lol Well, I don't know about you but I think schemers are generally arrogant people. Don't they all think they can get away with anything?
I figured since he was a politician, anything he said was suspect.
Denialgate, because every scandal needs a gate...
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
Meanwhile, some conservatives are calling on Heartland Institute to stop campaigning against climate change. They also note the irony of HI's response to it's stolen documents. Republicans for Environmental Protection:
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.
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.
Probably because it's pronounced like Coke, I think.
Anyway, pass the popcorn, it's looking like a guy named Gleick authored the fake document. Surprise surprise, it turns out to be BS.
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 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
Peter H. Gleick: The Origin of the Heartland Documents
Hmm, someone admitting mistakes. Did Hearltand Institute apologize or admit to mistakes when they commented on the stolen CRU emails? Nope.
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 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
Peter H. Gleick: The Origin of the Heartland Documents
Hmm, someone admitting mistakes. Did Hearltand Institute apologize or admit to mistakes when they commented on the stolen CRU emails? Nope.
Yeah that's the same.
Fact remains, the only thing the leaked documents seem to prove so far, is a discernable LACK of contribution to HI by big energy corps. Oh, and that those intimately involved in the CAGW cause are dishonest, motivated more by politics than by science.
Popcorn?
Right, the Koch's doesn't count as big energy interests funding denial...how wide do you need your goal posts? Unreal. One person admits to a mistake, and you're willing to paint anyone and everyone you can with a wide brush. That's a fact. :roll:
Oil companies fund all kinds of initiatives in many sectors, hell Canadian oil co.s directly fund the suzuki foundation (which ironically, suzuki himself denied but was stupid enough to list their names on his website).
Point is, guilty by association is not a compelling position.
lol oh yeah the Kochs. We know this because it's "well documented". As in , top secret memo mailed anonymously to a "scientist" who heads a bunch of ethics committees or something who thought it would be a good idea to perpetrate a scam to "prove" that the memo was genuine. Yeah, no credibility issues surrounding that document, you KNOW he wouldn't lie about it's origin.
Need any butter?
It's not my position...notice I was responding to a claim by JTF.
Maybe you haven`t been paying attention, but the Heartland Institute verified that all the documents were legit, except for the strategy document which they maintain is a fake. That`s the document that Gleick says he was emailed and tried to confirm the accuracy of. The Hearltand Institute apologized to donors for their identities being made public.
The Koch's even admitted they fund the Heartland Institute, though they say it is for Health care research.
You may have even missed this, but others have confirmed the donations with public documents they have sent in a complaint to the IRS, disputing the qualification of the Heartland Institute's charitable status because of their lobbying activities.
No. Need some time to read before you come back for a comment? :roll:
No. Needed time to watch the hockey game. Then more time to stop crying! lol
The Koch foundation donated 25k. 25 whopping k. I bet the door prize at their Christmas party was more than that. Man, they are just totally armtwisting the f out of the science, boy. I don't know how the billion dollar funded AGW movement will be able to withstand that. Maybe another UN?
Anyway, it's not really about HI anymore, is it.
Extra salt?
Sure it is, and you and other deniers will move from one talking point to the next to try to ensure it isn't. Just like with the funding from Kock, first you deny, then you move onto something else. :lol: The only difference here between this and the stolen CRU emails is that someone admitted to fraudulently taking information from the Heartland Institute, again which no denier ever did. I'm enjoying the twisting coming from folks who thought the stolen emails were a big deal from CRU.
:lol: I think it's funny that you think of internet discussions as upsetting. Are you medicated for that?
This is rich coming from the CC poster who has had a long drink from the if-the-data-doesn't-fit-change-the-data-so-it-fits-our-theory-global-warming-climate-change-global-climate-disruption-crowd's koolaid.
If I were a "denier" that might be true, but would be no less irrelevant. I'm not shocked when politicians lie, I'm not shocked when lobby groups lie. I expect it and pay very little attention when they're caught. However, when the scientific community lies, when the scientific community belly aches about being expected to defend their conclusions through presentation of their data, when the scientific community insists that "there is no debate, there is only science on one side and obfuscation on the other", then that scientific community is discovered to be involved in obfuscation, that's when I get disturbed.
"Deniers" can be the scum of the earth. They can move between all the talking points they want. I don't care. The scientific community, on the other hand, I have high expectations of.
I don't think it can be said better than it was said by Megan McArdle:
"When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say "Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!" and not, "Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things."
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else."
Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic