Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments 101 to 150 out of 251:

101. Phila at 05:57 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Philippe, considering the quality (cough!) and the influence of Idso's miserable pile of nonsense, 6 figures is way overpaid. That's what really gets to me about this stuff. It's such a waste! If these people invested in, say, cleantech, they could earn valuable patents and popular and political goodwill, and provide a dramatic demonstration of the free-market principles they claim to cherish. People would probably be a lot less likely to begrudge them tax breaks, at that point. Or protest them. But jeez...giving all that money to Idso? As you say, he's not even any good at what he does. Seems to me they'd earn a better return on his annual income by taking it to Vegas and pumping it into the slots.
     0 0
102. andylee at 06:00 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Sapient@93, yes, I was surprised too at the Register's positive stance, perhaps they are coming out from the cold? (I noticed you used my 1GW/45000 years observation, for which I gave you +1 :-))
     0 0
103. Rob Honeycutt at 06:01 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Phila... Well, you can say one thing about Idso. He's very effective at negotiating his compensation. Can't say the same for Bob Carter.
     0 0
104. actually thoughtful at 06:02 AM on 16 February, 2012
     I just got through to desmogblog -slow, but still there.
     0 0
105. Phila at 06:04 AM on 16 February, 2012
     AT, I am giving up. In order to find common ground you have to want to have a discussion rather than stick to lecture mode. Disagreeing with you on certain important points does not constitute an unwillingness to have a discussion. Furthermore, statements like "valid points of view exist that are not your own" provide as good an example of the "lecture mode" as anything I've said here, if not better. Whether they also represent a greater avoidance of actual debate, I'll leave it for other readers to decide. So yes, by all means, let's give up...if not for our own sake, then for everyone else's.
     0 0
106. actually thoughtful at 06:10 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Heartland 2012 Climate Strategies: "Expanded climate communications Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)." Wow. Of particular note is "mobilizing responses to new scientific findings". This is amazing information. (Amazing that it is exactly what one thinks must be going on, but can't in good conscience conceive of actually going on).
     0 0
107. actually thoughtful at 07:02 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Yahoo/live Science has a piece up that focuses on the false dichotomy. For example they talk about the curriculum, but fail to mention the goal is to distract from talking about science. They are trying to soft pedal it.
     0 0
108. funglestrumpet at 07:34 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Considering the extent of support there is for the notion that letting climate change run its course will result in dire consequences for us all, any attempts to hinder action to combat it, regardless of any contrary personal viewpoint, has to be seen not only as dangerously irresponsible, but probably a crime against humanity according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The leaked documents need to be secured as evidence for any future court proceedings in The Hague. It goes without saying that this body of evidence should also include examples of other deliberate attempts to hinder action on climate change such as those by the likes of such luminaries as Monckton, Lawson, Philips and Hitchens to name just a few of the Brits who should be subject to investigation by the court’s officers. I leave those from other countries to name their own ‘favourite’ miscreants. It is about time that those who are behind the campaign to rubbish the science of climate change were made to face the consequences of their actions. And as for all the hand-wringing about whether it is right or not for us to use the materials this whistle-blower has released, well can you see the denialati worrying about such niceties? We are in a fight for the sake of our descendents and judging by some of the above posts I am sure that I am not alone in saying that when it comes to ‘me and mine’ I will fight dirty, really dirty, if that is what it takes. The Americans have a lovely expression: “Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser.” If I end up on the losing side of this fight, no one is going to be able to describe me as a ‘good’ loser.
     0 0
109. ScaredAmoeba at 07:56 AM on 16 February, 2012
     [quote] At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered....[end quote] That would be SEPP, and is confirmed by: Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Furthermore John Mashey has highlighted some interesting problems for Fred Singer at SEPP, like claiming that Fred Seitz worked for two years after his death. Here's hoping that this will soon prove very unpleasant for many of the characters concerned when the IRS start trawling through their books.
     0 0
110. Bob Lacatena at 07:57 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Operation Angry Badger in their Fundraising Plan appears to directly violate the IRS laws on election involvement. It may be a judgment-call thing, but I think it's worth a closer look. At a minimum, given the tacit, admitted goal of the plan, the IRS should be investigating actual actions of the HI with respect to Wisconsin elections.
     0 0
111. Paul from VA at 08:09 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Heartland has now issued a press release on the subject. They claim that the documents may have been altered and that the climate strategy pdf is a complete forgery (although they have yet to indicate what parts of the other documents have been altered). They also indicate that the documents were obtained via a "spear phishing" attack, where someone impersonated a board member, so that would seem to imply a hack rather than a leak. Oh, and of course they threaten legal action against anyone posting the documents. Yay double standards. However, I think it's fair to say that caution should be exercised against reading too much into the documents while the authenticity is being questioned.
     0 0
112. KR at 08:16 AM on 16 February, 2012
     An update: According to a recent press release from the Heartland Institute, they claim that the majority of the documents were emailed to someone claiming to be a board member who had changed emails and needed copies. In addition, they claim that the "2012 Climate Strategy" document is a fake - although the various components (monthly payments to Idso, Singer, Carter, $88K to Watts for a new surfacestations project, Wojick for "Lesson Plan modules") are line items in the (confirmed by HI) budget, and have in addition been supported by statements from Watts and Carter. So: this leak may have been obtained with "social engineering", not a whistleblower. And the exact language of the strategy document (curiously, it appears to be a scan from hardcopy, unlike the computer documents that make up the majority of the leak?) may be suspect, although the finances are in fact confirmed by the Heartland press release.
     0 0
113. Paul from VA at 08:19 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Another thought, IANAL, but is seems to me Heartland wouldn't actually want to take legal action against anyone posting the documents, as that would allow for the real McCoy to be subpoenaed by the defendants.... Also, given that even without the documents, it's been obvious that Heartland's M.O. has been to spread corporate funded misinformation, their own press release should of course be taken with large block of salt.
     0 0
114. Dennis at 08:19 AM on 16 February, 2012
     However, I think it's fair to say that caution should be exercised against reading too much into the documents while the authenticity is being questioned. Given Heartland's problem with scientific facts in their NIPCC reports, I wouldn't trust Heartland as the final word on what's "authentic" in these documents as well. I think it's time for some good journalists to start calling the Heartland staff and board members and start mining for contradictions in their version of these events.
     0 0
115. NewYorkJ at 08:30 AM on 16 February, 2012
     So Heartland denies the authenticity of the Climate Strategy document. Legal experts might want to comment. Is this something that could be confirmed one way or the other? Seems like Heartland could easily permanently delete the document in question from their records, and proving it to be authentic might be virtually impossible. At least with the financial info, it's subject to government audits. A separate strategy document, maybe not.
     0 0
116. Philippe Chantreau at 08:34 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Fydijkstra, your play on words is of no interest. Everybody knows what is referred to by climate denial, the denomination may not be exactly technically correct, who cares? Get over it. HI does not fund research, they fund a media campaign, in which they aim at keeping dissenting voices out. The stuff revealed by these documents is profundly despicable. I don't see how anyone who is part of the public would not feel threatened by an organized campaign of misinformation undertaken by an organization commnandited by a few industries, with the stated goal of fostering these insutries' interests above all other considerations. As for what H.I. spits out in their defense, I will not trust it one bit. I have no doubt that they will say anything to meet the need of the moment.
     0 0
117. CBDunkerson at 08:43 AM on 16 February, 2012
     It's odd that Heartland's press release on this reads a tiny bit differently than their take on the CRU hack. It is almost like they are applying slightly different standards. As to the story about someone getting the documents by misrepresenting themselves through e-mail... if true that would mean that someone at Heartland made the (rather egregious) mistake of sending private documents to a random e-mail address claiming to be someone who should receive them. They're now vowing to find and prosecute the 'criminal'... but is this even illegal? If claiming to be someone you are not on the internet is against the law then the prisons of the world are about to get alot more crowded.
     0 0
118. dorlomin at 09:05 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Its called blagging Link text There is likely to be a world of challanges in figuring out if a law was broken as there is a case for a public interest defence. Thats if the Heartless story is true. Most of the info on the claimed faked document is available on others.
     0 0
119. Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Paul said... "Oh, and of course they threaten legal action against anyone posting the documents." That's a Monckton Maneuver. It would be 1) impossible for them to do such a thing, and 2) it would clearly violate freedom of the press.
     0 0
120. johnkg at 09:06 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Curry's waded in with some 'balance' http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/15/heartland/ The damage limitation crew are working overtime... /sarcasm
     0 0
121. Paul D at 10:11 AM on 16 February, 2012
     CBD@117 "It is almost like they are applying slightly different standards." Slightly different standards? From what I can see, they have posted numerous articles about the climategate emails and not once checked the validity of those articles with the scientists concerned.
     0 0
122. Albatross at 10:15 AM on 16 February, 2012
     If Heartland wish to demonstrate that the doscuments are authentic then they can post side-by-side comparisons with their own versions, together with information on the computer that was used to produce the documents, time of creation etc. As for thei claim that the scanned confidential memo is fake...show us all your memos then and associated emails so that we can corroborate that claim. The fact that the content of the alleged "faked" memo is corroborated by the content of the other PDFs makes their claim not very compelling at all. Anthony Watts is throwing a tanturm and suddenly cares about journalistic integrity and ethics etc.. How much did Heartland contribute to or pay Watts for publishing this nonsense?
     0 0
123. John Russell at 10:29 AM on 16 February, 2012
     The alleged 'faked' document is full of figures. And it appears that they are correct figures. So do we find it plausible that the faker -- supposedly an outsider -- could make up these figures and get them so accurate? And anyway, the document itself is not that important -- provided the figures are confirmed as accurate. So the Heartland is snookered: the only way it can prove the document is a fake is by showing that the figures it contains are wrong; and they can only show they're wrong by letting an independent auditor verify the real figures. If they don't agree to an audit then everyone knows they're lying. And they can hardly refuse an audit when they were so keen on the UEA enquiry, can they? However one sees it, it looks like they'll go down in flames.
     0 0
124. skywatcher at 10:47 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Oh the irony. Heartland comes out claiming both theft and forgery! The documents are fake! But even if they were not fake they were stolen! Why am I reminded strongly of ... Global warming isn't happening! ... Even if it is, it's all natural! I think comparisons with how Heartland treated the CRU emails theft would make very interesting reading right now.
     0 0
125. GreenCooling at 11:30 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Dennis @94 makes a very good point, there is something fishy with the "2012 Climate Strategy" document. Heartland is claiming it is bogus, and it appears to me they are correct. My guess is that someone has taken a step too far, and prepared an "executive summary" to make the package more digestible, but it's a shame they didn't just do this and sign off as 'anonymous'. Strikes me that nothing in the strategy is unsupported in the other documents, but the deceptiveness in play adds an unfortunate twist. If you have a look at the "properties" or use "tools" - "inspector" on Mac, it is pretty clear it is a scan, all the other docs give the file location and identify the author. And the date of 14 Feb is a bit of a giveaway, given all the others are from the January meeting or before.
     0 0
126. sauerj at 11:34 AM on 16 February, 2012
     Article now posted on www.msnbc.com US environmental page
     0 0
127. Doug Hutcheson at 11:38 AM on 16 February, 2012
     The Guardian article makes clear the dichotomy between HI's attitude to the CRU email theft and the exposure of its own documents:

     The exchanges over the provenance of the documents are bound to deepen the comparisons to the 2009 hacking of scientists' email at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit. At the time, Heartland said the theft of those personal emails created "an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians" to revise their belief in climate change. On Wednesday, however, Heartland said DeSmog and others should be "ashamed" of writing about the documents before the thinktank could comment. [Heartland communications director, Jim] Lakely also asked bloggers and journalists to take down the documents and refrain from quoting them. (Emphasis added)

     I am a blogger and I will not stop commenting on the leaked documents, because I believe they have created an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians to revise their belief in climate change denialism.
     0 0
128. GreenCooling at 11:57 AM on 16 February, 2012
     This is pure speculation, but if you look at p.6 of the budget, titled "3. Personnel Overview" it seems there has been a bit of staff turnover, with some recent retrenchments and unhappy circumstances such as: * "...director of the Center for Transforming Education, was reduced to part-time and then volunteer status as fundraising for the Center failed to reach expectations. He will be restored to part-time or full-time status only if funds are raised."; * "...a legislative specialist working out of our Washington DC office since 2010, was let go mid-year after we concluded he wasn’t the right guy to lead a new and expanded Free to Choose Medicine project."; and, * "...our computer systems manager for the past 10 years, was let go in late 2011 due to chronic truancy. She received severance pay for 2 weeks in January, so she still appears in the personnel budget for 2012." Perhaps our leaker (or at least one of them?) might be a disgruntled employee? Or one of the new ones who's been shocked to find out what they've walked into?
     0 0
129. Lloyd Flack at 12:20 PM on 16 February, 2012
     If the Heartland Institute's claims about how the data were obtained are true the question arises, how did the caller know enough to get away with this impersonation? I don't see how it could have been done unless someone inside gave the caller the required information. Someone correct me if they can think of another way. But if an internal leak is required to carry out the impersonation why would the impersonation be necessary? Surely the provider of the information could have just taken out copies of the files. It is a bit unusual to have seven genuine documents and one fake released. The fake is likely to undermine the impact of the real documents. Still, a zealot might be tempted to gild the lilly. I think it is more likely than not that the Heartland Institute is lying. But even if they aren't their indignation is a bit rich. They actually complain about the integrity of their people being attacked. Pity they did not have such indignation about the attacks on the integrity of climate scientists.
     0 0
130. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:34 PM on 16 February, 2012
     John Brookes @72 "Is there anything connecting Heartland with Australian skeptical bloggers? Maybe through the Institute of Public Affairs... " Carter is involved in most Australian Skeptic Blogs/sites, Science Adviser to SPPI, The Galileo Movement in Australia. And he is a Fellow at the IPA. The guy is connected and a player.
     0 0
131. Tom Curtis at 12:38 PM on 16 February, 2012
     With regard to the strategy document: 1) Based on the information provided by GreenCooling, it was scanned on an Epson machine on Feb 14th. 2) It is not possible to conclude from that that it was not authentic, but only that prior to that it did not exist as a computer file in the hands of the leaker; 3) It is not possible to conclude from its late creation date that it is not authentic, because that is just the date of scanning; 4) It is not possible to conclude from its lack of a mentioned author that it is not authentic, as that again is just a product of its being scanned; 5) It is equally not possible to conclude from its accurate details that it is authentic, for if was inauthentic, the creation date means the creator had access to the other materials at the time of purported forgery; 6) It may be possible to get an indication one way of the other by checking the properties of the 2010 tax return, which was also scanned. When I check it does not indicate that it was scanned by an Epson machine, which is consistent with (but not conclusive evidence of) its not be created at the Heartland Institute, and hence being a fake. 7) Clearly if the Heartland Institute's claim that the authentic documents were obtained by a phishing attack is correct, the strategy document is a fake in that it was not emailed to the recipient. 8) Clearly also the Heartland Institute can easily confirm their account, and that the strategy document is a fake by releasing the email from the purported fake board member, and the email and attachments to the purported fake board member. Doing so would also clearly indicate which part of other documents had been falsified, if any. Their're failure to release the emails should be interpreted as showing their account to be a cover story rather than the truth, IMO. Their failure to release the attachments would, IMO, show that they believe the original documents to be as damning as those released, regardless of any falsifying of those documents.
     0 0
132. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:39 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Interesting that Heartland are claiming the key document is a fake. Surely if someone was wanting to fake a document like this, for maximum impact they would have picked a different list of recipient scientists. Idso as the largest recipient? Most people haven't herd of the Idso's. A fake would more likely have targetted Lindzen, Christy or Spencer. Or even suggested that Watts was directly on the payroll. The more moderate nature of who is on the list makes it more credible.
     0 0
133. Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Glenn Tamblyn @132, if the supposed forger had used a different set of scientists, the fact that the stragegy document was a forgery would have been immediately confirmed by its disagreement with the other documents. What the strategy document adds is extremely damning comments about the motives behind expenditures (ie, to dissuade teachers teaching climate science because it is controversial and complicated). We should not assume the strategy document is correct until such time as it becomes evident that the Heartland Institute is unwilling to show the evidence that would establish it as a fake (see my previous post).
     0 0
134. RyanStarr at 12:59 PM on 16 February, 2012
     When otherwise illiterate people try to write formally they often suffer from unnecessary verboseness. e.g. "Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading..." Better, "Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute plays in leading..." And surely no one fell for this? "Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues" (reminds of the Blades Of Glory quote "work the Google on the internet machine", possibly where the author learnt the usuage) I got those from the briefest of scans of that 'Stategy' document and those two stuck out like sore thumbs.
     0 0
135. otter17 at 13:01 PM on 16 February, 2012
     I was curious what Watts' response would look like, and I was skimming through the comments. I saw this one by a moderator. "[Reply: a well known billionaire is funding the pseudo science blog sceptical science. That billionaire is a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII. How is that not headline news? -mod]" I laughed out loud when I first read it since it sounded more like a schoolyard rumor.
     0 0
136. bill4344 at 13:20 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Tom Curtis seems to have summed up the logical issues to do with the scanned 'Strategy' document being a potential ringer. There's plenty of interest in the other documents, particularly the 'Fundraising Plan' We'll see, of course. But given the nature of the other content the motivation for gilding the lily would be close to unfathomable. For a start, look what the discussion here is now focused on. Talleyrand's famous 'it's worse than a crime: it's a blunder' comes to mind.
     0 0
137. Chemware at 13:25 PM on 16 February, 2012
     @135 otter17 Let's see, this well-known billionaire would then have been born in 1920 or earlier, which makes him 92 years old, or more. Has SkS got any money from an old people's home recently ?
     0 0
138. NewYorkJ at 13:30 PM on 16 February, 2012
     I tend to agree with Tom's analysis (#133). Speculating...maybe the document is genuine, but came from another time and another channel, not from the original set of documents. Perhaps someone left it lying around as a hard copy somewhere within or outside of Heartland. Feel free to poke holes in the plausibility of that. To me, the wording seems plausible enough if it was an unofficial document, maybe a personal email from someone. Clearly, publicly, they would not want to ever convey they were trying to deter the teaching of science, or eliminate "opposing views" (especially because that's the correct impression many get of them), and I think this facade would want to extend to official internal communications and strategy documents that get approved. So it would realistically have to be a draft of something less formal, which is a different type of communication than say a tax form or 2012 budget document.
     0 0
139. Brian Purdue at 13:46 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Chemware – the real significance of that wild statement is that it was made by a WUWT moderator!(assuming otter17 is not have a lend of us)
     0 0
140. Eric (skeptic) at 13:56 PM on 16 February, 2012
     I agree with the ringer theory. The issue is proving there was an insider as stated at Desmog or a identity theft as stated at HI. Even if it was a disgruntled insider it leaves open the door to doubt (of the authenticity) and if there's one thing we should know is that door is always open at places like HI. I would not hold my breath waiting for them to prove anything.
     0 0
141. Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Brian Purdue @139, he is not having a lend, and I have a screenshot. Anthony Watts likes to pretend to a high moral ground on a number of issues. Curiously, on every criticism he has made of SkS and in which he has pretended to the high moral ground, I have found (and have a record of) examples of his doing exactly the same things. This straight out conspiracy theory level slander by moderators is, of course something unique to his and other denier sites. [sarc] "Oh no, I used the "D"-word. That must be some sort of supper covert allusion to holocaust denial. Not that deniers would ever explicitly or implicitly try to associate "warmistas" with the Nazis: "a well known billionaire is funding the pseudo science blog sceptical science. That billionaire is a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII. How is that not headline news?" (my emphasis) [/sarc]
     0 0
142. Tom Curtis at 14:10 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Eric (skeptic) @140, if they do not disprove the theory when they obviously have the means of doing so by releasing the relevant emails, the obvious conclusion is that they cannot disprove the theory because the relevant emails do not exist.
     0 0
143. Phila at 14:44 PM on 16 February, 2012
     a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII For those who don't know, the ADL has weighed in on this accusation: To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as part of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant. Repugnant. Par for the course from WUWT.
     0 0
144. jmsully at 15:00 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Tom, don't you understand? The identity of the billionaire has been revealed on WUWT many, many times. It is.... George Soros!!!!
     0 0
145. Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Tom, "Clearly also the Heartland Institute can easily confirm their account, and that the strategy document is a fake by releasing the email from the purported fake board member, and the email and attachments to the purported fake board member." Couldn't agree more. That would clerar up everything and is the most convenient thing to do. If they don't do it, well... I scan documents all the time and save them as pdf files, which I can then easily attach to an e-mail. The buffoons at WUWT calling SkS a pseudo science site has me still laughing. Even among the comments, I have never seen anything comparable to WUWT's carbonic snow fiasco on SkS. I guess the 2nd law thread may be the exception, some of the comments there went way beyond the "not even wrong" and the patience of the moderators on it went beyond my comprehension, kudos to them.
     0 0
146. jmsully at 16:04 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Philippe, There are many more than one 2nd law threads at WUWT! My recent fave is the Equation 8 thread.
     0 0
147. Lloyd Flack at 16:19 PM on 16 February, 2012
     jmsully, Are you talking about Nickolov & Zeller's United Theory of Climate? That was crackpottery of an unusually pure form.
     0 0
148. jmsully at 16:26 PM on 16 February, 2012
     You've got it. There were several threads dedicated to that one...
     0 0
149. Philippe Chantreau at 17:01 PM on 16 February, 2012
     Sorry guys, I'd rather not look...
     0 0
150. Riduna at 18:03 PM on 16 February, 2012
     I wonder how these revelations will be dealt with by the IRS? Do you suppose they will change the tax status of the HI?
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.