A Reverse Climategate for "Deniers"?


Is it possible for a conspiracy to have two sides?

Quintillions (at least) of photons are streaking throughout the Internet bearing claims that the nefarious plans to undermine climate change science being hatched by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute in cahoots with its corporate masters have been revealed—in leaked documents no less. Much merriment (and hatred) is being expressed by those called AGW "alarmists" by the Heartlanders. The folks whose intemperate emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the Climategate scandal must be reveling in schadenfreude.

Particularly damning is a leaked document entitled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" which purports to detail, among other things, what would amount to a disinformation campaign aimed at developing a counter climate change curriculum aimed K-12 education. According to this document: 

Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. 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.

Some "alarmist" blogs chortle knowingly that this "strategy" is a mirror image of that of the creationist Discovery Institute which aims to undermine the teaching of biological evolution in public schools. Some "alarmists" particularly highlight the last damning phrase, "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." 

Ah, but is the document real? The Heartland Institute says it's a fake

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.

Singling out this document implies that some of the less incendiary documents may be real. Will keep Reason readers posted as this story develops. 

For some background see my column, "Lukewarmers, Denialists, and Other Climate Change Skeptics" in which I report from last summer's Sixth International Climate Change Conference put on by the Heartland Institute. 

NEXT: Minnesota Lawmakers: Kill Regulations, Create Jobs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just another example of how “climate change” and AGW are so completely politicized that the whole issue is an utterly tainted dead letter.

    There is now only TEAM HOT and TEAM NOT now, and they align pretty closely with TEAM BLUE and TEAM RED.

    Yay for politicization of everything!

    1. Team Hot and Team Not. Your work?

      1. My work. On the spot, even.

        1. Nice.

          1. Very nice.

            1. Thanks, guys. If I had a heart it would feel something right now. I have no idea what that would be, but I bet it would be something.

              1. Unabashed Narcissism on display. Me-likee

              2. Is this what you humans mean by. . .appreciation and humility?

              3. Can I quote you?

    2. Epi: Ain’t that the truth!

      1. On that point, shouldn’t you note in this article that both Reason and the Heartland Institute are heavily funded by the Koch Brothers?

        1. Oh, the irony. The un-self-awareness. It’s so delicious on a thread about the politicization of everything.

          1. “It’s so delicious on a thread about the politicization of everything.”

            Everything *is* political, because politics is war through other means and war is a constant, even in stable societies. You whining about politicization is itself a political act – you are condemning the utterance of certain facts, such as the fact that reason.com and HI are peddlers of marketing, and not motivated by intellectual conviction and effort.

            1. such as the fact that reason.com and HI are peddlers of marketing, and not motivated by intellectual conviction and effort.

              Right. That’s why David Koch is a major funder of Nova – for the marketing.

              1. I absolutely love NOVA… quite possibly the best science show ever produced.

                (In case you’re wondering, I’m able to watch it via the PBS station in Buffalo, NY.)

                Kudos to PBS for putting on some quality programming. I’ll now resume hating them for being government funded.

    3. Team The-End-Is-Nigh and Team Deny

      1. A distant third place. Better luck next time.

        1. Yeah, they all can’t be winners. But better to have tried and fai … no, it would have been better not to have tried.

    4. It really sucks for the (apparently rare) people like me who are more interested in knowing what is really going on and how things really work than being on the winning team.

      1. Good luck with that. The climate is a chaotic system with many feedback loops some positive some negative. Then there is the whole which effects are large enough to make a noticeable effect. The sun is the zeroth order effect (most important) then comes the earths topology, vulcanism, ocean currents, in that order of impact. Then somewhere further down the list – human activity.

        OK. Now given all the variables how do you determine what is mans impact – especially since unless a system is linear you cannot detangle the measured output from the system – like average global temperature.

        Lastly the way one computes something temperature globally is not a trivial exercise, and there are many factors that need to be considered when looking at the data.

    5. TEAM HOT and TEAM NOT

      “A Dresden paper, the Weidmann, which thinks that there are kangaroos (Beutelratte) in South Africa, says the Hottentots (Hottentoten) put them in cages (kotter) provided with covers (lattengitter) to protect them from the rain. The cages are therefore called lattengitterwetterkotter, and the imprisoned kangaroo Lattengitterwetterkotterbeutelratte. One day an assassin (attent?ter) was arrested who had killed a Hottentot woman (Hottentotenmutter), the mother of two stupid and stuttering children in Str?ttertrotel. This woman, in the German language is entitled Hottentotenstrottermutterattent?ter. The murderer was confined in a kangaroo’s cage?Beutelrattenlattengitterwetterkotter?whence a few days later he escaped, but fortunately he was recaptured by a Hottentot, who presented himself at the mayor’s office with a beaming face. ‘I have captured the Beutelratte,’ said he. ‘Which one?’ said the mayor; ‘we have several.’ ‘The Attent?terlattengitterwetterkotterbeutelratte.’ ‘Then why don’t you say at once the Hottentotenstrottelmutterattent?terlattengitterwetterkotterbeutelratte?'”

    6. Well at least we know that the AGW folks would never make anything up or exaggerate it.

    7. Team IS WARM!!!1!11!!

      Team ISLAM!1!1!1!!!!

    8. Yay for politicization of everything!

      Its a frikkin conspiracy.

      The solution to climate change is small government and consumer choice. Team Red and Team Blue are both against small government so instead of debating the solution to climate change, they spend years arguing about science.

    9. Exactly my thoughts on this. I strongly suspect that those who speak loudest on this issue have the least knowledge of the issue.

      ACC is a matter of scientific study, the facts are out there somewhere. Very few people have the specific knowledge necessary to even start to analyze and interpret the facts. 99.9% of the ACC debate is nothing more than the braying of jackasses who base their beliefs on nothing more than what they want to be true.

      And how are these beliefs any different than religious faith? Faith is something that defies reason, that transcends reason, that refutes reason. Faith is not a belief held in spite of the lack of evidence to support that belief, it is a belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary. You cannot reason with someone whose beliefs are based on something other than reason.

      As Wittgenstein almost put it – there ain’t no use in talkin’ when there ain’t nobody listenin’.

      1. 99.9% of the ACC debate is nothing more than the braying of jackasses who base their beliefs on nothing more than what they want to be true.

        Too true. No one can stand those Duke and UNC fans.

      2. The physical science behind climate change is not that esoteric or difficult to understand.

        I for won don’t “want” climate change to be real. If it were a giant global conspiracy, and it were true that pumping a century’s worth of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere magically did not trap any heat, that would be the best outcome possible.

        But since we do know what’s going on and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can grasp the facts, we have to deal with it. I don’t know that I’d call deniers analogous to religious believers, but they do use the exact same tactics as creationists.

        1. We ‘know what’s going on’ the way Wall Street understood the future of financial markets in 2006.

        2. Tony,

          The debate isn’t about heat trapping gases… it’s well established that a doubling of CO2 causes around 1.2C of warming by itself.

          The debate is about feedbacks, which can either amplify or diminish that initial warming. Warmists generally believe that net feedback effects are strongly positive, and will result catastrophic warming. Skeptics believe that net feedback effects are neutral or potentially negative. (I’ll write what I believe in a follow up comment.)

          But do we REALLY “know what’s going on” with clouds and their feedback effect on climate? Here’s what the IPCC has to say:

          “…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.”

          “…understanding of the physical processes that control the response of boundary-layer clouds and their radiative properties to a change in climate remains very limited.”

          “The sign of the climate change radiative feedback associated with the combined effects of dynamical and temperature changes on extratropical clouds is still unknown.”

          “The role of polar cloud feedbacks in climate sensitivity has been emphasized by Holland and Bitz (2003) and Vavrus (2004). However, these feedbacks remain poorly understood.”


          Does that sound like “settled science” to you?

    10. Tired of feeling like we don’t have a place where we can just be ourselves? Interested in meeting other like-minded folks who are Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual or Bi-friendly? The goal of ===bicupid*n/e/t====is to provide a fun, safe space for all Bisexual/Queer/Pansexual and Bi-friendly Transgender, Lesbian, Gay and “Straight-But-Not-Narrow” folks to find out about great Bi-inclusive stuff to do, gather and interact .

  2. You know, AGW isn’t even in the same universe as evolution when it comes to being established science. Especially when you start getting into the hyperbole added on to the rather mild claims made by most reputable climatologists in regards to global warming trends. So it’s not Creationists all over again. In fact, there’s a good case to be made that the reverse is true.

    1. The reverse is true. The AGW people and creationists are far more similar than they will ever admit right down to their faith based approach to science.

      1. Oh, come on. Be fair. Creationists don’t scam billions of dollars in handouts to push their religion.

        1. They would if they could.

          1. Assuming that cataclysmic AGW is proven to be false at some point, it would be instructive to see how the movement got so powerful. So we could avoid letting our science be so corrupted in the future.

            The dominance of string theory in physics research is similarly disturbing, albeit on a much smaller and nonpolitical scale.

            1. It got corrupted because it got politicized. Full stop. The instant I saw it lining up along the lines of TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE, that was it. That’s when the dishonesty, lies, and propaganda start.

              1. So in your view, one team can never be right and the other team wrong? What are you going to do if the LP becomes a major player?

                1. We have a two party system. In such systems, the parties will act as flip sides to the same coin, always having the opposite positions on subjects to one another. They will sometimes flip on these, especially depending on who is in power.

                  Since their positions have nothing to do with anything other than opposition, they mean nothing, especially since both parties are interested in increasing statism.

                  If a third party emerged, which I don’t think will happen in the US, that could change things, but I doubt much would change.

                  Politics isn’t about principles, it’s about power, and that will never, ever change, no matter how many parties you have.

                2. one team can never be right and the other team wrong?

                  They can be right out of sheer coincidence, sure. But this isn’t a debate between whether AGW exists or doesn’t. Then one team would have to be right, because it’s a binary. But the actual political support for AGW acts like this will doom our planet. So you have people who won’t even consider the science versus neo-Malthusians willing to commit unilateral economic suicide (read: Europeans) out of faith.

                  It’s damn hard to find doctrinaire Democrats or Republicans who have a nuanced view like, say, “AGW is probably real but I don’t know its extent or how policy [not even demanding libertarianism here] should best react.” Nope, just denialists and self-flagellants. Maybe one of them is right, but it’s out of team spirit not logic.

                  1. Nah.

                    Most of the Team Red people are saying things like ‘we don’t know enough’ and ‘science isn’t a consensus’ and stuff like that. They’re not simply asserting that warming isn’t happening and taking it on faith. Granted, they’ve got such a huge amount of shenanigans commited by the AGW folks who seem to feel that obvious lying isn’t a hindrance to their side that they can play off that more than anything–but, even with this, I find very few accepting that global warming isn’t happening on faith.

                    I think this ‘neither team is right’ and ‘team red is only right by accident’ stuff is a way to maintain the proper liberaltarian stance. By ignoring that team red’s rhetoric(if not their actions) is more closely in line with libertarianism than the actions and rhetoric of tean blue, one can maintain the illusion of being free of this whole ‘right/left’ thing and still get into the hip cocktail parties.

              2. You mean here?


            2. The dominance of string theory in physics is due to the same thing that makes American Idol popular – a generation of kids has been told how special they are and crave celebrity either by becoming a singing sensation or by authoring the next big paradigm shift in science.

          2. Would they? Creationists don’t like being marginalized and ridiculed and want to teach their view of the universe in the government school system, but do Creationists want to totally redefine the political economy of the world?

            1. OOOOOOh yeah.

              1. Suthenboy,
                OK prove it. Demonstrate some documentation where they are demanding $T’s in tax dollars get shuffled around in order to get the great unwashed in line with the program?

                1. I dont have to prove it, the church did that for me centuries ago. You are mistaken if you think the modern creationists arent of the same ilk and would put their church in the position of the medieval church in the blink of an eye.

                  1. “I dont have to prove it, the church did that for me centuries ago.”
                    Church != government
                    tithings != taxation
                    sunday school != mandatory K-12

                    “You are mistaken if you think the modern creationists arent of the same ilk and would put their church in the position of the medieval church in the blink of an eye.”

                    Yes.. because our government is SCREAMING for competition with the papacy.

                    Two completely different things, man.

                    1. suthenboy,
                      lumping the modern American protestants, evangelical, and even American post Vatican II Catholics in with the Catholic Church of even 200 years ago is a mind bender.

                      Rank bigotry and little else can explain such ignorance. What’s next? A warning about all Black men looking for white women? Of something about Joos?

      2. It certainly seems that way to me, though, to be fair, there are AGW advocates making crazy claims and there are serious scientists who lean towards an AGW factor in a general warming trend.

        1. It seems quite reasonable that human action has something to do with the climate. We do a lot of amazingly large scale stuff. But it doesn’t seem reasonable to say that anyone really knows how it works well enough to make any real predictions.

          1. That’s what’s crazy about the politics of the Hotters. I was receptive to the possibility when this all became vogue, but I was never overwhelmed by the actual evidence. What I was overwhelmed by were the overtly political and ridiculous claims made beyond that evidence. At that point, I asked Spock to raise the skeptical shields and sound yellow alert.

            1. “…overwhelmed by were the overtly political and ridiculous claims made beyond that evidence. ”

              And there you have it. That, and the raucous demands for money and stifling of liberty, it is a dead give-away.

            2. Yellow alert?! You fool!

              “Sir, may I quote General Order 12: ‘On the approach of any vessel, when communications have not been est…'”

              1. I did order the shields raised.

          2. We do a lot of amazingly large scale stuff.

            Human activity doesn’t seem so very large scale when one starts looking at the scale of non-human processes. Of course, the quantity of hydrocarbons emitted by rotting vegetation worldwide or the tonnage of water evaporated from the world’s oceans daily doesn’t come up in conversation very often.

            1. Yes, but that’s already accounted for in the regular cycle, it’s when you change that balance that something happens. Up to a point the system is ok, after a while though you could get some change.

              Where exactly that point is, is debatable of course, but that doesn’t mean small changes over time can’t make a difference. And the level of C02 PPM in the atmosphere certainly has increased.

              1. Yes, but that’s already accounted for in the regular cycle

                That would be true if the Earth were a system in equilibrium, but it is not.

                When non-human processes so vastly outstrip the human caused processes that the human caused effects are down in the noise, then the variations in the non-human processes blow away anything that mankind does.

                1. ‘That would be true if the Earth were a system in equilibrium, but it is not.’
                  Yes, and as it is chaotic the system typical oscillates around a median range. It is not the fragile ready to head off cliff sort of analogy that is so often repeated in the AGW narrative.

                  Shame that the AGW made the mess they have. There are a lot of things we should consider changing even though we won’t see the ice caps melting anytime soon.

    1. Don’t you understand? It’s real!!!

  3. damning phrase

    You know that picture of Obama and some tiny Euro-chooch checkin’ out girls’ butts on the stairs? I have a Confidential Recording of Obama’s remarks at that moment. (It says “Confidential Recording” right on it.) He says, “Let mesa throoo! Mesa on a diplomatic mission!”

    It’s damning.

    1. Hey where all de white wimmin at?!

  4. Even if it were real “conspiring” to push your policy narrative is an entirely different thing from “conspiring” to fudge the actual data. I don’t expect envirofacists to acknowledge the distinction though.

    Also trying to conflate climate change “denial” with creationism/intelligent design is horseshit.

    1. That’s just what an anti-science denier would say.

    2. That’s kinda what I thought, reading the supposedly damning passage. Is this the best the warmists got?

      1. Well, they’re desperate. TEAM HOT suffered an irreversible public trust fail and now all they can do is hope the same happens to TEAM NOT.

        1. The Notters have one huge advantage–they aren’t the ones making extraordinary claims. If the warming trend has really stopped or temperatures even start moving in the opposite direction, reality will make their argument for them.

          I can’t stand the increasing politicization of science. It’s corrupting one of the most important tools we humans have.

          1. On the other hand, the Hotters have the advantage that fear-mongering is an easy political sell. Doomsaying FTW!

            1. That’s because there’s money to be made in scaring people, and there’s no accountability for being wrong.

          2. It’s not just the politicization of science, which I agree is a bad thing. It’s the politicization of everything. Note how the TEAM dumbasses try to do things like score a movie or a TV show for their TEAM, or they try to pin something terrible like a murderer on the other TEAM.

            I’ve said before that politics has become sports for people who don’t care about sports or don’t find the tribalism of sports to be tribal enough. But there are only two TEAMs.

            Imagine if there were only the Giants and the Patriots, and no other football teams. You know, they way that people from the Northeast already think.

            This partisanship is just getting worse and worse, and it’s not going to let up. And those of us who do not want to be on either shitty TEAM just get fucked. Shit, even the TEAM members get fucked, they just don’t care because their TEAM is more important to them than anything else.

            1. I find it all so annoying. I like plenty of things that are politically unaligned with me. Like Asimov, who clearly had a more statist view than I do. So what? I like his books.

              1. It is entirely possible to admire the art while despising the artist. That’s something I count on.

                1. Hear, hear!

            2. Imagine if there were only the Giants and the Patriots, and no other football teams. You know, they way that people from the Northeast already think.

              We blow a lot of hot air but isn’t this basically true?

              1. Of course. I’m from the Northeast, dude. I wasn’t really joking because I know.

          3. But ProL, weather isn’t climate!

          4. “I can’t stand the increasing politicization of science. It’s corrupting one of the most important tools we humans have.”

            This is their greatest sin. By far.

            1. Any time there are three or more people involved, politics arises. Science has always been politicized. More than a few scientists have committed suicide because of the savage ridicule to which they were subjected.

              1. “More than a few scientists have committed suicide….”

                Not enough of the right ones, and by the right ones I mean the ones raping the shit out of science’s credibility in the public view.

                1. Remember, kids, scientists who don’t make up daft explanations for rising temperatures are rapists who should kill themselves! How you can simultaneously condemn politicisation of science is a mystery.

                  1. is obvious

          5. “I can’t stand the increasing politicization of science.”

            I can’t stand whiny cunts who think “POX ON ALL OF YOU MEANIES” is meritorious.

            1. Science doesn’t work very well when it isn’t science.

    3. Yes, that was my reaction, too. It’s just not the same thing as challenging actually established science.

  5. I’m waiting for the memo where Heartland officials are plotting to alter climate data and plant ice packs in temperature stations.

  6. two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

    Really, quality forging is a lost art. That sentence fits the “deniers are anti-science” narrative a little too obviously.

  7. I’m inclined to think that it is fake. The bit about not teaching science is just too much. But I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if people did think that way.

    Why are people so much more interested in being proven “right” than in knowing what is actually true?

    1. Hell if I know. I’m not politically opposed to AGW. If we’re really warming and that’s substantially due to human factors, okay. Then we’ll need to deal with it. But even if that is the case, the solution isn’t draconian political and economic measures. It’s more technology.

      My skepticism has increased quite a bit in recent years, so it’s not like I started out thinking it was all bullshit.

      1. If we’re really warming and that’s substantially due to human factors, okay. Then we’ll need to deal with it.

        Your statement is missing the necessary qualifications about having to prove that AGW would be a bad thing and about cost/benefit analysis.

        1. That’s fair. I was thinking about really dramatic warming, but your point is well made.

      2. I’m in about the same place, PL. I used to be much less skeptical of AGW. And I’m still open to the possibility. There is a lot of unwarranted certainty on both sides. We really don’t understand how climate works.

        1. We can’t even reliably figure out how complex systems like human nutrition work, and that’s a lot easier than dealing with global climate.

          1. People are starting to do some really cool stuff with modeling complex systems. But it is definitely in its infancy. Even when it is more mature, it is hard to say if it will be able to make very specific predictions since it has a lot to do with chaos theory.

          2. We can’t even reliably figure out how complex systems like human nutrition work

            That’s so true. I didn’t know that chicken nuggets are healthier than a turkey sandwich with cheese until just recently.

      3. No, there isn’t any technology in existance that could alleviate the problem. We need some “draconian political and economic measures” that allow humanity the wherewithal to invent the solution. We need dramatically smaller government and much greater consumer choice.

        1. well, considering the US government is the biggest polluter in America, you might be right.

    2. Zeb: May I suggest you take a look at my column, Climate Change and Confirmation Bias?

      1. What, no book to pimp?


    3. Good question Zeb, and it is not like you cant have your cake and eat it too. It is the people who let a narrative force them onto one side or the other that are the worst.

  8. As usual True Believer Bailey is a bit late and more than a dollar short. A much better discussion can be found over at wattsupwiththat.com/

    1. then go back there

  9. Nice Epi….I will be using that and giving credit of course. Team Hot has shot themselves in both feet. First by making claims that can be empirically refuted ( they had to know ), and second by getting caught lying and manipulating data.

    Team Not doesnt need to lie. For God’s sake, all they have to do is keep pointing at reality and stand back. The whole AGW scheme will collapse on it’s own.

    1. Unfortunately, only after trillions of dollars and much unnecessary suffering.

      1. 76 trillion I think is the number.

  10. 1) Sigh.

    2) The claim that the damning document is faked is verified how? (they were only holding it for a friend?)

    The team-hot/team-not stuff referred to is indeed annoying, but it seems important to recognize that those teams are political teams involved in a political debate. Separate issue from the scientific debate. Much different topics.

    1. You’ve seen the original?

    2. This morning on Slashdot a commenter sussed out the suspicious document. More at the link, but here’s a quote:

      So it’s possible that someone could have gotten their hands on a few legit documents (like the budget) and created this one and added it to the group. The metadata on the meeting agendas and such read “jbast” while the metadata on the climate strategy document reads “Joseph Bast.” Entirely possible they were created two different ways but then why does the climate strategy document appear photoscanned? Is he photoscanning his own internal documents? Why? Or did someone want this to look legit, photoscan it and then write “Joseph Bast” as the author to make it look authentic?

      1. I dumped all the metadata (seriously, just the data, no blog bullshit) from the PDFs and didn’t see that.

        I mean, clearly it was scanned, unlike the rest of the documents, and Heartland is claiming it’s not theirs, but I don’t really see a smoking gun that it’s a fake. And likewise I don’t really see anything to prove it’s real.

        1. Also, all this said, editing metadata is easy, and most of the dialogue about the veracity/falsehood of leaked documents should always be treated with suspicion.

  11. Even if the Heartland memo is true, in what way is:

    “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain ”

    immoral or controversial?

    1. Neither.
      Sounds perfectly reasonable to ensure future grad students and scientists go into a field with the notion that a highly controversial and unsettled matter of science is highly controversial and unsettled.

    2. In the sense that the group claiming it’s controversial or uncertain is paid by oil barons to make it controversial or uncertain in the first place. Consider if I were to publish anti-evolution research, and simultaneously to claim that the controversy I generated justified my seeking to remove evolution from a curriculum.

      1. Well if evolutionary biologists were inventing evidence out of thin air, hiding their data and preventing papers from getting published….then yeah i would want a group exposing that fraud.

        But evolutionary biologists don’t do that….it is a small group of climatologists that does.

        1. JC,

          It would be unlikely that you have done the leg-work to show that these behaviors are MORE prevalent in climatology than in other fields…including evolutionary biology. Someone may have by this point, but I haven’t seen it.

          1. There were a few thousand emails released from the University of East Anglia showing that these behaviors are prevalent in climatology.

            Not yet sure about evolutionary biology yet, so I can’t make a fair comparison.

    3. “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain ”

      Considering that the scientists in the climate gate email explicitly stated that the uncertainty is greater then what they publicly state i would have to say that would be the exact opposite of immoral or controversial.

  12. And if “Heartland Institute” had the ear of policymakers anywhere, this would be as bad as the UEA scandal.

    1. well they would also have to be preventing papers from being published, keeping published papers out of the IPPC report, engaging in smear campaign against anyone who disagrees with them (hell you can even agree with them but state you want to hear the skeptics out and still get smeared), hiding internal data and doubts about global warming and the evidence for it privately but saying publicly it is beyond doubt, and manufacturing “hide the decline” type work in which evidence is invented out of thin air.

      oh yeah they would also have to be denying access to their data and preventing others from using it or checking it, and out right losing the data and “forgetting” how it was used to in their papers and reports.

      then they would be as bad as the UEA scandal.

  13. Portlandia is actually a documentary.

  14. Personally, I will welcome our new chemotroph overlords.

  15. Hey, is it getting warmer in here, or is it just me?

  16. When I first heard about this thing, I thought that Heartland had really fucked up. That TEAM HOT is pimping this pathetic (and likely fake) bit of trifle only betrays their desperation.

    1. exactly.

      How dare they push to have a politicized scandal be called out for what it really is.

  17. Any of you consider consulting what current science has to say? You don’t have to listen to a single politician or interest group. Just read fucking wikipedia.

    But this is reason, where what you *want* to believe trumps what’s true.

    1. Tony, what the current science says is “mmmmmmph, thump, mmmmph, thump”, which is the sound of someone who is bound and gagged and trying to escape. You’re confusing science with the opinion of dishonest people with PhDs.

    2. Tony,

      Read what I quoted from the IPCC above.

      Seriously. Read it… then click on the link and read the rest of it.

      And that’s not even from skeptics… it’s from the effin’ IPCC.

      1. “Tony” is a sock puppet troll. It doesn’t respond to any information which contradicts its narrative. I should know better than to respond to it, but sometimes I am weak. Be stronger than me, dude.

  18. by adopting the team red/blue model, we haven’t accounted for team purple. They’re not team HOT, they’re not team NOT, are they team POT? ;o)

  19. It is a fraud…

    and it was the Koch brothers who proved it was a fraud.

    got to love it:


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.