Turnabout Is Fair Play?

Many people are chortling that the libertarian Heartland Institute, one of the leading skeptics of anthropogenic climate change, had documents about its campaigns stolen and published. This is only fair, they say, since Heartland didn’t complain when someone stole the emails of leading government-funded climatologists that showed that the scientists were manipulating the data to make global warming appear more real.

Now global warming activist Peter Gleick has admitted that he is the one who used subterfuge to obtain the Heartland documents. Heartland had claimed that one of the documents was faked. Gleick says someone sent him this document anonymously, and to confirm it Gleick called Heartland pretending to be a board member and asked to have the institute’s board reports sent to him. He then released all the documents, including the spurious one, to the press.

As the Wall Street Journal observes, what the documents actually reveal is that Heartland operates on a relative shoestring budget funded mainly by individual donors, not corporations or government. It did receive a small grant from the infamous (and libertarian) Koch brothers, but Heartland says that grant was for a health care project, not climate change. Heartland’s total annual budget of less than $8 million is a tiny fraction of the budget of such groups as Natural Resources Defense Council ($95 million) or World Wildlife Fund ($238 million). Yes, those groups do other things with their money but so does Heartland.


Systemic conditions such as psoriasis can have a direct effect on the brain, but its primary function is to intoxicate the person taking the drug. http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Calling-Out-the-Elephant.pdf viagra 100mg price Other product enhancers female libido offerings, why not find out more purchase generic viagra however, address more than the vaginal dryness problem. All natural medicines are ones that are produced from ingredients found in nature, not man-made synthetic cialis super active ingredients. Allergic reactions are buy viagra cheapest the common among all the medicines of this group.
Moreover, a writer at Forbes notes that is one thing to acquire documents from government-funded scientists, which are arguably in the public domain anyway. It is quite another thing to get internal documents from non-profit groups that obtain all of their funds from private sources. However, this distinction will be lost on those who simply want to discredit anyone who doubts that we need to dramatically re-engineer society.

The left has published a number of shrill reports claiming the documents prove that Heartland wants to “dupe children and ruin their future.” Since climate science is hardly a consensus, I don’t think that asking that both sides of the debate be heard in schools is the same as “duping children.” In any case, on Heartland’s tiny budget not very many children are going to be “duped.”

Gleick admits that lying to Heartland in order to get the group’s internal documents was a “serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” Even more unethical was including a fake document with the real ones. Unlike the climategate emails, nothing in the genuine Heartland documents said that anyone at Heartland was manipulating data or trying to mislead the public. By including the fake document, Gleick showed that the believers in global warming are still willing to deceive people to get what they want: a total transformation of our society.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

40 Responses to Turnabout Is Fair Play?

  1. jwetmore says:

    The excerpts I have seen from the stolen Hearland documents only show planning for public relations, not any attempt to manipulate data or expressing regret that the data don’t conform to beliefs. If there is actually anything damaging in the emails, I’m very surprised it has not surfaced yet.

    The media response to the stolen emails appears to be a bullying tactic, perhaps because Heartland does not subscribe to the right belief system.

  2. Sandy Teal says:

    No matter what happens now, we have missed all the extremely critical do-or-die deadlines for drastic action widely proclaimed at Kyoto and Copenhagen. So if you believe the climate change activists at that time, we are already doomed.

    Of course they keep changing the do-or-die to whatever the next conference at a global resort location is scheduled.

  3. Frank says:

    Get ready for it.

    Dan is going to come in, as he has dozens of times, and start calling everyone “denialists”, a fabricated word used to evoke an emotional response of outrage over those who claim the holocaust never happened.

    Wait for it.

    Someone else-Andrew, MSetty, or Dan again–will tell the “denialists” they’ve got their “head in the sand.”

    (Sigh.) So predictable.

    • Dan says:

      a fabricated word used to evoke an emotional response of outrage over those who claim the holocaust never happened

      Transparent tactics aside (they still trot this out?!):

      Denial is a psychiatric condition. English etymology tells us that the root of denial is deny. Basic word structur informs us that someone who engages in denial practices denialism, from the suffix -ism (one who practices).

      Further, an -ier denotes one who engages in a trade (furrier, spurrier, courier, denier). An -ist denotes one who practices or is concerned with something (socialist, apologist, denialist).

      All quite basic and very simple, really. No need to pretend anything else is going on. Describing someone with a condition isn’t provocation, nor is noting there are some who practice the spread of misinformation.

      Unless one wishes to invoke Godwin’s Law to stifle discussion…

      DS

      • JimKarlock says:

        Hey Dan,
        Why don’t you show us the evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

        And please don’t waste our time with all those things that are NOT actual evidence: unusual weather is NOT evidence of its cause, melting ice is NOT evidence of its cause, drowning polar bears are not evidence of man’s CO2, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature in Al Gore;s ice cores, nature emits about 97% of the annual CO2 emissions, water vapor causes about twice as much greenhouse effect as CO2, correlation is NOT evidence of causation, and climate models are not evidence for a variety of reasons including the fact that they are considered crap by the top climate scientists in their emails.

      • Frank says:

        From Wiki: “Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.”

        That AGW proponents like Dan associate skepticism over climate change projections with denial of a “truth” shows the unhealthy obsession and religiosity of their fervent acceptance of this immutable “truth”.

        • Dan says:

          That AGW proponents like Dan associate skepticism over climate change projections with denial of a “truth” shows the unhealthy obsession and religiosity of their fervent acceptance of this immutable “truth”.

          o You have projected ‘religion’ onto others. That is a common frame and parrot, so no big.
          o You have falsely equated ‘future projections’ with ‘current changes’.
          o You have falsely equated ‘skepticism’ with ‘denialism’. If you are still a skeptic in this day and age, you are among the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. The rest are in denial of objective reality.

          That is reality. We live in reality.

          DS

  4. Dan says:

    The fact remains they had plans to disseminate anti-reality disinformation to further polluter’s interests. There is no getting around that.

    DS

      • bennett says:

        Yawn indeed. Like other vested parties, organization akin to Heartland will bend the truth all the way to the breaking point to further the interest of the money that backs them. It’s a yawn because we all know it and expect it. It’s rampant in just about any culture wars topic and is prevalent on both sides of the battlefield. This is not the first nor will it be the last time Heartland is involved in the dissemination of distorted or “miss” information.

        Think tanks are rarely about ideas to improve the human condition, they’re about ideas to further a specific cause/agenda. Dirty tactics, regardless of the group, should be expected.

      • Dan says:

        It is instructive that you support think-tanks spreading lies and disinformation.

        Thanks!

        DS

        • bennett says:

          I don’t support it, I expect it. I oppose it, but in the wake of the culture wars and the current climate in D.C I don’t know what I can do other than bitch.

          I’m yawning not because I disagree with you and agree with sprawl (It’s the opposite actually), but because it’s utterly predictable and not surprising whatsoever.

        • bennett says:

          p.s. When I say “It” in “it’s predictable,” I’m referring to the misinformation, not Dan’s comment. Just to clarify.

    • JimKarlock says:

      Hey, idiot (Dan):
      CO2 is NOT pollution – it is required for life.

      I am still waiting for any of the warmist crackpots to show us actual, real, evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

      Do you know of any?

      Thanks
      JK

  5. Dan says:

    Since climate science is hardly a consensus, I don’t think that asking that both sides of the debate be heard in schools is the same as “duping children.”

    Standard wording aside, there are still a few scientists left that you can hire to say that tobacco isn’t a problem [all aligned with climate change denial – coinkydink surely]. Surely you aren’t trotting out the old “teaching the controversy” trope on this issue too? Come now.

    DS

  6. FrancisKing says:

    “Since climate science is hardly a consensus…”

    Climate science is a consensus, in all of the major areas. That we are pumping CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere, separately to the natural carbon cycle. This CO2 is trapping heat inside the atmosphere, causing the long-term temperature of the planet to rise. Period. Any other story is just a product of old-fashioned ignorance.

    As to whether we should do something about this or not – and if we do something, just how much we should do – is a more interesting and debatable point. McKinsey’s famous 2006 study indicated that reducing CO2 outputs can cost money, or it can actually save money.

    • JimKarlock says:

      Francis: Period. Any other story is just a product of old-fashioned ignorance.
      JK: YOU are showing YOUR ignorance:
      1. 96-97% of CO2 being “pumped” into the atmosphere comes from NATURE NOT MAN.
      2. No one has ever proven that CO2 can actually cause warming in the real atmosphere.
      3. It has been shown that the major climate “scientists” have repeatedly lied to us, hid data, got unfriendly editors of peer reviewed journals fired, unethically peer reviewed friend’s papers…. etc.

      BTW, do you have any evidence that man’s CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming?

      Thanks
      JK

      • FrancisKing says:

        “YOU are showing YOUR ignorance:” Jim, the ignorance is all yours.

        “96-97% of CO2 being “pumped” into the atmosphere comes from NATURE NOT MAN.” That is what is referred to as the ‘natural carbon cycle’. You did read my post before responding, didn’t you? Man’s (and woman’s) contributions are slowly but surely puffing up this carbon cycle. Children can understand this – why can’t you?

        “No one has ever proven that CO2 can actually cause warming in the real atmosphere.” Yes they have. The science of CO2 has been known and understood for many years.

        “It has been shown that the major climate “scientists” have repeatedly lied to us, hid data, got unfriendly editors of peer reviewed journals fired, unethically peer reviewed friend’s papers…. etc.” That’s libellous. Please remember, Jim, that this is a public forum.

        “BTW, do you have any evidence that man’s CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming?” That is why I said – “As to whether we should do something about this or not – and if we do something, just how much we should do – is a more interesting and debatable point.” I’d be more impressed if you could take the time to read what other people say, instead of sticking your clichés on the end of other people’s postings, and then adding ‘Thanks’ as if you actually give a damn.

        • JimKarlock says:

          FrancisKing : Man’s (and woman’s) contributions are slowly but surely puffing up this carbon cycle. Children can understand this – why can’t you?
          JK: Please explain to us how man’s 3-4% contribution is building up, while nature’s 96-97% is NOT. Then explain why atmospheric CO2 is not in equilibrium with ocean CO2 since 2/3 of the Earth is ocean.

          FrancisKing : “No one has ever proven that CO2 can actually cause warming in the real atmosphere.” Yes they have.
          JK: Oh, really?
          Please show us this proof .
          Please note that I am not asking for a lab experiment involving ONLY CO2 at high concentrations. I am asking about the real atmosphere with H2O sucking up far more IR than CO2 and where sublimation, evaporation, convection, lapse rate, gas laws, etc. all occur and interact.

          FrancisKing : “It has been shown that the major climate “scientists” have repeatedly lied to us, hid data, got unfriendly editors of peer reviewed journals fired, unethically peer reviewed friend’s papers…. etc.” That’s libellous. Please remember, Jim, that this is a public forum.
          JK: No it is NOT libelous because IT IS TRUE. And, I’ll add we are just waiting to be sued by one of those lying jerks because they will have to prove they were not lying in court. I’m anxiously awaiting a credible explanation of hiding the decline that does not involve scientific misconduct. Same asking people to delete emails in a message titled FOI.

          FrancisKing : and then adding ‘Thanks’ as if you actually give a damn.
          JK: Yeah, I give a damn.
          I give a damn about the people who have already died as a direct result of the climate criminals surrounding AL Gore and at the CRU. If this fraud is not stopped, it will end up killing more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined because the green zealots want to bring down industrialized society.

          Their leader fully realize ths implications of this. Their useful idiots infesting the press and popular media and general public are generally too scientifically illiterate to realize they are working towards their own demise. Too many actually believe windmills and solar panels can power an industrial society.

          Already they are trying to starve this country of energy as they come up with well funded propaganda campaigns to stop fracking, the Keystone pipeline, adding refining capacity and putting vast energy reserves off limits to even exploration. They know what they are doing and many are being financed by foreigners who want to bring down our country or keep us dependent on middle east oil.

          BTW, if you cannot show real proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming, I’d appreciate it if you simply quit wasting our time. Spend some time looking at real evidence, instead of propaganda from the greenies.

          BTW2, How’d you like the latest climate scientist that got caught in an attempt to discredit the Heartland Institute? Some of the climate zealots are actually considering him some sort of a hero for trying! (Please do not fall for the greenie claim tha this is the same as the climate gate email – it isn’t, Heartland is a privately funded company NOT subject to FOI, while the CRU is taxpayer supported and subject to FOI, which they have been subverting for years.

          Thanks
          JK

  7. Dan says:

    Randal tried:

    the emails of leading government-funded climatologists that showed that the scientists were manipulating the data to make global warming appear more real.

    This is false of course. Teach the controversy!

    DS

  8. Sandy Teal says:

    The definition of “science” is that of a process to continually trying to disprove a hypothesis. That is also a terrible public relations strategy.

    So it is always interesting to see who chooses real science and who chooses the cheap public relations strategy.

    Global warming activists chose one way, and they got killed, even being abandoned by a Democrat President, Democrat Senate, and Democrat House of Representatives.

    Live and learn.

  9. werdnagreb says:

    One (of many) misconceptions laid out in this post is:

    Unlike the climategate emails, nothing in the genuine Heartland documents said that anyone at Heartland was manipulating data or trying to mislead the public.

    Unlike what Mr O’Toole says here, there is no evidence of data manipulation in the climategate emails.

    See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#Inquiries_and_reports:

    The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.” It found that the CRU’s work had been “carried out with integrity” and had used “fair and satisfactory” methods. The CRU was found to be “objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.” Instead, “their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.”

    Also:

    Moreover, a writer at Forbes notes that is one thing to acquire documents from government-funded scientists, which are arguably in the public domain anyway.

    Arguably, but no. These emails were the private emails of scientists. They may accept some government funding, but they are not employed by the government. They do have a responsibility of transparency with their published work, but not their private emails. The implication here is that anyone who accepts any government money should allow the public complete access to their private correspondence.

    • JimKarlock says:

      werdnagreb: Unlike what Mr O’Toole says here, there is no evidence of data manipulation in the climategate emails.
      JK: That’s pretty funny!
      Even funnier is that you cite wikipedia on a climate matter!!

      What you DID NOT DO is read the actual emails. Here are some samples, with the email number so you can see I did not take them out of context:

      September 12, 2007: Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. (1189722851.txt)

      Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (1089318616.txt)

      6 Nov 1999: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ( 942777075.txt)

      11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)

      Dec 3, 2008: About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. (1228330629.txt)

      Nov 24, 2009 Guardian: We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

      (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea)

      All of the above email;s are from CRU head Phil Jones. See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/selectedemails.html
      for more.

      BTW, the emails at the CRU ARE SUBJECT TO FOI. You were wrong about that too. You really should try to read both sides before just sucking up the gargabe the greenies are feeding you.
      Thanks
      JK

  10. Craigh says:

    there are still a few scientists left that you can hire to say that tobacco isn’t a problem

    Then let them make their case.

    I do know that, in the case of second-hand smoke, nothing’s ever been proven other than the studies really did appear to have a random sample and that there was, indeed, correlation. I should hope that, someday, some scientist somewhere, could do better than that.

  11. Dan says:

    Then let them make their case.

    There are still conservative think-tanks out there paying them to “make” their “case”. Just exactly like the context of my comment in 5 wrt what Heartland does.

    DS

  12. the highwayman says:

    JK: If this fraud is not stopped, it will end up killing more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined because the green zealots want to bring down industrialized society.

    THWM: Your anti-rail stance is also anti-industrial.

    JK;Their leader fully realize ths implications of this. Their useful idiots infesting the press and popular media and general public are generally too scientifically illiterate to realize they are working towards their own demise. Too many actually believe windmills and solar panels can power an industrial society.
    Already they are trying to starve this country of energy as they come up with well funded propaganda campaigns to stop fracking, the Keystone pipeline, adding refining capacity and putting vast energy reserves off limits to even exploration. They know what they are doing and many are being financed by foreigners who want to bring down our country or keep us dependent on middle east oil.

    THWM: Oil companies have been reducing refining capacity them selves over the years.

    There’s no point to the Keystone project, also the Canadians have their own oil remaining oil refineries.

    • JimKarlock says:

      the highwayman said: (quoting JK) JK: If this fraud is not stopped, it will end up killing more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined because the green zealots want to bring down industrialized society.
      the highwayman said: THWM: Your anti-rail stance is also anti-industrial.
      JK: non sequitur

      the highwayman said: THWM: Oil companies have been reducing refining capacity them selves over the years.
      JK: NO the greenies have been blocking increased refining capacity for decades. They want to starve us of energy.

      the highwayman said: There’s no point to the Keystone project, also the Canadians have their own oil remaining oil refineries.
      JK: Why do you care? It is not your money being spent! In reality you only care because you get paid to post your drivel here.

      Thanks
      JK

Leave a Reply