Fakegate underpinnings exposed

At WUWT, Lord Christopher Monckton fulminates against the “perps” (I love his use of this vulgar Americanism to explicitly demonise the culprit behind the fraud against the Heartland Institute) and expertly delineates the legal principles involved. H/t Bob Carter.

The perps, whoever they be, should be investigated, brought for trial, prosecuted and fined or – better still – imprisoned… The dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media and blogs on what the counterfeit document purported to reveal about the Heartland Institute’s supposed attitude to the teaching of science in schools would count very much against them in court. The intent to cause harm to the Heartland, and to cause collateral damage to Anthony Watts and others, is very clear.

He reminds us that just a few climate scientists have published misleading papers to shore up the fictitious case alleging humanity’s coming climatic cataclysm.

If just one or two of the numerous scientific frauds that are being reported to me were instead reported to the police, and if prosecutions and convictions were to ensue in just one or two cases, the “global warming” scam would come sharply to an end. Those scientists working in climate and related fields who have acted or published fraudulently (there are just a few of them, and they know who they are) would once again be reminded that they are not an untouchable, priestly caste at liberty to ignore the laws that the rest of us must follow.

It could be that our patient, rational suit against NIWA constitutes the point of the spear in the attack on such climate capers as Lord Monckton describes. Were our suit to succeed it would nourish similar efforts around the globe. If it failed, it might merely signal a delay before alarmist misinformation is revealed for the weak, disingenuous concoction that it is.

It fools nobody without shares in so-called “renewable energy” projects. Or who have not written books describing the amazing damage about to ensue from our sins.

Views: 361

19 Thoughts on “Fakegate underpinnings exposed

  1. Doug Proctor on 26/02/2012 at 1:42 pm said:

    If Heartland could settle with Gleick prior to a court case, with a requirement that he participate in a public discussion of CAGW, then full attention would be available: Gore et al would have to stand behind him or be accused of a) not believing their own statements or b) sacrificing their loyal servant.

    Gleick cannot, if the topic avoids pictures of polar bears on bergy bits, fail to look foolish in a technical discussion. CAGW environmentalism is all emotion and fear, a “what if” narrative. Remove the speculation from the talk, focus in on the evidence and the modelling representation of reality, and the “settled” and “certain” nature of the debate fall apart.

    CAGW, carbon dioxide control, is based on the determined outcome of current emissions. As the outcome becomes less certain and less difficult, the Precautionary Principle that drives the movement is less applicable. Gleick, on a platform, could be the hole in the dike that cannot be filled – especially if Gore et al are too afraid to stand up and shove their fat, money-grubbing finger in it.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 3:33 pm said:

    We’ll all be legal experts soon at this rate, what with NIWA, UVA, Gleick and who knows what to come.

    Re “dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media”. For the record (apologies for the repeat but this is salient):-

    “Heartland, a rightwing thinktank with a core mission of spreading disinformation about climate change”

    – Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian


    “The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

    – Heartland Institute


    Factualism has gone AWOL as well.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 6:32 pm said:

    Complete List Of Forged Climategate E-mails

    Posted on February 26, 2012 by Steven Goddard


    Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments


    A 2 word post gets 2 comments – beat THAT Richard Treadgold !

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2012 at 9:21 am said:

    Brilliant! WendyMcElroy.com

    Reviewing the Situation

    What but Oliver! can do this justice? As I reported Tuesday, Dr. Peter Gleick has confessed to phishing documents from the Heartland Institute. It now transpires that he started his phishing campaign on the same day he turned down an offer from the Heartland Institute to speak at their annual dinner. Some have conjectured that he took offense at the offer. And I should note for the record that to date he has neither confirmed, nor denied, authoring the infamous “faked memo”. A man of such complexity and ambiguity…reminds me of Fagin contemplating his future.

    (Unfortunately, there’s no way to write this song without many inside jokes, so do consult the footnotes if you’re new to this scandal.)

    Reviewing the Situation
    (from Oliver! – lyrics, YouTube)

    A Genius1 of my magnitude
    Can have a sublime attitude
    So when Heartland invites me to speak at their annual feed,
    I’m asking myself can this be an exposure I need

    I’m reviewing the situation
    Should I go and take part in their wee debate?
    There will be some remuneration
    And a chance to insult people that I hate
    Their ignorance I will attack
    With plenty of consensus facts
    Then someone will get equal time
    With facts that sound as good as mine
    That Taylor2 is a scheming cad
    He’ll rig it so that I look bad
    I think I’d better think it out again!

    Their welcome, it’s now plain to see
    Was designed to bring shame to me
    For this insult to my dignity they must be made to pay
    But I must undermine them in the most effective way

    I’m reviewing the situation
    I will see what secrets I can quickly phish
    With a simple impersonation
    Hidden memos I will get their staff to dish
    A gmail from…………….



  5. Richard C (NZ) on 29/02/2012 at 8:50 am said:

    Greens, face it: we’re just not that into you

    Ben Pile Tuesday 28 February 2012

    As ‘Fakegate’ shows, the inconvenient truth for greens is there is no denialist conspiracy blocking climate-change action.


    Nice tight well written analysis and summary apparently compiled via the ‘fug of flu’.

    Very impressive.

    • Andy on 01/03/2012 at 10:01 am said:

      This is what is so bizzare about the whole thing. The environmentalists/alarmists have manufactured this false enemy, and it doesn’t exist.

      They are their own worse enemy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 11:32 am said:

      They’re not giving up on their “enemy” though, got to keep the story running even though its legs have been chopped off (I’m minded of a certain Monty Python skit)

      I’m continually amazed at how lenient the organizations and individuals are towards the fallacious writings about them. I would have thought that there would be libel suits flying in all directions.

      Maybe they (e.g. Koch) are working on that but I now see that HI doesn’t have the resources to allocate in that direction because CC is probably one of their minor foci and they are not exactly flush. I’ve wondered aloud here before about whether HI are even able to conduct a legal campaign anyway given their donor structure and limited funding.

      Meantime, Goldenberg/Guardian et al are scrawling with impunity. That can’t go on forever surely.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 12:55 pm said:

      The Wall Street Journal’s 2/21/12 “Not-So-Vast Conspiracy” editorial laid bare the “enemy” too.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 29/02/2012 at 8:31 pm said:

    Wither transparency?

    Posted by Richard North

    While the warmists are successfully focusing attention on the minor-league operations of the Heartland Institute, with a total budget for all its issues, which include health care, education, and technology policy, of around $4.4 million, their own funding arrangements, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, are largely evading scrutiny.


    The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

    Where such huge funding is devoted to global warming advocacy, and policy development, there must indeed be a distortion of the democratic process, especially where politicians are also being paid. These organisations must come clean about the sources of their money, and provide exact details of how much is paid to which organisations, for what purposes.


    Malcolm at Mr Worthing makes the addition:-

    Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million

    The Climate Works Foundation,


  7. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 8:05 am said:

    Goldenberg and the Guardian are STILL peddling garbage:-

    Heartland Expert Taught ‘Biased’ Climate Science Course at Canadian University

    New report suggests efforts by Heartland to undermine the teaching of global warming in schools are already underway on college campuses.

    By Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian Feb 29, 2012

    An associate of the Heartland Institute, the think tank devoted to discrediting climate change, taught a course at a top Canadian university that contained more than 140 false, biased and misleading claims about climate science, an expert audit has found.


    Carleton, in its response, suggested that Harris’s choice of teaching material was an issue of academic freedom. It also noted that the course is not currently being offered as part of the usual rotation of academic offerings.

    “Academic excellence is a priority at Carleton and we have a process in place for reviewing courses that balances context with academic freedom and the rights of our instructors as outlined in their collective agreement,” spokeswoman Caitlin Kealey said in a statement. “We are guided by rigorous science and the science supports the existence of climate change.”



    Reprinted from Guardian

    • Andy on 01/03/2012 at 9:54 am said:

      This is what Ian Forrester was venting his spleen over at Hot Topic recently.
      “It’s all lies, lies I tell you. Lies..”..

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 9:40 am said:

    I’ve been waiting for this:-

    Charles Koch Foundation Confronts the New York Times for Misleading Readers

    The following letter was sent by Tonya Mullins of the Charles Koch Foundation to Art Brisbane, Public Editor, at the New York Times on February 24, 2012:

    Dear Mr. Brisbane:

    In previous correspondence with Melissa Cohlmia of Koch Industries, you invited any further examples of flawed journalism on the news side. The Times’s recent piece on the Charles Koch Foundation [Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science; 2/15/12] is one of the more egregious examples to date. Here are our specific concerns:

    * As soon as we read the piece, we pointed out to editors that they had been misinformed. The article stated, “The documents say that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation…was expected to contribute $200,000 this year [to Heartland Institute].” That is demonstrably false and we said so in writing and on the record in an email. But editor Nancy Kenney replied a day later to ask if we could be “more explicit” (correspondence attached below). A public statement from the Charles Koch Foundation had been out for days at that point and the authenticity of the document the Times relied on had been disavowed by Heartland and thoroughly discredited by other news outlets. Yet, the Times would not update or clarify the story to include these facts.

    * The Times never reached out to us before publication, despite quoting several other parties that were cited. Ms. Kenney claims to “regret that our reporters didn’t call you” and yet when we asked her for an explanation (twice) she ignored the question and the information we provided remains withheld from readers.

    * The piece tried to convey that the Charles Koch Foundation had funded Heartland’s work on climate science – based on the headline, lede, and the sentences immediately preceding and after the mention of the Foundation’s donation, all of which emphasize climate science. That is false, and we explained to Ms. Kenney that our $25,000 donation was specifically for healthcare research. Ms. Kenney insists that we are “misreading” the article and that t is somehow “clear from the overall context” that the donation was for “purposes other than climate advocacy.” Her position is puzzling in light of the actual content and context, yet when we asked for explanation she gave none.

    Since the piece ran, it has come to light that some of the documents the Times cited were obtained by an activist who, by his own admission, perpetrated a fraud on Heartland. One of the documents, a purported cover memo, is now widely regarded as wholly fabricated – a view supported by what both we and Heartland have separately told the paper.

    However, the paper’s subsequent reporting still omits any mention of our direct and salient statements to the Times about that apparent fabrication. Readers are still left with the false impression about the size, duration, and intent of our donation. Our good faith questions about why the Times failed to call us and won’t include our viewpoint remain unanswered. Not one of the five Times reporters that have written on the topic – Leslie Kaufman, Justin Gillis, John Border, Felicity Barringer, and Andrew Revkin – even attempted to contact us for input or reaction.

    One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

    If you could look into this matter we would appreciate your feedback.


    Tonya Mullins
    Director of Communications
    Charles Koch Foundation


    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 12:33 pm said:


      My note to Koch Foundation in reaction to its complaints about Heartland coverage in The Times:

      I just caught up with the foundation’s complaints to The Times related to coverage of the Heartland documents and Peter Gleick. One thing you should be aware of is that I write my blog for the Opinion side of the paper. (It moved from the news side after I left the Times staff at the end of 2009).

      Any issues with the news coverage should be pursued separately from any complaints about my writing. If you scour my coverage, one thing you’ll note is that I made no mention of the foundation.

      I also found it a bit irksome to see you highlight how I credited Gleick with confessing to the subterfuge in obtaining the batch of board documents without noting my strong and repeated criticisms of his actions. I’d be happy to discuss my coverage with folks from the foundation any time.

      Best wishes, Andy


  9. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 12:38 pm said:

    FakeGate beats DenierGate in google war: DeSmog disaster spreads

    In the big battle for the meme-of-the-moment, Fakegate has won.

    DeSmog can’t be too happy about this. Google “DenierGate” and get 67,000 results, but google “Fakegate” and get 168,000.

    What do you know? Stealing things, breaching privacy, and exposing nothing but tiny funding isn’t catching on. As a PR faux pas this is a case study in implosions. DeSmog have inadvertently shone a beacon on the real David and Goliath story here, where the Big-Oil funding isn’t so big, and the real money is on the side who pretends they are “doing it for the planet”. Worse, between them, DeSmog and Peter Gleick have arranged a public ethics challenge for ethically challenged scientists, and a mass-media bias-test for biased journalists. The spectacle of scientists debating if it is OK to steal, and journalists making excuses for criminal activity, is doing as much damage as the original theft and overreaction. It’s so bad, even the Koch Brothers (target-number-one) can take the unassailable high ground (see below).

    [See Google search Fakegate vs Deniergate]

    Note the auto-prompts: When it’s “FakeGate” it’s news, but when it’s Deniergate, Google queries the spelling … Did you mean: “denigrate”?

    (Oh yes, I think they do…)



    • Andy on 01/03/2012 at 12:54 pm said:

      Note my comment on Hot Topic. When I right click spell-check “denialist” in Firefox, the spell suggestion is “Stalinist”

      You can have a lot of fun with spell checkers

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 1:50 pm said:

    Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

    Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | February 25 2012


    Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

    “On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”



  11. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 2:52 pm said:

    A Climate Science Post On September 4 2011 Involving Peter Gleick

    Written by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science | February 22 2012

    Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

    I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California, involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue. Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.

    Original Post of September 4 2011



  12. Richard C (NZ) on 03/03/2012 at 9:33 am said:

    Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

    Peter Ferrara, Contributor

    About every four years, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces a voluminous Assessment Report (AR) on the state of global warming science, such as it is. Two years after each AR, the IPCC produces an updating Interim Report.

    In 2008, The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago, began organizing international conferences of scientists from across the globe who want to raise and discuss intellectually troubling questions and doubts regarding the theory that human activity is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. Six conferences have taken place to date, attracting more than 3,000 scientists, journalists, and interested citizens from all over the world.

    (Full disclosure: As indicated by my nearby bio, I am a Heartland Senior Fellow, one of several affiliations I have with free-market think tanks and advocacy groups.)

    In 2009, Heartland published Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That 860-page careful, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific volume, produced in conjunction with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, explored the full range of alternative views to the UN’s IPCC. Two years later, Heartland published the 418 page Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC, which updated the research regarding global warming and “climate change” since the 2009 volume.

    Through these activities and more like them, Heartland has become the international headquarters of the scientific alternative to the UN’s IPCC, now providing full scale rebuttals to the UN’s own massive reports. Any speaker, any authority, any journalist or bureaucrat asserting the catastrophic danger of supposed man-caused global warming needs to be asked for their response to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, then they are not qualified to address the subject.

    This is the essential background to understanding “Fakegate,” the strange and still being written story of the decline and fall of political activist Peter Gleick,



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation