HeartlandGate

The Left Wing is atwitter over documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that is at the forefront of climate skepticism. There’s a bunch of stuff there but … I’m kind of unimpressed. Most of it is about raising money from the likes of the Eeevil Koch Brothers. These are the evil pair who funded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature program which … um, confirmed the purported temperature trends using the most robust analysis yet. Yeah, so … uh … get your Evil Act together guys!

The most damning document is about coordinating a campaign aimed at teachers to spread misinformation about climate science. However, Heartland is saying that while the other documents are real, this one is a fake.

We’ll see what shakes out. As with Climategate, I suspect this will turn out to be overblown. Heartland pushes climate skepticism and so they collect donations from people whose business interests might be harmed by global warming legislation. This is neither surprising nor revelatory. The same game is played by business interests who would benefit from global warming legislation, such as Obama’s entire multi-billion dollar “green energy” program and the failed European cap and trade experiment.

Let’s stick to the science and ignore who is funding whom.

Update: This “scandal” is falling apart as we speak. Megan McArdle goes through the bad memo and shows why it’s at least odd, if not faked. And the Koch Brothers indicate their support or Heartlands was for health programs, not climate issues. Yes, climate hysterics, Heartland does more than climate skepticism.

Do you think any of the Lefties cackling with glee over this are going to admit it if this memo is shown to be a fake? I’m not holding my breath.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    Megan McCardle has an awesome takedown of why the only document that is scanned, the others are all PDFs which means you can get at the metadata and see when they where put together, is the one that has the left all ecstatic. Frankly, I was so underwhelmed by this whole thing, I did not bother to write about it. If I had, it would have been to point out how two things. The first would be how the same idiots that always dismiss anything that shows the much more damning behavior from the East Anglia revelations than the one they are now so ecstatic to rake Heartland over the coals for, demanding either because they simply refuse to accept the scientific process was horribly mutilated or because they set an impossible evidence bar that we wait until we have indisputable proof to argue against their bull which lacks the same level of rigorous accuracy, are hypocritical assholes. The second would be that all their hopes rest on a very suspicious document. One I expect we will sooner than later find out is another Dan Rathereque attempt to make up the facts to suit the narrative.

    And if it turns out that Heartland Institute is actually going into schools and dissuading them from brainwashing kids with this AGW nonsense, I am going to send them some money. I firmly believe that the reason we have such a deficit of scientific minds in this country is precisely things like AGW, which are driven off emotional appeal and a liberal big government agenda rather than any real respect for the scientific process and science. This emotional science doesn’t serve anyone wanting to do real scientific work at all, and likely pshes off the ones that would be qualified while attracting activists. Just like journalism today is full of leftists trying to make a difference instead of people that want to report the news.

    Queue the AGW cultists pretending they have science on their side and watch the desperate attempts to impugn the character and intelligence of the people that like me that have seen through the whole AGW movement and its end goal. The proof they are all full off it is the need of a concept as ridiculous as “scientific consensus” to legitimize something that is totally political. of course that we find out constantly that all the bullshit they have shoveled tends to be either totally false or such massive exaggerations that anyone that values facts and logic aught to do a double take, should not matter. Didn’t we have a report just recently come out, dismissing the dumb claims made in the UN’s IPCC report that yet another mountain range was going to be totally devoid of snow & ice in a meager decade, as absolute exaggerations? And note that the use of exaggeration is simply the LSM is trying to do damage control instead of saying they got caught in another blatant lie.

    Let the circus begin.

    Thumb up 2

  2. JimK

    Oh shit. If the world ends before I get to buy a blacked-out Victory or a loaded-up Street Glide I’m gonna be pissed.

    SEE WHAT YOU TWO DID? YOU HASTENED THE END OF DAYS BY AGREEING. FUCKING STOP THAT. ;)

    Thumb up 4

  3. Kimpost

    I take it you agree with it because Alex too thinks this is overblown? I would agree with that too.

    But he couldn’t resist embedding that point in the usual unsubstantiated anti-science bullshit. You know, the things that has previously lead to 100 or so comments of which at least 90% consist of useless mudslinging. That’s when Jim usually wakes up and says enough by telling CM to lay off.

    The first would be how the same idiots that always dismiss anything that shows the much more damning behavior from the East Anglia revelations than the one they are now so ecstatic to rake Heartland over the coals for, demanding either because they simply refuse to accept the scientific process was horribly mutilated or because they set an impossible evidence bar that we wait until we have indisputable proof to argue against their bull which lacks the same level of rigorous accuracy, are hypocritical assholes.

    If you don’t want the debate, Alex, then why do you write this shit? The scientific process was not “horribly mutilated”. It. Just. Was. Not. The East-Anglia controversy was reviewed seven times. Each and every one of those reviews concluded that the science was sound. Further more, their findings have been validated by other scientists, from other institutions from all over the world. Knowing all that, while still suggesting that the scientific process was horribly mutilated, is just… weird.

    And you top that off with a rant on setting impossible evidence bars. That’s rich considering that this is precisely what the sceptics have done for years now (well that, blowing things out of proportions, and spreading outright lies).

    And if it turns out that Heartland Institute is actually going into schools and dissuading them from brainwashing kids with this AGW nonsense, I am going to send them some money.

    Look at you defending the indefensible. Let’s paraphrase what you are saying. “It’s probably not true, but if it is, then it’s all good.” Quit it already, you’re making my head spin.

    I firmly believe that the reason we have such a deficit of scientific minds in this country is precisely things like AGW, which are driven off emotional appeal and a liberal big government agenda rather than any real respect for the scientific process and science. This emotional science doesn’t serve anyone wanting to do real scientific work at all, and likely pshes off the ones that would be qualified while attracting activists.

    Climate research is science. There are people out there who are politicising science, but you don’t actually have to listen to those. The science stands on its own.

    Just like journalism today is full of leftists trying to make a difference instead of people that want to report the news.

    Journalism has always attracted people wanting to make a difference. That’s just a fact, regardless of your political persuasion.

    Queue the AGW cultists pretending they have science on their side and watch the desperate attempts to impugn the character and intelligence of the people that like me that have seen through the whole AGW movement and its end goal. The proof they are all full off it is the need of a concept as ridiculous as “scientific consensus” to legitimize something that is totally political. of course that we find out constantly that all the bullshit they have shoveled tends to be either totally false or such massive exaggerations that anyone that values facts and logic aught to do a double take, should not matter.

    Scientific consensus does not impact the science. No one’s claiming it does. It is a popular validity argument, though. If an overwhelming number of scientists are in agreement on any matter, then it’s likely because the science is sound.

    Didn’t we have a report just recently come out, dismissing the dumb claims made in the UN’s IPCC report that yet another mountain range was going to be totally devoid of snow & ice in a meager decade, as absolute exaggerations? And note that the use of exaggeration is simply the LSM is trying to do damage control instead of saying they got caught in another blatant lie.

    What report was that? Anyway, the initial IPCC report wasn’t perfect. Mistakes were made. But guess who corrected them? The science community did…

    Thumb up 1

  4. JimK

    They’re a couple of fairly awesome motorcycles. I’m in love with the Victory Vegas 8-ball as a solo rider, and the Harley Street Glide as a touring option for when I take my old lady out and about.

    I don’t want to be in love with them. They’re both crazy expensive as compared to what you can get a metric for. Like…20-50% more expensive. I’d rather find a metric (read Japanese) bike to be in love with, and I am a little in love with the Star Raider from Yamaha, but the Victory fits me like a goddamned glove and I suspect the Street Glide would be the perfect touring bike for us.

    Aside: I love LOVE love my current bike. Lyla, if you read this, I love you, baby. If we upgrade I’m keeping you forever. You’re gonna be my daily ride. I have room in my life for more than one ride, though. :)

    But I digress. Sorry. Alex & Hal agreed on something. Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

    Thumb up 0

  5. Seattle Outcast

    Anyway, the initial IPCC report wasn’t perfect. Mistakes were made. But guess who corrected them?

    Absolutely nobody. In fact, going by what news comes out of the IPCC, they appear to have doubled down on the stupid.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Kimpost

    Absolutely nobody. In fact, going by what news comes out of the IPCC, they appear to have doubled down on the stupid.

    Christ. Instead of being broad I think it probably would be better if we took things issue by issue. The IPCC was wrong to include the Himalayan 2035 projection in the report, but they have acknowledged that. Further more, scientists found the error.

    The IPCC never doubled down on stupid. They accepted responsibility for it. The projectetion did not come from a peer reviewed source.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Dave D

    Oh, great! Another AGW thread that will feature hundreds of CM/KP linkbarrages and Alex and others trying to detail as many as possible, eventually giving up becasue of the sheer magnitude of the linking, while Hal talks past their points and remains “on-faith”……….

    Thumb up 1

  8. Seattle Outcast

    The IPCC report is so riddled with errors, gray literature, and supposition that it is worthless. It should have been withdrawn, yet the UN still stands by it.

    Thumb up 1

  9. Retluocc1

    The IPCC report is so riddled with errors, gray literature, and supposition that it is worthless. It should have been withdrawn, yet the UN still stands by it.

    Much (not all) of the science and data in the actual full IPCC reports is pretty sound. But that’s the dry, boring stuff that 99% of people wouldn’t understand or would fall asleep reading. It’s the “Summary for Policy Makers” – or whatever it’s called – that’s the really kicker. That’s the short form written by politicians for politicians and is chock full of piss-poor explanations, factually challenged premises, incoherent conclusions, unsupportable projections, and wildly impractical prescriptions.

    It’s important to keep those separate and to remember that a lot of good scientists involved are not politically motivated. It’s only a few, VERY vocal ones who are out there screwing things up and providing justification for political power-grabs.

    Thumb up 3

  10. Kimpost

    Stands by it? I should hope so. Anyway their work is one in progress. The fifth assessment report comes out in 2014.

    For those trying to follow the science community, the general feeling is that the lower end of (better) projections from the initial reports, are no longer likely. We’re in worse shape today than we were when the initial report landed (No, I’m not suggesting the end of the world. Just worse living conditions for many, with higher risks for regional tensions as well as for financial costs).

    I don’t have political solutions to this huge subject, but I do think that we should be discussing them. Instead some of us are debating things that are already determined as very likely to be true. I hate that we have allowed politics to trump science like we so clearly have. In my opinion we have a choice here. The sooner and smarter we act, the lesser the consequences.

    I’m not a hippie advocating that we should “return to nature”. I think that we primarily need innovation and science to tackle this, and for that we need financial resources. I’d rather put money into that, than into banning fossil fuels. But the major problem with all of this is that some parts of the world are not even participating in the discussion. In US, many on the right have effectively surrendered the issue by disregarding the science. You are left with a situation where the discourse is led by the left and debated by the left. What kind solutions would you expect to come out from that? No wonder some of you guys don’t like the politics of it. There’s a fix for that though. Join the debate.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Seattle Outcast

    Stands by it? I should hope so. Anyway their work is one in progress. The fifth assessment report comes out in 2014

    An it will be even more meaningless, politicized bullshit than the last. I could shit a better report than anything the IPCC will ever generate.

    Thumb up 0

  12. davidst

    Scientific consensus does not impact the science. No one’s claiming it does. It is a popular validity argument, though. If an overwhelming number of scientists are in agreement on any matter, then it’s likely because the science is sound.

    Climate is a non-linear system with an unknown (but large) number of significant dependent variables and only one system to observe and theorize about. Imagine if nutritional scientists had only one human to study and could only make observations and simulations while having no control over the person’s diet or exercise. That’s climate science in a nutshell. Add a heavy does of politicization, and the consensus of “climate scientists” is essentially worthless.

    Thumb up 1

  13. mrblume

    Climate is a non-linear system with an unknown (but large) number of significant dependent variables and only one system to observe and theorize about.

    You mean like economics. Which hasn’t stopped anyone here from being entirely convinced of whatever theories their favorite ideology espouses.

    Thumb up 1

  14. davidst

    Yes a lot like economics. The difference with the economy is that it moves on a much faster scale so you can identify who understands the economy (and is honest about it) based on who is making accurate predictions and who isn’t.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    avid D said:

    Oh, great! Another AGW thread that will feature hundreds of CM/KP linkbarrages and Alex and others trying to detail as many as possible, eventually giving up becasue of the sheer magnitude of the linking, while Hal talks past their points and remains “on-faith”……….

    BINGO!
    Age old guaranteed comments generator ’round these parts. Kind of a conscious soother after yesterdays vacancy I suppose.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT

    Anyway, the initial IPCC report wasn’t perfect. Mistakes were made. But guess who corrected them?

    The UN bureaucrats responsible for the political explenation agenda suggested by the IPCC report are not correcting anything, Kimpost. Others are pointing out the lies, with indisputable evidence & science, and that forces the political IPCC report absuers to retract their lies and falsehoods, while they still claim it was someone else’s fault it got in their report AND, and the “and” is what pisses me off the most, even if it is part of a massive chain of such “retractions”, they still stand by their prediction that the world will end unless we left them implement the political agenda they have been pushing for.

    Laughable to pretend that people that are shamed into admitting they exaggerated and lied, while still maintaining that despite all their “evidence” being disproved, that the nonsense they peddle is still true, are actually doing it out of some noble motive. And this is certainly not the scientific process in action if that was what you were trying to imply. Consensus science has no room for “deniers” rocking the boat.

    Thumb up 0