Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climategate - the flip side

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Climategate - the flip side

    Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

    Libertarian think tank keeps prominent skeptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry






    The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute


    The inner workings of a libertarian think tank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

    DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

    The scheme includes spending $100,000 on commissioning an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming.

    It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents. "There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.

    The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels at New York's Time Square as well as in Washington DC.

    If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.

    "It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."

    The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that year.
    In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.

    The documents posted on Desmog's website include confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.

    The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year.

    The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco.

    The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to discredit established science.

    Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn.

    But the cache raises an equal number of questions – such as the identity of an anonymous donor that has been a mainstay of Heartland. The unnamed donor, who contributed $4.6m in 2008, has since scaled back contributions. Even so, the donor's $979,000 contribution in 2011 accounted for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, the fundraising plan says
    According to the fundraising document Heartland hopes to bump that up to $1.25m in 2012 [click for PDF].

    The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with," the document said.

    Heartland hopes to cash in on its vocal support for the controversial mining method known as fracking, the document suggests.

    Heartland operates on a range of issues besides the environment. But discrediting the science of climate change remains a key mission. The group spends $300,000 on salaries for a team of experts working to undermine the findings of the UN climate body, the IPCC.

    It plans to expand that this year by paying a former US department of energy employee to write an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming. The fundraising plan notes the anonymous donor has set aside $100,000 for the project.

    The documents suggest several prominent voices in the campaign to deny established climate science are recipients of Heartland funding.

    They include, according to the documents, a number of contrarian climate experts. "At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found," the documents say.
    Heartland also hopes to expand that network in 2012 by raising around $90,000 for a project on temperature stations by the well-known blogger Anthony Watts.

    Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified. However, Heartland's website notes that Idso, Singer, and Carter were commissioned to write a report for the organisation.

    The strategy memo as published by DeSmogBlog mentions "cultivating" as a potential ally Andrew Revkin, a respected journalist who enjoys a huge following at the New York Times DothEarth blog.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...titute-climate

  • #2
    Re: Climategate - the flip side

    This whole climate science thing is difficult. The ones who support it believe it fervently, and those who are against it are castigated for their views. thus those who will try to fund anti-climate science are automatically eeevil.

    Personally, I have always view it as a bunch of junk science, mainly because it is impossible to "model" all the variables. We cannot even model the local weather for two weeks accurately, but we are supposed to be able to "model" the climate for decades (or longer) in advance? Sorry don't buy it. Look at the impact a volcanic eruption has and you can see the models are nowhere near strong enough.

    But what really pisses me off about "climate science" is that use of it to attempt to suck the workers of the world dry with yet some other form of tax scheme. If you want to claim use of fossil fuels hurts the environment, you won;t get an arguement from me. And if you want to claim we need to reduce our dependence on them, same. Finally, if you want to have a "carbox tax" with 100% of the proceeds used to improve light rail (sans all the ridiculous studies and union prevailing wage crap) or similar, you will find me all on board.

    But when we use junk science in an attempt to fleece the people via hystrionics, I have no problem that there are those who want to put out their own junk science antt-spin.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Climategate - the flip side

      January mean temperature 2012 at San Francisco Airport: 50.5 F, long-term average 50.3 F. This was very close to the long-term (life of weather station) January mean temp at SF Int'l Airport.

      Please look at the wiggle-worm of daily high and low temperatures recorded at SF Airport for the last half of January and the first half of February 2012. The graph is at the lower-right side of the home page of the airport's climate station. You can pull-up their home page by finding: national weather service san francisco.

      The graph of SF temps shows no new trend. The wiggle-worm of daily high and low temps is right onto the mean of the climate record for the station. Go look for yourself!

      The December 2011 mean temp for SF Airport was 49.3 F. The normal December temp at SF Airport is 50.6 F. So, December 2011 was 1.3 degrees F below the life-of-station mean Dec temperature.

      Finally, Feb 5, 2012 or Feb 6, 2012, Napa (on the north side of San Francisco Bay) recorded another 19 F low. This was minus 7.5 C. That is unusually cold for this area.

      These facts do not set well with the case for global warming. Just look for yourself at the data. We will keep watching month-by-month as the year continues......

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Climategate - the flip side

        Personally, I have always view it as a bunch of junk science, mainly because it is impossible to "model" all the variables. We cannot even model the local weather for two weeks accurately, but we are supposed to be able to "model" the climate for decades (or longer) in advance? Sorry don't buy it. Look at the impact a volcanic eruption has and you can see the models are nowhere near strong enough.

        But what really pisses me off about "climate science" is that use of it to attempt to suck the workers of the world dry with yet some other form of tax scheme. If you want to claim use of fossil fuels hurts the environment, you won;t get an arguement from me. And if you want to claim we need to reduce our dependence on them, same. Finally, if you want to have a "carbox tax" with 100% of the proceeds used to improve light rail
        +1

        Add in the denial of commonsense - I don't need a study to tell me that curtailing the amount of garbage thrown into the air, water and ground is a good idea. That gets obscured as well in the climate drama.
        Last edited by don; February 15, 2012, 02:51 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Climategate - the flip side

          What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

          I do note the following: the 'evil' Heartland Institute, funded by Big Oil, is hoping for $7.7 million dollars in 2012 - an increase of 70% vs. 2011

          Some comparable CAGW fundraising:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/1...ak/#more-56697

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

          [Sept 2011]: Greenpeace Environmental Group Turns 40
          Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, now has offices in more than 40 countries and claims some 2.8 million supporters. Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from “direct action” activists to scientific researchers.
          Last year, its budget reached $310 million.
          [Nov 2011]: Sierra Club Leader Will Step Down – NYTimes.com
          He said the Sierra Club had just approved the organization’s largest annual budget ever, about $100 million for 2012, up from $88 million this year.
          [Oct 2011]: Do green groups need to get religion?
          That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people.

          Then there are the paychecks given to prominent CAGW proponents:

          Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
          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.

          Hippies hate Heartland « The Daily Bayonet

          What the Heartland document show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

          Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax.
          And finally, how many of you know that DeSmogBlog is run by a PR firm which specializes in CAGW NGO public relations?

          $300 million (Al Gore) plus $505 million (Greenpeace + Sierra Club + NRDC 2011 annual budgets) vs. $7.7 million (2012 proposed budget) for the Heartland. And this doesn't include the WWF ($224M in 2010) - another big CAGW player, or the IPCC ($7 million annual budget)

          Talk about mountains vs. mole hills...
          Last edited by c1ue; February 15, 2012, 02:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Climategate - the flip side

            Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
            January mean temperature 2012 at San Francisco Airport: 50.5 F, long-term average 50.3 F. This was very close to the long-term (life of weather station) January mean temp at SF Int'l Airport. ...
            ...
            We will keep watching month-by-month as the year continues......
            only obs eye have is that we aint gittin much snow (cont'l US, in spite of the oct 'blizzard' back east), so far anyway... wildcat didnt open til 9dec?
            snowbird has had less than 1/2 of what they got by this time last year, mammoth has had barely 6feet since 1dec (vs appx 16feet last dec alone)
            and only a couple days of whitecapped mauna kea, which is currently 'no kea' (not white)
            altho after the past few seasons of massive record breaking dumps, we were bound to have a down year, so hey!

            that said, its simply HILARIOUS that we have the usual suspects raising/spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of OPM (other peoples money) with the lamestream media lapping up /amplifying every utterance, while groups like heritage with barely a trickle of funding, get persecuted at every opportunity by the liberal/left - and if fossil fuels are the problem, which they accuse the 'anti-warming' crowd of being in denial over??

            why is it they protest the development the only true alternative to carbon emissions? (hint: rhymes with geranium)

            when the anti-everything crowd starts walking the walk, by giving up their cars, disconnecting from the electric grid, living off of _their_ land, build their houses from mud bricks and straw and use NOTHING made out of plastic - i'll believe em and take their protests seriously - but long as we have people like al gore (living in 20 thousand sq ft air conditioned houses), backed up with kleiner-perkins billion dollar carbon trading schemes - i will remain a climate change skeptic - if for no other reason than noting the plume of 'smog' that belches out of the hole in the ground at kilauea by the ton, every minute of every day, for thousands of years now, multiplied by the dozens of other erupting volcanoes around the world - the planet is getting warmer? so what, considering the alternative, warmer has been a GOOD THING, ever since the end of the last ICE AGE, what? only 10000 years ago? and sometime the next century the planet might be a couple degrees warmer - and they who say this are absolutely certain its a disaster? never mind like what D&G says, when the weather predictions cant even tell us what next week will be like?

            sorry... the idea that we'll have to downshift our declining standard of living even lower so sea levels a 100 years from now might be a few inches less doesnt motivate me to pay so much as 1 dime more for energy - not when the same people are willing to keep us at war in the middle east over oil, because they are afraid of nuke power?
            Last edited by lektrode; February 15, 2012, 03:32 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Climategate - the flip side

              Originally posted by lektrode View Post
              only obs eye have is that we aint gittin much snow (cont'l US, in spite of the oct 'blizzard' back east), so far anyway... wildcat didnt open til 9dec?
              snowbird has had less than 1/2 of what they got by this time last year, mammoth has had barely 6feet since 1dec (vs appx 16feet last dec alone)
              and only a couple days of whitecapped mauna kea, which is currently 'no kea' (not white)
              altho after the past few seasons of massive record breaking dumps, we were bound to have a down year, so hey!

              that said, its simply HILARIOUS that we have the usual suspects raising/spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of OPM (other peoples money) with the lamestream media lapping up /amplifying every utterance, while groups like heritage with barely a trickle of funding, get persecuted at every opportunity by the liberal/left - and if fossil fuels are the problem, which they accuse the 'anti-warming' crowd of being in denial over??

              why is it they protest the development the only true alternative to carbon emissions? (hint: rhymes with geranium)

              when the anti-everything crowd starts walking the walk, by giving up their cars, disconnecting from the electric grid, living off of _their_ land, build their houses from mud bricks and straw and use NOTHING made out of plastic - i'll believe em and take their protests seriously - but long as we have people like al gore (living in 20 thousand sq ft air conditioned houses), backed up with kleiner-perkins billion dollar carbon trading schemes - i will remain a climate change skeptic - if for no other reason than noting the plume of 'smog' that belches out of the hole in the ground at kilauea by the ton, every minute of every day, for thousands of years now, multiplied by the dozens of other erupting volcanoes around the world - the planet is getting warmer? so what, considering the alternative, warmer has been a GOOD THING, ever since the end of the last ICE AGE, what? only 10000 years ago? and sometime the next century the planet might be a couple degrees warmer - and they who say this are absolutely certain its a disaster? never mind like what D&G says, when the weather predictions cant even tell us what next week will be like?

              sorry... the idea that we'll have to downshift our declining standard of living even lower so sea levels a 100 years from now might be a few inches less doesnt motivate me to pay so much as 1 dime more for energy - not when the same people are willing to keep us at war in the middle east over oil, because they are afraid of nuke power?
              Financial Sense Newshour has Browning on again with her longer range forecast, and she blames much of that is going on on the Atlantic Oscillator and the Iceland volcanoe.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Climategate - the flip side



                Study: Sierra snowfall consistent over 130 years

                Peter Fimrite
                Wednesday, February 15, 2012

                Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday.

                The analysis of snowfall data in the Sierra going back to 1878 found no more or less snow overall - a result that, on the surface, appears to contradict aspects of recent climate change models.

                John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming.

                The heaping piles of snow that fell in the Sierra last winter and the paltry amounts this year fall within the realm of normal weather variability, he concluded.

                "The dramatic claims about snow disappearing in the Sierra just are not verified," said Christy, a climate change skeptic and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It looks like you're going to have snow for the foreseeable future."

                Climate experts and water resources officials were immediately skeptical of the report, pointing out that it doesn't come to a meaningful conclusion and uses data from a ragtag collection of people, many of them amateurs.

                Christy's study used snow measurements from railroad officials, loggers, mining companies, hydroelectric utilities, water districts and government organizations going back to 1878. That's when railroad workers began measuring the snowpack's depth near the tracks at Echo Summit using a device similar to a yardstick.

                "No one else had looked at this data in detail," said Christy, a Fresno native who said some of the information will be published in the American Meteorological Society's online Journal of Hydrometeorology.

                Christy divided California into 18 regions based on the amount of snow that falls and on the quality of the records for that region, and crunched the numbers. They show no changes in average snowfall over the 130 years and no changes from 1975 to 2000, a period when studies have shown that global temperatures rose. The snow level was consistent even in the Sierra's western slope, where much of California's water supply comes from.

                "California has huge year-to-year variations and that's expected to continue," Christy said. "California is having a snow drought so far this winter, while last year the state had much heavier than normal snowfall. But over the long term, there just isn't a trend up or down."

                Mike Dettinger, a climatologist and research hydrologist at the Scripps Institute of the U.S. Geological Survey, said Christy is picking and choosing data while misleading people about what climate change scientists are actually saying.

                For one, he said, snow depth is not as good a measure of the winter weather conditions as water content and density.
                The number of inches or feet of snow on the ground can mean a variety of things, he said, depending on if it is fluffy powder or compacted, wet snow.

                Recent studies by Scripps scientists have found that over the last 50 years the southern Sierra snowpack has gotten larger while the northern Sierra pack has shrunk. Although they have predicted the overall state snowpack would decrease over time as a result of climate change, nobody has claimed that it has happened yet, Dettinger said.

                What's significant in terms of global warming, he said, is the fact that the snowpack has declined over three quarters of the western United States, an area that includes Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico. Scripps researchers, in coordination with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, have concluded that 60 percent of that downward trend is due to greenhouse gases.

                "There is a popular conception that the snowpack has declined everywhere, but that is not what the science says," Dettinger said. "What we're saying broadly is that across western North America there have been declines in spring snowpack."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Climategate - the flip side

                  Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
                  Financial Sense Newshour has Browning on again with her longer range forecast, and she blames much of that is going on on the Atlantic Oscillator and the Iceland volcanoe.
                  Yes, not much snow this winter; as a kid growing up on long island, I recall a handful of winters when there wasn't enough snow for sledding and other winter fun. Data shmata.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Climategate - the flip side

                    Global Warming was a progressive plot to raise more taxes. Any GW is caused primarily by the sun; we may in fact be entering a colder period.

                    Is it any coincidence that the Obama administration has used taxpayer money to fund a number of failing or failed "green" companies? Some were campaign contributors too, how ironic!

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...aER_story.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Climategate - the flip side

                      Ooooooooh, the Koch bogeyman, yet again.

                      The Koch Brothers: they're everywhere, they're everywhere!
                      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Climategate - the flip side

                        Originally posted by Master Shake
                        The Koch Brothers: they're everywhere, they're everywhere!
                        To be fair, they are everywhere. But so are all the opposite side "liberal" banksters like Soros and Grantham.

                        But the latter aren't big oil deniers...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Climategate - the flip side

                          It also appears now that:

                          1) There was a legally prosecutable misrepresentation used to get information from the Heartland institute (i.e. someone pretended to be a Heartland director)

                          2) One of the documents - the one which has everyone in an uproar - is stated by the Heartland Institute to be a fake:

                          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/1...nt/#more-56736

                          As a follow up to the post Notes on the Heartland Leak, I’ve prepared some notes on the PDF document “2012 Climate Strategy” that Heartland says in their press release is a fake among the other documents distributed. They say specifically that:
                          One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
                          Here is a screencap of the top part of that document, which was printed, and then scanned, unlike any of the other documents which were direct to PDF from word processing programs:

                          There’s been a lot of scrutiny in comments on various blogs, and I’ve given some scrutiny to the document as well, comparing it with other documents in the set. I’m in agreement that this is a fake, here is why:
                          1. It is the only document in the set that appears to have been scanned rather than produced by a PDF document publisher such as Adobe Distiller 8.0 or 8.1 which were both in document properties on other documents. For example compare the two document properties side by side. I’ve placed arrows marking distinct differences:

                          2. The metadata in document properties in the document said to be faked have been sanitized. Why cover tracks? This could possibly be due to the leaker not knowing how to remove other metadata in standard PDF, but knows if he/she scans it on an Epson flatbed scanner and saves it to the scanner’s memory stick/flash drive port, there will be no personally identifiable information.
                          3. One of the first questions I asked Joe Bast of Heartland when I saw this printed then scanned document was “do you not shred your trash”? His response was, “there’s no need, all the communications are done electronically by email”. That suggests a paper copy never existed in the Heartland office. The fact that none of the documents contains any personal signatures lends credence to this.
                          4. It doesn’t read like a strategy document, as it mixes strategy with operational details and commentary.
                          5. It gets the operational details ( budget) wrong – especially the points about my project, rounding up to $90,000 from a very specific budget number of $88,000. This suggests trying to inflate the number for a purpose. There’s no evidence of rounding budget numbers in any other document in the set.
                          6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense. This contrasts with purposeful language in the other documents. This one sentence in particular has gotten a lot of attention:
                          His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
                          I can’t imagine pitching “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.” to a board of directors at a meeting. It is a sure recipe for a public relations nightmare.
                          7. There are punctuation errors throughout it, suggesting it is not a professional document. There’s an overuse of commas for example. The formatting is different than other documents in the set, with a left justified title. All other Heartland documents have a center justified title. Fonts for titles don’t match either. The “2012 Climate Strategy” document has a different font.
                          8. The ”2012 Climate Strategy” is the purported “smoking gun” that provides commentary and context missing from the other factual documents. Without this framing document, the other documents and what they contain, are rather bland. Without it, there’s not much red meat to dangle in front of people that would tear into it.
                          9. The document misrepresents the positions of Andrew Revkin and Dr. Judith Curry. This seems to come from a point of speculation, not from a point of certainty.
                          10. Most of the documents were prepared by Joe Bast, listed as author “jbast” in the PDF document metadata and done around 8AM on Monday, January 16th. One document, “Board Directory 01-18-12_0.pdf” has an author “ZMcElrath” ( a Heartland employee according to the Budget document) and was created on Wednesday January 25th at 1:04PM, within working hours just like all the others.
                          The document in question the ”2012 Climate Strategy” has a timestamp of Monday, Feb 13th, at 12:41PM, just one day before “DeSmog Blog” released the documents on their website. The timeline disparity doesn’t make a lot of sense for documents that were supposedly mailed to a person posing as a board member (according to an alleged email snippet on Keith Kloor’s website) to trick someone at Heartland to email them the package of documents. Here it is:
                          Dear Friends (15 of you):
                          In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.
                          It would have had to have been sent sometime between 12:41PM Chicago time on Monday Feb13th and Tuesday Feb 14th 16:39 (Pacific Time) when the first comment appeared on DeSmog Blogs first post on the issue. According to David Appell’s blog, Keith Kloor says it was sent yesterday (Feb 14th), which is after the creation date for the “2012 Climate Strategy” memo of “2/13/2012 12:41:52 PM. Which means DeSmog blog had the documents only a short time.
                          Appell also writes: Desmogblog Had Leaked Docs For Only an Hour
                          I guess I’m behind on this, because this afternoon Politico reported that Desmogblog received the documents yesterday (2/14) and “The blog posted them about an hour later without contacting the Heartland Institute for confirmation.”
                          http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...B-44C8C2EDA7DC
                          So they received them after the suspicious memo was scanned (according to its metadata). Which doesn’t prove its not fake, but at least the timeline isn’t inconsistent.
                          Appell also thinks the document makeup is suspicious and does his own metadata analysis.
                          Summary:
                          All the above evidence, plus Heartland’s statement saying it is a fake, taken in total suggest strongly that the “2012 Climate Strategy” document is a fake. From my perspective, it is almost if the person(s) looking at these said “we need more to get attention” and decided to create this document as the “red meat” needed to incite a response.
                          Indeed, the ploy worked, as there are now 216 instances (as of this writing) of this document title “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” on Google at various news outlets and websites.
                          The question to ask then is this: who benefits the most from the existence of such a document? A disgruntled employee? Hardly. Such things often backfire. And, who would know best how to craft such a document for maximum public impact? I think the answers are there, but the question needs to be asked. From what I hear, Heartland is going for criminal prosecution and/or civil liabilities on this one. They certainly have a case.
                          All of those news outlets and bloggers that regurgitated this document and the claims in it without checking for the veracity of it first are going to have some defending to do to. The Guardian seems particularly vulnerable for their “publish first, ask questions later” tactic.
                          UPDATE: At Lucia’s Blackboard, commenter Duke C. have been delving into the faked memo. What he has found is quite interesting:
                          Duke C. (Comment #89877)
                          February 15th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
                          Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815)
                          February 15th, 2012 at 4:31 pm

                          If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.
                          The Confidential Strategy Memo and the Form 990 were both scanned, possibly from the same source. There are similarities in the Metadata. Both were created under PDF Version 1.5, with the same Extensible Metadata Platform Core:
                          xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
                          The other 6 pdfs show a different core version:
                          xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/” x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 4.0-c316 44.253921, Sun Oct 01 2006 17:14:39
                          The Form 990 linked at DeSmog shows August 02, 2011 as the last modified date. The 990 linked at Heartlandinstitute.org shows December 06, 2011. Scanning artifacts indicate that both are identical.
                          All of this is, of course, circumstantial evidence. but I’m not ready to rule out that the Strategy memo wasn’t scanned at Heartland.
                          ================================================
                          Duke C. (Comment #89887)
                          February 15th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
                          More on the Strategy memo-
                          EPSON Scan
                          2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
                          2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
                          2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
                          Hmmm……
                          That’s Pacific Standard Time, if I’m reading it right.
                          =================================================


                          Duke C. (Comment #89888)
                          February 15th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
                          Oops. with html tags removed:
                          rdfescription rdf:about=””
                          xmlns:pdf=”http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/”
                          pdf:Producer EPSON Scan /pdf:Producer
                          /rdfescription
                          rdfescription rdf:about=””
                          xmlns:xmp=”http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/”
                          xmp:ModifyDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:ModifyDate
                          xmp:CreateDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:CreateDate
                          xmp:MetadataDate 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 /xmp:MetadataDate
                          =================================================
                          According to the “contact” page at Heartland, they have no west coast offices:
                          The Heartland Institute
                          One South Wacker Drive #2740
                          Chicago, Illinois 60606
                          312/377-4000
                          map
                          Telephone Phone: 312/377-4000
                          Fax: 312/377-5000
                          Other offices 1728 Connecticut Avenue NW #2B
                          Washington, DC 20009
                          Phone: 202/525-5717
                          AdministratorP.O. Box 10330
                          Tallahassee, FL 32302
                          Christian R. Camara3900 Pearce Road
                          Austin, TX 78730
                          Julie DrennerP.O. Box 361195
                          Columbus, Ohio 43236
                          Alan Smith
                          Now who do we know on the West Coast in the Pacific Time Zone? One major player in this mix is in the Pacific Time Zone according to their “contact” page.
                          In the Heartland budget document “(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf ” in section 3, there’s also reference made to an employee that was let go that works out of the west coast home office. These are places to start asking questions.
                          UPDATE2: It seems Andrew Revkin, one of the first to publicly post about the documents without checking the veracity first, now agrees to the possibility of a fake (h/t A.Scott) :
                          “looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.”

                          Frankly this is looking more and more like a deliberate strategy to try and ClimateGate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Climategate - the flip side

                            It appears the consensus here is that man made climate-change and global warming is not supported by the data. However peak-cheap-oil is part of the iTulip thesis. I know there are geopolitical factors, but isn't approaching peak oil part of the reason for peak-cheap-oil? Isn't peak oil a real event in the near future? If both of these suggest similar policy changes and one is real and one is not, why do liberal organizations promote the false belief over the real one?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Climategate - the flip side

                              Originally posted by davidstvz View Post
                              ....why do liberal organizations promote the false belief over the real one?
                              who on 'gods green earth' knows, but heres a few hints (as in crony capitalism writ large and trumpeted by the liberal media as 'saving the planet' )

                              http://venturebeat.com/2007/11/12/al...n-investments/

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

                              http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news...einer.fortune/

                              http://algorelied.com/?tag=kleiner-perkins (just for some alternative POV)

                              and just for kicks: i consider myself an 'environmentally concerned' voter, and alternative energy proponent, just happen to think that gore's carbon trading scheme will not only cost TheUS immeasureably in terms of jobs and standard of living (while he and his cronies make billions), but it will fail to address the number one emerging issue: the 3rd world/china wont be bound by any of it, thus crippling our economy, while driving even more of OUR jobs offshore!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X