Global Warming Alarmists Hail Mary Pass
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a piece at Big Journalism that adds some detail to Reverse Climategate.
http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2012/02/17/global-warming-lefties-commit-identity-theft-to-target-conservative-think-tank/
As regular readers of this website know, Paul Driessen posted a reply by the Heartland Institute to attacks by members of the mainstream media and environmental advocacy groups, as well as websites (such as Desmog Blog) over some stolen e-mails. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/heartland_institute_responds_to_stolen_and_fake_documents
A member of the Gang Green - the global warming True Believers and activists, tricked a staffer at Heartland into sending out confidential e-mails about the inner workings of Heartland and about Heartland strategy and funding. He did this through fraudulently claiming to be a member of the Board of Directors at Heartland, and so essentially stole the material.
And, while some of the documents are real, some are forgeries, according to Heartland. So we are faced with several crimes in this instance, and Heartland plans to prosecute the perps.
Among the damning information revealed/ That Heartland received a whopping $25,000 from the Koch brothers, and that Heartland was planning to use money to fight things like Cap and Trade! Gasp! The horror! An advocacy group taking money from a philanthropist and using it for advocacy! How dare they!
Strange; nobody on the alarmist side seems to worry about the millions donated by George Soros groups like the Tides Foundation, nor about the money donated by groups like the Audobon Society, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, nor about the money kicked in by the United Nations or the American or British governments.
Joanne Nova gives us a rundown on the funding Heartland and the skeptics are up against:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/
Greenpeace $300m 2010 Annual Report
WWF $700m
Pew Charitable Trust $360m 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club $56m 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) $750m
NSW Gov (A$700m)
Heartland Institute $6.4m
US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m ($7B) “Climate Money”
US government funding for “climate related appropriations” $1,300m ($1.3B) USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m ($120B) 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m ($230B) 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0
End excerpt.
But what is particularly galling is the comparison being made between the Heartland trick and Climategate. As you all remember, a leaker published a series of hacked e-mails between climate scientists, largely centered around the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, but including a number of power players in the global warming research being done in America and elsewhere. For instance, see this.
http://www.desmogblog.com/blog/richard-littlemore
Desmog Blog, which is at the forefront of this attack on Heartland, had this to say;
"They point out that when the Climategate emails were stolen, Heartland took bits and pieces out of context (and, we would add, advocated for punitive action against the scientists on the basis of these manipulations). At no time did the institute suggest that the hackers who breached the East Anglia University security system to steal the emails had been in the wrong to do so.
In the case at hand, (and as Heartland explains in its own press release) an anonymous "Heartland Insider" asked the Institute to mail the entire briefing package for its January board meeting - and Heartland complied. Having received that package, the DeSmogBlog checked the content against research we had in hand to confirm its authenticity. Then we published it - in its entirety, so there could be no doubt about the context - on our website on Valentines's Day."
End excerpt.
But these two cases are wolds apart; Heartland is a private advocacy group, receiving no money from taxpayers. The Climategate people were working for publicly funded institutions subject to the Freedom of Information Act, an act that they conspired to subvert. These e-mails were not private; as part of the body of work performed as public servants they were bound to turn these over to any FOIA requests, yet they refused to do so. The Climategate scientists are on record discussing how to get around those very same FOIA requests. And their work was of critical importance to the setting of public policy and the world financial system. What these people (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Ray Bradley, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt and David Karoly, etc.) were doing was conspiring to manipulate data, to subvert peer review, to strongarm publishers, to committ acts of racketeering, to lie in order to sway public policy. These were government employees manipulating data to strengthen their case for global warming.
Heartland has done none of this. All Heartland has done is labor to counter people like the aforementioned Climategate parties. Given the unique position that such people are in - controling the raw data and thoughtfully "processing" it for us, controling the publications which come out, holding sway over whole chapters of the IPCC reports, holding the careers of younger climatologists hostage - there must be a counterbalance, and Heartland sought to act as that counterbalance. And everything Heartland has done is legal.
It should be pointed out that the U.S. DOJ sent threatening letters to three bloggers; Jeff Id, Tallbloke, and Steve McKintyre, not for receiving the Climategate e-mails but for a link being posted by someone known only as FOIA in the comments sections on their blogs. Tallbloke's home was raided by British police and his computers seized. Nary a peep was heard from Desmog or any of the others who now hurl accusations against Heartland. On the contrary, these seekers after truth demanded investigations and prosecutions at the time of the Climategate leaks, and tried to dismiss the e-mails because of the way they were obtained, yet they refuse to afford the same courtesy to Heartland.
And it turns out key documents in the Heartland "scandal" are forgeries http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ ; nobody ever claimed that of the Climategate e-mails. Desmog and others insisted Climategate e-mails were taken out of context (don't believe your lying eyes).
I'm not sure how you can say statements like these are cherry picked;
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<0810> Mann:
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.
End excerpts.
I could go on and on, but everyone should get the idea; these e-mails are not in any way out of context. These people know full well what they are doing. And, again, they are public servants, paid for on the public dime and subject to sunshine laws. They knew it, too:
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
End excerpt.
So McGarvie advocates openly disobeying the law. There is nothing comparable in the Heartland documents.
No, the Heartland attack is simply a rewarmed effort to slime the "deniers" with accusations of complicity with Big Oil and Big Tobacco. There is really nothing new here.
And it is a measure of desperation; the Gang Green knows this thing is slipping away from them, and they are desperate for a game changer. This is a ten second Hail Mary pass.
Here is a piece at Big Journalism that adds some detail to Reverse Climategate.
http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2012/02/17/global-warming-lefties-commit-identity-theft-to-target-conservative-think-tank/
As regular readers of this website know, Paul Driessen posted a reply by the Heartland Institute to attacks by members of the mainstream media and environmental advocacy groups, as well as websites (such as Desmog Blog) over some stolen e-mails. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/heartland_institute_responds_to_stolen_and_fake_documents
A member of the Gang Green - the global warming True Believers and activists, tricked a staffer at Heartland into sending out confidential e-mails about the inner workings of Heartland and about Heartland strategy and funding. He did this through fraudulently claiming to be a member of the Board of Directors at Heartland, and so essentially stole the material.
And, while some of the documents are real, some are forgeries, according to Heartland. So we are faced with several crimes in this instance, and Heartland plans to prosecute the perps.
Among the damning information revealed/ That Heartland received a whopping $25,000 from the Koch brothers, and that Heartland was planning to use money to fight things like Cap and Trade! Gasp! The horror! An advocacy group taking money from a philanthropist and using it for advocacy! How dare they!
Strange; nobody on the alarmist side seems to worry about the millions donated by George Soros groups like the Tides Foundation, nor about the money donated by groups like the Audobon Society, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, nor about the money kicked in by the United Nations or the American or British governments.
Joanne Nova gives us a rundown on the funding Heartland and the skeptics are up against:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/
Greenpeace $300m 2010 Annual Report
WWF $700m
Pew Charitable Trust $360m 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club $56m 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) $750m
NSW Gov (A$700m)
Heartland Institute $6.4m
US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m ($7B) “Climate Money”
US government funding for “climate related appropriations” $1,300m ($1.3B) USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m ($120B) 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m ($230B) 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0
End excerpt.
But what is particularly galling is the comparison being made between the Heartland trick and Climategate. As you all remember, a leaker published a series of hacked e-mails between climate scientists, largely centered around the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, but including a number of power players in the global warming research being done in America and elsewhere. For instance, see this.
http://www.desmogblog.com/blog/richard-littlemore
Desmog Blog, which is at the forefront of this attack on Heartland, had this to say;
"They point out that when the Climategate emails were stolen, Heartland took bits and pieces out of context (and, we would add, advocated for punitive action against the scientists on the basis of these manipulations). At no time did the institute suggest that the hackers who breached the East Anglia University security system to steal the emails had been in the wrong to do so.
In the case at hand, (and as Heartland explains in its own press release) an anonymous "Heartland Insider" asked the Institute to mail the entire briefing package for its January board meeting - and Heartland complied. Having received that package, the DeSmogBlog checked the content against research we had in hand to confirm its authenticity. Then we published it - in its entirety, so there could be no doubt about the context - on our website on Valentines's Day."
End excerpt.
But these two cases are wolds apart; Heartland is a private advocacy group, receiving no money from taxpayers. The Climategate people were working for publicly funded institutions subject to the Freedom of Information Act, an act that they conspired to subvert. These e-mails were not private; as part of the body of work performed as public servants they were bound to turn these over to any FOIA requests, yet they refused to do so. The Climategate scientists are on record discussing how to get around those very same FOIA requests. And their work was of critical importance to the setting of public policy and the world financial system. What these people (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Ray Bradley, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt and David Karoly, etc.) were doing was conspiring to manipulate data, to subvert peer review, to strongarm publishers, to committ acts of racketeering, to lie in order to sway public policy. These were government employees manipulating data to strengthen their case for global warming.
Heartland has done none of this. All Heartland has done is labor to counter people like the aforementioned Climategate parties. Given the unique position that such people are in - controling the raw data and thoughtfully "processing" it for us, controling the publications which come out, holding sway over whole chapters of the IPCC reports, holding the careers of younger climatologists hostage - there must be a counterbalance, and Heartland sought to act as that counterbalance. And everything Heartland has done is legal.
It should be pointed out that the U.S. DOJ sent threatening letters to three bloggers; Jeff Id, Tallbloke, and Steve McKintyre, not for receiving the Climategate e-mails but for a link being posted by someone known only as FOIA in the comments sections on their blogs. Tallbloke's home was raided by British police and his computers seized. Nary a peep was heard from Desmog or any of the others who now hurl accusations against Heartland. On the contrary, these seekers after truth demanded investigations and prosecutions at the time of the Climategate leaks, and tried to dismiss the e-mails because of the way they were obtained, yet they refuse to afford the same courtesy to Heartland.
And it turns out key documents in the Heartland "scandal" are forgeries http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ ; nobody ever claimed that of the Climategate e-mails. Desmog and others insisted Climategate e-mails were taken out of context (don't believe your lying eyes).
I'm not sure how you can say statements like these are cherry picked;
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<0810> Mann:
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.
End excerpts.
I could go on and on, but everyone should get the idea; these e-mails are not in any way out of context. These people know full well what they are doing. And, again, they are public servants, paid for on the public dime and subject to sunshine laws. They knew it, too:
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
End excerpt.
So McGarvie advocates openly disobeying the law. There is nothing comparable in the Heartland documents.
No, the Heartland attack is simply a rewarmed effort to slime the "deniers" with accusations of complicity with Big Oil and Big Tobacco. There is really nothing new here.
And it is a measure of desperation; the Gang Green knows this thing is slipping away from them, and they are desperate for a game changer. This is a ten second Hail Mary pass.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 1:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home