of general internal medicine at the University of Toronto.

    “The open discussion of ideas is essential to science, just as a free press is essential to democracy,” Hwang said in a statement.

  135. OS just like the Peter Glieck story that is now unfolding. When the data doesn’t fit your meme fake it, forge it, message it. You know “Hide the decline”, pretend the medieval warming period never existed.

    We are at 400ppm of atmospheric CO2. Which way is the trend heading.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    Wasn’t it Phil Jones who was quoted back in 2010 as saying for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming. Wasn’t it Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC’s lead author on climate change science the one who wrote in an e-mail that stated.

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Didn’t the CRU just release new data confirming the above?

    The whole scam is coming crashing down and it is those who have perpetrated the fraud who have the most to loose. This is why you are seeing many scientist who believed in the theory now becoming skeptics. It’s a scam of major proportions.

  136. Climate researcher admits leaking Heartland Institute documents

    From Politico

    Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said late Monday that he’s aware of Gleick’s blog post but did not have an immediate comment. The group sent letters over the weekend to several blogs and news outlets — including POLITICO — demanding that they delete all references to the documents.

    Heartland says one of the documents is a fake and that it’s investigating the others, and it’s alleging that the documents were stolen or otherwise taken from the group improperly. It also said it’s contacted the FBI and police and is considering pursuing civil and criminal charges against the person who originally obtained the materials.

    longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.

    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 colar criminal defense attorney.

    “This is very Peter-esque if he discovers he did something wrong to get right out there,” said Goodman, the managing director and co-founder of venBio, a health care investment firm. “There’s a lot of people in these issues who don’t do things like that.

    “If he discovers he made a mistake, he’d want to be the first one to say so. Give him some credit for that,” Goodman added.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73099_Page2.html#ixzz1n2GsHKEB

  137. Ms. Elaine in response to Scientists Denounce Climate Change Denial, Censorship

    Climate Gate 2.0 e-mail number 1656

    Dr. Douglas Maraun
    Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia

    Dear colleagues,

    I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
    coffee room:

    “Climate science and the media”

    After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
    number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
    greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
    and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
    However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
    or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
    after the “inconvenient truth” case and the Nobel peace prize going to
    Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
    “climatism” appeared also in respectable newspapers.
    Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
    the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
    way it should be.
    In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
    deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
    public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
    this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:

    -Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
    are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
    -How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
    that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
    especially honest.
    -How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
    -What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
    -What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
    -How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
    -Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?

    If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
    interesting, please let me know in advance.

    See you later,
    Douglas

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1606

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

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

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

  139. The law of unintended consequences

    Time Magazine Money Quote

    Worst of all — at least for those who care about global warming — Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon.

    Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/#ixzz1n2TL0yG3

  140. Heartland Institute leak exposes strategies of climate attack machine

    “The documents show how groups play up controversy to undermine confidence in well-established scientific findings”

    by Bob Ward
    21 February 2012

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack

    “The Heartland Institute documents demonstrate once again how those driven by ideological dogma or vested commercial interests attempt to hide their true motives behind a facade of false controversy and uncertainty in science.”

  141. Thanks for the link Anon Nurse but if you havent been following along those leaked papers expose how someone committed a criminal act and either the same person or someone else forged documents to make Heartland look like the bad guy.

  142. In other words they can’t argue the facts so the must discredit the witness because the facts just don’t add up in their favor anymore.

  143. The funny thing is, is the guy who committed the crime is the same person Ms. Elaine chose to highlight in her post.

    Peter Gleick, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow, Except it should be corrected to say EX-MEMBER National Academy of Sciences along with EX-MEMBER of the AGU and a number of other organizations who have de-listed him.

  144. And speaking of the AGU

    February 21, 2012
    AGU Release No. 12-11
    For Immediate Release

    In response to a blog post late yesterday, 20 February 2012, by Dr. Peter Gleick regarding documents purportedly from the Heartland Institute which he disseminated, AGU President Michael McPhaden issued the following statement:

    “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.

    “AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.

    Following Dr. Gleick’s resignation, a search began immediately for a replacement. Effective today, 21 February, the new chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity is Linda Gundersen, Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

    The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit society of Earth and space scientists with more than 61,000 members in 146 countries. Established in 1919 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, meetings, and outreach programs. For more information, visit http://www.agu.org.

  145. And as I stated to O.S. in re to scientist turning skeptics. Martin Hovland and others are distancing themselves from the AGU as well.

    Martin Hovland writes in with this statement. It seems that AGU Position Statement keeps costing them members.

    He writes:

    Although I have been a long-time member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), I hereby refuse to pay my membership fees. The main problem is the organization’s Position Statement on the purported “Human impacts on Climate” This statement includes the following statements: “During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it.

    Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”

    As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.

    Martin Hovland

  146. I go back to the original article and the purpose of this whole discussion. When is this kind of thing OK?

    One researcher even spoke of “receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.”

    One climate scientist, who did not want to be identified, told ABC News that a dead animal was once left on his doorstep. He said he now travels with bodyguards at times. David Koroly, a professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Science, told ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. He said, “It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.”

  147. O.S. have already answered the question. It’s never o.k. to promote violence. If you remember just a couple of months ago I was the only one talking about the violence that the occupy movement were perpetrating on cities across the country. You and 99.99% of the rest of the commenters here felt it was O.K. to destroy public and private property, and to cause bodily harm to others. Now all of a sudden you show concern for someone being threatened with violence.

  148. Bdaman, you are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Either that or you are the most gullible grownup I have yet to encounter.

    The occupy movement has eschewed violence at every step, basing their whole movement on the teachings of Gandhi and MLK. There have been “black bloc” provocateurs at many of their gatherings. Efforts have been made to isolate the ‘black bloc’ people from the rest, but more often than not, the authorities have chosen to refuse to take action against the agents provocateur types. In fact, some of the violence instigators have been exposed as either right wing political operatives or undercover law enforcement people.

    The violence has come from those in power, not the protesters. Lt. Rice and Tony Bologna come to mind instantly. The officer who nearly killed the young Marine veteran in Oakland has yet to be identified, hiding behind a blue wall of silence.

    Don’t preach to me about OWS being violent. That is a blame the victim stance if I ever saw it.

    I am done. I’ve had it.

  149. Bdaman,

    “You and 99.99% of the rest of the commenters here felt it was O.K. to destroy public and private property, and to cause bodily harm to others.”

    That’s not true.

  150. The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group’s lack of credibility:

    “Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations….makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading…. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.

    Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

    The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2010-2011.[2] It is a member of ALEC’s Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force,[3] Education Task Force,[4] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Financial Services Subcommittee[5] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[6] James Taylor, managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting.[6] Heartland was also an Exhibitor at ALEC’s 2011 Annual Meeting.[7] Heartland has also functioned as a publisher and promoter of ALEC’s model legislation.

    ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door.

    ***

    Leaked documents

    The 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states that the Institute got $200,000 in 2011 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and nearly a million from an anonymous donor. Goals of the organization included:

    working with David E. Wojick on “providing [K-12 school] 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”;

    “sponsor[ing] the NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change] to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] reports” including paying “a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered”; and

    funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge “warmist science essays that counter our own,” including funding “external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts).”[18]

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

  151. raff, not entirely true. The police penned up the protesters and took their stuff, including cell phones, laptop computers, cameras and umbrellas. Then shoved the stuff into a big pile with frontloaders and gave the protesters only minutes to recover their stuff before the frontloader shoveled all the private property into garbage trucks. That scenario was acted out at OWS protests all the way from NYC to Oakland. Many thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of privately owned electronics, tents, food and medical supplies. In fact, in several raids on OWS sites, the medical tents seemed to be the first targets, according to witnesses.

    The fear in the 1% was in full view.

  152. Documents reveal Koch-funded group’s plot to undermine climate science
    Documents leaked from the ‘free-market’ Heartland Institute reveal payments to prominent climate-change deniers, a plan to create a fossil-fuel-friendly curriculum for Kindergartners, and efforts to ‘keep opposing voices’ out of the media.
    By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer / February 15, 2012
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0215/Documents-reveal-Koch-funded-group-s-plot-to-undermine-climate-science

    Excerpt:
    Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

    The documents…include the organization’s 2012 fundraising plan. It lists Heartland Institute donors, from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (established by Koch Industries billionaire Charles G. Koch), to Philip Morris parent company Altria, to software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.

    The climate change education project is funded so far by an anonymous donor who has given $13 million to the Institute over the past five years. Proposed by policy analyst David Wojick, who holds a doctorate in epistemology and has worked for coal and electricity generation companies, the project would create education “modules” written to meet curriculum guidelines for every grade level.

    Funding skepticism

    Heartland focuses on free-market issues across the board, including promoting charter schools, lobbying for business-friendly finance, insurance and real estate rules and promoting prescription drug availability before full Food and Drug Administration testing.

    In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They’ve also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.

    The documents also reveal a communications strategy aimed at “keep[ing] opposing voices out” of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is “reliably anti-climate.”

  153. RADICALS FOR CORPORATE POLLUTION: THE KOCH CARTEL & THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
    By Mark Ames
    http://exiledonline.com/radicals-for-corporate-pollution-the-koch-cartel-the-heartland-institute/

    Excerpt:
    Yesterday, our old friends the Koch brothers were back in the news. The DeSmog Blog exposed how some of the most rancid trolls in the world of climate change-denialism are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, one of the Koch Cartel’s early propaganda mills set up during the Reagan Era.

    Among the Heartland Institute’s disinformation projects: paying schools to spread pro-pollution lies to K-12 students by “providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain.” Also memos exposed direct funding deals from the Heartland Institute to pseudo-contrarian “scientists” like S. Fred Singer, named one of America’s top climate change-denialists, who also serves in a variety of Koch propaganda mills like the Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies and George Mason University.

    The main thing to remember in any story involving the Heartland Institute is that it is a direct project of the Koch Cartel (you gotta admire the Kochs’ ability to generate so many bland names for their propaganda outfits, that blandness acts like a wizard’s cloaking power).

    Heartland’s founder, David Padden, was an early member of the Koch Cartel. In 1977, when the Charles G. Koch Foundation of Wichita rebranded and renamed itself the Cato Institute, David Padden was a founding board member of the new Cato Institute. Padden headed a financial services firm in Chicago, Padden & Co. Chicago is the “heartland” of financial derivatives, the “financial weapons of mass destruction” that are screwing America and the world, so you can imagine the Kochs and Padden had plenty of work in Chicago. The Chicago Board is the largest financial derivatives exchange in the world—Koch sockpuppet Rick Santelli launched his Tea Party Rant while standing on the floor of the Chicago Board, blathering about “losers” who lost their homes. Another banker who was a founding board member of the Cato Institute was Sam Husbands, an executive at Dean Witter Securities, now part of Morgan Stanley. And of course, heading Cato was Charles Koch, heir to his father’s oil and chemicals fortune.

    Yep, they were underdogs and rebels all right, these “radicals for corporate pollution.”

  154. Heartland Institute activist on climate-change curriculum: Teach the ‘controversy’
    By Zachary Roth
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/heartland-institute-activist-climate-change-curriculum-teach-controversy-174255402.html

    Last week, documents said to come from a conservative think tank, Heartland Institute, shed light on its strategy to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Part of its tactic: a strategy memo mentioning plans to develop a school curriculum aimed at countering “the alarmist perspective” on the issue.

    The group, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, has called that memo a fake. But the activist described as leading the curriculum project, Dr. David Wojick, confirmed his lead role in the effort to Yahoo News, and called climate change “one of the greatest scientific controversies in history.”

    On Monday, Peter Gleick, a prominent environmental activist and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted that he had received the strategy memo anonymously in the mail, and in an effort to confirm its authenticity, used someone else’s name to obtain the other documents from the libertarian Heartland Institute. He then passed them on to a group of journalists, bloggers, and issue experts in favor of mainstream climate science to fuel the controversy. “I offer my personal apologies to all those affected,” Gleick wrote in an article on the Huffington Post.

    Heartland said Monday night it is “consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps.”

    According to the strategy memo, Heartland tentatively plans to pay Wojick about $25,000 per quarter to produce a K-12 curriculum that casts doubt on whether man-made climate change is occurring. Students would be taught, for instance, that “there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather,” says the memo.
    In an email to Yahoo News, Wojick said he’d noticed a lack of online resources for teaching the “climate change science debate,” adding that “almost everything teaches the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view, with which I disagree.” As a result, Wojick said, he approached Heartland with a proposal to “teach the basics of the debate, and fill the gap.”

    Wojick told Yahoo News he views it as an issue of teaching the controversy. “The fact is that while controversy is the life blood of the scientific frontier, the concept of scientific controversy is generally not taught in K-12,” he wrote. “I regard the climate debate as one of the greatest scientific controversies in history. It is so great that it cannot be ignored and is even forcing itself into the classroom.”

    In reality, the science of climate change is largely settled. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, considered the world’s leading scientific body on the issue, has confirmed in several recent reports that man-made climate change is occurring and poses a threat to the health of the planet.

    In recent years, Heartland has released a series of reports, written by well-known climate-change skeptics, challenging IPCC’s conclusions. But the great majority of climate scientists agree about the reality of man-made climate change.

    Heartland has called the strategy document “a total fake,” which “contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.” (It has not challenged the authenticity of the other documents.) But Wojick’s email appears to confirm his leading role in the education project. A spokesman did not respond to a request for comment from Yahoo News.
    The memo says that Wojick “has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the Department of Energy.” And Wojick told Yahoo News he won a grant from the Department of Energy “to develop an algorithm that estimates the grade level of science education content.”

    But in a statement issued last week, the Energy Department described Wojick as “a part-time support contractor for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information since 2003, working to help the office manage and organize its electronic databases.”

    It added: “He has never advised or conducted research for the Department on climate change or any other scientific topic, and the office he works for is not a research organization.”

  155. Heartland and Hypocrisy; Gleick And The Real Climate Debate
    By Steve Zwick
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/

    Excerpt:
    Noted hydroclimatologist and author Peter Gleick has spent his adult life measuring the impact of climate change on water resources. Last night, he took one for us all when he put his career in jeopardy by revealing that it was he who acquired and leaked documents to DeSmogBlog and others showing how the Heartland Institute – one of the loudest voices in the climate-change-denial choir – gets and spends its money.

    In so doing, he delivered a massive body blow to the denialsphere and moved the world closer to finding a solution to the climate-change challenge. That’s because his find exposes yet another piece of the denial machine that has been assembled over the past two decades to discredit legitimate climate science. It renders their utterances irrelevant, and provides yet more evidence that Heartland’s activities aren’t those of a charity, but of a PR agency acting on behalf of a few deep-pocketed paymasters who stand to lose if the world acts to mitigate climate change.

    Heartland responded first with holier-than-though threats against the media for posting the memos:

    “It was an outrageous violation of ethics and the law,” wrote Heartland president Joseph Bast, in an e-mail threatening legal action against media outlets that make the documents available for download. “It doesn’t matter what you believe about climate change, or if you are a liberal or a conservative. You ought to understand and denounce this unethical behavior.”

    It then attacked Gleick:

    “Gleick’s crime was a serious one,” wrote spokesperson Jim Lakely in an e-mail to reporters this morning. “The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety… A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.”

    This comes after Heartland also threatened to launch an investigation into a retired US Air Force Colonel Gary Wamsley who, in a private e-mail to Bast, criticized Heartland’s efforts to fund climate denial in the schools.

    “You should be ashamed of yourself,” the Colonel wrote. “The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education, and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet. You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you.”

    Bast responded by attacking the allegedly-forged memo – as if that were the only smoking gun in this nasty affair, which it isn’t – or if it really were an obvious forgery – which it also isn’t. and ignoring all of the other memos. Then he tried to scare the retired Colonel, who responded by posting the entire exchange on his web site.

    “Since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI,” wrote Bast. “It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases.”

    If Heartland were an innocent victim in all of this – if it were, say, a climate scientist who found his mails hacked and his character attacked just because his findings weren’t the ones certain industries wanted to hear – well, we could understand the vitriol. But this isn’t an innocent scientist or even anything resembling a research organization. It’s a group that cheered and jeered back in 2009, and again in 2011, after an e-mail server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and the mails were twisted and distorted to look like something they never really were.

  156. and they’re still not done.

    Ignored 911 Call Turns Fatal In Berkeley; Police Busy With Occupy Protest

    BERKELEY (KCBS) — Berkeley Police acknowledge they didn’t immediately respond to a call in the hills that would eventually result in a homicide this past Saturday.

    Officers were preparing for an Occupy protest headed to UC Berkeley from Oakland and said it didn’t appear to be an emergency.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/21/ignored-911-call-turns-fatal-in-berkeley-police-busy-with-occupy-protest/

  157. and how much at the expense of taxpayers did it cost to clean and patrol Occupy

    NEW YORK (AP) – During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.

    however the actual cost is much higher.Verum Serum updated the total cost estimates on Wednesday.Total: $18,450,999

    Occupy Asheville – $170,000
    Occupy Atlanta – $652,000
    Occupy Austin – $110,000
    Occupy Boston – $575,000
    Occupy Charlotte – $105,000
    Occupy Chicago – $49,000
    Occupy Cincinnati – $128,000
    Occupy Des Moines – $7,800
    Occupy DC – $870,000
    Occupy Denver – $365,000
    Occupy Eugene – $20,000
    Occupy Fresno – $110,000
    Occupy LA – $120,000 plus estimated $400,000 to repair the lawn
    Occupy Long Beach – $40,000
    Occupy Minnesota – $400,000
    Occupy Nashville – $4,500
    Occupy New York – $7,000,000
    Occupy Oakland – $2,400,000 for police overtime alone
    Occupy Philadelphia – $500,000
    Occupy Phoenix – $200,000
    Occupy Portland – $750,000 3.5 million + $50,000 to repair damaged parks
    Occupy Providence – $9, 000
    Occupy Raleigh – $60, 000
    Occupy Sacramento – $300,000
    Occupy San Diego – $2,400,000
    Occupy San Francisco – $100,000
    Occupy St. Louis – $2,200
    Occupy Seattle – $625,999

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=32348

  158. Ha Ha funny Raff, you have to be on the other side to be on the gravy train.

    The funny part is that I have time on my side. The facts are becoming abundantly clear and there will be no way to “hide the decline”

    Global temperatures are plummeting now hence the reason why the CRU revised there data in mid January and confirmed that we are somewhat in a cooling trend and the warmist/alarmist are feeling the heat. ROTFLMAO.

    The proof will be indisputable over the next few years as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise unabated and IF the global temperature continues to fall. I say if because every doomsday article written always says that scientist say that IF we don’t act now it MAY be to late.

    Also don’t know if you watch NBC Nightly News. I do every night. I mentioned this the other day and it is also becoming abundantly clear. Use to be that every weather related story Brian Williams or who ever did the story would link it to Climate Change. They don’t mention that word anymore. Savannah Guthrie did one on winters death grip on Europe and how the death toll exceeds 600. No mention of climate change. She made one error though she mentioned that it’s there second in a row. It’s there third. Brian Williams did one on the skiers that died in an avalanche, Said the NW U.S. is experiencing one of their worst avalanche seasons. No mention of Climate Change.

  159. Anon Nurse thanks for the link to the Atlantic. I assumed becasue you were behind in the story that the link was to a story I had already linked to. Just finished reading it. There’s truth to one’s writing style. It’s amazing how one person’s analysis of how someone tweets and rights nailed or at least got everyone pointing at Gleick. Thanks, this shows you are someone with an open mind.

  160. Here were the very first clues and could be why the gubment chooses to store tweets.

    from the Atlantic

    If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody who tweets the word “anti-climate”. you’ll find it. Look for somebody on the west coast ( the time zone the document was scanned in)

    You’ll find somebody who doesnt know how to use parenthesis or commas, both in this memo and in other things he has written.

    you’ll find he mentions himself in the memo

    that’s all the clues for now. of course its all just speculation. Note, he’s not tweeted for a couple days. very rare for him.

  161. and it now appears that Gleick, feeling the heat, again ROTFLMAO, had no choice but to confess as Ross Kaminsky over at the spectator just basically came out and accused Gleick.

    For you’re listening pleasure

  162. Oh Peter, you’re going to jail.

    The shadows high on the darker side
    Behind those doors, it’s a wilder ride
    You can make a break, you can win or lose
    That’s a chance you take, when the heat’s on you
    When the heat is on

    Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
    Caught up in the action I’ve been looking out for you
    Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
    (Tell me can you feel it)
    (Tell me can you feel it)
    (Tell me can you feel it)
    The heat is on, the heat is on, the heat is on
    Oh it’s on the street, the heat is on

  163. Off topic–but on the subject of science:

    Transistor Single Atom In Size Created By Australian Scientists
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/transistor-single-atom-in-size_n_1288158.html?ref=science

    Excerpt:
    Just when you thought electronic devices couldn’t get any smaller comes word that Australian scientists have fabricated a transistor out of a single atom.

    Transistors–semiconductor devices that amplify and switch electronic signals–are considered the building blocks of computers.

    The researchers created the minute device–a phosphorous atom precisely positioned on a silicon crystal–using a scanning tunneling microscope inside a vacuum chamber. The transistor is not a commercially available product but is believed to represent an important step toward the development of next-generation “quantum” computers of unprecedented processing capabilities.

    “This is the first time anyone has shown control of a single atom in a substrate with this level of precise accuracy,” Dr. Michelle Simmons, director of the ARC Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication at the University of New South Wales and one of the researchers behind the breakthrough, said in a written statement.

  164. Ms. Elaine I was reading the comments over at the link to Huffpo you provided. Below is a comment copied from their section. Kinda sums it up for me and I think well said. For you or anyone to paint or portray Peter Glieck as some type of hero is sad. By doing so you are condoning his actions and justifying what he did in the same manner Gene H did with Occupy by saying what Peter Glieck did was for the greater good. It could very well turn out to be that he is a hero in the long run but for the skeptics side. Taking a subject that appeared to be settled to a whole new level.

    From the comment section at Huffpo

    The Altantic has done an excellent job covering this affair. The story has already moved from the “fake ID” angle to the assertion that Gleik actually forged the document in question. Analysis of the memo’s writing style and the inconsistent timelines of the memo’s publication are offered up as evidence that Gleik was the forger.

    Secondly, this scandal is different than climate gate in at least 2 key respects: 1) no one has claimed forgery in c-gate, and 2) the c-gate emails showed publicly-funded scientists conspiring to evade a FOIA request and slander their critics. Plus, there are more emails to come – we don’t yet know the scope of deception.

    I am not qualified to assess the quality of the climate research. However, I am genuinely curious why the small priesthood of climatetologists has not shared their source data with others and indeed seems to be going out of their way to hide/fudge the data? Without reliable data, how can anyone assert what global temperatures are doing?

  165. Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists
    Scientist Peter Gleick apologises for ‘serious lapse in judgment and ethics’, but supporters say Heartland remains the villain
    Suzanne Goldenberg
    21 February 2012
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate?newsfeed=true

    Excerpt:
    The outing of the researcher who exposed the Heartland Institute’s efforts to discredit climate change has thrown the scientific community into tumult, with fierce debates raging on Tuesday over whether to brand his actions heroic, or misguided.

    Peter Gleick, a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted in a blogpost on Monday night to using a false name to dupe the thinktank into sending him confidential board materials, which he then forwarded to campaigners and journalists.

    He apologised for the deception – which he described as “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” – but added in the blog post published at the Huffington Post: “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated – to attack climate science.”

    Gleick’s admission – nearly a week after Heartland’s financial plans and donors list was put online – set off a fierce online debate about whether his actions made him a hero or a villain, and whether he had helped or set back the cause of climate change.

    He suffered his first fallout on Tuesday, when he decided against taking up a new position on a board that fights for science education in schools. Gleick was to have headed a new venture defending climate science in classrooms.

    The National Centre for Science Education said it had accepted his decision not to take up a board post, and that it did not condone his action.

    For some campaigners, such as Naomi Klein, Gleick was an unalloyed hero, who should be sent some “Twitter love”, she wrote on Tuesday.

    “Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years,” wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. “They also subvert the education of our schoolchildren by trying to ‘teach the controversy’ where none exists.”

  166. Re-writing science to advance the agenda of America’s oil barons?
    Thom Hartmann
    http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/02/re-writing-science-advance-agenda-america’s-oil-barons

    The right wing, coal-funded, climate change-denying think tank known as the Heartland Institute is desperately trying to cover up leaked documents containing budget and fundraising numbers and a plan to re-educate children in school with anti-climate-change pseudo-science.

    After the documents were published on several online blogs – the Heartland Institute argued they were forged. But on Monday – climate researcher Peter Gleick admitted he was the source of the leak and that the documents are indeed authentic – and that the Heartland Institute was seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from people like the Koch brothers to re-write school curriculums.

    I guess if 99.9% scientists disagree – then you just have to re-write science to advance the agenda of America’s oil barons.

  167. Heartland Institute Documents Leaked
    By Matt Benamy
    http://news.yahoo.com/heartland-institute-documents-leaked-192200094.html

    COMMENTARY | Last week a bunch of documents that were reportedly from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think thank that is infamous amongst environmentalists and scientists for their highly funded attempts to refute the well documented science on climate change, were leaked on to the internet by an anonymous source. Some speculated that they may have not been real, while others speculated that the documents may have been stolen.

    According to The Guardian, on Feb. 20, after an investigation and much speculation, climate scientist Peter Gleick admitted to being the person who had leaked the documents, but in a interesting twist, it was revealed that he had used a fake name to work for and gain access to Heartland’s documents. Although this is illegal and Mr. Gleick should and will be punished to the full extent of the law, a look at the documents released gives us what can only be referred to as a disturbing insight into the small but lavishly funded group of think tanks, business interests, and politicians who want to not only create doubt in the almost unanimously agreed upon field of man made climate change, but want to create school curricula that undermine the well established findings of climate change, by either asserting that there is not consensus among climate scientists, or by just refuting it altogether.

    This situation, although completely illegal, creates a muddied moral dilemma for those of us who have seen the effect these climate heretics have had on the majority of the poorly informed and easily manipulated voting public. Does the illegal action taken by Mr. Gleick justify the revelation into the corrupt and sinister business of climate denial? Given that the Heartland Institute is funded so well by industries that have a vested interest in the continued climate ignorance by the public, what they are doing is highly unethical by any definition of the word. The path this one enraged scientist took was against the law, but in the long term the unmasking of the conspiracy engaged in by climate change deniers was a necessity. If we ever want to be able to stop the undermining of real science and open our eyes and change our policy to be able to pass on a planet that is not in rapid decay on to our posterity we must look at the information he uncovered separately from his crime. I believe if we can correctly use the information Mr. Gleick will be punished for acquiring, we will create a better future for future generations and his crimes will be remembered. We must not let these findings be in vain.

  168. Who funds the lobbyists?
    George Monbiot
    http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/22/who-funds-the-lobbyists.html

    Excerpt:
    SHOCKING, fascinating, entirely unsurprising: the leaked documents, if authentic, confirm what we suspected but could not prove. The Heartland Institute, which has helped lead the war against climate science in the US, is funded among others by tobacco firms, fossil fuel companies and one of the billionaire Koch brothers.

    It appears to have followed the script written by a consultant to the Republican party, Frank Luntz, in 2002. “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

    Luntz’s technique was pioneered by the tobacco companies and the creationists: teach the controversy. Insist that the question of whether cigarettes cause lung cancer, natural selection drives evolution, or burning fossil fuels causes climate change, is still wide open, and that both sides of the ‘controversy’ should be taught in schools and thrashed out in the media.

    The leaked documents appear to show that, courtesy of its multimillionaire donors, the institute has commissioned a global warming curriculum for schools which teaches that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy” and “whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial”.

    The institute has claimed it is “a genuinely independent source of research and commentary” and that “we do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors”. But the documents, if authentic, reveal that its attacks on climate science have been largely funded by a single anonymous donor and that “we are extinguishing primarily global-warming projects in pace with declines in his giving”.

    The climate-change deniers it funds have made similar claims to independence. For example, last year Fred Singer told a French website: “Of course I am not funded by the fossil fuel lobbies. It’s a completely absurd invention.” The documents suggest that the institute, funded among others by coal company Murray Energy, the oil company Marathon and the former Exxon lobbyist Randy Randol has been paying him $5,000 a month.

    Robert Carter has claimed he “receives no research funding from special interest organisations”. But the documents suggest that Heartland pays him $1,667 a month. Among the speakers at its conferences were two writers for the Telegraph. The Telegraph group should now reveal whether and how much they were paid by the Heartland Institute.

  169. Scientists Who Had Emails Stolen Ask Heartland Institute to End Attack on Climate Science
    UCS President Kevin Knobloch Calls Heartland Institute’s Strategy ‘Disturbing’
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html

    Excerpt:
    WASHINGTON (Feb. 17, 2012) – Seven leading climate researchers who themselves were the victims of an email theft which was promoted by the Heartland Institute have written an open letter to the organization, calling on it to refrain from spreading inaccurate information about climate science and attacking climate researchers.

    The letter follows the publication of internal documents this week reportedly from Heartland that, if genuine, reveal that some of the nation’s largest fossil fuel interests are funding attacks to discredit climate science, including in public schools.

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

    All of the signers had emails that are part of a stolen archive the Heartland Institute has pointed to in an attempt to discredit climate science.

    “We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to ‘think about what has happened’ and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy,” the letter reads. “The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.”

    Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted in a blog post today that while Heartland is demanding integrity and fairness in the treatment of this theft, the group was silent and in fact actively exploited the theft of these scientists’ emails in an effort to discredit their climate change research.

  170. Heartland Institute leak exposes strategies of climate attack machine
    The documents show how groups play up controversy to undermine confidence in well-established scientific findings
    Bob Ward
    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 February 2012
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack

    Excerpt:

    After the leak from the Chicago-based thinkthank the Heartland Institute, much attention is now being focused on the alleged deception used by the water scientist Peter Gleick to obtain the sensitive internal documents.

    And while acts of deception cannot be condoned, it is also important to note that the documents obtained by Gleick provide an insight into how some of those groups that are fundamentally opposed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases attempt to convey the impression that their arguments are founded on science rather than on ideology.

    The Heartland Institute states on its website that its mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems”, and that the aim of its work on climate change is to promote “market-based, rather than government-based, solutions to environmental problems”. The Institute has been one of the most active lobbyists against policies in the United States to curb emissions, primarily by attempting to undermine confidence in the findings of scientific research that climate change is driven mainly by human activities.

  171. Berkeley-based scientist causes ethics storm over climate change documents
    By Dana Hull and Paul Rogers
    2/22/12
    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20011749

    Excerpt:
    For the past two decades, Peter Gleick has earned a reputation as a nationally known expert on water and climate issues, winning a MacArthur “genius award,” penning a long list of scientific articles and testifying before Congress.

    But over the past two days, the 55-year-old Berkeley resident has found himself at the center of a national maelstrom of his own making: using a false name to obtain confidential documents from a pro-industry think tank known for minimizing the risks of global warming.

    The issue has riveted the environmental community and the energy industry, raising questions about whether the damage will extend past Gleick’s reputation and harm scientists’ efforts to convince the public that climate change is real and largely caused by humans.

    Gleick, president of the nonprofit Pacific Institute, in Oakland, wasn’t talking Tuesday.

    But Monday, he stunned the scientific community when he admitted — via his blog in the Huffington Post — that he obtained confidential fundraising and strategy documents from the libertarian Heartland Institute in Chicago by using someone else’s name, and distributed them on the Internet.

    Crossing lines

    The Heartland Institute has cried foul, arguing Gleick stole electronic documents and should be jailed for identity theft and computer fraud. It said Gleick obtained the documents by contacting a Heartland staff member and claiming to be a Heartland board member.

    Over the past 20 years the institute has received funding from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and others with ties to the fossil fuel industry, and has clashed with scientists and environmental groups.
    “Gleick’s crime was a serious one,” Heartland said in a statement. “The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.”

    The institute also said one of the documents — which mapped out a strategy for trying to change the way climate science is taught in schools — is a fake.

    Legal experts said Tuesday that while Gleick may have crossed an ethical line it could be difficult to prove he crossed a legal one. “The idea of a local district attorney or attorney general stepping in seems unlikely,” said Stephen Ryan, an attorney with McDermott Will & Emery in Washington, D.C., who has litigated technology privacy cases.

    “Private parties who are very well-heeled have recourse — they can have at each other. It’s hard to imagine a government prosecutor getting involved.”

    One industry expert said it could backfire for the Heartland Institute to file a civil lawsuit against Gleick because the group’s leaders would be put under oath and more of their documents released in open court.

    “Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani, a Houston law firm that lobbies on behalf of oil refineries, electric utilities and other industries. “If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
    Many questions remained Tuesday. In his Huffington Post statement, Gleick said he had been sent the documents earlier this year by an anonymous leaker, and was trying to verify their accuracy by asking for copies from Heartland.

    “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,” Gleick wrote, adding “I deeply regret my own actions.”

  172. Bdaman,
    what makes you think I was thinking of you???
    If I understand it correctly, Mr. Gleick is apologizing for stealing the documents that finger Heartland as a bought and sold climate denier. He shouldn’t have lied and received the smoking gun, but I am sure glad that he did.

  173. Ms. Elaine Heartland Institute Documents Leaked ? Seriously ?

    Raff He shouldn’t have lied and received the smoking gun, but I am sure glad that he did.

    Two peas in a pod you an Gene. Go ahead and say it, it was for the greater good.

    Lets start a list taking a lead from O.S.

    When is it o.k. to bully scientist, answer, when it’s for the greater good.

    When is it o.k. to torture prisoners, answer, when it’s for the greater good.

    When is it o.k. to forge documents and commit identity theft, answer when it’s for the greater good.

    When is it o.k. to beat your wife, answer when it’s for the greater good.

    I wonder if someone will you it as a defense in a criminal trail. I did it because it was for the greater good. Isn’t that basically what the abortion doctor killers believe by killing abortion doctors? It’s for the greater good.

  174. “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,” Gleick wrote, adding “I deeply regret my own actions.”

    However in the confession

    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.

    So we have identical documents that have been made public that he obtained from Heartland.

    In the confession he states that he received documents via regular mail.

    Now if he posted the Heartland Documents that are Identical from what he illegally obtained from Heartland where does the one CONFIRMED forged document come in. Is he still in possession of the envelope with the post mark. Probably

    So lets see you receive an anonymous memo in the mail purporting to be the secret climate strategy of the Heartland Institute. It is not printed on Heartland Institute letterhead, has no information identifying the supposed author.

    Do you:

    A. Throw it in the trash

    B. Reach out to like-minded friends to see how you might go about confirming its provenance

    C. Tell no one, but risk a wire-fraud conviction, the destruction of your career, and a serious PR blow to your movement by impersonating a Heartland board member in order to obtain confidential documents.

  175. Bdaman,

    “Ms. Elaine Heartland Institute Documents Leaked ? Seriously ?”

    What’s your point?

    “When is it o.k. to bully scientist, answer, when it’s for the greater good.”

    You’re the one who said that.

    *****

    Q: When is it okay to work to pervert scientific findings, cherry-pick data, obscure the truth, cast aspersions on scientists’ characters and motives, spread disinformation, prostitute yourself for corporate overlords?

    A: When you work for a climate denial front group like Heartland Institute.

  176. According to GasBuddy.com, motorists are shelling out $5.89 for a gallon of regular gas at a Shell station in Lake Buena Vista, topping out at $5.99 a gallon for premium. It doesn’t get better at a Suncoast Energy station in Orlando, where drivers are paying $5.79 for a gallon of regular.

    “Prices over in the Disney World area are much higher than any other place in Florida,” Jessica Brady, AAA spokeswoman, told CBS Tampa, adding that people regularly complain about gas prices in that area.

    The Sunshine State is opening up its wallet, paying an average of $3.67 a gallon of unleaded gas, 12 cents more than the national average. And it’s only expected to go up.

    http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/florida-drivers-shelling-out-nearly-6-a-gallon-at-some-gas-stations/

  177. Q: When is it okay to work to pervert scientific findings, cherry-pick data, obscure the truth, cast aspersions on scientists’ characters and motives, spread disinformation,

    Ha ha thats what we say about the climate scientist who hide the decline, try and evade FOIA request and slander their critics and claim they lost the original data. Oh and commit identity fraud and forge documents.

    Thats the whole Gleick argument we’ve been saying that the warmist/alarmist make stuff up. Gleick is proof of what we’ve been saying all along. He’s a lier, a thief and an illegal impersonator.

  178. “Ms. Elaine Heartland Institute Documents Leaked ? Seriously ?”

    What’s your point?

    It should read

    Heartland Forged Documents Leaked Even Though They Were Stolen Under False Pretenses.

    There, that’s better

  179. Bdaman,
    No evidence of forged Hearland documents. They are still a bought and paid shill for energy companies and these documents prove it. Once again, demand for gas is down and it is speculation that is causing this spike in gas prices. Why should Exxon or Shell reduce it when they can get away with it. Besides, I thought you would want the market to solve all pricing problems?

  180. Bdaman,
    Go ahead and sue or prosecute the gentlemen if Heartland has a cause of action, but the documents disclosed are still accurate and damning. You are trying to hide the facts behind your fervent disgust at his methods. I think he must have learned these methods from Mr. Murdoch and his crowd.

  181. Bdaman,

    If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that it was the title of an article that I posted. I chose not to change the title of the article.

    There you go again…casting aspersions on the motives of climate scientists!

  182. People, please do not forget that purloined documents helped bring an end to the Vietnam war. I know there are a few of us around here old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Whistleblowing and publishing records of wrongdoing may sometimes be the noble thing to do. When one sees a crime or immoral act being committed……..

    Pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over someone publishing records of chicanery comes across as more than a little disingenuous.

  183. Spy vs. spy: The Heartland Institute’s head-spinning hypocrisy
    by Greg Hanscom
    2/22/12
    http://grist.org/climate-energy/spy-vs-spy-the-heartland-institutes-head-spinning-hypocrisy/

    When someone grabbed emails and documents from the computers of climate scientists and leaked them to the media in 2009, few organizations were as mirthful as the Heartland Institute, an outfit that has worked for years to spread the gospel of climate-change denial. Although multiple investigations into the scientists’ emails debunked accusations that the researchers had subverted science and distorted data, Heartland and its allies used the so-called “Climategate” memos to tar climate science and bully the media into covering their dubious claims.

    Last Monday, when an anonymous source (we now know it to be MacArthur-award-winning scientist and climate activist Peter Gleick) released internal Heartland memos to the press, the group had something else to say entirely.

    The Heartland documents included details about a plan to introduce climate denial into grade school curricula and a list of major donors that includes a rogues’ gallery of corporate interests. One document contained a summary of Heartland’s work promoting fracking. Surprising? Hardly. Embarrassing? Apparently.

    Here’s what Heartland President Joseph Bast had to say back in 2009 about the scientists’ emails, in an op-ed at Investors.com that you can download from the institute’s website:

    The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians and others who relied on the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] to form their opinion about global warming to stop and reconsider their position …

    Looking at how past disclosures of fraud in the global warming debate have been dismissed or ignored by the mainstream media leads me to suspect that they’ll try to sweep this, too, under the rug. But thanks to the Internet, millions of people will be able to read the e-mails and make up their own minds.

    This incident, then, won’t be forgotten. Journalists who attempt to spin it away and politicians who try to ignore it will further damage their own credibility, and perhaps see their careers shortened as a result.

    When more emails were leaked to the press in November 2011, Heartland Senior Fellow James Taylor happily piled on with an op-ed in Forbes — this, despite the fact that three separate inquiries had already vindicated the scientists. (The second round of emails did nothing to advance the institute’s cause.)

    But last week, when it was their own skivvies waving in the breeze, Heartland staffers weren’t exactly cheering the public’s “opportunity” to form its own opinions or thanking the internet for its openness. Instead, the institute took the offensive, claiming that one of the documents was a fake (although much of its contents simply summarize what is spelled out in great detail in the other documents, which the institute says “were obviously stolen”) and sending legal notices to publications (including Grist) demanding that the documents — and all commentary on, links to, and references regarding them — be taken down.

    “We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech,” Bast said in a statement on Feb. 19. “But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.”

    In a media advisory issued Feb. 20, Bast called the leak of the Heartland memos “an outrageous violation of ethics and law,” and called on DeSmogBlog and other publications that had reported on the memos to reveal the identity of their source:

    It was likely either someone on their staffs or someone well known to them. It is unconscionable and illegal for them to conceal the identity of a person who has broken the law and who has damaged the reputations of many people and organizations, not only The Heartland Institute. At a minimum, they should share what information they do have with Heartland and the FBI …

    The Heartland Institute wants to know who in the global warming movement conspired to steal and forge documents. What do the leaders of DesmogBlog and other organizations know? When did they know it? Why are they leaving forged documents on their Web sites?

    Gleick came forward the next day. He admitted he had tricked the institute into sending him the documents. He said he’d anonymously received the summary memo (the one Heartland says is fake). The rest of the documents, he said, came directly from Heartland — something the institute has yet to confirm or deny. He sought them, he said, because he wanted some corroboration of the material in the anonymous memo he’d received.

    Meanwhile, the Associated Press and New York Times have confirmed many of the details in the memos.

    No matter. Heartland has already packaged up its outrage under a name and a new website: Fakegate. In his Feb. 20 media advisory, Bast declares: “Fakegate may be as damaging to the global warming movement as Climategate was.”

  184. If the “victims” are so damaged, they have recourse. A friend of mine, now deceased, was an Assistant State Attorney General for the State of Mississippi. His favorite refrain when somebody would lament about a real or perceived wrong, was, “That’s why they build courthouses.”

    Let ’em sue. They won’t of course, because they fear the discovery process. To say discovery would be “interesting” is an understatement.

  185. One more thing. Their “scientists” would be subjected to a Daubert scrutiny, and that is about the last thing they want. One of the ways I get my jollies is to assist an attorney in preparing for a Daubert voir dire.

    Well, when you get to be my age, you have to find alternate ways to have fun.

  186. Even though I’m younger, I’m going to have to agree about Sellers. He was a brilliant comic. From what I’ve read, he wasn’t such a great guy in real life, but it’s hard to argue with his work product. Did you know he was originally supposed to play four characters in “Dr. Strangelove” and that the movie got the green light predicated on Sellers taking multiple roles? In addition to playing Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove, he was supposed to have played Maj. ‘King’ Kong. However, a leg injury just before shooting prevented Sellers from being able to climb in and out of the tiny bomber set, so the role went to Slim Pickens instead.

  187. “that was a priceless Steinway”, Not anymore! Sellers was fantastic.
    Gene,
    You are right about Dr. Strangelove. One of the classic comedys of all time. Way ahead of its time.

  188. DENIERGATE: GRIJALVA CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SCIENTIST ON HEARTLAND PAYROLL | Congress has begun investigating the Heartland Institute after details of its strategy of climate denial were revealed in leaked documents. In a letter to the chair and ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has called for an investigation into the “conduct of Indur Goklany, the Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy at the Department of the Interior.” As a budget document leaked by the Heartland Institute appears to reveal, the group intended to pay Goklany $1,000 a month to write for a Heartland-funded publication on climate science. Grijalva cites a letter from Greenpeace to DOI that notes potential conflicts with Department of Interior ethical guidelines, which warn employees not to take payment from outside organizations that seek to influence the federal government.

    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430457/deniergate-grijalva-calls-for-investigation-of-department-of-interior-scientist-on-heartland-payroll/

  189. Heartland’s Classroom Climate Science Polluter: ‘CO2 Is The Global Food Supply’
    By Brad Johnson on Feb 22, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/429593/heartlands-classroom-climate-science-polluter-co2-is-the-global-food-supply/

    Excerpt:
    As ThinkProgress Green first revealed last week, the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Microsoft, and other top corporations, is planning to develop a “global warming curriculum” for elementary schoolchildren that presents climate science as “a major scientific controversy.” This effort, at a cost of $100,000 a year, will be developed by Dr. David E. Wojick, a coal-industry consultant who sees CO2 as “the global food supply“:

    CO2 is not pollution, it is the global food supply. Watching a child grow is watching atmospheri­c CO2 being reprocesse­d.

    Wojick has now spoken out, defending his intention to teach children the conspiracy theory that man-made climate change is “one of the great scientific debates of history,” instead of a scientific fact built upon decades of research. In a Huffington Post comment, Wojick described his work as a taxpayer-funded consultant for the Department of Energy on science education, and his desire to fight “the company line about dangerous human induced warming“:

    It is true that DOE has not funded me to do climate research, but they have funded me to do science education research. Under a DOE SBIR grant my team of teachers developed a model of the concept structure of K-16 science education. The result for DOE was a search algorithm that sees the grade level of science education writing. The prototype is running on http://www­.scienceed­ucation.go­v. They also fund me to study the cognitive structure of science itself, in order to improve their science communicat­ion database systems.

    My expertise in the climate science debate comes from 20 years of study. My Ph.D. is in the philosophy of science, especially the logic of complex issues. My funding comes from free lance writing and policy analysis. While climate scientists study climate, I study their reasoning.
    These two research thrusts came together when I noticed that almost all of the Web-based educationa­l resources on climate change merely parrot the company line about dangerous human induced warming. There is very little on the scientific debate, which I see as one of the great scientific debates in history. So I have set out to fill this void. The debate is now so widespread that any science teacher who cannot demonstrat­e knowledge of it will quickly lose credibilit­y. But the grand challenge is that scientific controvers­y is not typically taught in K-12, even though it is the heart of the scientific frontier. This is the fun part.
    Previous comments on Huffington Post expose Wojick as an ideological conspiracy theorist, who seems to earnestly believe that the global scientific consensus on climate change is the “global warming scare,” a “catastroph­e theory with an agenda,” a “political and ideologica­l struggle,” and perhaps even “Eco-Marxism.” He makes the baseless claim that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an “advocacy organization,” rather than the neutral scientific body it actually is.

    Wojick repeats some of the most absurd canards of climate deniers, claiming that “CO2 is not pollution, it is the global food supply,” that increased CO2 “might even be beneficial,” that there has only been warming “for one 20 year period,” and that the role of CO2 in global warming is “unknown.”

    This is the ideology that the Heartland Institute hopes to bring to classrooms across America. As yet, none of the corporations supporting the think tank, including GM, Pfizer, and PepsiCo, have committed to ending their support for this anti-science group.

  190. Grijalva cites a letter from Greenpeace to DOI that notes potential conflicts with Department of Interior ethical guidelines, which warn employees not to take payment from outside organizations that seek to influence the federal government.

    It seems esteemed NASA astronomer turned climatologist turned paid activist Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do. How long will NASA continue to look the other way?

    NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

    This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

    Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.
    Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee. This is despite NASA ordering him to return at least some of the money, with the rest apparently unnoticed by NASA. This raises troubling issues about Hansen’s, and NASA’s, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for doing his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.

    The following summarizes records produced by the Department of Justice to resolve litigation against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the required financial disclosures Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    These records are his applications for outside employment or other activity (form 17-60), approvals and accompanying documents, and public financial disclosure (form SF 278).

    As detailed in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit which yielded these records, Hansen suddenly became the recipient of many, often lucrative offers of outside employment and awards after he escalated his political activism — using his NASA position as a platform, and springboard. This began with a strident “60 Minutes” interview in early 2006, alleging political interference by the Bush administration in climate science.

    Hansen acknowledged this timing on his website, noting that first he was offered an award of “a moderate amount of cash– $10,000″ by an outside activist group. He claims to have turned this down because of the nominating process (without elaborating what that meant), and because of the impropriety of appearing to be financially rewarded for his outspokenness (“I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship [sic] for the sake of the $”).

    Given that Hansen makes no bones about his (often outrageous) outspokenness and activism being, in his view, part of his job, this surely is also another way of saying it would look as if he were having his NASA salary supplemented by appreciative activists and others. That would violate the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 209.

    Yet, as the offers soon became larger, Hansen changed his mind.

    The records reveal that NASA initially was very direct in warning Hansen of his responsibilities and prohibitions relating to these activities, which covered the subject of his public employment. Later, after Hansen gained much media attention and condemnation of his NASA superiors for (falsely) claiming he had been “muzzled” (the second president named Bush he claimed had muzzled him), certain clear restatements of the law were dropped from the approval letters responding to his applications for outside employment.

    NASA oversight of Hansen’s compliance with ethics-related reporting requirements similarly waned. At no point did they seek reconciliation of his serially conflicting attestations detailed here.

    Improper Receipt of Outside Income Without Obtaining Advance Permission

    Hansen’s 2009 speech at Dartmouth University for a $5,000 honorarium and up to $1,000 in expenses came in violation of the clear rule against promoting his appearances as, or emphasizing his job with, NASA. It also had not been approved. NASA’s Deputy Chief Counsel Laura Giza, after admonishing these violations, demanded he return the improperly obtained money:

    “[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.

    “Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”

    If there were further correspondence about this demand it would be in NASA’s document production, but there are no such records. The only lawful scenario, therefore, is that Hansen quietly agreed to the demand, but did not inform NASA whether he complied. Otherwise, NASA, Hansen, or both have violated the ethics and/or transparency statutes and regulation.

    Yet subsequent financial disclosure forms show Hansen attesting to accepting even more money, between $5,001 and $15,000, for a 2008 speech at Illinois Wesleyan University for which his file, according to NASA, contains no request for permission to engage in this outside employment, or approval to do so (each a condition precedent to lawfully engage in the activity, and to accepting the money).

    There is no correspondence about these two glaring discrepancies in his filings reflecting more apparently improperly accepted outside income than most federal employees will ever see in their careers.

    In order to continue his employment Hansen would therefore be required to bring himself back in compliance with the ethics rules by returning the money, between somewhere more than $10,000, and $26,000.

    Although Hansen reported the income from both honoraria, he did not report receipt of travel expenses for him to get there. This omission is a pattern in his filings, to the tune of surely tens of thousands of dollars for airfare, meals and lodging to locations all around the country and Europe, all required by ethics laws to be reported.

    For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

    ■Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
    ■Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
    ■Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
    ■WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
    ■Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
    ■Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
    ■FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
    ■ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
    ■Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
    ■Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
    ■UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
    ■Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
    ■Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
    ■EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
    ■California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
    ■CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007
    The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:

    Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club “No Coal” campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT

    Other travel apparently accepted but not reported, to provide expert testimony including on cases involving federal policy:

    California (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon), Vermont (Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth etc v. Torti)

    Failing to Report Gifts

    World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, which typically run $8,000 and up (2006), but which was not reported by Hansen on his SF 278 under “gifts”, which must be reported if valued at more than $260.

    Failure to Report Receipt of Free Legal Services

    On his website Hansen said he began accepting free legal services in 2006. These are not reported on his financial disclosures, as they should be.

    Also, NASA’s document production shows him attesting to receiving more, separate free legal services in the form of an amicus brief drafted for he and a few others to intervene before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. This was not reported on his SF278, as required.

    These lapses on both Hansen’s part and NASA demand scrutiny to determine how laws designed to protect the taxpayer are, or are not, being respected.

  191. Raff nothing about Wallstreet and speculators here.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied that President Obama bears responsibility for high gas prices, and mocked Newt Gingrich for his criticism of Obama on that issue, as he defended Obama’s “comprehensive energy policy.”

    “The rise in gas prices is clearly the effect of a variety of factors on the global price of oil,” Carney said during the press briefing today. “They include unrest in certain regions of the world. They include growth in areas like China and India.” He was responding CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, who asked if the unseasonably high gas prices are “the president’s fault.”

  192. One thing for sure it’s not Obama’s fault

    http://news.investors.com/article/601827/201202211837/obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm

    When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.

    Already, pump prices are higher than they’ve been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

    President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. So he sent Robert Gibbs — now a top campaign adviser — out to tell the public not to worry.

    “Just on Friday, the Department of the Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic,” Gibbs said Sunday. “Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we’re making progress.”

    “Progress” isn’t exactly how Obama described the country’s energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of “Washington’s failure to lead on energy,” which was “turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans.”

    “For the well-off in this country,” Obama said in May 2008, “high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis.”

    In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be “one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced” and that gas prices “are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses.”

    While Gibbs is right that domestic production has climbed in the past three years, Obama’s policies had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast Oil coming from offshore wells was in the pipeline, so to speak, during the Clinton and Bush years, when those permits were issued. And the oil pouring out of North Dakota is the result of drilling on private lands.

    Obama, in fact, has made it clear for years that he has no real interest in boosting domestic production.

    When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying “it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years.”

    “Offshore drilling,” he said, “would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.”

    In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that “if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world’s oil reserves.”

    And while in office, Obama’s done everything he can to limit production — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.

    Instead of aggressively expanding oil production, he offered a set of ridiculous alternatives — hugely wasteful “green” energy subsidies, a call for a million electric cars by 2014 and costly fuel economy mandates that won’t make a dent in consumption for decades.

    With gas prices up 93% since Obama took office, we’re seeing just how well this approach works.

  193. Anyone who has even a smidgen of understanding of how futures work, will understand speculators and futures traders have far more influence on the price of oil than unrest in some country halfway around the world.

    I remember when I was just beginning to shave. The price of a pack of razor blades was ten cents. Then it suddenly jumped to fifteen cents a pack. According to what I read in the newspapers, it was because the price of steel had gone up almost twenty cents a ton. We did not have calculators or computers in those days, so according to my trusty legal pad and a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, that pack of razor blades should have weighed approximately 500 pounds. Free enterprise at work.

  194. Whistleblowing and publishing records of wrongdoing may sometimes be the noble thing to do. When one sees a crime or immoral act being committed……..

    Yeah ask Dan Rather and now Peter Glieck

  195. Dan Rather’s mistake was running with the story before checking it out. Funny thing happened amidst all the outcry. No one disproved the truth of those letters. The original record of Dubya’s going AWOL and and associated problems with his flight physical and flight training “disappeared.”

  196. Bdaman,
    That Investors article is full of crap. Tell me how the keystone plan heaps gas prices now? Tell me how any of this article is true when the demand is way down? The big oil companies don’t want to drill more. They can make more money thru speculation raising the price of oil.

  197. raff, if we could just harness the hot air coming from the deniers, the speculators and their enablers, we could solve much of our energy problem.

  198. Hansen received gifts and did not disclose? I’m shocked, shocked. Perhaps though he forgot or did not know there was a form he needed to fill out or that he was supposed to, like Justice Thomas. Yea, that was probably it.

    BTW, when is winning a prize for ones work or accepting a speaking fee a gift? He was probably speaking as a historian or from a historical perspective anyway. You know, like Newt or Justice Scalia.
    :-)

  199. Raff it is all speculators and oil companies why don’t they just keep the price of gas high and stop making it go up and down. You might be right though. Rumor has it the higher the price goes the least likeley Obama will get reelected. Maybe the speculators and the oil companies are just doing their part. Hmmmm I think I might be on to something. After all a little less than a year ago it was the speculators fault. Payback is hell.

    Always someone elses fault.

    April 2011

    President Barack Obama on Tuesday blamed speculators for driving gasoline prices higher and straining American consumers, saying there was enough oil in world markets to meet demand.

    Speaking at a community college in suburban Virginia, Obama said increasing production of U.S. oil and creating a market for fuel-efficient cars would help meet the country’s energy challenges.

    “I know that if you’ve got a limited budget and you just watch that hard-earned money going away to oil companies that will once again probably make record profits this quarter, it’s pretty frustrating,” he said.

    Rising fuel prices are a persistent concern for the White House, which is concerned about their impact on the economy and on voters’ wallets as Obama runs for re-election.

    Average U.S. gasoline prices hit $3.84 a gallon last week, the most expensive since August 2008, as oil prices have soared above $100 a barrel.

    With pump prices already above the key level of $4 a gallon in U.S. cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago, there is political pressure on Obama to act.

    Obama said that global oil supply is adequate and that speculators are driving up prices significantly.

    “It is true that a lot of what’s driving oil prices up right now is not the lack of supply. There’s enough supply. There’s enough oil out there for world demand,” Obama said.

    “The problem is … speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there’s a 20 percent chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we’re going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly.”

    U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said on Tuesday he was concerned that rising crude oil and gasoline prices could undermine U.S. economic recovery.

    Obama said the U.S. government was in a position to investigate unfair speculation.

    Two U.S. agencies that investigate potential energy market manipulation — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — recently agreed to share information on potential probes.

    “We’re going to be monitoring gas stations to make sure there isn’t any price gouging that’s taking advantage of consumers,” Obama said.

    The CFTC is also weighing new rules that would slap “position limits” on big commodity traders that would cap how many futures and related swaps contracts any one company can control. The rules, which have been under debate since commodity prices first surged to records in 2007 and 2008, are aimed at tempering wild price swings.

    “There is a Wall Street premium on gas prices today,” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton, a strong advocate for imposing position limits, told Reuters.

    “Every time folks fill up their tanks, they can expect that several dollars are due to speculation.”

    Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in commodities, warned clients last week that oil prices could correct due to the level of speculative interest currently in the market.

    Obama, who was unable to pass a comprehensive bill to revamp energy policy and fight climate change during his first two years in office, has identified energy reform as a priority in the second half of his White House term.

    (Additional reporting by Christopher Doering in Washington and David Sheppard in New York; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

  200. Lotta the key part of that was this

    The records reveal that NASA initially was very direct in warning Hansen of his responsibilities and prohibitions relating to these activities, which covered the subject of his public employment. Later, after Hansen gained much media attention and condemnation of his NASA superiors for (falsely) claiming he had been “muzzled” (the second president named Bush he claimed had muzzled him), certain clear restatements of the law were dropped from the approval letters responding to his applications for outside employment.

  201. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/an-online-and-open-excercise-in-stylometrytextometry-crowdsourcing-the-gleick-climate-strategy-memo-authorship/

    You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo.

    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 (Heartland) says it isn’t verified (and a fake) but that’s not good enough for the Smoggers and is a threat to them, so they spin it and hope the weak minded regugitators retweet it and blog it unquestioned. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Suzuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.

    Laughably, the Penn State sabbaticalized Dr. Mike Mann accepted it uncritically.

  202. Pacific Institute on the 21st said “Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.”

    One day later, they are deeply concerned. He’s a hero for faking documents and for obtainning company documents under false pretenses. The Che Guevara of the climate community.

    February 22, 2012

    PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

    The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.

    February 21, 2012

    PACIFIC INSTITUTE STATEMENT

    We at the Pacific Institute are aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute. For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.

  203. “As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings.”

    Someone needs to inform the PI that the science is settled there will be no more debate. He faked the documents for the greater good.

  204. You know if the greens at the Gaurdian write a scathing article about you and your one of them, your done. Tupac spelled backwards done. Caput, capeesh? I like the He was hailed as a hero but the crtiticism is increasing as eveident in the Pacific Institutes statement.

    The career and reputation of the scientist behind the Heartland Institute exposé was in jeopardy on Wednesday night, after his employers said they were reviewing his use of deception to obtain confidential documents.

    The review, by the board of directors of the Pacific Institute, was the most serious potential repercussion to date of the admission by Peter Gleick that he had lied to obtain fundraising documents and a donor list from Heartland, the rightwing thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change.

    He was hailed as a hero by Naomi Klein and by science educator Scott Mandia, who told the Guardian that Gleick had acted as any journalist would. “Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist, just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”

    But Gleick has faced increasing criticism since then from fellow scientists, who contend that his techniques were a betrayal of the rigorous method and transparency that are at the heart of science.

    Gavin Schmidt, the Nasa climate modeller who founded the RealClimate blog, was scathing in a comment first reported in the New York Times.

    “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.”

  205. Folks it’s very easy, Just google Climate Change failed predictions to read how all these experts used shock and awe only to turn out to be wrong.

    A blast from the past.

    Expert : Arctic To Be Ice Free By 2008

    OSLO, Feb. 29 2008 (Xinhua) — The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

    The shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has been astonishing, Orheim said in an interview with Xinhua.

    “Ice sheet hit the historical low of 3 million square km duringthe hottest weeks last summer, while it covered 7.5 million squarekm on average before the year 2000, ” he said.

    “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007,the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

    Fast Forward

    Arctic To Be Ice-Free By 2010-2015

    ‘Frightening’ projection for Arctic melt

    The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 – something that hasn’t happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.

    QUEBEC – The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 – something that hasn’t happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.

    Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

  206. O.S. in re to Rather, remember this ? Always check your sources but I’m sure it was for the greater good.

    On December 3, 2004, the twentieth anniversary of the (Bhopal) disaster, a man claiming to be a Dow representative named Jude Finisterra was interviewed on BBC World News. He claimed that the company had agreed to clean up the site and compensate those harmed in the incident, by liquidating Union Carbide for $12 billion USD.

    Immediately afterward, Dow’s share price fell 4.2% in 23 minutes, for a loss of $2 billion in market value. Dow quickly issued a statement saying that they had no employee by that name—that he was an impostor, not affiliated with Dow, and that his claims were a hoax. The BBC broadcast a correction and an apology.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

  207. O.S. in re to Rather

    Another expert Michael Mann and what happens when you fail to cross check the cross checker. From http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hit-them-with-the-hockey

    [Q] Are the impacts of climate change showing up faster than predicted?

    Michael Mann : Changes have been taking place faster than the models projected. With respect to sea-level rise, with respect to temperature changes, with respect to carbon emissions, and in just about every case, the changes have occurred either at the upper end of the projections or even above the range of the projections.

    The facts: Sea level rise along with the tempreature are falling not increasing. The CRU and Phil Jones, Michael Manns compadre released new data in mid January. No statistical warming since 1997. Nasa and the Jet Propolsion Lab issued a report called NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

    Always check the cross checker.

  208. “the changes have occurred either at the upper end of the projections or even above the range of the projections.”

    I’ll repost what I posted up thread and lets look at another expert James Hansens projection from 1988 and compare that to actual/factual.

    One of the worlds leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen testified before congress in 1988. It was the middle of summer and to give the effect that the planet was heating up they turned off the ac system and opened the windows to let the heat in. During his testimony he submitted his paper link here.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    In this paper he shows a graph of what the temperature does over time. He gives three scenarios as to what will happen with the increase in atmospheric CO2. It’s located on page 7 and identified by 5 year running mean. This was his forecast.

    Here is actual as compared to.

    He is actually running below his best case scenario C even though there has been no reduction in CO2. There are numerous other predictions he has made that are now wrong. There are lots of predictions that lots of other scientist in the global warming community have made that have been proven wrong. Of course it doesn’t help when the main body the IPCC gets proven wrong time and again even though they employ the worlds leading experts.

  209. Bdaman:

    you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because some one says the Artic ice caps are going to disappear 4 years ago and they are still here doesnt mean there isnt global warming. Come on dont you know they will probably disappear at some time in the next 1 billion years? Thus proving global warming.

  210. John Moore: A peek into the climate denier industry
    John Moore Feb 23, 2012
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/23/john-moore-a-peek-into-the-climate-denier-industry/

    The curtain has been drawn back on the professional denier industry, and its media enablers are frantically crying “there is nothing to see here.” Leaked documents from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute expose the efforts of the conservative “research organization” to sow doubt about climate change. The documents also reveal information about donors — including a mysterious unnamed individual who provided more than $14-million dollars to Heartland. The information was obtained by an environmentalist posing as someone else online, which has prompted laughable squawks about ethics from the very denier crowd that fed like zombies on the hacked “Climategate” emails of 2009.

    To his credit, National Post columnist Lorne Gunter sees the information thefts as a case of tit for tat. But he goes on to argue in support of the Institute’s eyebrow-raising contention that it would never conspire against proven science.

    In fact, the advancement of junk science is at the very core of the Heartland Institute’s mission. The centerpiece of this craven effort is an annual denier-palooza event that gathers together some of the world’s greatest cranks to chortle over non-peer reviewed papers, false premises and debunked theories. Heartland is a slightly more sophisticated iteration of Canada’s Friends of Science, a pro-oil shill group that pays the hapless pretend climatologist Tim Ball to peddle a travelling anti-climate-change road show to naive right-wing radio shows and senior citizens’ homes.

    But there’s nothing new in the denier industry. Its methods were laid bare in the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. The authors meticulously exposed the web of partisan think tanks and their various guns for hire who have worked for years to muddy the waters on important scientific debates.

    The tobacco industry created the template for this chicanery in the 1960s in a shameless campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer: Big tobacco commissioned bogus papers and hired scientists to poke holes in existing research.

    The same techniques have been applied to denial of everything from acid rain and the ozone hole to climate change. Often the very same suspects have been involved. The Zelig of the movement is Dr. Fred Singer, who today is a go-to spokesperson for climate “skepticism.” Singer, a pioneering physicist who participated in the space program, is seemingly so fixated on the idea of small government that he doesn’t mind shilling for any client for whom regulation is a threat. As recently as 2006, he was still disputing the connection between cancer and second-hand smoke.

    Here’s the reality: Of the 200 most significant climate scientists in the world, precisely two dissent on the consensus theory of climate change. But the media has been bullied into presenting the issue as a he-said, she-said affair. And so in a public debate on the issue, you end up with a quarrel between an internationally respected scientist and a blogger who quotes Ayn Rand.

    Bad science and faux dissent produce a paralysis that allows the implementation or perpetuation of bad public policy. How many millions of people died as a result of those who denied the dangers of smoking? Global warming is following the same pattern.

  211. Denying Climate Change is Worse Than Stealing
    David Suzuki
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/documents-strike-at-heart_b_1292343.html

    When hackers broke into an Internet server at East Anglia University in the U.K. in November and selectively released massive amounts of correspondence from the world’s leading climate scientists, folks at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute were quick to exploit it.

    Heartland president Joseph Bast wrote: “The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position.”

    He may have been correct, although “reconfirm” would have been a better word than “reconsider” as seven independent investigations cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing and confirmed the credibility of their research.

    Now the tables have been turned on the libertarian “charitable” organization, which devotes its resources to questioning the reality of climate change and the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke, among other issues.

    Heartland is just one of many organizations dedicated to spreading doubt and confusion about legitimate science. These groups share a lack of transparency, and an agenda to promote corporate interests at the expense of human health, the environment, and even the economy (if we believe the economy should function primarily in the interests of citizens rather than corporations).

    Recently, someone — since identified as climate scientist Peter Gleick — sent documents from the Heartland Institute’s board of directors’ January 17 meeting to a number of people and organizations, including Desmog Blog, a website devoted to exposing the spin around climate change denial. The documents confirm much of what we already knew about Heartland, although they provide interesting details about its connections and motives.

    Not surprisingly, the Heartland people don’t see this as “an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others” to learn more about the secretive group’s agenda. Instead, Heartland posted a statement on its website saying, “honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours.”

    Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, the Heartland Institute doesn’t publicly reveal information about where it gets its money and what it does with it.

    These documents indicate that Heartland has offered U.S. weatherman blogger and climate change denier Anthony Watts close to $90,000 for a new project. They also reveal that Heartland funds other prominent deniers, including “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…”

    The papers also confirm that the institute’s primary mission is to discredit the established science of human-caused climate change. And even though it has received funding from wealthy individuals and corporations in the fossil fuel and tobacco industries — including the Koch brothers and RJR Tobacco — it gets most of its money from a single anonymous donor, who has ponied up as much as $4.6 million in a single year, 2008.

    If these groups were truly engaged in questioning the science, using valid scientific methods and principles, it wouldn’t be a problem. Science is strengthened through scrutiny and challenges; that’s how it works, and that’s what the peer-review process is about. But these organizations are engaged in secretive and dishonest lobbying and public-relations efforts aimed at stalling measures to protect the environment and health.

    Gleick has admitted that he made a mistake in posing as someone else to obtain the documents. The unidentified East Anglia hackers were also wrong to have stolen the emails, and the Heartland Institute is wrong when it lies about the most serious threat to humanity.

    Three wrongs don’t make a right, but there are some differences. In the East Anglia case, the investigations turned on those who were hacked and ultimately proved that the climate scientists, although human, are engaged in sound and verifiable science and that they have been subjected to years of harassment and bullying for their work. The Heartland documents show that the organization is using its taxpayer-supported status to spread lies and misinformation.

    It’s about time these “merchants of doubt” were exposed. It’s time to get back to real science as practised by scientists. We must get beyond the false debate about the reality of climate change and into the real debate about what to do about it.

  212. The morality of unmasking Heartland
    By Stephan Lewandowsky
    Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science Laboratories at University of Western Australia
    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-morality-of-unmasking-heartland-5494

    Excerpt:
    “Truth is so precious that she should be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

    Winston Churchill’s famous words were uttered during the war against the Nazis and referred to Operation Bodyguard, a deception that was intended to mislead the German high command about the date and location of the invasion of Normandy. Given the context, few would criticise Churchill’s statement.

    Now imagine Bernie Madoff uttering the same words in defense of his acrobatic Ponzi schemes. Few would accept such glaring sophistry.

    Where does Dr Peter Gleick’s revelation that he lied to a conservative think tank to access climate change documents fit on this spectrum?

    This question gets us right to the heart of a central issue in moral cognition and philosophy: Are there immutable moral rules — such as “thou shall not lie” — or does morality legitimately involve a trade-off between competing ethical imperatives that includes consideration of the ultimate outcomes of one’s actions?

    If there are immutable moral rules then there is little daylight between Churchill and the hypothetical Madoff — both violated a moral axiom by admitting the possibility that lying may be justifiable.

    By contrast, if morality involves a balancing of ethical costs and benefits, then Churchill’s deception of the German high command quite plausibly was a moral act that quickened the pace of battle, thus hastening the defeat of the Nazis and the liberation of Dachau.

    The Allies’ deception paled in comparison to the lives saved.

    History is full of such moral balancing acts.

    When Daniel Ellsberg released the classified Pentagon Papers in 1971 he undoubtedly broke the law. However, when the papers revealed that four consecutive Presidents, from Truman to Johnson, had consistently misled the American public about their actions in Vietnam, the illegality of Ellsberg’s action paled in comparison to the good that arose from informing the public of their leaders’ deceptions.

    Ultimately, all charges against Ellsberg were dismissed, and the Pentagon Papers arguably helped accelerate the move towards peace in Vietnam.

    What are we to make of the latest moral balancing act involving the leaked Heartland documents?

    On Valentine’s Day an anonymous source emailed documents to various journalists that were leaked from the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank.

    According to its 2010 Prospectus, Heartland opposes “… junk science and the use of scare tactics in the areas of environmental protection and public health”.

    Opposition to “junk science”? What junk science?

    According to the Heartland Institute, “junk science” is the research that has linked tobacco to lung cancer and junk food to obesity. It is also, of course, the “junk science” known as climate research.

    The leaked documents put names and dollar figures to Heartland’s opposition to “junk science” and revealed that it funded climate denial in at least three countries — the US, New Zealand and Australia. Well-known so-called “sceptics” were found to have been pay-rolled by the Institute, often contrary to those individuals’ earlier denials of funding by vested interests.

    George Monbiot summed up the implications of the leaked information succinctly: “This is plutocracy, pure and simple.”

    Then yesterday, another revelation.

    Climate scientist Dr Peter Gleick wrote on the Huffington Post that he obtained the documents from Heartland by using someone else’s name, and then passed them on to journalists, thereby triggering an avalanche of exposure of the Heartland denial machine.

    Is Gleick another Churchill or Ellsberg?

    Legal issues aside, how does his subterfuge compare to the potential public good that has resulted from the documents’ release?

    Many philosophers who study ethics agree that it is important to consider the consequences of one’s actions in a moral dilemma to come to an acceptable judgment. Rather than relying on moral strictures, this “consequentialist” approach argues that the morality of an action is evaluated by whether it brings about the greatest total well-being.

    This reasoning is mirrored in the cognitive laboratory, where people’s responses are also often informed by the consequences associated with competing paths of action (the data are quite complex but it seems safe to conclude that most people are sensitive to weighting the outcomes of competing actions rather than being exclusively entrenched in immutable moral rules).

    Does this mean there is an ethical imperative to consider Gleick to be another Daniel Ellsberg?

    No. But it does mean that one’s ethical concerns should consider competing actions and outcomes rather than focusing on an individual’s chosen action in isolation.

    Gleick has apologised for his use of subterfuge. His actions have violated the confidentiality of a think tank but they have also given the public a glimpse into the inner workings of the climate denial machine.

    Had he not done so, no one’s confidentiality would have been violated, but then the public would have been kept guessing about the internal workings of one of the world’s most notorious serial impersonators of science. The Heartland Institute takes pride in its chimerical pseudo-“scientific” conferences and it is allied with “scientific” work that denies that mercury is poisonous.

  213. Heartland Institute Threatens Critics after Leaked Documents
    By Andy Rowell
    2/20/12
    http://ecowatch.org/2012/heartland-institute-threatens-critics-after-leaked-documents/

    Excerpt:
    The climate skeptic think tank, the Heartland Institute, that last week was the victim of a devastating leak of information, has decided that attack is the best form of defense and has started threatening organizations and websites that published the leaked documents.

    It is interesting to dissect how Heartland, which has been in crisis mode for a week now, has reacted to this scandal. And it smacks of hypocrisy.

    Its first response was to argue that the authenticity of the documents had not been confirmed. It then argued that one of the most damaging documents—its leaked 2012 Strategy—was a fake “apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute.” This was a clear attempt to stop people from quoting from it.

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

    In a section on the lessons learned it argued that “honest disagreement” over the causes of climate change “should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

    If Heartland had a track record of honestly portraying the science of climate change and not exploiting previous stolen information it might well have a leg to stand on. Instead we are dealing with an institute that is used to promoting climate denial and one that ruthlessly exploited the leaked emails from scientists, not just with the first leak in November 2009, but also the second leak at the end of last year.

    Just check a short selection of some of their headlines:

    – Climategate: Emails Reveal Fraud in IPCC Reports (see photo);
    – Climategate Scandal Deals Blow to Global Warming Fears
    – Heartland Institute Reacts to ‘Climategate 2’ Emails
    – Climategate 2 Emails Loaded with Bombshells

    So the hypocrisy and irony of Heartland asking people to refrain from using the documents has not been lost on seven scientists whose emails featured in “Climategate.”

    In a letter published in the Guardian at the end of last week, the scientists wrote:

    “As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.”

    The letter continued—“Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails … So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.”

    It also said—“We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to ‘think about what has happened’ and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.”

  214. Off Topic:

    Bought By Big Oil, House GOP Vote Against Keeping Keystone XL Oil In America
    By Rebecca Leber on Feb 22, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/

    Excerpt:
    When the House of Representatives voted on a transportation bill, H.R. 3408, that expands oil drilling into long-protected areas and forces construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, Republican lawmakers proved their complete allegiance is to Big Oil. Although Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner have parroted the myth that the pipeline would “lower gas prices” and “reduce our dependence on hostile, unstable sources of energy,” their actions show that helping American families is only an empty promise.

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the bill during the Feb. 15 vote, giving the House a chance to “ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans.” But the amendment failed 173-254.

    Not surprisingly, the 254 members who voted against the amendment have collected seven times more total campaign cash from oil and gas interests. The 254 members (230 Republicans) took in $37.3 million in career campaign contributions from oil and gas companies and executives.

    On average, each member who voted against banning exports collected $146,808 from the oil and gas industry. This is contrasted with the $5.2 million total for the 173 in favor (9 Republicans) of the export ban – or an average of $29,951. In other words, legislators who want to export refined gasoline and diesel from oil sands received five times more oil money than the legislators who want to keep these fuels here.

  215. Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia
    Wednesday, October 6, 2010
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100504908.html

    When Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli II on Monday revived his anti-climate science crusade with a new, 30-page civil subpoena demanding boatloads of documents from the University of Virginia, we wondered what he might have discovered recently about the work of former U-Va. researcher Michael E. Mann, the object of the probe, that would justify further investigation. The answer: essentially nothing.

    Slapped down once by a Virginia judge in his effort to investigate Mr. Mann, the attorney general is trying again with a screed that rehashes a lot of the old arguments about Mr. Mann’s findings, including the complaint about his famous “hockey-stick” graph in 1998, which shows a spike in world temperature during the 20th century. What Mr. Cuccinelli doesn’t discuss is a 2006 inquiry from the National Academy of Sciences on reconstructing historical temperature data, which found that Mr. Mann might better have used some different statistical techniques but that his methods weren’t unacceptably poor. Instead, the academy stressed that his basic conclusions appear sound. Nor does Mr. Cuccinelli spend much effort discussing the fact that Penn State University, Mr. Mann’s current employer, also cleared the scientist of scientific malfeasance this year; or the fact that subsequent study has supported Mr. Mann’s essential findings; or the fact that, in response to criticism, Mr. Mann has refined his work since 1998 — the normal give and take of academic work.

    What’s particularly astonishing, though, is that Mr. Cuccinelli’s legal case against Mr. Mann seems unrelated to any of the controversial research the attorney general spends so much time attacking. Mr. Cuccinelli is supposedly investigating whether Mr. Mann committed fraud when the scientist applied for and received a state-funded research grant — to study what Mr. Mann describes as “the interaction of the land, atmosphere and vegetation in the African savannah.” The topic “has nothing to do with climate change or paleoclimate,” Mann says. The attorney general appears to argue that, since Mr. Mann listed his controversial papers on his curriculum vitae when he and two other scientists applied for the savannah research grant, he may have committed some kind of fraud.

    The attorney general’s logic is so tenuous as to leave only one plausible explanation: that he is on a fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend — all because he does not like what science says about climate change. Among other things, the attorney general demands that U-Va. turn over any correspondence it may have between Mr. Mann and 39 other scientists. Mr. Mann points out that among those Mr. Cuccinelli did not list by name are the two other researchers on the African savannah research grant that the attorney general is supposedly investigating.

    What is this farce costing? To defend itself from Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation into the distribution of a $214,700 research grant, the University of Virginia has spent $350,000, with more to come, and that doesn’t count the taxpayer funds Mr. Cuccinelli is devoting to this cause. Sadly, though, that’s the smallest of the costs. The damage to Virginia’s reputation, and to its universities’ ability to attract and retain top-notch faculty and students, will not be easily undone.

  216. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Who’s behind the ‘information attacks’ on climate scientists?
    http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html

    Excerpt:
    This week, in a courtroom in Prince William County, Virginia, a hearing will take place that could have implications for the privacy rights of scientists at colleges and universities across the country.

    It’s part of a lawsuit brought by the American Tradition Institute, a free-market think tank that wants the public to believe human-caused global warming is a scientific fraud. Filed against the University of Virginia, the suit seeks emails and other documents related to former professor Michael Mann, an award-winning climate scientist who has become a focus of the climate-denial movement because of his research documenting the recent spike in earth’s temperature.

    By suing the university, the American Tradition Institute wants to make public Mann’s correspondence in an effort to find out whether he manipulated data to receive government grants, a violation of the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

    But a Facing South investigation has found that the Colorado-based American Tradition Institute is part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation. Our investigation also finds that ATI has connections with the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence.

  217. Americans for Prosperity’s Lisa Thrun faces public scrutiny in NY RGGI lawsuit [VIDEO]
    21 January 2012
    http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/americans-prosperity

    Excerpt:
    States participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

    “I’m not a scientist, I’m an event planner,” explained Lisa Thrun when I asked her if she believed burning coal and oil contributed to climate change. Oh really, Ms. Thrun? If you’re just an event planner, what are you doing giving a presentation on the economic impacts of a regional plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

    Lisa Thrun, the chair of grassroots for the New York Chapter of Americans for Prosperity, was invited by the Tompkins County Republican Committee to speak about the economic impacts of RGGI. Pronounced “Reggie,” the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a cap-and-trade program, which promises to reduce CO2 emissions 10% by 2018 among Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

    Thrun is the lead plaintiff in a New York lawsuit against RGGI – a serious conflict of interest since Americans for Prosperity was started and is still funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. David Koch is the chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, AFP’s sister group. It’s pretty ironic that the lead plaintiff in a suit against plant emissions works for an organization that is heavily involved in the ongoing orchestration of campaigns to sell doubt over climate science. When I asked Thrun about this conflict of interest, she responded, “You know what? I don’t know what the Koch brothers do. It just goes to show you our independence from the Koch brothers.”

    AFP’s ongoing suit against RGGI in New York is ironic for another reason: Koch Industries, which funnels profits to AFP through the Koch brother’s foundations, was involved in the very first trade of physical carbon allowances under RGGI. Thrun’s main argument focused on economic implications for states (and families) involved in the cap-and-trade program. One slide during the presentation demonstrated how initiatives like cap and trade can be detrimental to big business. The charts proudly boasted the logos of groups including the Heritage Foundation, the Competative Enterprise Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute – all three of which have been involved in Koch-funded scandals. Thrun continuously warned that RGGI is a costly program, even though the average residential bill increases less than 50 cents a month and RGGI participating states show $3-$4 benefits for every $1 invested. The invested money then goes into state-designed consumer benefit and strategic energy programs, like home weatherization which can reduce household heating energy needs by 15 to 30 percent. (source: RGGI Proceeds Report Press Release) In response, Thrun implied that winterizing homes helps to save us money and energy, but “we should be doing it on our own.”

  218. Elaine,
    I am shocked that the American Tradition Institute is backed by Big Oil! Who would have guessed that a climate change denier who is trying to stifle research could be funded by Big Oil? :)

  219. The shadowy world of IPA finance
    By Clive Hamilton
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html
    2/24/12

    Excerpt:
    Last week’s revelations about the Heartland Institute, probably the most important climate science denying organisation in the United States, raise some questions about the murky influence of think tanks on the climate debate in this country.

    Confidential documents from the Heartland Institute reveal how wealthy individuals have actively promoted the campaign to attack the credibility of the world’s top climate scientists and create the impression that there is a controversy about the main propositions of global warming science.

    In fact the bulk of Heartland’s climate science denial campaign – which includes plans to promote anti-science in schools – has been funded by one donor, whose name did not appear in the purloined documents.

    There is a direct Australian link in the Heartland Institute files. Bob Carter, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, has a long-standing record of denying climate science. Now it is revealed that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, to the tune of $1,667 per month for unspecified work. On his personal webpage, Carter declares that “he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments,” a claim that on the scale of truth matches his reporting of climate science.

    Carter is also a fellow at the right-wing Melbourne think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has for many years been the principal originator of anti-climate science propaganda in this country. The IPA is closely linked to the Heartland Institute, not least through its sponsorship of two of its recent conferences.

    The secret funding of the Heartland Institute once again focuses attention on the financing of the IPA and particularly it sustained attacks on climate science and all policies aimed at cutting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    The IPA is notoriously secretive about its sources of funding. Its senior staff have refused to answer journalists’ questions, although over the years enough information has leaked out to suggest that much of its funding has come from the oil and mining industries, including Exxon, Shell, Caltex and BHP-Billiton.

    The IPA’s executive director John Roskam, who used to work for Rio Tinto, has said that donors to the Institute want to remain anonymous because they “have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us”.

    The IPA’s coyness is all the more hypocritical because a few years ago it launched a sustained attack on NGOs by claiming they were unaccountable, unrepresentative and not worthy of charitable status. The demand for transparency applies to everyone but itself.

    Despite its refusal to divulge, we can make a good guess at where a large part of its recent funding has come from – right-wing mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.

    In August 2010 the Institute’s magazine carried a prominent article by one of its staff titled “Unleash the North”. It advocated the creation of a special economic zone to cover the northern half of the continent where companies would have lower levels of regulation, cheap labour could be imported from developing countries and tax rates would be cut.

    This proposal exactly parallels Gina Rinehart’s campaign for a special economic zone in northern Australia where companies like hers could enjoy special privileges. She has set up a lobby group called Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV) to promote the idea.

    Within months the Institute had established a new ‘North Australia Project’, with its own website, and from May 2011 began churning out media releases promoting the special economic zone, beginning with a “landmark Galaxy poll” that purported to show that 60 per cent of Australians “think Canberra is out of touch with Northern Australia”.

  220. Behind the Controversy, an Effort to Rewrite Curriculum on Climate Change
    By LESLIE KAUFMAN
    2/23/12
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/behind-the-controversy-an-effort-to-rewrite-curriculum-on-climate-change/

    Excerpt:
    Focus on the contents of the internal documents leaked last week from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit known for attacking climate science, has been largely lost in the wake of the revelation of the leaker’s identity: Peter Gleick, a scientist.

    But beyond the controversy and the confession is the fact that Heartland does not deny what the two authentic documents obtained by Dr. Gleick reveal: that the institute is working to influence climate education in the schools.

    In its 2012 fund-raising plan, Heartland said that an “anonymous donor” had pledged the first $100,000 toward this end and that it hoped to use that gift to develop matching funds.

    Heartland is soliciting contributors for a “global warming curriculum” developed by a part-time Department of Energy consultant, David Wojick, which in Heartland’s estimation “appears to have great potential for success.”

  221. Climate change deniers: The science of intimidation
    1/28/12
    http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120129/OPINION/201290336/Climate-change-deniers-science-intimidation

    According to an old legal adage, when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. And when neither is on your side, pound the table.

    Today, conservative climate change deniers, faced with a growing and increasingly persuasive body of evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming have adopted a version of this approach. Except, lacking a table, they are pounding the scientists instead.

    In the words of one climate scientist, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, “[t]here’s a well-organized campaign, primarily in the United States but also in other countries, including Canada and Australia, of bloggers, of people in the media, of basically professional climate deniers whose main goal is to abuse, to harass and to threaten anybody who stands up and says climate change is real — especially anybody who’s trying to take that message to audiences that are more traditionally skeptical of this issue.”

    Dr. Hayhoe has experienced this bullying first-hand. A professor at Texas Tech., Dr. Hayhoe recently became a target due to a chapter on climate change that she had written for an upcoming book by Newt Gingrich.

    While on the campaign trail in Iowa, Gingrich came under attack by Rush Limbaugh for including Hayhoe’s climate change chapter in his book. These attacks were not limited to critiques of Dr. Hayhoe’s research; they were personal. Limbaugh, for example, taking a rather misogynistic approach, contemptuously dismissed her as a “climate babe.” For his own part, Gingrich raced to distance himself from the story, assuring conservatives that the chapter would not be included in the book.

    Dr. Hayhoe has been deluged with a torrent of angry and abusive e-mails since the story broke. As she told the Toronto Globe and Mail, “[i]t’s not easy opening your mail in the morning and seeing a hundred emails, each one more hateful than the last.”

    The intensity of the reaction to Dr. Hayhoe is due to the unique nature of her “sin.” As the Globe and Mail put it, she is “an evangelical Christian who is also a climate scientist trying to convince skeptics that climate change is for real.” She frames climate change as an ethical issue — one that speaks to our responsibility for the poor and towards future generations. She addresses it from a faith-based perspective emphasizing the need for prudential stewardship of the natural world. This makes her a heretic in the eyes of conservative climate deniers; and as we know from history, heretics always come in for the worst treatment.

    Regrettably, Dr. Hayhoe’s experience isn’t unique. For example, Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a Republican scientist at MIT, has been on the receiving end of a “frenzy of hate” from conservatives since video of a speech he delivered to a group of Republican “climate hawks” was posted on Climate Desk. The frenzy has gone beyond mere vitriol and abuse — it has included threats directed at his wife. Sadly, this isn’t the first time researchers, or their families, have been threatened — several Australian climate scientists sought police protection last year after being subjected to what The Canberra Times called “an unrelenting campaign” of vicious cyberbullying that included threats of “violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.” Some of the threats even targeted children.

    The abuse directed at climate researchers sheds light on a tragic political truth — a cancer is consuming the soul of American conservatism. Conservatism is taking on many of the hallmarks of a cult — one in which information and doctrine are received, without question, from recognized authority figures or sources, and in which dissent cannot be tolerated. The conservative cult views the political process in apocalyptic terms, and sees its opponents as demonically evil. Sadly, climate denial is a key pillar in this cult’s ideology.

    Under these circumstances, conservative scientists like Hayhoe and Emanuel are particularly dangerous. They demonstrate that there isn’t a fundamental incongruity between religious faith, or conservatism, and accepting the science behind AGW. They are heretics, calling to other conservatives from beyond the walls of the cult compound. And that’s a mortal threat to the climate deniers, and perhaps to the very existence of the cult itself.

    In the end, the bullying and abuse of scientists is a sign of growing desperation. The cult must be defended, by any means. Dissenters must be intimidated into silence. With everything else against them, conservative climate deniers have only one option left – it’s time to get personal, and pound.

    *****

    (Michael Stafford is a former Republican Party officer and the author of “An Upward Calling.”)

  222. rafflaw,

    I believe it would be difficult to get them to stop drinking “denierade.”

    ******

    The inside story on climate scientists under siege
    Michael Mann reveals his account of attacks by entrenched interests seeking to undermine his ‘hockey stick’ graph
    Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
    2/17/12
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/michael-mann-climate-war?intcmp=122

    Excerpt:
    On the eve of his talk at Penn State, a coal industry lobby group calling itself the Common Sense Movement/Secure Energy for America put up a Facebook page demanding the university disinvite their own professor from speaking, and denouncing Mann as a “disgraced academic” pursuing a radical environmental agenda. The university refused. Common Sense appeared to have dismantled the Facebook page.

    But Mann’s attackers were merely regrouping. A hostile blogger published a link to Mann’s Amazon page, and his opponents swung into action, denouncing the book as a “fairy tale” and climate change as “the greatest scam in human history”.

    It was not the life Mann envisaged when he began work on his post-graduate degree at Yale. All Mann knew then was that he wanted to work on big problems, that resonated outside academia. At heart, he said, he was like one of the amiable nerds on the television show Big Bang Theory.

    “At that time I wanted nothing more just to bury my head in my computer and study data and write papers and write programmes,” he said. “That is the way I was raised. That is the culture I came from.”

    What happened instead was that the “hockey stick” graph, because it so clearly represented what had happened to the climate over the course of hundreds of years, itself became a proxy in the climate wars. (Mann’s reconstruction of temperatures over the last millenium itself used proxy records from tree rings and coral).

    “I think because the hockey stick became an icon it’s been subject to the fiercest of attacks really in the whole science of climate change,” he said.

    The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a poster-sized graph for the launch of its climate change report in 2001.

    Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

    Mann, like other scientists, was just not equipped to deal with the media barrage. “It took the scientific community some time I think to realise that the scientific community is in a street fight with climate change deniers and they are not playing by the rules of engagement of science. The scientific community needed some time to wake up to that.”

Comments are closed.