Heartland

Obviously there’s been lots of discussion in the past few days about the Heartland documents and, in particular, the fake Heartland 2012 Strategy memo. I presume that CA readers are familiar with the discussion at climate blogs and elsewhere. I’ve been busy on other matters this week, but have followed the discussions and commented a few times at Lucia’s. Having not posted thus far, it’s hard to know where to begin.

By way of disclaimer, I spoke at the Heartland conferences in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, I was a local celebrity in the wake of Climategate and received a standing ovation when my speech was announced. As part of my remarks, I reminded the audience that, notwithstanding Climategate, many serious scientists were concerned about the impact of global warming on entirely different grounds and urged the audience to view concepts like “fraud” and “hoax” as unhelpful in understanding the issues. (See remarks here). As was observed at the time, I received very tepid one-hand-clapping applause afterwards. The audience liked Monckton much better. However, some people told me afterwards that I had said things that needed to be said to that audience. As CA readers are aware, I disliked the libertarian trappings of the event and wasn’t included in the original program for the much reduced 2011 conference, though I was sent a late invitation (and declined.)

The present situation is rich with irony. The provenance of the Climategate dossier remains unknown. According to evidence of the Information Commission’s Office to Muir Russell (not included in their report), its exclusion of personal information “could be indicative of a whistleblower”. Nonetheless, it was unambiguously reported by the Guardian and other media as being “hacked” or “stolen”. The provenance of the Heartland documents is relatively clear. Someone pretending to be a director of Heartland tricked a secretary at Heartland into sending documents from a recent board meeting to an email address purporting to be that of a Heartland director but, in fact, belonging to someone else. The document with the most damaging quotes was then fabricated. Nonetheless, the dossier was unambiguously described by the Guardian and other media as being “leaked” by an “insider” at Heartland.

Many other ironies have been observed in respect to both Heartland and Climategate. However, the fact that the most damaging Heartland quotes were fabricated and contained only in the fake memo inevitably limits the parallels and raises a host of legal issues that did not arise in Climategate.

Another curiosity in the fake memo is the undue prominence of Peter Gleick and his exchanges at Forbes, an anomaly that has occasioned comment at a number of locations (e.g. Mosher at Lucia’s, Pielke Jr).

The Board Documents

Jan 16 – Heartland board package prepared. Pdf’s made of 2012 Budget, 2012 Fundraising Plan, Binder 1 including Fourth Quarter 2011 Financial Report, Notice of Meeting, Agenda. All of the above documents are shown as deriving from Joe Bast’s directory on the P: drive.

Jan 17 – Heartland board meeting.

Jan 25 – Pdf made of contact information of the Heartland board of directors. Document from p: drive of Z. McElrath.

Jan 29 – Minutes of Jan 17 board meeting (rtf format from c:\Users\Admin\Documents\2012\heartland).

Early Feb – According to Heartland on Feb 15 here, “an unknown person 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”.

The Fake Confidential Strategy Memo

On or before Feb 13, the “unknown person” or an associate (who subsequently called himself Heartland Insider), fabricated a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo”. Its pdf version was created on Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time.

Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.

1. The fake memo stated that Heartland planned to develop a Global Warming curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. This damning phrase occurs nowhere in the board documents or elsewhere.

2. The fake memo put the Koch foundation, prominent in climate activist demonology, in a place of particular prominence and stated that it was funding Heartland’s climate programs to the tune of $200,000 in 2011 and that greater contributions were being sought in 2012. In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)

3. The fake memo stated that Heartland was seeking contributions for their climate programs “especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies”. There is no support for this in the document and it appears to be untrue: the board documents show that Heartland’s climate activities were almost entirely financed by an individual.

4. The fake memo exaggerated the scale of Heartland’s climate programs. It said that they sponsored NIPCC to “undermine” the IPCC (a term not used in the actual documents and a word more characteristic of activist than skeptical literature) and that, additionally, it “paid a team of writers” to produce editions of Climate Change Reconsidered (actual documents – team 0f “scientists”, double-counting the expenditures.

5. The fake memo said that it was “important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes, which was characterized as having previously been “reliably anti-climate”, but which had now begun “to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own”. There is nothing remotely supporting this assertion in board documents or elsewhere. The anomalous prominence of Gleick (as opposed to the more logical Hansen, Gore or Mann, Jones and the Climategaters) attracted attention in later commentary.

6. The fake memo said that Heartland was coordinating “with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts”, a sort of skeptic answer to the Climate Rapid Response Team of Scott Mandia, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. There is nothing in the actual documents to support this.

7. The fake memo proposed the cultivation of “more neutral voices” such as Revkin and Curry, an idea that surprised both Revkin and Curry and which is not supported in the actual documents.

8. The fake memo gave the impression of “increased” activity in 2012, describing Heartland as “part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which [they] support financially”, whereas the actual documents showed reduced activity in 2012, as a result of declining funding, with no plans to hold the climate conference that they had sponsored for the previous few years.

Lucia observes in a post today that the fake memo also purports to show intentional deception on the part of Heartland officers by, for example, deliberately concealing the confidential memo from part of the board of directors (“distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff”). See her post for other examples.

Distribution Timeline

David Appell has posted a provisional timeline for the dissemination of the Heartland documents, a timeline that I’ve examined, but re-considered here.

On Feb 14, at 9:13 a.m. Pacific (12.13 pm Eastern), HI (apparently using the account heartlandinsider@gmail.com) sent an email containing the seven board documents listed above plus Heartland’s 2010 IRS 990 (available at the Heartland website, re-posted by sourcewatch on Jan 18, 2012) as follows:

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.

The distribution to supposedly 15 recipients (Mosher questions whether this number can be relied on) resulted in three blog articles around 3-4 p.m. (Eastern), each with distinct archives of the documents: Brad Johnson at Thinkprogress, Brandon Demelle at Desmog and (separately) Richard Littlemore at Desmog. (Demelle and Littlemore archived their versions separately.)

The first article out of the blocks was Brad Johnson’s here at blogtime 3:10 pm, though the first comment is timestamped 12:18 pm. It was tweeted by Andy Revkin at 3:56 PM. My interpretation is that Johnson’s article was published at 3:10 pm Eastern and that the comment timestamps are inconsistently in Pacific time. The version of the Johnson article that is presently available (Feb 20) is primarily directed at Heartland’s plan to engage David Wojick to develop a curriculum and does not directly quote from the fake Confidential memo. Johnson included (what appears to be the first) reference to the National Center on Science Education (NCSE) in this context, linking to a statement by the NCSE that they had “begun a new program to fight global warming denial in textbooks and classrooms”. Peter Gleick, who had been anomalously featured in the fake memo, became a director of the Oakland-based NCSE on January 17, 2012.

The second article to be published was Brad Demelle’s at Desmog. It included a link to Johnson’s article. The print version of the article (h/t David Appell) is timestamped 14:13 (timezone not stated); the first comment is at 16:39 blog time; it was tweeted by Carbon Meme at 4:29 pm Eastern and Leo Hickman at 4:44 pm. My conclusion is that it was published around 4:13 pm Eastern (implying that the time in the “print” version is Mountain time.) Demelle said only that the documents were “obtained by Desmog” without any reference to Heartland Insider. Demelle’s article was primarily based on the fake memo and included most of its juicier quotes (but, interestingly, not the one about “dissuading teachers from teaching science”.

The Littlemore article at Desmog was observed by David Appell to have been published only one minute after Demelle’s article (see print version . It had a separate archive of the articles on the Desmog server – compare the names: Littlemore’s versions have later names. Littlemore’s article attributed the documents to an “anonymous donor” self-styled as “Heartland Insider”:

An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.

It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and “other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.” Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.


Revkin and Early Tweets

As noted above, Revkin’s 3:56 pm tweet about Brad Johnson’s blog post is the first third party notice of events that I’ve located.

At 4:38 pm Eastern, Revkin sent a second tweet, which amusingly praised Peter Gleick for the impact of his Forbes blogging:

Kudos to @petergleick as alleged @heartlandinst climate doc shows impact of his Forbes.com blogging: http://t.co/uLEFnGVq

Revkin’s tweet linked to a blog post at Revkin.net (revkin.tumblr.com/post/17620769391/alleged-heartlandinst-climate-doc-i-mportant). Revkin’s blog post began:

Alleged @HeartlandInst climate doc: “[i]mportant to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes.com, where @PeterGleick has countered disinformation:

“Efforts at place such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” The rest.

Revkin later deleted the blog post; I’ve only been able to locate a partial cache of the blog post (see here).

However, before its deletion, Revkin’s blog post and tweet widely disseminated the story. See the numerous reference at Topsy here, notably including a re-tweet by Leo Hickman of the Guardian at 4:44 pm.

Revkin continued to tweet about the documents, including wonderment (6:40 pm) at the strange idea of Heartland “cultivating” him.

Hickman’s own first tweet on the topic had occurred six minutes earlier when he had re-tweeted a 4:29 pm tweet by carbonmeme linking to Demelle’s article at Desmog. Hickman sent two more tweets on the matter at 4:53 pm (all Eastern unless otherwise designated.)

In three tweets around 5 pm, John Timmer (j_timmer) of Ars Technica (linking to Revkin) appears to have been one of the first commenters to draw attention to the later much-highlighted claim that Heartland was trying to “dissuade teachers from teaching science”, also connecting the proposed Heartland work on curriculum to NCSE’s recent announcements:

Heartland’s education strategy: calling topic “controversial and uncertain” “effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”…

Heartland climate docs came via @Revkin – link to collection here…

Note the Heartland docs indicate they’re working on a school curriculum. Should sound familiar to the @NCSE.

Josh Rosenau, a program manager with National Center for Science Education (NCSE), of which Peter Gleick became a director on January 17, retweeted Timmer and continued to tweet and retweet actively throughout the next few days, eventually getting into a dispute with Pielke Jr about Peter Gleick. At 6:01 pm, Rosenau commented about the proposed curriculum:

Saw it, and am intrigued. I guess someone’s worried about @NCSE’s climate change efforts!

Other green bloggers turned up soon thereafter on Twitter and elsewhere: Scott Mandia at 5:13 pm; Joe Romm at his blog here at 6:03 pm; John Cook (Skeptical Science) at 6:40 pm. Susan the Policy Lass shows up at 7:02 pm, immediately taking umbrage at the idea of Heartland “undermining” the IPC process:

“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” – There you have it. Undermine. #heartland

and shortly afterwards took offence at another fabricated quote:

“climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

At 8:41 pm, Chris Mooney showed up on twitter, expressing his initial disbelief at the “dissuading” statement:

“dissuading teachers from teaching science” — I can’t *believe* this quote is real.

Later in the evening (Eastern), blog articles were posted by Greg Laden, Joe Romm, Deep Climate and other green blogs. Laden was particularly impressed by the most recent revelation, highlighting it as follows:

The story continued to spread like wildfire on the activist blogs.


The Guardian

At 10:30 pm Eastern (Feb 15 03:30 GMT), Suzanne Goldenberg took the story mainstream in The Guardian here, later announcing the story on twitter as follows:

Happy birthday Galileo! Here is an update on modern-day flat earthers of @Heartlandinst http://gu.com/p/35fdf/tw #eg

Goldenberg’s story was headlined:

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science: Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

Goldenberg’s story included key phrases from the fake memo: “dissuading teachers from teaching science”, “This influential audience [Forbes] has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

Leo Hickman tweeted Goldenberg’s story at 2:12 am Eastern (7:12 GMT), following up with numerous tweets and retweets through the morning. At 07:39 AM (EST), Hickman published his own story in the Guardian, describing the revelations as “hard evidence”. Hickman, who does not appear to have made any attempt to confirm the authenticity of the memo,  relied heavily on the fake memo.  Hickman quoted the false amounts and allocation of Koch contributions, harrumphing:

The funding of climate sceptic thinktanks in the US by corporate vested interests such as the Koch brothers has almost become a cliché, but here we have cast-iron proof of its influence, intent and extent.

Hickman, like Goldenberg,  repeated the false quote about “dissuading teachers from teaching science”, repeating the quote for emphasis:

The co-ordinated effort to undermine the teaching of climate science in US classrooms has been noted before, but this still takes the breath away. Let’s just repeat that sentence so it can be fully digested: “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.” But the dropping of jaws doesn’t end there. Next up, we learn that Heartland paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to write a series of reports “to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”. Not critique, challenge, or analyse the IPCC’s reports, but “to undermine” them. The agenda and pre-ordained outcome is clear and there for all to see.

Next Hickman is deceived by the fake quotation about “undermining”:

But the dropping of jaws doesn’t end there. Next up, we learn that Heartland paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to write a series of reports “to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”. Not critique, challenge, or analyse the IPCC’s reports, but “to undermine” them. The agenda and pre-ordained outcome is clear and there for all to see.

Hickman then wallows in the fake paragraph about heartland’s supposed interaction with Forbes, concluding this section as follows:

Again, much to digest here, but for me one thing stands out beyond the talk of trying to “cultivate more neutral voices” and “coordination with outside networks”. When you recollect all the hullabaloo expressed by climate sceptics about how climate scientists apparently try to close down debate etc, then this sentence says so much:

This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

If you like your hypocrisy sandwiches served with a side order of double standards, then these leaked documents are certainly the place to dine out.

Once the Guardian had lent its authority, the story spread rapidly. Hickman watched closely, noting its mention at SMH in Australia, by Steve Zwick at Forbes (8:32 AM), MSNBC (10:15 AM), the Economist (12:35 PM), BBC (3:38 PM).

At 9:54 AM, James Gleick, Peter Gleick’s brother, tweeted on the Guardian story (re-tweeted soon after by Andy Revkin):

This fine news story features a cameo appearance by my brother and a mythical place called “Time Square.” guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

(Update: Now deleted.

Gleick himself was strangely silent on the matter, a silence that was later observed at Lucia’s and elsewhere.

Heartland’s Statement on the Fake Memo
The story had broken late in the afternoon of February 14 and spread during the North American night. None of the media appears to have contacted Heartland for confirmation of authenticity or a statement.

Heartland issued a press release on February 15, stating unambiguously that the “Confidential Memo” (the one containing the juicy quotes) was fake and that the other documents had not been leaked by an actual insider or “anonymous donor”, but had been obtained by a form of identity theft:

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…

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.

Most articles that disseminated the contents of the fake memo have included updates, reporting Heartland’s statement that the memo was fake. Many have argued (incorrectly in my opinion) that the assertions in the fake memo are supported by the actual documents and left their articles unchanged. Some articles have been changed. Few have been removed. The status as of Feb 18 is reviewed by a commenter at Judy Curry’s here.

Conclusion

The ramifications of these events are unfolding.

In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.

Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.

As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

76 Comments

  1. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    Coincidentally I attended a talk by Dr. Fred Singer last Wednesday at the University of New Mexico, partially sponsored by their Dept of Physics and Astronomy. Very enlightening and inspiring, I thought, if not the best lecture I’ve heard on climate change (and I’ve heard a few).

    The Q and A that followed was not ad-hominem in any way until one Dr. Mark Boslough questioned Dr. Singer about this specific incident, which is the first time I can recall hearing about it.

    I thought Dr. Singer handled that very well. And I personally don’t see anything wrong with his organization obtaining funding and using those funds to support students and/or others to do analyses of media and scientific claims of global warming certainty. I wish more would engage in skeptical pursuits concerning claims of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming and I wish more would fund that.

    snip – sorry. I don’t wish to divert the thread.

  2. Ian McLeod
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    As an armchair quarterback observing the machinations of likely one individual responsible for the rather pedestrian counterfeit document, I have to say one of the big differences between Climategate and the Heartland imbroglio is the speed in which the main stream media (MSM) jumped on the story. Compare that to the slow drawn out befuddled acceptance of Climategate as a news story by the New York Times (at least the print version, as one example of the MSM), to their quick off the draw article(s) without much fact checking of this cockamamie story. I suspect there will be a brief one sentence apology to the Heartland Institute in the coming days, no doubt located somewhere on the back page of the front section that won’t garner much attention by the other MSM, but might be noticed by the blogosphere.

  3. Doug Badgero
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    I thought Megan McArdle of The Atlantic did an outstanding job in the following articles.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

    Steve: agreed. Some of the points had been made in comments at Lucia’s.

  4. geronimo
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:07 PM | Permalink

    There is nothing knew under the Sun. In the case of Bardell v. Pickwick two of Mr. Pickwick’s letters are given the Goldenberg/Hickman treatment by counsel for the plaintiff Serjeant Buzfuz:

    “A visible impression was produced upon the auditors by this
    part of the learned Serjeant’s address.  Drawing forth two very
    small scraps of paper, he proceeded–
    ‘And now, gentlemen, but one word more.  Two letters have
    passed between these parties, letters which are admitted to be in
    the handwriting of the defendant, and which speak volumes,
    indeed.  The letters, too, bespeak the character of the man.  They
    are not open, fervent, eloquent epistles, breathing nothing but
    the language of affectionate attachment.  They are covert, sly,
    underhanded communications, but, fortunately, far more conclusive
    than if couched in the most glowing language and the
    most poetic imagery–letters that must be viewed with a cautious
    and suspicious eye–letters that were evidently intended at the
    time, by Pickwick, to mislead and delude any third parties into
    whose hands they might fall.  Let me read the first: “Garraways,
    twelve o’clock.  Dear Mrs. B.–Chops and tomato sauce.  Yours,
    PICKWICK.” Gentlemen, what does this mean?  Chops and tomato
    sauce.  Yours, Pickwick!  Chops!  Gracious heavens! and tomato
    sauce!  Gentlemen, is the happiness of a sensitive and confiding
    female to be trifled away, by such shallow artifices as these?  The
    next has no date whatever, which is in itself suspicious.  “Dear
    Mrs. B., I shall not be at home till to-morrow.  Slow coach.”
    And then follows this very remarkable expression.  “Don’t trouble
    yourself about the warming-pan.” The warming-pan!  Why,
    gentlemen, who DOES trouble himself about a warming-pan?
    When was the peace of mind of man or woman broken or disturbed
    by a warming-pan, which is in itself a harmless, a useful,
    and I will add, gentlemen, a comforting article of domestic
    furniture?  Why is Mrs. Bardell so earnestly entreated not to
    agitate herself about this warming-pan, unless (as is no doubt the
    case) it is a mere cover for hidden fire–a mere substitute for
    some endearing word or promise, agreeably to a preconcerted
    system of correspondence, artfully contrived by Pickwick with a
    view to his contemplated desertion, and which I am not in a
    condition to explain?  And what does this allusion to the slow
    coach mean?  For aught I know, it may be a reference to Pickwick
    himself, who has most unquestionably been a criminally slow
    coach during the whole of this transaction, but whose speed will
    now be very unexpectedly accelerated, and whose wheels,
    gentlemen, as he will find to his cost, will very soon be greased
    by you!'”

  5. pinostabaum
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:31 PM | Permalink

    and there you have it: gleick (mostly) admits it: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

    anyone have an over-under for when he admits to forging the strategy memo?

  6. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    P.G. has admitted guilt. See Revkin’s blog.

  7. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    New amazing development as just blogged by Revkin: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

  8. theduke
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    Gleik’s confession on Huffington:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

  9. theduke
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    He says the fake document was sent to him anonymously. How convenient.

    • Ken Hall
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

      Indeed. He obtained the documents by deception. Who believes that he is not lying now? He is in serious damage limitation mode, giving a limited hangout, when all the evidence still points to him as the alleged originator of the faked document.

      The mainstream media have been much slower in picking up and reporting the truth about this leak, and correcting their unprofessional haste, lack of fact-checking and bias in reporting this leak with undue haste and zeal!

      The BBC’s Richard Black has been particularly lethargic in his reportage, like on climategate, unlike his original springing into action to attack the HI and defend the “whistle-blower”, who is now known to be a deceptive, dishonest ID thief.

      Not only should Gleick be removed from all professional bodies in response to his fraud, libel, slander and deception, but their are many members of the mainstream media who likewise should be sacked! Especially if they are employed by the BBC, who have a charter pledge to be impartial reporters of truth!

    • MrPete
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

      Re: theduke (Feb 20 20:44),
      If it was sent to him (obviously electronically), then his defense is clear: email leaves traces.

      Gleick needs to “put up” quickly, and cooperate with authorities in this to identify and nail the author of the fake memo. Otherwise, it’s all gonna land on his head.

  10. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    Now the question is…does Gleick’s explanation about the fake memo stand up to.scrutiny?

    I will have to wait for an answer tomorrow about that, otherwise I won’t stand up myself either.

    • Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

      If, as Gleick claims, the fake memo was sent to him (as opposed to authored – or co-authored [consider the Mashey mashups of postings past] by him) then, IMHO, his judgment is even more severely impaired than he has acknowledged.

      Revkin’s preamble and post-confession tone of empathy (if not sympathy) does not serve him well, IMHO.

  11. sergeimk
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

    Steve you say:
    2. …In fact, Koch had contributed only $25,000 to Heartland’s Health Care (HCN) program in 2011 and $200,000 was being sought for this program in 2012. (Quite aside from other marks of forgery, it is inconceivable to me that Bast would make this sort of error in a board memo.)

    Surely this is wrong for the “form 990″ – a public document – states part IV – 6

    Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts where donors have the right to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts…

    To which the HI replies NO

    Either I do not understand form 990 or someone else is mistaken.

    • max (small m)
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

      You do not understand form 990.

      Donor advised funds are a special class of restricted funds (see part X line 28 & 29), but the two are not synonymous. A restricted donation contains restrictions placed AT THE TIME the donation is made on how it can be used, once the donation has been made the donor no longer has any right to control how the donation is used . Sometimes the donor retains the control over how the funds are used AFTER the donation is made, creating a donor advised fund.

      —I cut chunks of this post out because it considered some ongoing lawsuits where donors are suing recipients for misusing restricted donations, which is technically a form of control, but isn’t germane to distinguishing between restricted & advised funds, maybe replace “control” with “control short of invoking the law”.

  12. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

    “As CA readers are aware, I disliked the libertarian trappings of the event and wasn’t included in the original program for the much reduced 2011 conference, though I was sent a late invitation (and declined.)”

    I think you should stick to the policy of avoiding politics – ’tis your brand. Libertarian means ‘free’. This means anyone can say whatever they want and it does not necessarily represent the reasonable facets of the organization. While my political views are conservative, I certainly didn’t fit with many at that conference either.

    Science first, politics second.

    • Tom deSabla
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

      Yeah. Thanks for saying this. Because sometimes it’s hard to talk about so much lying and deceiving in climate “science” without connecting it to the basic political goal of controlling opinions and people. And for me, it’s hard not to compare this with other issues that I see similar things going on with regard to.

      So, so while we strive to maintain separation and focus as Steve has asked…I’m sure we all recognize that there are always connections.

      People sometimes pretend not to be ideological, but we all are whether we admit it or not.

  13. theduke
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    He says that in an attempt to find verify the authenticity of the fake document sent to him anonymously, he posed as a Heartland Insider and requested the documents.

    Question: why would anyone send such a document to him anonymously? And if it was sent anonymously, why wouldn’t he fully verify it before releasing it? And in releasing it why would he only release it to warmist sites?

    He’s made a big mistake by creating more questions than he’s answering. Given the deviousness of the act, nothing he says is credible at this point.

    Revkin is right. His career is over.

    Although I’m sure he’ll do fine as a speaker posing as a martyr for the left-wing warmist political movement.

    • Tom deSabla
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

      Poor Peter.

  14. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    And perhaps for his next act of contrite confession, Gleick will finally acknowledge that when he wrote his “review” of The Delinquent Teenager … he had not read the book!

  15. Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    Steve, for the record, in your post the text following:

    Next Hickman is deceived by the fake quotation about

    is a repeat from the quoted paragraph that precedes it.

  16. stan
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    A significanty part of credibility for a scientist or any other person whose work relies on logic and reason, is their competence at the basic tasks of a scholar — read with comprehension, analyze what they’ve read, draw insights from their prior learning as applied to their analysis, organize their thoughts, formulate a coherent opinion/argument/conclusion, and present it cogently in writing (and/or orally).

    Steve makes a very basic point: “Although media that were duped by the fake memo have tried to argue that its contents are fully supported by the board documents, in my opinion, numerous claims in the fake memo, including the money quotes that animated so many articles, are readily seen to be unsupported by the unfabricated documents, as well as being untrue.”

    Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on Steve’s analysis. We have our own opportunity to do so. But as with so much of Steve’s parsings, I would advise that one disagree with him at your own risk. He’s very thorough, level-headed, and even-handed.

    What then can we make of those who try to argue that the fake memo is simply a recap of the other documents? I think that they have clearly damaged their own credibility. Their reasons for doing so may be simply the stuff of CYA and perhaps understandable. But nevertheless, this incident provides a clear and revealing insight into the quality of their basic scholarly competence. We can read the documents. We can read the fake memo. We can draw our conclusions and see how well they stack up.

    As far as I am concerned, if they can’t read with basic comprehension and see the differences, their failure or inability to do so with any competence impugns other analyses which they present to the public. They’ve damaged their credibility.

  17. Phil R
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    theduke
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “He says that in an attempt to find verify the authenticity of the fake document sent to him anonymously, he posed as a Heartland Insider and requested the documents.”

    And since he claims he was trying to verify the documents, I suppose he has a copy of the email to verify that they were originally sent to him by someone else?

  18. Bill Jamison
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    Creating an email account using another person’s name in an effort to defraud is a violation of California Penal Code Section 528.5.

    Seems like a clear cut case to me.

    Steve:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
    who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another
    actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other
    electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,
    or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable
    pursuant to subdivision (d).
    (b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if
    another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe,
    that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.
    (c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include
    opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social
    networking Internet Web site in another person’s name.
    (d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not
    exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a
    county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and
    imprisonment.
    (e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who
    suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a)
    may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory
    damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to
    paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision
    (g) of Section 502.
    (f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other
    law.

    • Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

      I think the law has clearly been broken.

      However, it will require a lot of political will for this to be prosecuted. The prosecutor is likely to be ending their political career, aside from any personal risk.

      I think this is a case best pursued by the FBI: clearly Gleick indulged in inter-state wire-fraud. But I also doubt the Holder DOJ has the will to prosecute.

  19. Manfred
    Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

    I find most troubling, that so many journalists in influential positions where not able or willing to detect the fabrication.

    That was not a difficult task !

    And it is disturbing that these influential journalists will continue to comment on other disputed issues, such as climate science, hoeckeysticks or climategate.

    • Tom deSabla
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

      same thing happened with the Bush National Guard story that Dan Rather ran with.

      CBS had more than enough resources to check and didn’t.

  20. Barry Brill
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    Whoever may have forged the original “strategy document, Gleick clearly adopted it as his own. He then “uttered” the forgery and published the defamation to a distribution chain of blogs.

    His carefully-crafted statement is not exculpatory and won’t offer any significant hindrance to legal remedies. Revkin is obviously right in inferring that the Gleick career is dead and buried. Even Time Mag sees the deception as “a firing offence” for any journalist.

  21. mt
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    A few other datapoints that may be worth mentioning.

    Jan 5, the 2011 Climate B.S. Awards from Gleick, which mentions Heartland twice.

    Jan 12, in a comment, Gleick suggests that Heartland should release a list of funders, and mentions the Form 990 (which is a public document).

    Feb 7, Gleick responds to a Heartland piece.

    Seems like there was a bit of a dustup between Gleick and Heartland leading up to the release of documents.

    Steve: yes, I’d followed that dustup. I thought about including it. I’ll post on it.

  22. Jerry Haney
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM | Permalink

    snip – politics

  23. Jerry Haney
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:08 AM | Permalink

    Hey, why was I sniped? Steve is the one who brought politics into this discussion with his comments on Libertarian ideas. I was responding to that.

    • Gdn
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

      Hey, why was I sniped? Steve is the one who brought politics into this discussion with his comments on Libertarian ideas. I was responding to that.

      His comment on Libertarian ideas is that they aren’t his. I expect that the comment is more a clarifying that he has no inherent connection to or support of their overarching philosophies rather than being a specific comment on the philosophies themselves, and thus his previous participation was based solely on the matters at hand.

      • Tom deSabla
        Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

        Well, I don’t agree with your assessment, but it’s still Steve’s blog, and we libertarians are quite sensitive somtimes. It’s a long story, but we do have reason to be.

      • Jerry Haney
        Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

        Steve’s comment was “I disliked the libertarian trappings of the event”.

        If that is not expressing a dislike for Libertarian ideas, then someone is fooling themselves. I would hope that this excellent blog does not start to emulate agw blogs by sniping ideas you don’t like or tough to answer.


        Steve: I didn’t like the adulation of Al Gore at AGU either and criticized that.

        As far as I’m concerned, libertarianism has no place in a “science” conference. If Heartland wishes to promote libertarianism, the US is a free country, but, in my opinion, they should not do so at a conference seeking scientific respectability. This discussion is off-topic and I will delete further discussion.

        • theduke
          Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

          It’s his blog. Everyone gets snipped. I got snipped today, as did RomanM and Mr.Pete, people who’ve actually worked on the blog before.

          Deal with it.

  24. Phillip Bratby
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:22 AM | Permalink

    You have not mentioned the role of Richard Black of the BBC in widely disseminating the fake memo and stolen emails. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

  25. oldtimer
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Many years ago I, with others, was the victim of a forgery that was published by a UK newspaper. It received very wide coverage at the time. The perpetrator finished up in the clink and the newspaper paid substantial damages for libel. It occurred to me, after reading this post, that the victims of this event should consult with lawyers in relation to UK libel law.

  26. dearieme
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

    ‘concepts like “fraud” and “hoax” as unhelpful in understanding the issues': I agree with you about “hoax”.

  27. Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    By invoking the “Tallbloke Rule”, the 15 recipients of the stolen documents will have their homes raided and computers confiscated???

  28. Andy
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

    I couldn’t resist–the claims that the fake memo is supported by official documentation sounds rather suspiciously like “fake, but accurate.” Don’t they ever learn?

  29. Craig Loehle
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    Gleick at this point is claiming he did not alter any documents. While possible, the prominence of Gleick in the fake memo and other aspects of the writing make it look like his, not someone elses. I smell a partial confession.

    • Tony Hansen
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

      Could there be more than one voice inhabiting the same space?
      (I didn’t do it!!…and neither did I!!)

  30. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    “As CA readers are aware, I disliked the libertarian trappings of the event and wasn’t included in the original program for the much reduced 2011 conference, though I was sent a late invitation (and declined.)

    ..As part of my remarks, I reminded the audience that, notwithstanding Climategate, many serious scientists were concerned about the impact of global warming on entirely different grounds and urged the audience to view concepts like “fraud” and “hoax” as unhelpful in understanding the issues. (See remarks here). As was observed at the time, I received very tepid one-hand-clapping applause afterwards.”

    SteveM, I would hope you would know the differences between what might be described as Rush Limbaugh conservatives, who might well not take kindly to hearing that the use of terms like climate fraud and hoax are not helpful, and libertarians, who in my experiences would be in total agreement with your admonition.

    While some have described HI as a libertarian organization, and probably because they advocate for free enterprise political solutions, I doubt that that organization or libertarians would consider it libertarian.

    I do, however, see some futility in asking people to refrain from using certain terms like “hoax” and on the other side “waist deep in sea water” because at the end of the day those people in restraint will probably not be any better informed to intelligently discuss climate issues than they were before.

  31. Scott M
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    “including the money quotes that animated so many articles”

    Now, where the quotes in question actually listing dollar amounts or are you making a porn reference?

  32. Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

    I definetly recall @georgemonbiot – tweeting the ‘dissuade teachers from teahing science quote” I Kid you not..

    Howvwer all evidence of it seems to have disappeared, anyway to recover deleted tweets?

  33. Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Google cache is my friend ;-) !!

    George Monbiot.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NX9MIVcasc8J:inagist.com/GeorgeMonbiot/169713162696921089/+george+monbiot+%22I+kid+you+not%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

  34. Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    I simply fail to understand why all this matters.

    No matter that Heartland has an agenda. It isn’t like the IPCC doesn’t have one, nor all the other pro-AGW funding sources. Big deal. That is what Hearland does, for heaven’s sake.

    But even more so, from what I have seen Hearltand’s money (a drop in the bucket compared to what is going on on the other side) hasn’t had any tangible effect on the debate. Yes, they host their annual conference. But does that specifically DO anything to move the skeptical side of the debate forward?

    Hardly.

    What HAS moved the debate forward on the skeptical side is:

    1.) Climategate
    2.) Climategate
    3.) Climategate
    4.) What’s Up With That
    5.) Climate Audit

    And none of those have anything to do with Heartland money or being tied in with Heartland’s agenda.

    I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen one thing they’ve spent money on that has moved us forward an inch. It is perhaps nice that they are around, but they certainly are not a major player.

    If Gleick wanted to muckrake, he’d have done better finding that Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre were paid slaves to the oil industry – but of course, he couldn’t, because they aren’t.

    This is all a tempest in a teacup, and missing the entire point: Heartland doesn’t matter in this debate.

    Steve Garcia

    • dougieh
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

      feet2thefire

      your “I simply fail to understand why all this matters” misses the PR/Policy level this whole “scientific (so called) debate has degenerated into.

      after the head blows you note
      1.) Climate
      2.) Climategate
      3.) Climategate? not yet
      4.) What’s Up With That & others
      5.) Climate Audit

      they rise at the count & the fight gets personal.

      they desperatly need a climategate on their side to sooth nerves, finally come the below belt responses, Gleick is now a hero for some (go figure).
      ding,ding – round x(fight fair, the judges marking will be unbiased).

      • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 12:52 AM | Permalink

        Item 1. was supposed to be Climategate also.

        I see Gleick as a tree-hugger out of control. He seems to be the kind who would put railroad spikes in trees, to maim and kill lumberjacks. And, yes, some thought those murderers were heroes, too.

        But Heartland only has one conference per year, and it is a dainty little insubstantial thing. Their money isn’t enough to pee on. Only WUWT and CA fought the good fight with any effectiveness, and THAT had only enough effect to hold on until something came along. Without claiming any psychic powers, I prayed a long time that some whistlebower or Daniel Ellsburg type would get disgusted and out the insiders. When Climategate came along, I was SOOOOO happy that one did. Without Climategate 1, nothing would be different today. The warmistas would still have the podium to themselves, with the Wattses and the M&M boys snipping at their heels and getting no one to really listen in the MSM.

        Huzzah for FOIA, whoever he/she may be.

        Steve Garcia

  35. Jeremy
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    By way of disclaimer, I spoke at the Heartland conferences in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, I was a local celebrity in the wake of Climategate and received a standing ovation when my speech was announced. As part of my remarks, I reminded the audience that, notwithstanding Climategate, many serious scientists were concerned about the impact of global warming on entirely different grounds and urged the audience to view concepts like “fraud” and “hoax” as unhelpful in understanding the issues. (See remarks here). As was observed at the time, I received very tepid one-hand-clapping applause afterwards. The audience liked Monckton much better. However, some people told me afterwards that I had said things that needed to be said to that audience. As CA readers are aware, I disliked the libertarian trappings of the event and wasn’t included in the original program for the much reduced 2011 conference, though I was sent a late invitation (and declined.)

    In fairness to all, much of Heartland’s conference and those who want to attend is a natural reaction to offensive actions against lives and careers taken by those who fully subscribe to CAGW. While your approach of keeping true skepticism alive at such a conference is to be commended, it should come as no shock that those wanting to hear that they’re not insane for disbelieving the official dogma would find a little bitterness at being told that their opponents are not insane.

    That said, I think it’s high time that science moved on and began ignoring the charlatans on both sides, starting with Peter Gleick and in many ways, Heartland. Their mutual destruction is to be celebrated, not mourned.

  36. Hardy Cross
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    As to whether Gleick created the strategy memo; I noticed that the unknown author used the rare word “subset.”  This stood out to me, as such a word is rarely used outside academia.  I wondered if Gleick used the word in his earlier writings so I googled his name and “subset.”  I searched the first 20 unique documents and, amazingly, found that he uses the word “subset” at least once in nearly every document.

    Amazing coincidence?

    • Tom deSabla
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

      Nice! Circumstantial, but nice.

    • michael hart
      Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

      Now go back and google him without “subset” as a search term. Sorry, but on its own that’s merely self-selected data.

      • Hardy Cross
        Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

        I downloaded his papers and did an interior search for the word “subset”. He uses it about once in each paper.

  37. P. Solar
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

    “climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    This is a key phrase which identifies it as a fake of warmist origin and not the work of a sceptical outfit.

    There is the implicit assumption in this phrase that science means “the” science.

    Science used to be a collective noun. In “the science” it becomes one unity, an indivisible item. Unanimity and consensus is assumed and incontrovertible. It is an anathema of what science really is.

    This misrepresentation is a linguistic PR trick that was adopted around the time “An Inconvenient (Un)truth” was released.

    What the quote actually says is that controversy and uncertainty dissuade teachers but it has been further taken out of context and shortened to simply HI “dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    But the fact that “science” clearly means “our science” or “the science” is a solid indication that this text came from a AGW propagandist not from a sceptical group.

    Grammatical errors also seem to match common errors made by Gleick elsewhere.

    Far from reducing H.I.’s funding for next year he seems quite likely to be contributing to it personally, on a court order if HI sue.

  38. Jeff Norman
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Actually, this is kind of erie/disturbing. Let’s say you had a particular POV that you wanted to promote. What model would you use to get your POV across?

    1. Gather up the information that is readily available (Stuff from the Heartland website, tax forms, etc. (*)) If this isn’t enough…
    2. Gather up information that is not readily available (trick Heartlands into revealling confidential information (**)) If this isn’t enough…
    3. Alter gathered information to suit your POV (Koch (***)) If this isn’t enough…
    4. Create a story that clearly expresses your POV (the memo (****))

    Why would anyone think something like this would work?

    Make the following substitutions:
    * published tree ring data, etc.
    ** unpublished data from pals
    *** truncate data as required or flip upside down or just mislabel
    **** creative use of PCs to create to the right looking graph

  39. don
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Hmmm, the plot thickens? The Atlantic’s Mcardle speculates the anonymous faked memo sent by snail mail (very difficult to trace, if at all) to Gleick was an elaborate sting: Either by a private person or someone in HI. If the latter HI, according to Mcardle, deserves a place in the “supervillain Hall of Fame.” I don’t know why? Stings are done everyday, is it only moral when the State or its agents do the sting? (Or, it’s only science when the state does it or funds it?) As long as the private persons or HI’s actions are legal, and even if they’re not legal, the sting only offers the culprit (target of the sting) the opportunity to be good or bad. Gleick choose badly. The interesting question is why was Gleick chosen for the sting? Did someone know he would fail the test or were other persons sent that fake memo and are not talking?

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

      puh-leeze. There is overwhelming evidence that Gleick wrote the fake memo himself after he got the Heartland documents. In my opinion, Gleick’s story about getting the fake memo in the mail is a limited hang-out to make his actions seem less sordid. There isn’t a shred of evidence for a sting operation other than Gleick’s own increasingly improbably assertions.

      • Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

        Increasingly improbable and starting from a very high base.

      • don
        Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

        That’s good to know. I haven’t heard “limited hang-out” used since Watergate. I do recall someone saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though.

      • Hardy Cross
        Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

        I think I found another link to Gleick writing the memo. He used the rare word “subset” which sounded odd so I Google his writings and found that he likes that word and uses it in nearly all of his writings.

    • Ian Blanchard
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

      don
      Are you reading the same articles as me? The most recent McArdle article on this subject seems to come as close as the lawyers would allow to her saying Gleick wrote the fake memo

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-most-surprising-heartland-fact-not-the-leaks-but-the-leaker/253449/

  40. theduke
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    From Wiki:

    The phrase was coined in the following exchange[3]:
    “PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the–let it hang out, so to speak?

    DEAN: Well, it’s, it isn’t really that–

    HALDEMAN: It’s a limited hang out.

    DEAN: It’s a limited hang out.

    EHRLICHMAN: It’s a modified limited hang out.

    PRESIDENT: Well, it’s only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately.”

    Before this exchange, the discussion captures Nixon outlining to Dean the content of a report that Dean would create, laying out a misleading view of the role of the White House staff in events surrounding the Watergate burglary. In Ehrlichman’s words: “And the report says, ‘Nobody was involved,'”.

    In Gleick’s “report” he says he wasn’t “involved” in the forgery, that he got the document from an anonymous source. This will no doubt precipitate months of idle speculation on who the anonymous source was. He may have done something really stupid, but it doesn’t means he’s not clever.

  41. theduke
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    The Hombres, one-hit wonders, 1967:

  42. Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    While most of the comment about the HI docments has been on the morality issue, I’ve done a bit of analysis on budget itself. You can see it at:

    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php

    Under the heading “David versus Goliath, or vice versa”.

    I conclude that both sides are a pair of Goliaths.

    • theduke
      Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

      I disagree with your conclusion. To give some perspective, I read somewhere (admittedly I haven’t verified it) that the IPCC’s travel budget is larger than HI’s entire budget.

      • Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

        The HI and the GWPF (the UK equivalent) are indeed David’s but the oil and gas industry is a hugh Goliath and has other ways of making its influence felt.

        • MrPete
          Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

          Re: Ron Manley (Feb 22 15:23),
          You assume the oil/gas industry funds only one side. They do not.

          Steve: snip. Sorry, Pete. This is off-topic to Gleick and well-trodden. Ron has provided a link to his blog and provides for comments there.

        • RomanM
          Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

          Ron, your post is very weak. You provide oil company revenue (not profit) figures, provide zero evidence for how much of that revenue those same companies may use to directly influence the climate debate (on either side – I’d bet that the AGW numbers are higher) and then declare that “both protagonist(s) and antagonists of AGW have adequate sources of funding”. Look around! Is it really the case that “the climate wars are being fought on a level battlefield”?

          To quote Steve, puhleeze! ;)

          Steve: Roman, this is off-topic to Gleick and well-trodden. Ron has provided a link to his blog and provides for comments there.

  43. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    James Gleick has deleted his twitter favorably mentioning the Guardian story about his brother. Image is at: http://topsy.com/www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

  44. Posted Feb 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre,

    I don’t know if you have already spotted this, but there is a reliable timestamp relating to Littlemore’s post at DeSmogBlog on their facebook page, announcing the post: Tuesday, 2/14/2012 (21:14:06 GMT) 13:14:06 PST

    • A. Scott
      Posted Feb 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

      Caveman – actually there are two reliable times available from that one FB post … one generated by their RSS to FB feed (which created this post) and the other the actual time of the FB post itself.

      The RSS feed shows “Published” time as 2012-02-14 21:14:06 GMT which is 1:14pm PST. This time is automatically generated by the RSS feeder program.

      The time of the Facebook post itself will be different for everyone who reads it – FB displays the time in the zone you are in (based I believe on your computer’s system time timezone). For me, in CST, the post time shows as 3:16pm – which would be 1:16pm PST.

      The 1:14pm PST post time for the DeSmog Littlemore post does not match the “Created” time shown on the page if you use the “Print” button at DeSmog – which shows “14:14″ as the time – which would be 2:14pm PST.

      However, as Steve correctly surmised, the other evidence – which has a higher degree of confidence, shows, in multiple cases, that the “Created” time on the Print page is showing MST – probably the server or the DeSmog blogging program has incorrect time set.

      • Posted Feb 26, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

        Actually, when I go to the DeSmogBlog facebook page at

        http://www.facebook.com/DeSmogBlog?v=wall

        the blog post notices are timestamped explicitly in GMT, as I posted above.

        • A. Scott
          Posted Feb 27, 2012 at 5:02 AM | Permalink

          Caveman – we are talking about 3 different time references here:

          1.) The RSS Feed time – shown in GMT – that appears IN the Facebook post noted. This time stamp is automatically generated by the RSS Feed program which creates the Facebook post, when a story is posted on DeSmog.

          2.) The time the Facebook post was made – Facebook displays this time in the time zone the reader is in. It was two minutes later than the RSS Feeder GMT time.

          3.) THe 3rd time is what shows on the DeSmog site itself. This is the link to that story – there is no posting time noted.

          However if you hit the “Print” icon on that page you get THIS PAGE – which does show a “Created” time of “2012-02-14 14:14″ … 14:14 in the PST timezone where DeSmog is located would be 2:14pm PST.

          Because there are two system generated verified times – from the RSS Feed and the Facebook post – which show 1:14 and 1:16pm PST respectively, we can determine the “Created” time on the DeSmog Blog “Print” page – which shos 2:14pm – must be MST zone.

        • cdquarles
          Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

          Re: A. Scott (Feb 27 05:02), The server could be in Phoenix, AZ. Arizona does not follow normal DST changes if I remember correctly. Let me check … yep. Arizona remains on Mountain Standard Time.

13 Trackbacks

  1. [...] McIntyre has an excellent and detailed breakdown of the Heartland documents which like Climategate, AGAIN exposes the false arguments of the politically motivated [...]

  2. [...] I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here. [...]

  3. [...] documents. In addition, we have another conundrum where facts don’t line up with the claims. From a time line of events created by Steve McIntyre we see that the forged ‘strategy’ document supposedly sent to Gleick actually was [...]

  4. [...] kan ik mij goed vinden in de beschrijving die McIntyre geeft over zijn optreden in 2010: By way of disclaimer, I spoke at the Heartland conferences in 2009 and [...]

  5. [...] McIntyre has diligently documented the background and timeline since Gleick – with the assistance of 15 cheerleading chums – launched what they may [...]

  6. [...] McIntyre has diligently documented the background and timeline since Gleick – with the assistance of 15 cheerleading chums – launched what they may well have [...]

  7. By The Gleick Tragedy | Watts Up With That? on Feb 28, 2012 at 8:47 PM

    [...] I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here. [...]

  8. [...] I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here. [...]

  9. [...] http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/ is that Gleick did not have a copy of a “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” when he was [...]

  10. [...] The obvious conclusion (which other evidence supports)http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/ is that Gleick did not have a copy of a “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” when he was phishing Heartland. He did not have a copy because he (or whoever the forger was) had not written it yet. [...]

  11. [...] to me to be about the how the current scandal surrounding Peter Gleick [fakegate, heartlandgate, gleickgate -  what have you] has turned into a state resembling guerrilla or asymmetric warfare between the [...]

  12. [...] Gleick, though he is the obvious suspect) cooked up the fake document that has the juiciest quotes. Steve McIntyre has a great post showing the timeline of the story as it bounced through the blogosphere. Skim through the initial [...]

  13. [...] is no doubting that these journalistic idiots – and many more besides – were duped. But in fact they were convinced of the story before the documents were even [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,308 other followers

%d bloggers like this: