Some notes on the Heartland Leak

Some notes on the Heartland Leak (2012-02-15). Anthony Watts urges us, as others have noted, to ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!’ The revelation that he co-ordinates with and has received money from the Heartland Institute does not mean that he’s just an unscrupulous mouthpiece. He’s definitely not panicked by the exposure either.

James Hansen! Algore! The e-mails were stolen! Some of them are fake!

Anthony’s just collateral damage here though. The real story here is that the notoriously partisan Heartland Institute, a “free-market think tank” theoretically ‘providing information to inform policy debate’ but long regarded as the political home of climate denial, tobacco enthusiasm and government hating, has suffered an embarrassing “leak” of documents. Nothing like a little sunshine to make the bugs skitter.

Read about it at:

Of course this is totally different from the “Climategate” e-mails, which revealed that in private conversation some climate scientists didn’t hold high opinions of global warming deniers. The fact that the Heartland Institute spends most of its time and money scheming to confuse the public and to undermine objective scientific advice (i.e. funding Anthony Watts) is an irrelevance in comparison! Thus ending Global Warming forever.

Anthony’s personal defense boils down to noting that the Heartland Institute and an “Anonymous Donor” have (to our knowledge) only given him $44,000 for one particular project. Dr. James Hansen has received way more dough, therefore Anthony is less of a hypocrite. Now that’s what I call claiming the high ground.

However, Anthony’s concealed “scientific” funding came from a biased political organization. That’s a tough one to skate away from, huh?

Note to Anthony: you just look stupid when you try to contrast all money spent in support of any environmental cause to just the political funding for opposition to CO2 regulation. Unless of course the Heartland Institute and their ilk are also busy arguing on behalf of, for example, killing more endangered species or putting more mercury in fish.

2012-02-20 update: Peter Gleick, at the Huffington Post, is the source of the Heartland Institute leak and asserts their authenticity.

2012-05-22 update: After much caterwauling by the Heartland Institute about forgeries and the shameful behavior of nasty warmists, the true conclusion can be drawn: “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose

Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself

Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself. Somehow John Cook calling Anthony Watts a “denier” is an embarrassment. Anthony’s in full thin-skinned rant mode here, and it seems that poor John is now dead to Anthony. It’s Anthony’s tantrum that seems embarrassing.

Anthony’s so incoherent about this that he seems to have manufactured a quote from Cook’s Skeptical Science website claiming that “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.” He then thinks he has refuted them with a series “oh yeahs?”. I’m sure that John would actually say that the natural variations simply don’t correlate to the warming we’ve experienced.

John’s also apparently “smug” for restricting himself to peer-reviewed scientific literature and using “the ugly word denier”, and his associate Dr. John Bruno gets taken to task for being nice to Anthony once but only once. This is just a train wreck of a post.

More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson

More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson. Anthony’s still mad that “his data” has been used by scientists. Particularly because they studied his claim of fatal problems with the US surface temperature record and found that it was completely baseless. Sorry, Anthony, the actual data was theirs. You merely claimed loudly that particular weather stations were badly adjusted and they showed that from a climate study perspective the problems were irrelevant. A year later we’re still waiting for your thrilling expose.

Now they’ve used an amateur photo of a weather station on the cover of a presentation about how to respond to amateur criticisms of weather stations! My god, they’re also plotting things! Denialists do that too! What copycats, such infamy!

Sorry Anthony, your only contribution has been to trigger the recognition that there are tenacious and ignorant pests on the interwebs that need to be fended off. Nice to see the sudden awareness of copyright though. Did you ever get around to licensing that painting you use in your blog masthead? Like all of Anthony’s pretenses of taking the high road this rings a bit hollow.

Expert Embarrassment in Climate Change

Expert Embarrassment in Climate Change. Thomas Fuller, first to publish rash “Climategate” accusations, lets us know that the recent PNAS paper, ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change’, is somehow a nasty and unethical blacklist.

Sorry Tom, the determination of denier/agree-er was based on freely given public statements and the assessment of expertise was the same for all subjects. Claiming sneakiness, privacy infringement, or violation of confidentiality is bull. Read the author’s defense, several days before Fuller’s repetition, over at Real Climate.

Your denialist victims have been “outing” themselves without any help, and your post is merely an exercise in victim bullying. However your howls do remind me of the frequent calls by denialists for the dismissal of “warmist” scientists or public officials, cuts to their funding, calls for boycotts, etc, etc. What’s that smell? Oh yes, hypocrisy.

Dr. Ravetz Posts, Normally

Dr. Ravetz Posts, Normally“. Willis Eschenbach once again offers some self-serving compliments before attacking Dr. Ravetz’s rather vague philosophy of science perspectives.

The main purpose though is to link it all to Marxism and to imply that climatologists operate along the lines of Dr. Ravetz’s unique “Post-Normal Science” observation that scientists are justifying choices based on their personal values. This boils down to a claim that for scientists the end justifies the means, so of course they’re lying.

Dr. Jerry Ravetz – on Willis, epidemics, rough & tumble debate, and post normal science

Dr. Ravetz, captured

Dr. Jerry Ravetz – on Willis, epidemics, rough & tumble debate, and post normal science“. Dr. Ravetz returns to the politics of Anthony Watts’ blog, but after some self-referential meanderings only manages to stick his other foot in his mouth while trying to ingratiate himself into the denialist good books by making an unsupportable reference to the “corrupted science of the CRU“.

Dr. Ravetz, please keep you mouth shut unless you know what you’re talking about! Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.


Conservamentalism“. Anthony Watts thinks that Willis Eschenbach dime-store ethics demonstrates a commendably virile approach to the environment.

It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony

It seems Willis caught some flak in the comments from the “Tea Party” battalion for daring to express some “environmental” perspectives. How un-American.

Willis is quick to reassure every one of his manly credentials and propose a suitably red-blooded name for is perspective. No namby-pamby crying over sea pups for him. Kill what you eat, and eat your kill! He just wants to use resources efficiently.

Does Conservamentalism combine conservative with fundamentalism? No, conservation and environmentalism.