Climate Change

Extremism in the Defense of Climate "Alarmism" Is No Vice?


At least he could blame his wooden head for his lies.

Last week, climate change "alarmists" were deliriously claiming to have uncovered the dastardly plans of the climiate change "deniers"* at the free-market Heartland Institute to "undermine" true climate science. At the center of this new "scandal" were supposedly internal documents from the Institute outlining its nefarious plans and exposing its evil paymasters. Now comes prominent "alarmist"* Peter Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute, who admits that he deceitfully posed as someone else in order to obtain documents from the Heartland Institute. As the New York Times reports:

Dr. Gleick distributed the documents to several well-known bloggers and activists who support the work of mainstream climate scientists and who have denounced the Heartland Institute as a center of climate change denial. The document release, which lit up the Internet last week, was cast by some bloggers as the work of a whistle-blowing Heartland employee or ex-employee who had access to internal papers, when it was in fact orchestrated by Dr. Gleick, a Yale- and Berkeley-trained scientist and environmental activist who says that he was frustrated with Heartland's anti-climate-change programs.

Dr. Gleick denied authorship of the most explosive of the documents, a supposed strategy paper that laid out the institute's efforts to raise money to question climate change and get schools to adjust their science curricula to include alternative theories of global warming. 

The "strategy paper" was the most explosive since it explicitly outlined what would appear to be a self-consciously dishonest effort to "undermine" climate science. The Heartland Insitute has strongly denounced the "strategy paper" as a fake. At the Huffington Post, Gleick admits

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

The upshot is that it would appear that Gleick was so excited by the anonymously sent "strategy paper" that he decided that he must resort to "a serious lapse of [his] own and professional judgment and ethics" to further expose the wicked plans of the Heartland Institute. Basically, it looks like Gleick's confirmation bias ("I just know that the Heartland folks are wittingly evil") overcame whatever sense of morality and fair play that he may harbor. To paraphrase, Gleick apparently concluded that extremism in the defense of climate "alarmism" is no vice. 

Atlantic Senior Editor Megan McArdle has done two really insightful and careful analyses, here and here, of the "strategy document" in which she pretty much proves (to my satisfaction at least) that it is a fake. 

It does bear mentioning that the "alarmists" often claim that the shadowy campaign attacking true climate science (it is "settled") is being paid for by Big Oil. The Heartland documents reveal no donations from Big Oil, and the Koch Foundation (see Koch derangement syndrome) donation appears to be targeted toward health policy, not energy or climate policy. 

This is just the latest episode in the sorry and increasingly poisonous politics of global warming. 

Update: Heartland Institute press release on Gleick's confession:

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

"An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

"In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a "rational debate" from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

"Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

"We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

"We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions."

*What each side calls the other.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on the Underwear Bomber and Civilian Trials

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t want to put your name on this one, Jacob?

    1. Too many scare quotes.

      1. Joe, are you TEAM HOT or TEAM NOT? You have to be on a TEAM, you know. It’s the rules.

        1. Jacob? Teams? Is this a covert Twilight forum?

        2. Libertarians reject such binary choices! I am on Team Lukewarm and Don’t Panic About It.

    2. You mean “Jacob”?

  2. By any means necessary.

  3. Fake but true!

  4. Hey Bailey (I presume),

    Re: This : “Dr. Gleick denied authorship”

    Where did he do this? This NYT claim is not the first place I’ve seen this fact, but in Gleick’s admission, isn’t he silent, or at best vague, on this important aspect?

    1. Well, we did do the nose.

      1. The nose?

        1. And the hat–but she is a witch!

          1. Burn her!

            1. Did you dress her up like this?

              1. No, no, no. . .yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.

                1. But she has got a wart!

                  1. She turned me into Newt…

                    1. But then you got better after your affair?

                    2. It’s a fair cop.

      2. This maked me laugh

    2. “At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.”

      This would indicate that receiver of the document was not the author.

      1. He e-mailed it to himself. So it’s true! Suck that, Deniers!

        1. At least he didn’t receive it from a weird guy at the Houston Livestock Show.

      2. Right, that’s all I’ve seen too. He doesn’t actually say “I didn’t write it”, which in normal circumstances might seem like nit-picking, but in this context would be helpful.

        1. No,he didn’t create the forgery, Dan Rather gave it to him.

    3. He says he received it in the mail, anonymously. That sounds like he is saying he did not write it.

      1. He says he received an anonymous document.

        Is that anonymous document “the memo”?

        He is not being perfectly clear, which, given the circumstances, is a problem.

        1. Also, he could always be lying about the whole “I got it in the mail from an anonymous source” thing. Sometimes people make shit up.

  5. About what I’d expect from an ethics expert.

  6. Didn’t Al Gore say many years ago that it was okay to overstate the problem if it would get people to join the movement? Not to mention the many groups that will gladly resort to property damage to protect the earth. There is much precedence for this in the green movement.

    1. groups that will gladly resort to property damage to protect the earth

      As if that property were not part of the earth. Lovely.

    2. In fact, you can destroy millions of dollars in property, endanger the public and they will make a sympathetic documentary about you that gets nominated for an Oscar:

    3. I think that was Stephen Schneider (sp?).


    Read his statement carefully. He says someone sent him “a document” and that he pretended to be a board member in an effort to confirm its legitimacy.

    He wants people to infer that someone sent him the forged document, but he never identifies the document he was sent by name. IT could well be that someone sent him the publicly available IRS filing.

    Moreover, the turns of phrase used in the forged document are ones that Gleick and no one else is fond of using.

    This guy is in very serious trouble. The board documents show a think tank doing think-tanky stuff. The malfeasance allegations are all arising out of the forgery, and it constitutes a very serious libel against some very popular and wealthy individuals.

    He is toast. He is going to rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars of judgments and his career is ruined.

    1. tarran: From the HuffPo statement from Gleick that I quote above: I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

      He does deny forging the documents, or am I missing something, here?

      1. Stop trying to be fair and accurate, Ron!!

        1. Okay, we are getting a little birthery here.

      2. Well, if he made the phony document out of whole cloth, that wouldn’t be “changes or alterations,” right?

        1. Yeah, there does seem to be some Clintonesque parsing of words in his ‘denial’. Why not just flat out deny authorship?

          1. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

      3. This is how the infinite recursion of questioning phony documents works. It’s a legit pursuit, but it may not lead anywhere useful.

        When Gleick says:
        “At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.”

        Which document, exactly? What’s its filename in the cache of documents? Is he referring to a file that was omitted from the leaked cache? It’s not clear.

        Also, when he says he did not alter any Heartland Documents, that may be true. But did he author any fake Heartland Documents, from scratch?

        “I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”
        I.e, the documents FROM Heartland. Did he forward the anonymous document too?

        “I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public.”
        Yes, the docs Heartland sent him directly. But what about the memo, the authorship of which Heartland explicitly denies?

        “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”

        Again, is the original document the memo? Or, as one could still reasonably imagine, did Gelick gin it up based on the anonymous memo (assuming it exists), and is Gleick digging himself a deeper hole?

      4. If Gleick did not write the strategy memo why does he not say so in simple language? Instead he says a document (he won’t say which one) came to him in the mail and he did not alter it. Everything he said could be true and he could still have written the strategy memo. I would be odd to mail it to himself but not outside the realm of possibility.

      5. You’re missing something, Ron.

        His initial statement:

        “At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.”

        Never identifies the document that was sent to him as being the strategy document at issue. It could have been a different document, and he forged the one he published.

        This statement:

        I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

        Suffers from the same lacunae. The original anonymous communication could still have been a completely different document from the one he published.

        1. Exactly. Gleick needs to say “I did not create or alter any of the documents in the cache”. Can he?

          He also needs to identify which document he is referring to when he mentions the anon communication. Was it part of the released cache? If the anon doc is the memo, then it is possible to construe his statements as denying the authored any/all of them. If it is a separate document, then he is actually only denying authorship of the Heartland documents and the anon doc, but not explicitly denying authorship of the memo.


          The main thing is, whatever you do, DON’T READ THE COMMENTS at Gleick’s original Huffpo piece:…..89669.html

          1. They’re closed. Must have been a great read.

        2. MNG has been making sport of my parsing skills lately. I do hope he drops by.

      6. Ron,

        See RC Dean’s analysis below. It’s precisely what I am arguing.

        1. Er.. see his argument above. 🙂

    2. You know, tarran. In all that you have written hear, you have never explicitly denied writing the document in question. Come to think of it, neither have I. Shit, I probably wrote it.

      1. Has tarran admitted to committing fraud like Gleick? It seems the word of a confessed liar and criminal is deserving of being questioned.

        1. You wrote it, didn’t you?

        2. I bet his name isn’t even tarran.

          1. Concern troll is concerned.

            1. No, I’m just being deliberately silly because I think this is a silly discussion. Maybe he did do it. I don’t care. He is obviously an ass in either case.

            2. “Concern troll is concerned.”

              That was really clever, did you think of it yourself?

          2. I bet his name isn’t even tarran.

            You’re right. I don’t use my real name because it’s a killing word – and by puberty I had the death sentence on twelve systems.

      2. There are several people who have had posession of the file in question.

        The first person who acknowledges having had that file in his possession is Peter Gleick. He has far more ‘splaining to do than I do since I was probably #10,000 to look at it.

        Again, it would have been very simple for him to say someone sent me the document titled “X”. I engaged in identity fraud to trick Heartland into sending my documentas {A,B,C,…}. I then forwarded all those documents, unchanged to the following people.”

        He consciously chose not to be explicit in his denial. That’s not an accidental turn of phrase. I expect that after HEartland announced that they were contemplating legal action, he prudently consulted with a lawyer, and his lawyer’s instructions are what prompted this sudden admission. This letter was almost certainly written or heavily edited by legal counsel. And, had he indeed received the forged document from a third party, his lawyer would have advised him to explicitly say so.

        1. The apology is grammatically better than his other writing, ISTM. So yes, probably a lawyer’s work, not his.

    3. If the corporate lobbyist institute sues him, it means court scrutiny beforehand. Suing him will lead to his claims about their funding masters pretty much being validated – not that this will stop bloggers and the nutroots from continuously claiming the HI are objectivity and freedom incarnate.

      1. funding masters? What do you mean? Of course they have funding. If the output of HI is bunk then show so. Crap research can be shown to be crap without having to know who funded it. Is your argument going to be “HI can’t be correct look who funds them?” I’m sure that will get lots of attention unfortunately.

  8. I’ve said this before, but the idea that the warmies are acting in good faith should have died after they made Bjorn Lomborg an apostate – simply because he was trying to counter their hysterical claims and crackpot policy with effective, much less expensive solutions.

    Eco fundamentalists should have as much say in public policy as flat-earthers.

  9. If he wanted to confirm the document he was “sent” was from the Heartland Institute, why didn’t he just ask for the exact document? Why ask for a bunch of other stuff? I guarantee he either wrote the fake paper or was closely involved with whoever did.

    1. I don’t know. It seems perfectly reasonable that some other enviro-whatever just sent it to him and he published it because it confirmed his biases. These people aren’t completely stupid, you know.

      1. These people aren’t completely stupid, you know.

        Really? It appears the opposite to me.

        1. Stupid people aren’t that good at convincing others of their bullshit. They may be foolish or evil, but not stupid.

      2. The document doesn’t have fold marks, so if it was mailed, they stuffed two pages into a 9X12.

      3. Or, he just needed the other documents in order to make a more convincing forgery. Who knows?

  10. … remember, this was fake, but ClimateGate was a real, totally not-fake thing that was absolutely on the legal up-and-up.

    Both sides do it. Yawn.

    1. What has been shown to be fake about the climategate e-mails?

      1. The outrage.

        1. About time you dropped by! Just who is sockpuppeting you this morning?

    2. LOL. Is that what the AGW supporters are going with now? CRU is publicly funded, and people have been trying to get the documents from Climategate by FOIA requests for years that CRU had been stonewalling.

      1. They rejected FOIA requests because they correctly deemed all requests as made by screaming anti-government zealots who are addicted to sucking Delingpole’s pole.

        An independent review of the small, beset and hounded CRU team summarized: “[W]e find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently, led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009. We recognize that there was deep suspicion within CRU, as to the motives of those making detailed requests. Nevertheless, the requirements of the legislation for release of information are clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief.”

        Their policy recommendations and findings were not found to be lacking in honesty and scientific rigor, however.

  11. Yes yes that’s all well and good, but the real question is, how does this impact gay marriage?

    1. Well, climate alarmism is just a fetish, so it’s like totally not the same thing.

    2. I thought we were supposed to be arguing contraception instead?

      I get the lady parts confused sometimes.

      1. Why do global warming deniers hate women?

  12. What I find hilarious about the left whining about the Heartland Institute is that they barely spend any money at all in debating Global Warming.

    The WSJ had a piece about this morning, and apparently the oh-so-evil Koch’s gave a total of $25K to the Heartland Institute last year.

    Meanwhile this is in comparison to “$6.5 million that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change costs Western taxpayers annually, and the $2.6 billion the White House wants to spend next year on research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.”

    Article here-…..oveLEFTTop

    1. The money that the Koch brothers gave was obtained through profit, which is inherently immoral because profit is theft.

      The money given by the various governmental agencies was obtained through taxation, which is completely moral because taxation is social justice.

      Therefor the results from the former are suspect and the latter beyond reproach.

    2. Note also in one of the McArdle pieces that the Koch money appears to be earmarked as “HC” or healthcare money, not climate money.

  13. Given what evidence suggest is the scope of the crime, what could possibly be “too radical” a response? The most radical thing is significantly altering the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere for profit. Any action taken against that will never be as radical.

    1. No mention of starving grannies? I call spoof on this one.

    2. Step 1: Significantly alter the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere.
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: Profit.

    3. So, Tony using electricity to power a computer to post here is radical, and “any action” to stop that isn’t “as radical”?

      Care to clarify what you mean by “any action”? Killing people? Shutting down all industry? Or do you literally mean what you wrote? Bear in mind that you have to clarify without using any electricity …

      1. The criticism of clean energy is that it’s too expensive. Well, yeah, but it doesn’t destroy the environment. So by comparison it’s cheap. I’m not suggesting producers or consumers should get a free ride. But as far as people working on behalf of the industries who are spreading misinformation and propaganda, what could possibly be too severe a punishment considering the scope of the crime?

        But since I’m a good liberal, you guys who feel entitled to selectively dismiss science because of the political TEAM you happen to be on, I consider victims of that propaganda.

        1. what could possibly be too severe a punishment considering the scope of the crime?

          The crime of … ?

          I’m going to say death of billions of people is a bit too serious a punishment for ANY crime. I know, it’s a stretch.

        2. you guys who feel entitled to selectively dismiss science

          I don’t think that word “science” means what you think it means.

          When a bunch of people get into a room and come to a consensus, they are engaging in politics.

          If the people taking the vote happen to call themselves scientists, what they are doing is still politics.

          Science involves the scientific method, which involves repeatable experimentation.

          Something that climate “science” sorely lacks.

          1. Well it wouldn’t be good propaganda without flippant dismissals of entire fields of science, would it?

            1. Like I said, I don’t think the word “science” means what you think it means.

        3. The criticism of clean energy is that it’s too expensive. Well, yeah, but it doesn’t destroy the environment.

          Really? Care to look more carefully at why “clean energy” is so expensive? You might find a lot of environmental damage built into those prices — unless you think no fossil fuels were used to build wind turbines, or land was strip-mined to extract the stuff used to make batteries for Priuses, or no fossil-fueled trucks were used to dig out and haul to the construction site the gravel and whatnot used to build a dam, or …

          When you take all that into account, you’ll likely find that fossil fuel energy uses LESS fossil fuels and causes less environmental degradation than so called “renewables”.

        4. The criticism of clean energy is that it’s too expensive.

          One of the criticisms.

          Well, yeah, but it doesn’t destroy the environment.

          So long as we ignore all pollution involved in their manufacture, maintenance, and replacement. And ignore the negative impact on the ecosystems of the land the renewable sources occupy.

          what could possibly be too severe a punishment considering the scope of the crime?

          Has it ever crossed your mind that there might be some benefits to a carbon-heavier atmosphere? Maybe, but since this whole subject gives you a reason to limitlessly punish a group of people you clearly feel to be irredeemable anyway, any possible benefits must be quickly dismissed as irrelevant against the scope of the oncoming disaster.

          you guys who feel entitled to selectively dismiss science because of the political TEAM you happen to be on

          Yeah, I bet you’ve never, ever even thought of doing that. We’re all dupes and you’re just the noble philosopher king looking out for our benefit since we JUST DON’T GET IT, MAN!

          And, to reinforce sarasmic’s point:…..29540.html

          In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

          The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

          BTW, I do love how since the models have been less than accurate at predicting the oncoming apocalypse, you’ve hedged your “the science is settled!” argument with a healthy dose of moralizing against “experimenting with the atmosphere.” Being able to be factually wrong about your predictions but still claiming the moral high ground is the stock-in-trade of the American liberal, after all.

        5. Re: Tiny,

          The criticism of clean energy is that it’s too expensive. Well, yeah, but it doesn’t destroy the environment.

          YES, it does – THAT is what the price is telling you, you ignorant piece of shit. MORE resources are required to build and operate solar panels and windmills than coal, oil or natural gas plants. Traditional systems are MORE PRODUCTIVE, requiring LESS installation costs and operation costs – THAT is what the price tells you.

          For your next trick, you’re going to tell me that economic efficiency is meaningless.

          1. The point has been made a hundred times or more. It is impervious to logic.

          2. “YES, it does – THAT is what the price is telling you, you ignorant piece of shit. MORE resources are required to build and operate solar panels and windmills than coal, oil or natural gas plants.”

            Um, you do know that resource costs are then spread out over the entire time of usage, right? Like, as in rudimentary cost-benefit analysis?

            I’d call you a retard, but you are already an avowed libertarian so my job here is done.

            1. Um, you do know that resource costs are then spread out over the entire time of usage, right?

              All the environmental costs of carbon based energy use have been contained and are either solved or well on their way to being solved…

              All but your fantasy of catastrophic man made global warming.

        6. —“Well, yeah, but it doesn’t destroy the environment.”—

          But it seems that CA wind farms are doing a pretty good job of killing, among other things, bald eagles and golden eagles. Enough of them for the Audobon Society and other environmentalists to scream about the slaughter.

          Also, Tony, STFU fuckwad.

      2. Tony’s computer has a hand crank.

        1. I don’t think his computer is what he’s cranking.

          1. Rather that a rotary actuated generator, I propose linearly actuated generators hooked up to the power grid to be distributed to all masturbators surfing the net. Imagine the clean energy that would be produced.

            Wait. That wouldn’t really be clean energy, would it?

            1. Lubricated with Santorum.

    4. Is significantly altering the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere for charity better?

    5. If by significant you mean negligible…

      1. You sure about that professor Colonel? Just how significantly should someone be allowed to alter everyone else’s environment before they have to pay for the damage?

        1. Shouldn’t someone have to prove they were actually damaged by someone else’s specific action before they can claim a right to be paid?

          1. korporashuns r bad, k? FUCK LOGIC

        2. You’re assuming that “alter” = “damage”. A tiny marginal rise in an already trace atmospheric element that is necessary for photosynthesis may lead to people being slightly better off overall on average. I live in Hawaii, so I don’t fear tiny marginal increases in temperature, nor (if they weren’t so fucking un-self-aware) would be all the enviros flying here in winter in fossil-fuel burning jets to have a vacation because it’s too fucking cold where they live.

          1. Ever heard of the precautionary principle?

            1. Is that where someone asserts something, and unless someone else with sufficient credentials and political clout can immediately refute it, policy must be based on the assertion just to be on the safe side?

            2. Ever heard of the precautionary principle?

              Let’s see, would that be the policy that, if it were followed, would prevent itself from being implemented?

        3. Your respiration is altering the environment in which I live. I demand immediate cessation of all of your respiratory activity.

  14. OT: Not sure anyone caught this Satan warning from Santorum linked at Hot Air. Figured a Baily article would be a good please to post this screed.

    1. This quote should be played over and over in every state where evangelicals are flocking to his banner:

      The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.

      “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

      1. He’s not really saying anything that many evangelicals haven’t been saying about various Christian sects for decades now (the Episcopelians, for instance).

        Other than the standard “let’s you and him fight” nonsense fomented by the media, I honestly don’t get why this is so controversial.

  15. For the Heartland documents to almost exactly match the the strategy memo is asking to much to be believed. The memo was drafted with the Heartland documents on front of him.

  16. This brings up old point from Climategate. Who was the leaker there? Why are they not tripping over themselves like the yogurt-bleeding hippie in this instance to take credit?

    Why can’t they figure out WhoDunnIt on that?

    1. This particular left-coast bearded hippie has an ego so big that his skull can barely contain it. Which means that anonymously leaking confidential documents and keeping his mouth shut about it for the remainder of eternity wasn’t nearly satisfying enough for him and his self-constructed sense of importance. What good is saving the world if you can never tell anybody about it?

      No… he also wanted some recognition and accolades from his tribe. He needed to be hailed by the global congregation of the eco-faithful as their savior.

      So, I suspect this confession wasn’t news to the folks at Desmog blog, or Climate Progress… they knew Gleick was their source because Gleick wanted them to know he was their source. They probably also know that the strategy document is a fake and that Gleick created it himself.

      They’re protecting him now because they think he’s done something wonderful for the cause… we’ll see how quickly they rat him out to save their own asses when they’re named as co-defendants.

  17. It doesn’t matter if he forged the document or not.

    Based on his OWN characterization of what he did, it was shockingly unethical.

    Basically what he is confessing to is analogous to this:

    Receiving an anonymous document in the mail claiming to be the minutes of a meeting where Jews get together to decide to take over the world;

    Getting Israel to send you all sorts of real, official Israeli documents;

    Slipping the anonymous document into the pile of official Israeli documents and then sending them to the New York Times.

    That’s what this guy did. He used the real documents as a cover for a fake one. It doesn’t matter if he personally forged it or not.

  18. Those guys really jsut dont get it. Wow.

  19. I heard the latest climate change talking point the other day, and one I confess I hadn’t heard before. The proponent claimed that there were significant amounts of calcium carbonate deposits at the bottom of the ocean, and that human acidification of the ocean would cause the ocean to dissolve these formations, which would release significant amounts of CO2 in the air and immediately effect the climate to the tune of 10-20 DEG F. Anything to this?

    1. It is based on real processes but the timeframe you heard is risible.

    2. Acidification of oceans is trendy within Carbontology, but not mainstream. I don’t even think it appears in A. Gore Warmer’s ‘Carbonetics.’

      Carbonates aren’t the popular ocean-boogeyman though to take us to Venusian hell. In my experience with Carbonetics proselytizers its methane clathrates that will rise from the ocean and destroy earth typically. Maybe ‘proponent’ you ran into is on to the new trendy thing.

      1. Yeah, I’d believe that thawing methane would be a much more reasonable argument to make if you were going to make one.

    3. Calcium carbonate act against acids. There was an experiment done in 89 to counter the effects of acid rain killing life in a stream somewhere in Mass.

      Link here:…..tream.html

      1. Calcium carbonate acts against acids but release CO2 when they neutralize them. It’s like Tums (made of calcium carbonate).

        1. I find I release a lot more greenhouse gases without Tums that with them.

          Adding to the scientific concensus…

    4. Last data I looked at showed dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean to be extremely stable at about 220 ppm in 3 different oceans. With surface concentrations between 300-380 ppm. That would indicate to me that there isn’t an equilibrium system. In fact, the authors specifically noted that plankton/algal action are probably capable of absorbing significant amounts of dissolved CO2 near the interface, and it is unlikely that additional atmospheric CO2 dissolving is likely to significantly alter the pH. With significantly here meaning enough to be measured by extremely sensitive instruments. Also, the calcium carbonate is the result of a classic acid-base neutralization. Not sure how more carbonic acid is going to drive the balance AWAY from CaCO3.

    5. Whoever said this has their chemistry all wrong. If there’s calcium (or magnesium) dissolved in the water, which there is, you’ll deposit carbonates as you increase CO2 (or carbonate) concentration. And it’s all in an equilibrium that will shift to maintain itself as long as there are only slight changes.

      Sure, if you take a chunk of limestone and throw it into some aqueous HCl you’ll get lots of CO2 bubbles, but that’s not at all what’s going on in the ocean.

    6. Coral first evolved in a far more acidic ocean then today’s oceans.

  20. This is the one policy area about which I disagree with libertarians and Reason-ites. Reason people are like oil-crazed Republicans when it comes to global warming.

    1. Bailey thinks AGW is happening. He writes for Reason. Is he also one of those oil-crazed Republicans?

      1. “Bailey thinks AGW is happening.”

        Yes, and that is ultimately meaningless because he is also reliant on a magazine that is in turn reliant on people that don’t want any environmental legislation whatsoever, and the magazine therefore concern-trolls anyone and anything that seeks to prevent AGW from harming society. Sort of like a non-homophobic libertarian that votes Santorum because “BLAHARGARGAGD OBAMACARE” – you can be as pro-gay as you like in person, but you still voted for a degenerate bigot.

        Bailey’s opinion on AGW can suck my taint, because he writes for a rag that is as objective and measured in its approach to AGW as a newsletter funded by solar cell companies.

    2. That is, quite possibly, one of the stupidest comments I have read here by a non-spoof/troll.

  21. LOVE THE KOCH!!!!!!

  22. Man. I just made the mistake of browsing the comments on this story a /. The up-modded ones all come down to “Heartland hatez evolushunz! Climate science is just like evolushun!” I remember when that site wasn’t exclusively colonized by trolls.

    1. /. is a crap magnet. You should be thankful it acts as the prime attractor to all sorts of dim bulbs, it keeps the idiots busy.

  23. The Atlantic article does a great job in arguing that the memo is a fake. A single example should do: it mentions the Kochs but they have only donated 25k,

    1. comments doesnt like inequality signs

  24. The Atlantic article does a great job in arguing that the memo is a fake. A single example should do: it mentions the Kochs but they have only donated 25k, less than 1% of funding. To me, clear evidence of propaganda from someone from the loony left who thinks the Kochs are DrNo villains and lives in a bubble.

    It also describes a Forbes blogger as a propaganda piece for the “deniers” and Gleick writes for Forbes. Coincidence?

    All the documents are dated late Jan (days before the board meeting) except the controversial memo, which is dated midFeb about the time the other documents were obtained.

    The NYT (despite all its layers of fact-checking) at first run an article stating the memo was a leaked document. If proven to be fake, can they be sued for libel?

    1. The Atlantic article was a good read. The memo was written by either Gleick or a loyal stooge.

      This is fun to watch. I remember when the emails hit in 2009. MSNBC did not mention those emails for weeks on their talky-talk programs until the Rah-Rah machinery had to fire up for Copenhagen, forcing Blue Team to at least pooh-pooh them.

      Now, check out Skeptical Science dot com. Its like Flagland Base for the Warmers, complete with cut-and-paste friendly responses to Evil Inc. in forum threads like this. They had everything up and going with The Heartland flap (‘DenialGate’ updates and everything!) and now…nothing. All quiet on DenialGate feed suddenly.

      The Warmers hate the Deniers so much they end up doing exactly what they suspect Deniers are doing to prove the Deniers are doing it.

      I wonder if they have a simulation somewhere that needs tweaking to better understand the dynamics of the hot air in their own egos and heads? What a bunch of clowns.

  25. Ron, we’ve both seen Heartland in full cry, with Ralph Reed applauding their efforts from the back of the room.

    Tomorrow morning, Gleick will still be guilty of successfully Phishing up documents that corroborate what was already leaked. and Heartland’s merry band of Santorumoid pseudo-liberarians will still be trying to cover their mercenary asses with astroturf.

    The difference is that Gleickasked for the info, and they volunteered it, in contrast to their having spent the last four years celebratinga hacker break-in and data heist.

    It takes neither data mining or distortion to demonstrate that Heartland has been caught red handed schmoozing for funds for a Dominionist disinformation campaign aimed at Grades K-12.

    1. What is wrong with using funds (voluntarily given) to write modules for k-12 on agw? If the schools don’t like it they won’t buy it. IF they turn out to be nonsense we can all laugh at them. But not allowing them to make their case is well not the way of a free people and society.

    2. That has got to be the lamest rationalization i have read all week. Your actually claiming that what Gleick did was ok and the climategate email theft was not because Gleick used social engineering as opposed to a technical hack? The mental contortions you must go through to rationalize your “thinking” must be exhausting.

    3. Gleick lied about his identity to get the info from a private entity. CRU is a public entity and they should be open to the public. BTW what is the evidence of a hack at cru instead of an insider leaking the emails?

      1. Exactly.

  26. “…in contrast to their having spent the last four years celebratinga hacker break-in and data heist.”

    What hacker break-in Russel? You mean East Anglia/climate emails? Nobody has ever demonstrated any data breach on Anglia’s crap MS Exchange server.

    None of the authorities or brilliant computer-wizards who make Warmer Vista for IPCC reports have ever put a narrative together or remotely come close to figuring out who/what/where/why about that security failure.

    So don’t claim it was a ‘hacking’ or a ‘data heist’ when it very well could have been an inside job from insider still on the inside. Facts and all that.

  27. You’ve got to be kidding- as a 503c Heartland is supposed to be a transparent educational institution, and the staggered release of the hacked CRU docs sure isn’t continuing from the inside.

    That the perps ( who also staged attacks on other labs) remain at large doesn’t signify their innocence.

    1. What has HI done that is not allowed by 503(c).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.