|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 17, 2012 1:17:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 17, 2012 1:30:15 GMT
The 9th one (smoking gun) was a forgery. It was scanned in California and Heartland has no offices here. It was different than the other eight.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 17, 2012 1:52:34 GMT
It's still dirty. Singer just came out and denied taking money for his skeptical stance and putting pressure on Forbes is dirty.
It's just sad we have to wade through whats real and what is agenda.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 17, 2012 2:06:41 GMT
From the link. So a maybe fraudulent document elicits some reasonable response.
"The report links the state of Texas’ exceptional 2011 drought with climate change, and holds this out as an example of an increasing number of extreme weather events due to climate change.
Here’s the rub: The Texas state climatologist, atmospheric scientist John Nielsen-Gammon, had this to say about the 2011 drought and climate change:
It appears that global warming, if it has affected mean precipitation, has had a minor impact compared to other influences, and even the sign of its effect on precipitation is unknown. Until we learn more, it is appropriate to assume that the direct impact of global warming on Texas precipitation has been negligible, and that the future precipitation trend with or without global warming is unknown.
In other words, it’s likely the 2011 drought was not linked to climate change, although John does note that 1 degree or so of the abnormal heat from last year is attributable to a warming world.
The Environment Texas report also holds out Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee as examples of an increasing trend of extreme weather in a warming world.
These are somewhat ironic choices — a Category 1 hurricane at landfall and a tropical storm — to make the report’s point that in a climate change influenced world “hurricanes are expected to become more intense and bring greater amounts of rainfall.”
These were not atypical tropical systems in any way, and it’s worthwhile to note that the United States is currently in the midst of the longest streak ever recorded without an intense hurricane landfall.
I will give Environment Texas credit for using scientific sources to try and prove its case. But please, let’s be honest about the extreme weather events of 2011, many of which were not attributable to climate change.
More science, less spin, please."
|
|
|
Post by lenardo on Feb 17, 2012 2:08:43 GMT
tr heartland has flat out stated that the "burning gun" confidential document is 100% FAKE and did not originate @heartland.
it was created 1 HOUR before being released on desmog-per the meta datea information
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 17, 2012 2:13:29 GMT
tr heartland has flat out stated that the "burning gun" confidential document is 100% FAKE and did not originate @heartland. it was created 1 HOUR before being released on desmog-per the meta datea information I should not have used the word maybe but many believe total tripe and love to argue.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 17, 2012 2:39:16 GMT
"More science and less spin please"
This coming from someone who continually posts "science" from WUWT?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 17, 2012 2:55:43 GMT
"Notes on the faked Heartland document" "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." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 17, 2012 20:00:25 GMT
This from the Heartland Institute
"How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes. Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned."
Why issue apology for a bunch of faked documents? How is HI going to take criminal action for someone stealing faked documents?
This leads me to believe that most of the documents are real.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2012 0:01:24 GMT
Glenn: I think most of the documents are real. The also think the Summary or whatever is false.
But what I don't get is....what is the big deal? 6 or 7 million bucks and there is all this ruckus and crowing by the AGW crowd?
The USA spends wayyyyyy more than 6 or 7 million dollars trying to promote AGW.
This is really a non-issue except for the legalities of corp espionage.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 18, 2012 2:09:28 GMT
This is really a non-issue except for the legalities of corp espionage.
No gate here. No coverup. No conspiracy. Just private financial matters about getting opinions out.
No doubt "non-skeptical" readers will see all kinds of nefarious stuff but like most are saying is good health skepticism is growing mightily on a shoestring budget. Should be a great case history for the cause of normal science vs post normal science.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 4:27:35 GMT
sigurdur, I view it the same way as I did climategate. Neither are the "smoking guns" that some wan't them to be. I think for many it has crossed the line from scientific debate to political core issue.
I will say that Singer lost any and all credibility with me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 18, 2012 6:20:06 GMT
sigurdur, I view it the same way as I did climategate. Neither are the "smoking guns" that some wan't them to be. I think for many it has crossed the line from scientific debate to political core issue. I will say that Singer lost any and all credibility with me. Your list is getting long: Mann, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Santer, Singer. . . . Who else do you have on it?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 18, 2012 6:41:33 GMT
Glennkoks. Here is some reading material for you. The reply by Bast is the most recent as of 2/17/12 3:30pm. I would anticipate more analysis from Bast and possibly law enforcement and the legal profession. The post by Watts has some evidence of a fraudulent document. "The metadata in document properties in the document said to be faked have been sanitized." Bast, Pres., Joe. “ Heartland Institute Rebuts Outlandish New York Times Story on Stolen and Fake Documents.†Opinion. Somewhat Reasonable, February 16, 2012. blog.heartland.org/2012/02/heartland-institute-rebuts-outlandish-new-york-times-story-on-stolen-and-fake-documents/Curry, Judith A. “ Heartland.†Scientific. Climate Etc., February 15, 2012. judithcurry.com/2012/02/15/heartland/Lakely, Jim. “ Heartland Institute Responds to Stolen and Fake Documents.†Opinion. Heartland Institute, February 15, 2012. heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documentsReardon, Sara. “ Education Advocates Enter the Climate Tempest.†Opinion. ScienceInsider, January 17, 2012. news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/education-advocates-enter-the.html?ref=hpCaruba, Alan. “ The Anatomy of a Global Warming Smear.†Scientific. Watts Up With That?, February 16, 2012. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/the-anatomy-of-a-global-warming-smear/Watts, Anthony. “ Notes on the Faked Heartland Document.†Scientific. Watts Up With That?, February 15, 2012. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 18, 2012 10:34:31 GMT
[Start_rant] As a fully fledged climate sceptic with no qualification in anything, I too noticed the "More science, less spin, please." plea.
To me, the scare of global warming reeks of all the elements of so many scares over the years. It confounds me that so many knowledgeable people seem to have fallen for such an obvious scam and my only qualification is that I have been around for a long time, long enough to see the climate change. Nowhere is the natural cycle more dramatically demonstrated than in Australia, the land of "droughts and flooding rains".
Nomatter what the august establishments say, out there somewhere are many sceptics with scientific backgrounds that doubt every aspect of the "wisdom" being rammed down our throats. Here in Australia, there is virtually no discussion or debate on the subject of global warming (now climate change ... or is that severe climate disruption). That we are going to fry is a given.
I couldn't give a hoot about where the money comes from but I would like to see an end to the alarmism, a genuine scientific debate, shared research, scientific arguments as opposed to character assassination .... whatever it takes to give everyone a chance to hear both sides.
[End_rant]
|
|