Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 Next
Comments 63901 to 63950:
-
sauerj at 12:38 PM on 17 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
Wow! Great presentation! He hit all the major denial points. I've been looking for something like this. ... I'd love to show this at work for a lunch & learn. It ought to turn some heads. ... I'll definitely be posting on facebook! Thanks, John, for posting. And, thanks andylee for youtube link. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:32 PM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
200, Camburn, I never said any. You think the US military and the CIA should be required to divulge all information? On research... if we have researchers working on brilliant and novel new energy sources or engineering techniques, do you think that information should be available to other countries and private investors to exploit? No, obviously not. Research is already well monitored and governed by the universities, peers and funding sources that grant those funds. That sort of openness is not required. "Charitable organizations," however, appear free to do anything they please to further the interests of either specific industries or the people who got rich in those industries, while skirting tax laws and hiding the true nature of their efforts. Unlike you, I'm not in the least bit concerned about some nefarious scientist secretly plotting to clone Joseph Stalin from the hairs on one of his old brushes. I am concerned about people who already have substantially more power and influence than other people further exploiting the system to work to their benefit. -
Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
On current evidence we should now regard the "strategy document as a fake. In particular Joseph Bast has now reportedly brought in the police to investigate a matter of identity theft. If he has no reason to suspect identity theft, that makes him liable for criminal charges. If he claims to have brought the matter before police in a fund raising document, while not having done so, that makes him liable for fraud. Therefore the presumption must be that some of the documents where obtained by phishing. It should be noted that Duke C, in a comment at Lucia's Blackboard, claims to have time stamps of the "strategy" document that breaks it down to Greenwich Mean Time plus offset, providing evidence that the strategy document was scanned in the Pacific time zone of the US (or equivalent in Canada, or Mexico etc). As the Heartland Institute does not have offices on the West Coast, it follows that the document was almost certainly not scanned in HI offices. It is not reasonable to believe that a person so remote from the HI offices as the US West Coast would have a physical copy of the strategy document, but also need to phish in order to get copies of the other documents (excluding the 990 form). Therefore, in order to have such a document they must have created it themselves, or had it created by an accomplice. Hence, by my estimation on current evidence, it is very likely (>90% probability) that the document is a fake. It should further be noted that my earlier inference that this is an internal job is flawed. Specifically the 990 form which was not phished is, apparently, published on the web and has been for some time. Therefore, while it was accessed before December 6th, 2011, and was not phished, that could have been done by any interested person. Finally, the most reasonable conclusion given this evidence is that the leaked information, like that for the University of East Anglia, was obtained by criminal activity. This certainly gives reasonable grounds to have ethical qualms about discussing and distributing information contained within the documents. Everybody must look to their own conscience on that point. -
owl905 at 11:15 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Really good recap article. Some of the comments don't show the same savvy. El Nino doesn't transmit solar-sourced heat to the depths - the dominance of El Nino's in the 90s reflects its surge. La Nina draws deep-cold up and, by definition, facilitates gyres elewhere transporting heat to the depths. The hole is dismissing the Spencer no-heating measurement down 700 metres (altho it misses polar warm-current changes that have spiked in the 00s). It's more likely that the heat is in currents and layers that disappear in the measurement noise of a few thousand scattered buoy pins. It's similar to recent research finding CO2 levels in particular regions higher than the background 390ppm. The bigger picture is an embarrassing sense of relief. Yes, temperature rise is slowed to a crawl thanks to the oceanic pumping episodes. But if the region 1000 metres below the surface to 1000 metres above the surface isn't rapidly heating - and that's what counts - then technically-accurate butwaddabouts won't free one red cent for a response. It could mean decades, even centuries, of repeated sequestering stalls; and that could slow or stutter the warming enough for adaptation to have a fighting chance. And that's the relief: the world has collectively chosen to let GHG-pollution run amuk. If the deep ocean is the magic-sink that buys some time - thank gawd for it. And as a footnote, the dictionary should be changed to allow looses to be a synonym for loses ... it actually reduce global internet traffic. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 10:42 AM on 17 February 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
Many people have spoke about negative reviews of this book being written by people who haven't read it. For anyone interested in a more informed review which doesn't praise the book, I offer this thread. I've been posting some reactions to the book as I read it on that thread, and my reactions haven't been positive. More importantly, my reactions are always accompanied by the text I refer to (save one about a figure, where I provide a link to an equitable figure), so there can be no denying my reaction is based on what the book says. I do apologize for the fact my comments are in an open thread, meaning other things are discussed in the same place. Still, it is a better option than anything else I've seen offered. So, if you're interested, my first reaction can be found here. If you're not interested, you should at least see what I discuss in this comment. Specifically, we find Michael Mann saying his first paper on the hockey stick was entirely dependent upon a small set of tree ring data despite the fact the paper says the exact opposite. -
Sapient Fridge at 10:38 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Typos, or non-UK English? "looses to Space" and "loose energy to space" (Delete this comment afterwards if you want) -
JMurphy at 10:38 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Four slight spelling-mistakes : Two instances of 'loose' (lines 10 and 11) should be 'lose'. One instance of 'new' in the fourth line of The Smoking Gun subsection should be 'knew'. One instance of 'where' (fourth line from the end) should be 'were'. Very good post, by the way, but you can delete this message for being related to a side-issue if necessary ! -
skywatcher at 10:37 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
And of course to add to Rob's point, why are the oceans still warming? If they were releasing heat to the atmosphere, they would show cooling, but they don't. If the ocean ridges were producing most of the carbon increase (and necessarily overwhelming anthropogenic sources, the distribution of worldwide CO2 concentration would be rather different. But the observed pattern is one of highest concentrations in the NH and over land, thus disproving the ocean ridge hypothesis, which demands a pattern more akin to the global distribution of spreading ridges (I recall some nice animations of global CO2 distribution and the latitudinal pattern of increasing CO2 concentration but can't find them). High CO2 production in the SH by ocean ridges is not observed. -
Camburn at 10:33 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Sphaerica @199: I agree 100%. Any public funding of any type should be open. Research paid by public dollars, all, as you indicated, charitable organizations etc. An open meeting/records policy has never hurt anyone. -
Guardianista2012 at 10:29 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Thanks for the link, Rob Painting. 1 other question, What stops the heat from rising rapidly? -
Rob Painting at 10:27 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
tonydunc -c"couldn't it be argued that the huge time lag in deep ocean cycling could be responsible for temperature changes from decades or centuries ago?" Ah, the ol' magical warming trick. The ocean warming causes the atmosphere to warm, but why did the oceans warm in the first place? Where did the energy come from? -
Rob Painting at 10:20 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Guardianista2012 - "The only snag that I see is that it doesn't explain what causes the heat to be sucked down in to the deep" Modeling in Meehl (2011) suggest mid-latitude oceanic gyres are sucking the heat down to the depths and that this predominantly occurs during La Nina-like periods. See SkS post: Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us? Observations tentatively confirm this, but we'll have to see what the peer-reviewed literature has to say. The other problem, of course, is that it's difficult to explain why heat in the ocean is caused by CO2 which is in the air Yes, a common misunderstanding. Greenhouse gases, such as CO2, alter the thermal gradient in the 'cool skin' layer of the surface ocean. This causes the oceans to slowly accumulate heat over time. See SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean -
Bob Lacatena at 10:20 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I think this whole thing, however, sort of says that "charities" should be forced to have explicitly open and available documentation for everything. Certainly, a donor can ask to be anonymous, and that anonymity should be respected within the charity. But if anyone (meaning any US tax payer) explicitly asks then they should be able to see the donors, the private documents, meeting minutes (which should be required), e-mails, copies of all organization publications, and everything else. Basically, by adopting the mantle of non-profit, charitable organization, they have surrendered their right to privacy... as is necessary, since they are in a way being funded by US taxpayers. If they want to keep secrets, they can easily do so... by abandoning the non-profit premise and opening their files so that we the people can make sure that they are on the up-and-up. This would apply to everything from Greenpeace to the Roman Catholic Church to the Heartland Institute. If they don't like it... pay taxes. -
tonydunc at 10:17 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Glenn, couldn't it be argued that the huge time lag in deep ocean cycling could be responsible for temperature changes from decades or centuries ago? In my experience the most sophisticated denier arguments attack the validity of graphs like the "ocean VS Land+ atmosphere +ice", by going into the details and asserting that there are major assumptions that are inaccurate. EG. arguing that ocean rifts are not adequately studied to determine Anthropocentric CO2 emissions. And I forget the actual argument, but something about how the CO13 to CO14 ratio is no proof of anthropocentric CO2 increase. SO how much do we know about heat exchange for the entire oceans? Or do we not need to know that because we can determine the rate of change, and that is enough? -
Bob Lacatena at 10:15 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Pirate, It is impossible to ever prove the Climate Strategy memo to be a fake. It is also probably impossible to ever prove it to be real, short of finding a physical copy with Joe Bast's fingerprints on it, or in the briefcase of one of the directors. It is, however, a well-considered piece of damage control on the part of HI to declare it as such, because they will always be able to argue that it was fake, and so imply that you can't trust anything that was released. They probably can't do this directly with other documents, because there are too many copies out there, but they can achieve the same effect by casting doubt on that one. Note that as a US taxpayer you yourself can request past copies of all of their Form 990 filings, not just the copy released. But this strategy also conveniently gets everyone talking about whether or not that was faked, rather than focusing on the fact that their organization actively participates in a purposeful disinformation campaign, is funded by a relative handful of well-heeled individuals, and to my mind has absolutely no right to the claim that it is a charitable, non-profit organization which does not have to pay taxes, and for which the donors can make tax deductions for their contributions (a double-whammy -- basically, the U.S. taxpayers are paying twice to support an organization which is bent on a political agenda shared by a very few, powerful people). On the other hand, there really is nothing in the strategy document that is not in the other documents, except perhaps an embarrassing display of a more cavalier and audacious attitude toward their own documented, planned agenda. -
Guardianista2012 at 10:00 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Great article that clearly explains the 'missing heat'. The only snag that I see is that it doesn't explain what causes the heat to be sucked down in to the deep (La Nina) or re-emitted (El Nino). Unless we can predict those, in theory, we could have La Ninas going on for decades, which will be a hard sell to the public when fighting the deniers. The other problem, of course, is that it's difficult to explain why heat in the ocean is caused by CO2 which is in the air. -
Stephen Baines at 09:49 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Glenn's post is excellent for it's clear-mindedness. It really highlights why the natural cycle idea, when addressed at the right scale, really is an instance of magical thinking, given the data we have in hand. -
Stevo at 09:43 AM on 17 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Outstandingly good article, Glenn. Its clear, concise and easily understood. You've slam dunked an argument the so called skeptics have been trotting out quite a bit lately. -
dhogaza at 09:27 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
John Mashey: "To summarize a long story, documented in detail, IRS rules generally forbid US 501(c)(3) charities from sending grants to foreign non-charities except under restricted circumstances ... and saying that such foreign recipients need not be monitored because they are "friends" doesn't cut it." The directors and officers of Heartland should bone up on the legal phrase "piercing the corporate veil". The IRS knows what it means ... -
Dikran Marsupial at 09:13 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Eric, in the AGW debate, there obviously is a need to judge as there are likely to be consequences to out fossil fuel use. So we need to judge the competing hypothesis to decide on what action we should take or not take. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:11 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dikran, you can always delay judgement when there is no need to judge. -
Dikran Marsupial at 09:09 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Eric (skeptic) no, that isn't skepticism, that is sitting on the fence. You can always delay judgment whilst gathering data indefinitely and call it skepticism. Wikipedia says: Skepticism or Scepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. Note that a questioning attitude does not preclude comming to a conclusion. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:59 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Being a skeptic means delaying judgement while gathering as much data as possible for as long as possible. I believe the document in question is fake, but I am being selectively skeptic (noting the lack of evidence that it was created by Heartland in metadata, quality and structure, but ignoring the actual content). A true skeptic would not believe or disbelieve the document at this point. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:55 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn... "Being a skeptic means that we don't let others "interpret" the data at hand. We do it ourselves." That strikes me as a rather absurd statement. If science operated that way nothing would ever get accomplished because you'd have millions of interpretations on any given published set of data. Instead, why not do what science has always done. Allow scientists to do research and try to publish their findings. If their findings make it through peer review then the broader community has the chance to either point out mistakes or try to replicate it to see if they get the same or similar results, or see if they can improve on the methods and get more robust results. This is my complaint about the whole "climate audit" idiocy. If any given piece of published science is wrong, let it be wrong. Subsequent research will show it to be the case and the research in error will fade from prominence. Understanding how wrong answers came to be is just as important as how correct answers are found. Essentially, if all historical science had to go through "skeptical audits" we'd have to discard 90% of all of science that has preceded. Applying an audit process to science would stop science dead in it's tracks today... But then again, maybe that's their point. -
DSL at 08:39 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn: "Being a skeptic means that we don't let others "interpret" the data at hand. We do it ourselves." And when someone points out an error or weakness in the methodology of your interpretation . . . ? -
Phila at 08:29 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Being a skeptic means that we don't let others "interpret" the data at hand. We do it ourselves. Incompetence and arrogance, together at last! -
Brian Purdue at 08:18 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Don’t forget we’re not only dealing with the “Denial” machine but also the “Doubt” machine. The Heartland Institute has had plenty of practice at both so I wouldn’t believe anything this crew say. The worm has turned. -
OPatrick at 08:07 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
There is a certain irony in Jim Lakely, Heartland's communication director, apparently not responding to Suzanne Goldenberg's request for them to confirm the authenticity of the fundraising e-mail - from The Guardian He did not respond to a request to characterise the campaign, or send a copy of the fundraising email. He also refused to comment on the authenticity of a fundraising email obtained by the Mother Jones website on Thursday. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:54 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn wrote: "Being a skeptic means that we don't let others "interpret" the data at hand. We do it ourselves." No, that isn't skepticism, it is a symptom of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Do you let doctors, with many years of medical training, interpret the medical data for you, or do you do it yourself? I suspect the former, and with good reason. -
Camburn at 07:34 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
scaddenp@185: I don't know how many hits they would have. I haven't been to their site, do they have a hit counter? I think our differences are ones of interpretation of the data. Joshua@182: My response to you was to your last paragraph @178. -
scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn - "Who payed any attention". Well how many hits does NIPCC give you let alone the regurgitation of their nonsense on blogs and media worldwide. 2/ Which millions are these? And I'd like to some evidence of you analyzing the data yourself. So far, you seem happy to prefer other's disinformation that fits your biases. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:10 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
ScaredAmoeba at 163 I agree with your post. If the "strategy" document is a fake and can be linked to an entity, it will be at a minimum a severe embarrassment to the person who generated and the organization to which they are connected. -
JMurphy at 07:09 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
And I would love to see who has been "promoting AGW" ! Who are these AGW 'promoters', Camburn ? -
Joshua at 07:06 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn - Maybe you could explain what your response had to do with my comment? -
Camburn at 07:02 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Joshua@178: One could pose the question: 1. Who payed any attention The Heartland Institute? 2. What importance would a few million dollars make compared to the millions spent promoting AGW? Being a skeptic means that we don't let others "interpret" the data at hand. We do it ourselves. -
Ian Forrester at 06:58 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Martin asks:Has anybody described as "one of the more neutral voices with big audiences", i.e. Revkin or Curry commented upon being so popular with HI?
Well it looks like Revkin has gone from hero ("one of the more neutral voices with big audiences") to zero ("Since the documents were obviously stolen and marked "confidential," what Revkin did was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal".) over the past day or so. Interesting that they call it a "legal defense fund" shouldn't they have called it a "legal offense fund"? Unless they are looking a few weeks down the road when the IRS will be after them. -
Gringo at 06:35 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I also find this quote from his fund raising email particularly interesting: "We have taken measures to ensure that we aren't victims of identity theft and computer fraud again, but in this age of identity theft and hacking, I can't promise it won't ever happen again." (Emphasis mine) Yep, that for sure will get new funds just pouring in from anonymous donors. -
Joshua at 06:28 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
An observation. A massive number of electrons are being spent determining whether that one document is a fake or not. Presumably, such a large number of electrons would indicate that the authenticity of the documents is a very important issue. Well, consider this: What % of people would view the significance of the Heartland documents differently, depending on a final proof of that one document's authenticity? Would "skeptics" change their perspective on the importance of the documents if they saw definitive proof that the one document is authentic? Would "realists" change their perspective on the importance of the documents if they saw definitive proof that the one document is a "fake?" My guess is that the # of climate debaters who might actually attach any real importance to the authenticity of that one document (in other words, have their view significantly altered contingent on proof) could be counted on one hand, although the # of climate debaters who will argue with great urgency about the authenticity of that document is quite large, indeed. -
rockytom at 06:26 AM on 17 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
Dr. Kutscher should be invited to give his presentation to every state legislature and to the U.S. Congress. -
MA Rodger at 06:09 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Gringo @171+ It's interesting that the H.I. President Jo Bast has time go on a fund-raising drive yet he is still complaining about folk quoting the leaked/faked documents that he has not yet had time to authenticate. So why is it taking him so long to check a few tens of pages? Perhaps he's realised there are a few comments that would be a bit too damaging to admit to. I liked Bast's appeal when he wrote "This attack would not have happened if we weren't unveiling the truth." Indeed, it seems some truth has been unveiled. Unfortunately for President Bast, it isn't the truth he intentionally wanted unveiled. So sad. -
Gringo at 05:45 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Personally I believe that HI President Joe Bast fundraising memo will do his organization more bad than good given its wording and his admittance that many if not all of the originals were written by him. That makes it very likely that they all came from one source; his assistant's computer (at least one document, the one with the names, addresses and phonenumbers of HI Board Members) states the full pathname at its bottom; the name which appears there is mentioned in the Budget file as his Assistant). I still have to see concrete evidence (other than HI's claim) that the Strategy Memo is fake. Mr Joe Bast, being the only executive at HI to receive a compensation ($145,135 in 2010), has a direct interest in downplaying this blunder from very likely his assistant if not himself. -
John Russell at 05:40 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
It's worth a reminder that a Heartland Director once wrote about a UEA email: "[it's] ...so good, so juicy". The quote can be found on Heartland's own website: just google the words -- Heartland "so good so juicy" Talk about chickens coming home to roost! -
logicman at 05:13 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
From the horse's mouth - thanks to motherjones, hat tip to gringo #171 Joseph L. Bast says: "I am very sorry that the identities of some of our donors were revealed by this theft." Plain English that couldn't be any plainer confirming the authenticity of the documents which name donors: "the identities of some of our donors were revealed". Joseph L. Bast says: "Right now we are trying to get the individuals and organizations that have tried to make hay with these stolen and fraudulent documents to retract their statements, by threatening legal action if necessary." Good luck with that. How are you going to require blogs and media across the planet to unpublish the truth? I hope that Heartland has a team of linguists on hand to translate the legalese. Just a sample of non-English stories: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/02/16/natura/1329397465.html?cid=GNEW970103 http://www.ceskapozice.cz/zahranici/svetove-udalosti/unik-dokumentu-i-popiraci-globalniho-oteplovani-uz-maji-svou-aferu http://www.klimaretter.info/forschung/hintergrund/10591-microsoft-bayer-und-der-zweifel-am-klimawandel -
Jeffrey Davis at 05:03 AM on 17 February 2012Tropical Thermostats and Global Warming
Basically, they are parlaying a local event to global. Since the Earth has been much warmer in the past, that phenomenon doesn't have global implications. -
John Russell at 04:42 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@Gringo I particularly like the quote near the bottom of that long and rambling email appealing for funds... "Dave Padden, Heartland's founder and long-time chairman, used to say that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings. Of course he was right. We're witnessing that right now." I think Dave Padden was thinking about the Heartland's modus operandi when he said that! -
Dennis at 04:36 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Re Gringo @ 171: What I found interesting about the fundraising email is its repetitive references to the "left" etc. when talking about climate change. Not a word about the actual science. That says a lot about the interests of Heartland and its donors. -
Gringo at 04:17 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Mother Jones has obtained a Heartland Institute fundraising email written by its president Joseph L Bast in which it uses the leak incident to seek donations for its legal fund. Some interesting snippets: "Most of the leaked documents appear to have been written by me for a board meeting that took place on January 17. I have not yet had a chance to compare the ones that are posted online with the originals I wrote, so I don't know if they are authentic or have been altered. " & "We have reported the identity theft and computer fraud to the police and to the FBI. We are asking the bloggers and reporters to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions." & " I am very sorry that the identities of some of our donors were revealed by this theft. I apologize to them, from the bottom of my heart. We are calling everyone who was named in these documents to give them the bad news and offer whatever assistance we can to repair the damage. We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you. " -
Martin at 04:16 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I would have expected companies like Exxon to be on their donor list. What do they do to influence public opinion? The Heartland Institute must be incredibly effective with their limited budget, unless there is a lot more money from other sources sloshing around somewhere. The think it is their intention to interfere in the high school curriculum that has angered me the most. I sincerely hope that David's Wojick's climate doubt modules will not make it to the classrooms. Has anybody described as "one of the more neutral voices with big audiences", i.e. Revkin or Curry commented upon being so popular with HI? -
Paul D at 02:01 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
My point @170 was that HI deserve no support if you base your involvement in a discussion on science. Heartland have made hypocritical statements about how unfair things are, yet have involved themselves in attacking climate scientists without seemingly engaging any discussion with those scientists. -
CBDunkerson at 01:43 AM on 17 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Camburn, no this will not 'eventually amount to nothing'... because it has already demonstrated that Heartland is a direct link between the businesses paying for climate change denial and the scientists, journalists, bloggers, et cetera spreading this denial. Some of Heartland's donors have also stated that they are 're-evaluating' their relationship. Thus, the document release has already amounted to something. Whether it will amount to more remains to be seen, but "nothing" is off the table.
Prev 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 Next
