Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
"I don't know who Bob Carter is"
Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter is a prominent global warming "skeptic". Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming, including:
* The Heartland Institute
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Per Denialgate documents leaked by Peter Gleick Bob Carter is on the Heartland payroll to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year. This, despite the claim on Carter's personal website -- and on Heartland's website -- that Carter receives "no research funding from special interest organisations".*
You didn't answer the following question, new HuffPo account "Harry Dowling" - please answer:
Do you agree that that characterizing Bob Carter as receiving "no research funding from special interest organisations" is at best grossly misleading?
And if no, why not?
-----------------
* http://heartland.org/robert-m-carter
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/index.htm
And I'm imagining this scenario and thinking that MAYBE what I did is actually illegal, mail fraud. But how is it scandalous and how does it undermine my own credibility? How does it hurt my cause of saying building retail in a residential area is "a bad idea" if I publicize my opponents' secret plans?
Unlike the "Climategate's" deleting and falsifying of measurement data which truly was scandalous, what Gleick was just plain old political dirty tricks. Nut'n wrong with that.
And where is this hero of science ethics now? His current silence is eloquent.
"The scandal is... the manufacture of a fake document."
Heartland claims that one of the Denialgate documents is fake.
Given Heartland's record for "honesty" their assertion is far from reliable proof that said document was faked.
For example, Heartland also claims on their website that Bob Carter receives "no research funding from special interest organisations"*, while per Denialgate documents Bob Carter is on the Heartland payroll to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Do you agree that that wording on Heartland's website is at best grossly misleading, Harry? And if no, why not?
HarryDowling: "And then to mislead his own allies as to its origins."
Jump to conclusions much?
First you assert without proof that a document was forged. Now you are also asserting without proof that Gleick is not being forthright with respect to the origins of the alleged forged document. Get back to us when you have proof to back up your mud-throwing assertions.
--------------
* http://heartland.org/robert-m-carter
1.Feb2010,RA-10 Inquiry Report:
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
2.March2010,House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
3.April2010,Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
4.May2010,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf
5.June2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
6.July2010,Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
7.July2010,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
8.Sept2010,Deutsche Bank Report:
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp
9.Sept2010,U.K. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
10.Feb2011,U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General's Review:
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/OIGSearchResults.aspx?k=Michael%20Mann&cs=This%20Site&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.doc.gov
11.Aug2011,National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
Prominent global warming "skeptics" including Roy Spencer (a climate scientist favored by "skeptics"), Ross McKitrick (economist and purported "hockey stick" slayer), and Joseph D'Aleo (weatherman / Icecap blog) preach that per the Bible God protects from global warming, along with other fudamentalist Christian signatories of the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation's Board of Advisers:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/
More from the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God will protect us from global warming:
-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...
We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (pdf)
Brand new HuffPo account "AerospaceEngineer":
"...the 'religion' label that is used against the AGW side seems so appropriate."
Science denier irony is eternal.
"not since Da Vinci's days have we seen such an attempt to close down debate on such an important issue"
You seem confused, brand new HuffPo account AerospaceEngineer.
(Funny how many brand new and barely-used HuffPo accounts that advance the "skeptical" narrative there are in the threads - just a coincidence, I'm sure.)
The actual scientific debate with respect to the reality of AGW was settled years ago - you are decades late to the party. What's going on in the public arena now re- AGW is no more of a scientific "debate" than was the circa 1970's "debate" over smoking causing cancer, which is to say its in large measure nothing but a science obfuscation campaign.
Dear new HuffPo account "AerospaceEngineer":
Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trends as flat?*
Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data - thank you.
Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming, including:
* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
Easily verified facts about Lindzen:
Richard Lindzen has been funded directly by OPEC and the Western Fuels Association and indirectly by Exxon through the Cato institute, Tech Central Science Foundation, and Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
And he appears to have lied repeatedly to mainstream media about those ties.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/04/15/why-so-gloomy.html
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
This began long ago. In 1991 Western Fuels Assoc, a coal industry organization, paid Lindzen to testify before a Senate sub-committee. In 1995, he received consulting fees of $2.5k per day from oil and coal interests.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=36
The BBC even quotes Lindzen as describing Exxon Mobil as, "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6595369.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Yet, even ardent global warming denier Roy Spencer refutes Lindzen's "Iris" hypothesis, his main argument against global warming:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
What is Lindzen's "Iris hypothesis"? (cont.)
The so-called "Iris effect" is Lindzen's main anti-AGW argument, which rests on the notion that water vapor levels will drop with increasing global temperatures. This idea has been disproved many times.
As shown as early as Rind, et al., 1991,
http://tinyurl.com/7oeyntw
confirmed by Held and Soden 2000
http://tinyurl.com/7dsxl4p
again by Dessler et al., 2008
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/229/Dessler_et_al_2008b.pdf
water vapor increases with warming and decreases with cooling....
Indeed, Dessler says,
"So in summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is the water vapor feedback positive, it is quite close to the value suggested by the models – Lindzen’s insistence on the converse seems increasingly perverse."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
Several more peer-reviewed, data-based publications completely undermine Lindzen's theory.
http://tinyurl.com/75grct2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/full/nature06207.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf+html
http://www.appmath.columbia.edu/users/sobel/Papers/wright_jcli_09_submitted.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5749/841
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
I read once that a colleague of Lindzen believed he was oppositionally defiant where a person will only dig in their heels even more if someone disagrees with them regardless of the facts.
B Woods and others. Serve it up. Be my guest.
"Climate Alarm: What We Are Up Against, and What to Do", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 8, 2009.
And has written 3 Wall Street Journal op eds, in
June 11 2001,
April 12, 2006,
Nov. 30, 2009
and was one of 16 signees of the WSJ "concerned scientists" letter Jan. 27, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=Richard%20Lindzen&mod=DNH_S
But is anyone naive enough to think that he didn't get paid for those op eds?
And wasn't the WSJ taken over by News Corp (Murdoch family), which also owns Fox News, and whose second largest shareholder is Saudi oil prince, Al-Waleed bin Talal, who also owns a big chunk of Twitter, and who funds madrassas world-wide, along with the "Ground Zero" mosque plan?
Here's from page 1 of the wiki on this chap:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/21/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2010/08/24/115285/fox-stewart-alwaleed/?mobile=nc
http://gawker.com/5840298/news-corps-second-largest-shareholder-accused-of-drugging-raping-a-model
"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[56] James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree, since Lindzen first insisted that he be given 50 to 1 odds.
Lindzen's final proposal was a bet that if the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) and 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Third-party_characterizations_of_Lindzen
"It makes it clear that he's not going to mud sling with those already vanquished."
Yawn.
National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100139297/lindzen-totally-pwns-the-alarmists/#disqus_thread
Delingpole and Lindzen are each disreputable figures. Neither has any climate credibility.
And finally Al Gore. Gore is not part of the science community, yet the deniers love to stand him up as a strawman and then tilt away at him.
No science there Selah. No substance.
Or, do you just want to revert to name calling?
By OpEd columnist James Delingpole's own admission he doesn't have the expertise to understand actual climate science research, and thus relies entirely on the "interpretations" of climate science by others for his "reporting":
"It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time; I haven't got the scientific expertise... I am an interpreter of interpretations."
-- James Delingpole
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s
Selah, I notice your posts are not science based at all. You like the same old ad homs and strawman arguments that about as in depth as a repeat of an episode of "Threes Company".
You may want to look up 18 USC Sec. 1028(a)(7), with the understanding that "means of identificaiton" includes the use of someone else's name for the purpose of committing a crime.
Obtaining proprietary information under false pretenses is a crime in many jurisdictions.
Dear SanDiegoBass13,
Isn't Heartland Institute global warming "expert" Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trends as flat?*
Isn't that like a global warming scam, a climate science hoax?
If you disagree please provide a valid scientific rational to support Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades.
Heartland Institute global warming "expert" Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several other of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming including:
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
Let's amend that statement so even the deniers have to accept it.
"The basic historic science of AGW is settled. It is warming out there because the science says so."
Here is some of the settled science. Would a brave denier step forward and show a credible scientific paper that refutes even one of the following.
1686 Halley Trade winds explained
1729 Beer–Lambert law
1735 Hadley Trade winds further explanation
1737 du Châtelet Infrared radiation predicted
1767 de Saussure discovery of lapse rate
1800 Herschel discovery of intense IR from sun
1802 von Humboldt discovers air temperature is related to sea temperatue
1817 Wells discovers night time radiation
1819 Howard discovery of Urban Heat island effect
1824 Fourier calculates that earth would be far colder without insulating atmosphere
1838 Poillet first calculation of solar constant
1859 Tyndall laboratory idenification of greenhouse gases
1896 Arrhenius formulates comprehensive theory of AGW
1938 Callendar notices that CO2 concentration is increasing
Note that not a single one of these great discoveries were conducted by an American.
There is another part to this continuous string of great science discoveries. This would be the American era starting in the late 1950's with Keeling discovering that the CO2 concentration was accelerating and he discovered the C isostopes.
Deniers? There is nothing scientific and sensible you can say about any of this. Somebody is sure to try of course.
quote from regulatorz:
"regulatorz: Suddenly you want to debate? I guess your little plan of keeping opposing viewpoints out of the arena hasn't worked out so well?
The time for debate is passed. Sorry, you've been avoiding debate for the last fifteen years. The 'deniers' have won. It's over. " -- end of quote
Regulatorz seems here to be waving off all of scientific history. He simply declares he has won a 'debate.' Sure regulatorz, perhaps you can direct us to your work in a credible scientific journal?
The science part of it is settled. There is no debate. There remains a remedial education program apparently.
"it's been your side, from the start, which has held to the position that "the debate is over" even though it had yet to begin at the time that statement was first uttered"
Believe it or not, AGW theory did not "start" in the 21st century after a movie was made about it by a former presidential candidate.
AGW theory in fact dates to the 19th century. You missed the real scientific debate on the veracity of the theory -- which both predicted global warming over recent decades and remains the only theory that explains said warming that has survived scientific scrutiny -- by decades.
---------------------------
Science (Journal) August 1975
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker
Columbia University
If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide... Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460
That's ridiculous. All the facts line up behind global warming. Gleick did what he did out of despair that professional liars have been succesfully manufacturing a 'debate' about this.
Debates? Those are the oldest trick in the book. When scientists debate, say, anti-evolutionists, they often appear to 'lose', because they are forced to stick to reality, while an anti-evolutionist, who 'knows' the 'correct' answer by divine revelation, feels free to distort things beyond recognition (i.e., lie). The 'debate' occurred long ago, in the scientific literature, where standards of evidence are rigidly enforced. And guess how it came out ...
No, he actually said the opposite.
"...a rational public debate is desperately needed."
"My judgement was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts... to prevent this debate."
Of course, in this, he's completely backwards as they had invited him to debate and he turned them down.
They -- anti-cllimate science PR firm Heartland -- invited climate scientist Gleik to 'debate' a Heartland lawyer (lawyer - not scientist) who has a long track record of authoring Gish Gallops* about climate science.
Many if not most climate scientists refuse to debate climate science deniers in a public forum for the same reason that many if not most evolution scientists refuse to debate evolution science deniers in that type of forum and Albert Einstein refused to debate relativity science deniers in that type of forum as well:
All of these scientists understood/understand that in public forum debates -- that is, debates in front of lay audiences and with time limits -- science deniers can spew a Gish Gallop of science denial that cannot possibly be adequately addressed within said fixed time limit.
----------------------------
* Gish Gallop: "A debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised... It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Project much?
Here, barely-used HuffPo account SanDiegoBass13, aquaint yourself with facts, truth and logic with respect to climate science:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782