JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Heartland sends out first legal notice about stolen and faked documents

Let the games begin. As promised, Heartland want justice, starting with the removal of all the fake and alleged documents. DeSmog have overplayed their hand.

–Jo

Support The Heartland Institute today

(Go on, fake smears like the DeSmog one, are designed to intimidate donors, we can rise above!)

——————————————————————————————————–

UPDATE: Joseph Bast explains why Heartland are doing this:

“We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.

 “For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.

 “We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”

From: Jim Lakely
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012
Subject: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

By email and Federal Express to:
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle
Editor DeSmog Blog

Re:      Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

 

Dear Mr. DeMelle:

On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.

Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.

It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

1.         The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

2.         As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

3.         Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours,

Maureen Martin

General Counsel

 

—————————————————————————————————————-

For further entertainment see also:  The DeSmoggers are crashing and burning (WUWT)

Not to mention that awkward point about the name-calling, FOI fleeing, debate-avoiding scientists who wrote to “sympathize” with Heartland, which was hypocritical enough, but then we find out the author of the document turns out to be a press secretary from the Union of Concerned Scientists, see Josh’s Open letter to Heartland -vs- the original, now with extra karma (WUWT).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (124 votes cast)
Heartland sends out first legal notice about stolen and faked documents, 9.4 out of 10 based on 124 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6rh522y

188 comments to Heartland sends out first legal notice about stolen and faked documents

  • #
    • #
      Robert

      Interesting piece, I would have assumed their initial statement and request the material be removed would have been sufficient.

      Apparently, while a bit more complex than that, we both see the same glaringly obvious fact that those in the alarmist camps who are viewing the HI documents as some sort of victory have overlooked: the legal system doesn’t move as quickly as the online world does.

      This is good to hear, the opening salvos so to speak. As you so aptly noted, eventually, that phrase “You have been served” will be heard.

      Of course deSmog and others could do the responsible thing, but their track record thus far doesn’t leave much in the way of expecting that will happen.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Desmoblog people are in twilight zone for not doing the obvious from day one.

    Now they are sliding their way into a lawsuit they have apparent little chance of surviving.Will they wake up and start their damage control by complying to the General Counsels reasonable requests?

    Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

    I doubt it because their pattern of behavior from day one is clueless stupidity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    Warmists are so fun to watch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Fomerly of Oz

    Sadly, I wouldn’t trust Canada’s courts with this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Desmog et al are really classy people. Brendan DeMelle’s likely response:

    Oh yeah Lakely. Well my dog has a bigger tail than your dog and your grandmother smells funny.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      I expect their response to be of outraged whining, along the lines of “Look how those evil capitalists are trying to suppress us little folks, boo-hoo-hoo.”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Or the interpretation…

      Our side is better funded than yours. Do you have enough of a war chest to fight this? Maybe the warmists are banking on the largesse of their financial backers to bail them out.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    sceptical

    Ironic how Heartland Inst turns to threatening the heavy hand of government regulation when they can not get their way through private means.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Otter

      Sort of like the lawsuit to get mann’s info from WVA after all the lowjinks they’ve gone through to avoid FOIA, eh? Hopefully it will work out 100% in our favor in Both cases.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mike Reed

        Small clarification. UVA is the institution being sued for its Mann emails. WVA is the state next door to Virginia, and the place I formerly called home.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Greg

      When you fail to understand the meaning of ‘irony’ you should avoid using it in a sentence.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bob Campbell

        Greg, I didn’t understand the point of the comment by ‘sceptical’ so am unsure if he doesn’t understand the meaning and misused the word.
        If it’s not abusing the reason for comments could you explain why you think he did.
        I ask as I have had a long interest in the English language, grammar and stuff ever since I first realised we are not ‘human beans’.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      David Davidovics

      That’s what the law is there for. To keep people honest. If you try to defame some one else, there are consequences that apply to everyone. If desmogblog is so correct in their attacks, then they have nothing to worry about and could even counter-sue the heartland institute.

      So really, what are you so afraid of, sceptical?

      For that matter, why aren’t any of the climategate ‘victims’ sueing the sceptics? What are they afraid of?

      For that matter why wouldn’t any of the alarmists answer the HI’s offer to hold a debate at any of their conferences? What are they afraid of?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Good questions, all.

        One of the things that Post-Modern Science has forgotten, is the power of the question, “Why?”

        When you think about it, that question is right at the heart of science.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The fun is only just beginning. I’d make sure I’m not one of those who end up being laughed at when the smoke clears if I were you.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    It would appear that Heartland is about to hit them where it hurts the most: right in the pocketbook. The ongoing negative publicity will only worsen the warmists crumbling position. Climate gate and pseudoscience will again be a topic of conversation for many who had all but forgotten about the matter.

    Who knows, maybe the lame stream media will actually take a critical look at the science or lack thereof? Unfortunately, I am probably being overly optimistic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    aaron

    I think this is a mistake.

    What HI should do is contact affected parties and get permission to release the corresponding original docs so that people can verify them themselves.

    The should only go after those who committed the fraud or flat out lied.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      And what part of posting a fraudulent document online as proof of all sorts of alarmist claims while shouting across the web how it “exposes” the “truth” doesn’t meet your criteria of “committed fraud or flat out lied”?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      I release into the public domain your last 5 years of tax returns.

      You insist that some of the materials are fake and threaten to take civil action against me; for theft, libel, etc.

      But everyone knows you are a liar, a corporate shill and generally up to no good. Therefore, the only sensible way forward is to completely inpunge upon your privacy and for you to release your tax returns into the public domain so that the court of public opinion and sit in judgement.

      I’m no fan of advocacy/think tank groups be it HI, or Greenpeace or WWF or whomever. But can you at least percieve now why most people here consider your line or reasoning utterly silly?

      I wonder if the tables where turned, if a similar thing indeed happened to Greenpeace what blogospheres reaction would be? I would like to think that on my own part at least; I would defend Greenpeaces right to privacy and that I would quickly be able to recognise and repudiate and condemn a falsified document that was obviously written by an unhinged and naive skeptic. Interesting thought experiment.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew Barnham

        Just to clarify, I think I may of initially misunderstand what Aaron was proposing.

        Aaron is proposing that HI should work with those that put their materials into the public domain to verify the ‘original’ documents. Aaron assumes that HI would, could and should trust that those that rushed to propagrate their private materials into the public domain, against their express wishes not to, would act in good faith for purposes of verification. Aaron implies that no 3rd party arbitration is necessary. Although more complex and subtle that what I first assumed and posted above, I still think his proposal is completely silly.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          aaron

          No, I’m saying that having originals available allows refutation of false claims, puts HI on the high road, and should further embarrass the bad actors.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Robert

            The problem is if one of the documents was created by a 3rd party then where would the original Heartland document, if it never existed to begin with, be? How does one provide someone the original of something they never created to begin with if that is the case?


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      Aaron,

      I think you are mistaken. HI is a PRIVATE think tank. The do not receive funding from the government. Hence, it is nobody’s business where they get their funding from. If you gave them funding with the understanding that your identity would remain anonymous, would you feel betrayed if they disclosed your personal information?

      As far as the blogs and newspapers who ran with the story, they should be held accountable. Maybe then they will do a little research instead of carrying water for their leftist buddies who are behind the CAGW scam?!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    mangochutney

    HI should go for the Guardian and the BBC next


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A Lovell

    As I said on Pointman’s blog, it seems they well might end up ‘funding’ Heartland. The irony is too delicious.

    Schadenfreude may not be dignified, but, in this case, it certainly is fun!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    Please don’t go after the BBC as they will just spend other people’s money (mine) on lawyers…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    I thought I saw somewhere that they were also going after the, uhhh, person who slandered Tallbloke?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Copner

    I have a question – how was this C&D obtained?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Greg Laden, of Tallbloke’s a criminal fame, has just announced he’s got his letter from HI. His loyal fanbase, all 5 of them, are egging him on to a second financial disaster. Here’s the link – enjoy.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/i_just_got_an_email_from_the_h.php

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      On reading the comments, they all need to loosen their halo’s. They seem to think they are above the law and are encouraging Laden to ignore the request to cease and desist.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hey Bob. You can’t help but feel that his Mom or Missus or someone around him, should wrestle the poor bugger off that keyboard, while he’s still got two dimes left to rub together …

        Pointman


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The very first comment starts the obfuscation of the facts, conflating the real emails, allegedly obtained by fraudulent means, with the fabricated email that was allegedly inserted with the others.

        Subtle, the propaganda ain’t.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Thanks for the link to Ladens blog pointman. Couldn’t resist so I posted the following…

      Pop corn futures have gone through the roof thanks to your actions. I urge you to stand your ground so that the entertainment continues.

      A certain Clint Eastwood movie line comes to mind..”you got to ask yourself one question punk, do I feel lucky”

      Well, do you punk?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      A Lovell

      Baa Humbug has left the best post on this subject thus far. I hope he/she doesn’t mind me reposting it here. Just brilliant.

      “Pop corn futures have gone through the roof thanks to your actions. I urge you to stand your ground so that the entertainment continues.

      A certain Clint Eastwood movie line comes to mind..”you got to ask yourself one question punk, do I feel lucky”

      Well, do you punk?

      Posted by: Baa Humbug | February 19, 2012 4:44 PM”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Duke C.

    February 19, 2012
    Joseph Bast

    FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.

    The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakelyATheartlandDOTorg or 312-377-4000. (NOTE: The Heartland Institute’s first response to the posting of stolen and faked documents can be found here.)

    “We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.

    “For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.

    “We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”

    Joseph L. Bast
    President
    The Heartland Institute
    jbastATheartlandDOTorg
    312-377-4000

    http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-publishers-faked-and-stolen-docume

    [please do not post full email addresses to avert spamming. Use the format as I have edited them. Mod oggi]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Good point Oggi.

      I am sick of winning prize draws from Microsoft, and helping little old ladies shift their deceased husband’s money around. ;-)


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] here's the text of the email to Greg Laden (a similar one sent to DeSmogBlog according to Jo Nova): February 18, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnomish

    i’m terribly afraid nobody will appear in court.
    heartland is talking a lot.
    people who talk a lot don’t do anything but talk a lot.
    but it’s not bad enough they are feeding trolls – they are making talking points for them by selling wolf tickets like impotent biatches.
    at least maureen is an actual lawyer
    but it’s all talk until somebody shows a docket number.
    if heartland lets them get away scott free, the way monckton did when he had a libel slam dunk, ima have nothing but ridicule for their performance = their identity. they are what they do.
    talk is cheap. i’m afraid they are too. i most sincerely hope to be shown wrong on this because we really do need a head on a post. every time mercy is shown, it’s rewarding and encouraging to the perpetrators because it confirms the pure wussiness already demonstrated by the general public who keeps on paying and paying and whining and losing.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      A very Gnomish comment.

      But the law is the law, and there are prescribed steps to be gone through it you want to ensure that your case is not thrown out on a technicality. That is probably what Greg Laden and DeSmogBlog are hoping will occur.

      The way I read things, it looks like the Heartland attorneys are playing it by the book, as well they should. Time is their friend right now.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robin Guenier

      Don’t worry, gnomish, Heartland has every reason for taking it nice and slow – no rush, no threats. They’re issuing carefully worded letters obviously written following sound legal advice. They’re specifically intended to support, if necessary, an eventual legal argument that Heartland had acted courteously, consistently and reasonably in unpleasant and trying circumstances and, despite provocation (e.g. continuing defamatory references to the Fake Memo) had done everything possible to get redress without having to resort to litigation. If eventually it sues for defamation, the burden of proof would be on any defendant that posted and commented on the “Fake Memo” to show that it was in fact genuine: a heavy burden in this case.

      IMO it’s playing what may be a long game where care and patience usually prevails. It seems to me it’s playing it well.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Frank Brus

    gnomish: I totally agree with you comment.

    It was extremely disappointing that Monckton did not follow through with his threat to sue the “professor” Abraham for his misrepresentations.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross James

      In regard Abraham he did not defame Monckton. Abraham contrary to opinions of back downs and back flips went back to the scientists that were cited by Monckton. In nearly all cases many clearly stated they either were misquoted (as in taken out context) or snipped cut outs of their narratives within their own papers were quoted. This is not a good scientific method in public presentations.

      The University where he works has even gone as far to say that the contrary opinion to Monckton’s are what are they – contrary opinion backed by seeking original sources. There is no such case to answer for such as fraud or attack for attack sake. Saying that is wrong or I disagree backed by source seeking does not in anyway create a legal right of attack to either stifle debate or to shut it down.

      Dissent is the entitlement of all free citizens everywhere. And I am contrary to many opinions of Monckton’s scientific citations as being the correct analysis. Everyone has the right to stand up for what they believe. Anything else is undemocratic and seeks to stifle the debate within the great body of evidence. Wrong use of the Court powers of State and Government can only be a long term disservice and end up corrupting the process that all sides are entitled to.

      Now lets get back on track to the facts of a matter and not back litigation measures to shut those who can prove reasonably otherwise by sound logic and rational argument that such revelations could be in the public interest long term.

      Talk back further in this thread of wasting a bullet on yourself are unhelpful and suggest a worrying trend in the ability to be reasonable in treating each other with respect. It’s about time reasonableness returns. Not once has The Heartland Org. ever actively sought to balance the science in their publications. Even Judith Curry could pass a few tips to this organisation.

      Ross J.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        Do please quote a source or at least post a link?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry

        “”Everyone has the right to stand up for what they believe.”"

        In science there is no belief, just facts. You have them facts wrong Ross, and you will not tell anybody you were a warmist, in 5 years time, out of sheer embarrassment. Seen it many times when somebody is in a cult and when they find out they were diametrically wrong, they end up denying they were a believer.

        That is your future Ross.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross James

    Is this really furthering more understanding about science? Many here want their beliefs that AGW is not a problem re-enforced daily from some emotional blog rev up from the Internet. The human condition is such that shaking somebody from the comfort zone afforded by a well established belief is not easy. They will latch onto some piecemeal evidence that assists their belief (even cling onto the wreckage of what has been shown to be wrong) while ignoring the vast pile of well established evidence that says otherwise.

    They believe in a forlorn hope that this will carry them through. Once a day take a spoonful of medicine laced with sugar from the Internet. We post again and have yet another crack at the established evidence. “All we want to appear is that the whole lot of this stuff will be shown to be entirely wrong”. Then all true believers will be vindicated. And soon new evidence structures are built and the belief buoyed along ready for the next crisis in belief.

    Trust no-one let alone just a Internet blog or blogs. Find the information out for yourself. Get away from the grubby side of the debate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      allen mcmahon

      while ignoring the vast pile ……… that says otherwise.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry.

      Ross, you are deluded. AGW is a problem in your mind. Go and ask any cocky in Queensland right now if they like the condition of the land with our recent rains and cool summer. The cattle are fat, the silos are full and Mum’s got plenty in the Bank. Our cliamte has not been this productive for yonks.

      Why do you believe without making yourself knowledgeable on the subject of Climate Change. You are so far gone you no longer can reason without bias. You are a religious fanatic mired in dogma.

      “Get away from the grubby side of the debate.” You and your cohort are the grubby side of this debate, as the Heartland theft and faxed internet posted onto the internet just shows what liars you sleep with.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        Markus,

        I certainly hope your right that these good times of plenty are not just an EXTREME rainfall (One of the most Extreme La Ninas in recorded history and one of the warmest on record) event dissipating to a prolonged drought again (Ultra Extreme El Nino developing into 2013). As for “Cocky Queenlander” – I happen to be one of them. Farming runs in the blood of my all my Uncles located very close to where those floods hit. Climate is very real to me as a child raised close to the land. As for AGW you just have to accept that I accept the science of it and you do not. Plain and simple. And that is based on highly skilled and sound logic looking at the great body of evidence across ALL disciplines of science.

        Ross J.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Markus Fitzhenry

          I, and many have soundly looked at back radiation, Ross. This is where we differ.

          Back radiation is a fallacy. Science is never a fixed paradigm. Let us move on. The Stefan- Boltzman BB calculation does not reflect the phenomenon of Earth’s irradiation.

          Solar radiation ‘T’ increases with altitude, BB’s are those that absorb and radiate with same intensity ans corresponding T.

          Real colourful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiation energy according to the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors.

          The rate of EMR energy transfer from hot body is, TH, is Q, W=5.67 He(th+273)4. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG’s theory assumes in particular hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder radiation and emits it more intensely, as GHG black radiation the theory assumes.

          Hit for you Owen. Hansen’s 15 + 18 is an effect of, not the cause of Earth’s Temperature. The force of pressure acts to uniformly distribute heat in Earths static, dynamic and thermodynamic systems.

          Tell me where I’m wrong please Ross.

          “Cocky’s” I had a beer with those old cahoots last Saturday at the Miriam Vale Hotel, just up the road from where those floods were.

          Sweet little “baby” La Nina is in it’s third year Ross, looking like it’s going to last several more. Anyway, so says Chief Hydro, who happens to live just up the Road at Rocky. Tell me where he’s wrong please Ross.

          You just have to accept that you are gullible and I’m not. Also, I’m handsome.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … looking at the great body of evidence across ALL disciplines of science.

          Including psychology, Ross, and the principle that ANY dogma believed, is defended past the point of rationality?

          A case in point being Phrenology, which was widely believed in the 19th century, to the point of scientific consensus, in fact. It was obvious to all that the shape of the skull would be related to the personality of the brain within. The only problem was that the cause and effect was never determined. Did the skull determine the personality of the brain, or did the personality of the brain direct the formation of the skull? In the case of Phrenology, neither case was true, and there was actually no causal link between the two observations.

          It is the same with climate science. The cause and effect has yet to be demonstrated. CO2 levels continue to rise, but the temperature does not. And by their own admission, the climate scientists are at a loss to explain why this should be so.

          Phrenology was bad science, that did not follow the scientific method. Climate science is starting to look very similar.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          John Westman

          Your quote. “And that is based on highly skilled and sound logic looking at the great body of evidence across ALL disciplines of science.” Please Ross, give us a break: You insult our intelligence!

          All you have done is shown your ignorance, but I am happy for you as it is a wonderful state to be in. An ignorant person does not have to do the work and the study to arrive at a correct conclusion. No, it is much easier to adhere naively to a belief system, where you simply follow the teachings of your guru.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Mark

      Trust no-one let alone just a Internet blog or blogs. Find the information out for yourself.

      That’s funny Ross, Christopher Monckton says exactly the same thing. He goes one further in stating that the curious shouldn’t even believe him. Do you expect people to believe you, Ross?

      We here couldn’t give a damn what you believe Ross. You, however continue to rant and rave like a demented medieval monk demanding that all and sundry follow your faith. The world’s “temperature” (and I use the term loosely) has maybe risen from 288K to 288.7K in about 150 years. For this you want to smoke our productive capacity and export it to China!

      Ross, there are no more pragmatic people than the Chinese. Believe me, I know. Been married to one for almost forty years. Something either works for them or it doesn’t in which case it is discarded in short order. They may be a one-party state but they dumped socialism as soon as they could following the death of Mao.

      Why do I mention socialism? Because that’s what is found when you scratch Green ideology such as what you and some others here espouse. Either that or crony-capitalism; take your pick, Ross but most of us here want no part of either, OK!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        Mark,

        Socialism = going green. Planting more trees Socialist? Cleaning our waterways Socialist? Stopping Fracking Socialist? Organic Farming Socialist? Raising Chickens back on land Socialist?

        Try if you stand it watching the movie Home. In one segment they showed whole valleys where cattle are “grown” in beef lots where they do not see one blade of grass their whole life. Or whole valleys of vegetables grown in greenhouses never grown in dirt. And get this: the energy costs are enormous to grow one single tomato – all dependent on Fossil Fuels to grow JUST PLAIN ordinary FOOD!

        There is crisis in the making by us – and the tale will be told in a few short decades.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Hmm Ross, I wonder,

          Socialism = going green. Planting more trees Socialist? Cleaning our waterways Socialist? Stopping Fracking Socialist? Organic Farming Socialist? Raising Chickens back on land Socialist?

          You haven’t mentioned electrical power generation there. Given up on that, have you?

          That comprises 40% of all (man made) emissions, coming at at 14 Billion tons of CO2 emitted each year, not falling, but actually rising, as electrical power is brought to the vast proportion of the still Developing World, who have no access to electrical power whatsoever, and the cheapest way to give them that access is with coal fired power.

          For four years now, this debate has ground on, and in the U.S. not one large scale coal fired plant has closed.

          Not ONE.

          In fact, in that time, only four plants larger than 500MW Nameplate Capacity (Medium sized) have closed, all of them time expired, all of them 60 years and more in age. The only coal fired pants closing, of any size, are all beyond the expected life time of 50 years.

          No one is closing down any of those coal fired power plants anywhere.

          Don’t you wonder why, Ross, if the problem is as drastic as you say it is.

          It’s because there is NOTHING to replace them with that can actually do what those coal fired plants can do.

          Meanwhile, everywhere else in the World, large scale coal fired plants are being constructed, and in fact they are being constructed with money from the World Bank, a subsidiary of the UN. If they thought that those CO2 emissions were leading to what your lot say is such a drastic situation, would they be financing large scale CO2 emissions, for plants with a life span of 50 years plus.

          Argue against electrical power Ross.

          Let’s see your answers for that.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Markus Fitzhenry

          Planting trees on good arable land, screws it forever. It’s the most stupid things farmers have ever done, all induced by the stupid AGW scare.

          “”Cleaning our waterways Socialist? Stopping Fracking Socialist? Organic Farming Socialist? Raising Chickens back on land Socialist?”"

          No, Ross we agree on environmentalism but, having a International body dictating resources and distribution of migration funding is SOCIALISM.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark

            Well said, Marcus.

            These people would never admit that they were wrong even if they ended up jobless, starving and freezing with the arse out of their strides.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            “Planting trees on good arable land, screws it forever”

            ummm, am I the only one who can see the flaw in this logic?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Do tell, oh the long time missing one.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            MattyB,

            You don’t read much?
            Arable Land is from the latin arare to plough. As Marcus states – the return to tree plantations for Carbon Credits takes more food from the table!

            I think maybe you are the only ONE!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            well all arable land used to have trees on it. Around the world every day massive areas of forest/bush/natives are cleared and converted to “arable land”. If the existence of trees on “arable land” meant it is “screwed” forever, then we’d have no arable land. There would be no such thing as arable land.

            it appears you are all thick:)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Robert

            Please provide proof Matt that ALL arable land used to have trees on it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            MattyB

            If the existence of trees on “arable land” meant it is “screwed” forever, then we’d have no arable land. There would be no such thing as arable land.

            About time you saw the light!

            P.S. Don’t forget grassland, scrub etc MattyB – get with it!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            It’s pretty simple guys. Do you agree with the statement:
            “Planting trees on good arable land, screws it forever”

            If you do, then it’s back to primary school science and geography classes for you.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I’ll agree that planting a lot of trees permanently on good arable land screws us (humans) forever. They are generally tough to chew and hard to digest.

            PS. The Great Plains region in USA was not forested since the last ice age. It is “good arable land”. Planting trees on prairie is not good for the prairie ecosystem. (probably not good for the trees either).


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            “Planting trees on good arable land, screws it forever”

            Twist, twist twist – as Markus says – farmers planting trees on good arable land for the purpose of fixing CARBON on IPCC and Bob Brown instructions will screw it forever. Geography? MattyB – how did most of the arable land in Australia form – and what grew there prior to the ploughs arrival? What amount of CO2 is fixed by 1 hectare of sugar cane compared to 1 hectare of Eucalpytus? Why is the Dept of Climate Change recommending to remove a hugh area of Eucalpytus on Norfolk Island? What do you know about soil of native bush (trees) compared with “good arable land”?

            The average house in the suburbs had a 60% chance of having tree removal by the developer. Try and separate your CAGW bias in this topic and take up true environmentalism. Carbon Sequestration on a large scale by the Greens WILL wreck good arable land forever MattyB!

            Haven’t seen your election policy yet?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          You are straying Ross!

          In part of your comment you say: “they showed whole valleys where cattle are “grown” in beef lots where they do not see one blade of grass their whole life.”

          This and the other stuff has nothing to do with global warming; those things are about greed; they, the “feedlots” are abominable, most sane people would agree. Fracking is very dangerous because of the potential for GREED to over ride all other considerations.

          Lets stick to the topic: Man Made Global CO2 warming is a fraud!


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Sonny

      Ross, the science you mention was first and foremost established by a global political body for the purposes of securing wealth and power. And by golly havn’t they secured some!

      IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

      The conclusion that human beings were destroying the planet was the foregone conclusion before the evidence was properly considered. The “evidence” has cost us billions and is still not convincing. Emotive arguments from corrupt or gullible AGW foot soldiers like yourself is even less convincing.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry

        Karl Poppers Science as falsification. I thought this was analogous to the AGW warmists.

        “Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence — so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer’s trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.”

        Replace Astrology with AGW Co2.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Otter

      Find the information out for yourself.

      Funny, when we do that, your side screams ‘ignorance’ at us, for coming up with a different conclusion!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert of Ottawa

      Ross James, this ceased to be about science when the IPCC was founded, if not before. Lysenkoism wasn’t about science, nor is Warmism.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    hector

    Priceless – from Lakely’s letter:

    “(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents”

    JoNova, close this thread immeadiatly, if not you will be sued your ***!

    (The requests were sent to SPECIFIC parties surrounding the use of the Fake memo and alleged Heartland documents along with possible defamatory commentary surrounding the said documents and memo’s) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #

      That’s not even a bad joke.

      Joe Bast of The Heartland Institute has stated what will be pursued by civil action.

      We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.

      I have no reason to believe that Heartland will pursue those who’ve been dismantling the obviously fake document and applying a sense of proportion to the others.

      Offending comments which slip through moderation; typically made by those believe themselves to be anonymous; are quickly dealt with by others on this blog.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Brian Lemon

    Jo – this is red letter day… along with this, Andrew Weaver (you may remember him from my Canadian Blue Lemons Days as the Canadian form of Mann/Hanson) has announced that oil ain’t that bad…
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1133882–coal-not-oilsands-the-real-threat-to-climate-study-finds?bn=1

    What this does, is throw the entire belief in AGW out the window, because all their assumptions depend on an equation in which fossil fuels are the main contributor to CO2 and AGW.

    Remove this, and the theory fails, and by null hypothesis, is invalid. It’s over.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      You are jumping to conclusions. I’m guessing because you have read the press release but not the actual paper.

      Although the paper is paywalled, I’ve found enough of it to immediately see that it is yet another politically motivated junk science put out by environut advocates of Gaia.

      They have realised that they’ve lost the political battle in Canada. This paper tries to salvage something out of it all in a dubious, underhanded, highly political way.
      Its conclusions do not differ one iota from any of a myriad of advocacy papers that have preceeded it. It couldn’t have been written better by the WWF or Greenpeace.

      If the Canadian -or any other- government fall for this, they are just as foolish as those of Europe who have ruined their economies chasing this communist/green pipe dream.

      Perhaps this paper should be dissected by the powers of Jos blog plus WUWT and others.

      After eading your link which is a misleading news release, read the majority of the papers assumptions and conclusions at the below 2 links I’ve found. See if you change your opinion.

      Start here

      Then read this

      What they are doing is telling the Canadian government there is money to be made in the AGW scam, so long as they toe the line about limiting the globe to 2DegC of warming.

      We all know by now that that target can only be achieved by massive cut-backs to development whilst billions to trillions are transferred to developing nations via the greasy palms of the UN.

      Weaver and his co author Swart are AGW advocates, are a danger to modern humanity, and what ever they say about the planets climate should be avoided at all cost.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Baa,

        Did Canada sign up to the 2deg at Copenhagen? I was under the impression that they did not.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Immediately prior to the Durban COP Canada announced it was withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.
          Since then, their conservative govt has been chopping green initiatives scams left right and centre.

          I believe the paper in question tries to demonstrate to the Canadian Govt that they can sign up to the UN scam and make money from their tar sands.
          I believe the econut movement has realised that they will get nowhere with their current strategy, especially in light of the fact that there have been new finds of gas and tar sands the world over to last many lifetimes.
          This is their way of dividing the fossil fuel interests, namely “Durdy Coal” and “not too Durdy tar sands n gas”.

          But of course, once a nation signs up, the only way they will achieve targets is to shut down almost all coal power generators whilst subsidising wind solar etc to the tune of billions, not to mention the wealth transfer.

          This paper needs to be dissected and exposed for what it is, yet another dishonest, anti-human green socialist puff piece hurriedly put together to head off emerging developments, namely Canadas new found anti-green actions.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Hugh K

    DeSmog folks are useful idiots. What about the main players — Anyone know if Politico has been served notice or the NY Times Andy Revkin that verified the fake document was real to Politico (which has since been removed from Politicos’ website)?
    This CatostrophicAGW siliness is not going to stop until someone goes to jail for fraud. Meanwhile, mars mission funding cut, super-Hubbels, etc, etc put on hold while these fraudster’s taxpayer funded pretend-science handouts continue….what am I missing? And now we hear the presser for Union of Concerned Scientists pens a mud slinging document? Where is the outrage from true scientists watching their occupation morphing into some low budget reality show?
    Bizzaro world…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What about the main players …

      All in good time, Hugh, all in good time.

      You take the low-hanging fruit, because that is easy. Then you use the precedent of a previous favourable judgement to go after the more lucrative targets … all in good time.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    bubbagyro

    It is unfortunate that in the title they are referred to as “stolen and faked documents”. Logically, it cannot be both.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bubbagyro

    Ooops! Sorry. They could be both, if they stole some and fabricated others, the title could be true. However, I would focus on the fraud/defamation aspect, rather than water it down with “stolen” allegations. Hard to prove that Desmogblog was the original thief. But fraud has a lower burden, IMO.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Lemon at comment #21 has provided a link to a press release of a new paper by Neil C. Swart and Andrew J. Weaver, Nature Climate Change, (in press) doi:10.1038/nclimate1421 titled ALBERTA OIL SANDS and CLIMATE.

    No one should be under any illusion that this paper somehow advocates the use of fossil fuels in further developing human lives.
    The paper is a cloak and dagger attempt to fool North Americans that they can have their cake and eat it too so long as they accept the premise of the UN and green groups that humans are and will continue to damage the planets climate.

    These alarmist scaremongers have realised that their current strategy is not working. What this paper does is it seperates coal and natural gas -two of the most abundant fossil fuels- from other fossil fuels such as tar sands by claiming the former are by far the worst global warmers.

    The paper still advocates the massive culling of fossil fuel use, and the massive shift to renewable energy sources and the massive transfer of money from the developed world to the developing world just as the communist beurocrats of the UN have wanted all along.

    Money quotes from the paper…

    In general, building new large-scale infrastructure which commits society to long-term fossil-fuel usage is not consistent with keeping warming below 2°C, regardless of the particular fossil-fuel resource4. To prevent warming exceeding that limit, there will have to be a rapid, large scale transition to renewable energy sources. Indeed, if growing global energy demands are instead met using fossil fuels, the level of carbon footprints and the associated warming could be massive3. In general, a +4°C world is quite possible this century. So society faces a clear choice: a) continued fossil fuel-usage and large scale warming or b) transition towards renewable energy to stabilize the climate.

    Get that? Massive warming by the end of the century. But that’s not all, try this on from these “impartial white lab coat wearing honest scientists”….

    In fact, to ultimately stabilize the climate will require near zero emissions2, and to limit warming within 2° or so degrees, there will have to be an immediate, rapid decrease in emissions from today’s levels towards zero, or even below5. What should these emissions reductions look like nationally?

    Get that? Emissions below zero even. Wind power and solar and foot power for all. Lets all live off subsidised alternate energy sources just like Europe has tried to do at a cost of billions upon billions for a thus far net result of ZERO ZILCH ZIP NADA effect on climate.

    And what about that transfer of monies to developing countries?

    One popular per-capita equity-based system for assigning emissions obligations is the ‘contraction and convergence’ (c&c) framework. However c&c does not make any differentiation of emissions reduction obligations based on national capacity. Thus for example, Kazakhstan and Belgium, who each emitted 3.5 tC/capita in 2005 have similar obligations under the c&c framework, which does not make sense given Belgium’s much greater capacity to adapt7. The Greenhouse Development Rights framework developed by Baer et al.7, takes historical responsibility and capacity into account. This system therefore takes cognizance of poor countries need to develop, while still assigning them responsibility based on in-country capacity, thus bringing China, India and the developing world into the emissions reduction framework in an equitable way.

    Get that? It doesn’t matter that Belgium and Kazakhstan emit the same per capita. Belgium has more money so it has to pay.
    Under this pitiful, cloak and dagger papers suggestions, the Belgians will pay, and pay and pay and pay.

    This paper should be condemned.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Get that? Emissions below zero even. Wind power and solar and foot power for all.

      Actually Baa, foot power is one of the most ‘carbon intensive’ forms of transport available. More so than, trains, planes and automobiles.

      The amount of C02 released into the atmosphere by way of carbohydrate production and expenditure is far more than that of hydrocarbon on a joule or calorie basis. Not to mention the poor job a body does at coverting a single watt of energy into motion compared to an internal combustion engine.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        One of the killers of making bioethanol or biodiesel from corn or rapeseed is the fact that, aside from the ridiculous priority inversion of having energy production competing with food production for valuable arable land, the rate determining step in the chemical reaction of photosynthesis in chlorophyll is less than 1% efficient. Add in all other inefficiencies of the other reaction steps, the stages of plant growth, harvesting, and refining, and the solar efficiency of bioethanol ends up being hundreds of times smaller than even 1%. So much solar power is wasted by trying to create fuel this way, it even makes PV look good by comparison, haha.

        So when you consider that animals get their energy by inefficiently extracting energy from plant material which itself was only a fraction of a percent efficient at capturing sunlight, well it really puts the poor form of muscle power into perspective.

        To have this inefficient carbohydrate process repeated thousands of times and the results compacted over millions of years into small black energy-dense hydrocarbon chunks that are near the surface where they can be mined easily is practically a gift from nature. Coal isn’t dirty and evil, it’s bloody amazing; The bickies of the gods.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    gnomish

    and get revkin! he put his head right in the noose by claiming he verified the fake document.
    start winning some battles ffs. losers don’t get contributors, friends or admirers.
    let’s see some docket numbers. haul in the catch or wear the label ‘half-heart.land’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neven

    It seems Desmogblog has responded. Now Heartland will have to sue.
    [snip repeat]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Two points of caution:

    1. The defendants can bring to bear a lot of financial resources to defend themselves. Maybe that is why they have not responded.

    2. This is not the battle. This is a side skirmish and no matter the outcome, a fraudulent document of funding sources does not prove the fraudulent science. It would be quite tenuous to correlate their willingness to use a fake document to prove one point with their willingness to peddle fake science.

    Getting embroiled in this little sideshow could get people sidetracked from the real battle.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Grant,

      In a propaganda war, there is no real battle. It is all skirmish, and “side show”, and hit and run, and scoring hits how and where you can.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    Hey I need to give thanks to SkS for the template I used for this. They have their own up now.

    Climate Scientist
    http://i.imgur.com/oxGJw.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have created a compilation thread of the Heartland gate development.It has been collected from around the internet for the purpose of making this resource for future reference.I will add more as I come across new entries.

    It is at my Climate Skeptic Forum at this LINK

    I hope this helps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    edward getty

    Thanks to Baa Humbug re 21.1 and 25. Very interesting links. I did not realize that reductions in emissions to near or below zero would be required to save the planet. Seems almost ridiculous. Maybe somebody faked that page to make the authors look like idiots?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Ed the link I provided is to the lead authors home page, so the figures/claims are not fake.
      Nor are the authors idiots, they are infact highly intelligent eco activist scientists.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        edward getty

        Baa, I checked those links. The ‘fake’ comment was an attempt at humor related to the main topic, and “useful idiots” would have been more accurate. In any case, anyone suggesting that kind of a reduction may be highly intelligent but are deluded by their missionary work – as is the case for many eco-activists.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    mangochutney

    In my opinion, HI should go for the lot of them, accept damages and then give the money back (unless donated from “defence funds”, in which case give it to a worthy charity – ideally One Water, which tries to provide clean water and sanitation for the billions who have no access to clean water).

    This way HI will have a good victory over the alarmists without appearing to be greedy and / or out to bankrupt individuals. In the case of the Guardian or the BBC, the damages should be given to the BBC charity Children in Need

    JMHO


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      There is half a very good idea in there Mango.

      Screw every one of the lying, cheating b*st*rds for very cent possible, pay out all expenses, then use the bulk of the money to establish their OWN charity. Something highly visible – a water-drilling and purification program in Africa, or something like that.

      With the collapse of the “green” movement in tandem with the collapse of CAGW, there’s going to be a lot of corporate “conscience” donations looking for a good home in the immediate future.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    Todays roundup so far:

    Losers: Ross James, sceptical
    Almost Losers: bubbygyro
    Good Prople: Everybody else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pierre Gosselin has excerpts from an interview with Fritz Varenholt.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/19/fritz-vahrenholt-in-major-newspaper-interview-we-need-an-explanation-on-why-theres-been-no-warming-since-2000/

    If anymore confirmation was needed that this was never about science then Varenholt provides it:

    On why the climate debate has inquisitorial undercurrents:

    “Because it has long since not been about a purely scientific issue,  rather it is about how to run society. Some are saying that we are entering an uncontrollable situation, and so claim any means against it is justified.”

    I predict the response from certain quarters will be something like:
    “You can’t believe him. He is an apostate, after all.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I would make two points …

    (Snipped the rest as you are completely off topic.It is interesting stuff that you like to REPEAT over and over in various threads that have nothing to do with what you post.It is a bad habit you need to stop doing.) CTS

    (The topic here is this and that is why I snipped you hard this time: Heartland sends out first legal notice about stolen and faked documents.You are not even close to the topic at hand) CTS

    (Go HERE and HERE as they are good examples on where to post your interesting stuff that will be reasonably on topic) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Errrh yeah Doug.

      And this ties in exactly how with the Heartland Institute issuing C&D Notices pending a Defamation Suit?

      I’m sorry Doug, I’ve been to your web site, I admire your scientific efforts (even if I don’t fully understand all of it), and I am happy to read your posts here when they are even only remotely on-topic.

      However, your above post is, at the end of the day, just a very long, and very dry “plug” for your theories and your blog. It is so far off-topic it may as well be one of Ross James’ quasi-religious posts exhorting us “heathens” to accept the “faith” into our hearts and so become better people.

      Put bluntly, it is really no different than the “spacing” our trolls indulge in, and if you keep it up I believe you are sailing very close to getting “snipped” by the moderators who have warned you repeatedly about the practice.

      And in the grander scheme of things, that would be a shame. Horses for courses mate.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        1DandyTroll

        Science is as dry as the legalese of justice, when it’s not it’s propaganda BS.

        So it ties in very well to provide a proper contrast to the propaganda BS.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Dandy, I couldn’t disagree more.

          This afternoon I took my grandchildren (Willow – Spawn of Satan – 8, and Logan – Seed of Evil – 5) fishing. The fish weren’t in the mood to cooperate, so instead we caught various little sea critters and examined them before we let them go, marked the tide as it came in, and built dams to prevent the trickling streams of water from the sea-wall from reaching the ocean. The kids had a ball. THAT was “science” and it was fun.

          On the way back to the car we passed their favourite playground, which has been totally ring-fenced since the last time we were there. They were upset about this development, as it meant they couldn’t simply run willy-nilly from playground to grassed area – as children do.

          To their incessant queries of “why” I had to explain the gubmint had passed a law banning smoking within 10 metres of a playground, and to make the law enforceable it was necessary “define” the playground area. Hence the fence.

          This is “law” and it is almost as dry and incomprehensible to my grandchildren as it is to me.

          There is a vast difference between science and law.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Erik

    Transaction Summary

    Thank you for supporting The Heartland Institute!
    Confirmation Code: 3RU8ZV7
    You were charged a total of $100.00.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Just my personal view, but Heartland are scum


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Just my personal view, but John Brookes is scum.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      Of course they are in your view John, since they don’t support your religion. If they did support your religion you’d be hailing them as heroes no matter what underhanded, fraudulent activities they were up to.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Hmm, partly true Robert. I’m more forgiving of my side. But if they behaved like Heartland – that is, deliberately set out to obscure the truth, I don’t think I’d support them.

        Look at the papers climate scientists produce. There was a recent one suggesting a climate sensitivity of 1.8 degrees C. This is well below the IPCC best estimate of 3 degrees C. But the paper gets published anyway – and adds to our understanding.

        Heartland no doubt just goes with some bozo who says that climate sensitivity is 0.5 degrees, even though their arguments have been rebutted. Oh well, I guess that is why I think Heartland are scum.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Look at the papers climate scientists produce. There was a recent one suggesting a climate sensitivity of 1.8 degrees C. This is well below the IPCC best estimate of 3 degrees C. But the paper gets published anyway – and adds to our understanding.

          So do tell John, what did that paper add to your understanding. I’m fascinated to hear.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Robert

          In spite of the growing evidence that “your side” is actively engaged in obscuring the truth that is one whopper of a comment truly establishing the fantasy world you live in.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Hugh K

          “But if they (John’s side) behaved like Heartland – that is, deliberately set out to obscure the truth….”

          You’ve got to be kidding John. Just one (out of a multitude) example of ‘your side’ totally ‘obscuring the truth’ – “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” This lie was not based on any scientific evidence, was not peer reviewed, was initiated by the WWF and found its way into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (I believe you understand the world-wide implications of AR4). The WWF sourced their information from a 1999 news item in New Scientist. Again this was not peer reviewed. The article was based on an interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035. This speculation was not supported by any formal research. If not based on science, obviously this speculation could only have been conceived and perpetuated simply to “obscure the truth”. BTW – The truth is that a new study published in Nature, by research­ers at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found out that the Himala­yan glaciers are advancing rather than retreating.

          If that isn’t enough to convince you, google/bing GISS manipulating data. You will find a number of GISS graphs demonstrating GISS is changing historical data (i.e.- cooling the past to show present warming). There is no other reason to change historical data other than to “obscure the truth.” But not to pick on GISS alone, google/bing NOAA, GHCN, etc, etc and you will find there is a pattern of data manipulation/deception.

          John, don’t you get it? HI isn’t the problem. Science is being harmed by people such as yourself that refuse to be open-minded. And because of your tunnel-vision, the environment suffers. For example, think of all the recycling plants that could be built with the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars pissed away on CAGW – C = Catastrophic being the key word here. I think both ‘sides’ would agree there is human influence on the environment/climate (UHI, etc). If you really cared about the environment and proper stewardship you would be equally outraged. But it appears you have another agenda which has nothing to do with the environment. Please tell me I’m wrong.

          If not for individuals and organizations similar to HI studying and pointing out the discrepancies in CAGW, who would? And consider how much worst off both science and the environment would be. Not to mention the truth you claim to champion.

          Please John, don’t take my above comments as personally insulting – that was not my intent. I am simply imploring you to approach all of this with a new open-mindedness. Do your own investigative work…If not for the environment or science, simply for your own interests/reputation. Regards….


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Otter

      considering you cheer for mann’s working to destroy Dr. Balls’ life, I have to wonder if you can reach as High as scum.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    I have a confession to make.
    I spent most of the morning attempting to aid and abet the enemy.

    .
    Much earlier in the day somebody (Pointman I think) posted a link to Greg Laden’s site on the Heartland issue and I went over for a read. For reasons I can offer no rational explanation for, at some point reading through the comments I started to feel sorry for this young guy.

    So, as the initiator of many defamation suits, and as the recipient of even more, I wrote a very long post attempting to exhort young Greg to face the actual legal facts of the matter, rather than rely on the “TV Lawyer” advice being offered in his comments section.

    Once I submitted the post it was possible to read another post made in the interim, about “legal discovery”. This so-called “advice” was so far off the planet it required an additional post from me to address.

    Neither post was published. That doesn’t bother me, in fact, I didn’t expect them to be published. What I did hope for however, was that the young man in question would take my my overriding suggestion and get some quality legal advice.

    He didn’t.

    Instead it now apparently turns out from the comments section that I am part of some organised extreme right wing conspiracy aimed at intimidating young Greg laden into backing down to the Heartland Institute’s demands.

    Wes George please note: I did my best to help the kid “get down off the ledge” and I have done my best to “turn the other cheek”.

    Boring I know, but below are the two posts I made:

    Hello Greg,

    As an old timer who has been both the instigator and the recipient in so many defamation cases I’ve lost count, please let me offer you some friendly advice:

    Ignore the so-called “advice” above from your fans, immediately comply with the C&D, and go get yourself some proper legal counsel.

    Please understand, Greg, that in cases like this, the court will not be interested “moral stances” or “ethical grounds”, it will only be interested in the facts. And is this case the facts are:

    .
    ONE
    All save one of the documents are the private and confidential property of the Heartland Institute, a private organisation.

    They do not reveal any illegal act by the Institute (and even if they did, the correct course of action would be to alert the authorities). They were clearly obtained by deception.

    As such, any and all use of the documents for whatever purpose is illegal on multiple counts. I repeat; the court will not be interested in your moral or ethical assessment of the Institute’s plans or actions, ONLY in the above, legally establishable facts.

    .
    TWO
    The additional document is clearly defamatory, and has been used by yourself and others to further that defamation. The Institute claims it is a fake.

    In court, your only defense against a charge of defamation will be to prove the authenticity of the document. In reality, only the Institute can do that, so you have no defense there.

    For a time, you MAY have had a defense on the basis that you could claim you honestly and sincerely believed the document to be authentic. However that defense, if it ever existed, was extinguished the moment you were advised by the Institute that it was a forgery EVEN IF IT IS NOT.

    Remember, since the document is defamatory and has been used to defame the Institute, the onus of proof of authenticity lies with you.

    .
    THREE
    Laws on the serving of something like a C&D vary from country to country, so I cannot say whether the notice you have received CURRENTLY carries any weight.

    However, it would seem both reasonable and prudent to assume a copy is on its way to you via Federal Express, which complies with whatever the legal requirements are to make it admissible in court.

    Once you have been served with that copy, the plaintiff’s lawyers will almost certainly provide evidence of BOTH means of advising you, and press the court to adopt the EARLIER notice as the time of you being served.

    Your only two defenses against the court adopting the earlier date of email delivery, are to A) claim you never got it; or B) claim you genuinely believed it was not authentic (eg that it was not from the Institute).

    You have extinguished any defense at A) by reproducing the contents of the email in your above article.

    You have extinguished any defense at B) with your bolded article heading declaring to the world at large that you “just got an email from the Heartland Institute”.

    I am a well-known “skeptic” commentator, and I will probably cop a lot of flak for even attempting to help you by providing this advice. But, and trust me on this son, you are already in a whole pain of trouble and as a fellow human being I could not just sit idly by and watch you make it even worse for yourself.

    Followed by:

    A necessary additional post to counter the ravings of “Matthew” above at 8.25pm, who has obviously spent far too much time watching American detective shows.

    “Discovery” in no way provides carte blanche to rifle through all the documents and other materials of an individual or organisation (unless of course, you’re the tax man).

    “Discovery” can only be used to establish the “facts” of the particular case before the court, and the case is NOT to establish the moral or ethical worth or intent of the Institute, but rather, the unauthorised use of confidential information obtained by deception, and the use of an alleged forged document to allegedly defame the Institute.

    That’s it. End of story. The matters open to Discovery are:

    1) – With the exception of the alleged forgery, are the documents the confidential property of the Institute?

    2) – Were they obtained by deception?

    3) – Was the subsequent use of the documents authorised by the Institute?

    4) – Was the defendant requested to cease and desist the unauthorised use of the confidential documents obtained by deception?

    5) – Did the defendant comply with the above request?

    6) – Is the alleged forgery in fact, real?

    7) – Was the use of the alleged forgery defamatory?

    8) – Was the use of the alleged forgery DELIBERATELY defamatory with intent (criminal defamation)?

    9) – Was the defendant advised of the forged nature of the document and the defamatory nature of its use?

    10) – Was the defendant requested to cease and desist using the alleged forgery to continue to defame and/or criminally defame the plaintiff?

    11) – Did the defendant comply with the request? If so, when?

    12) – Has the Institute suffered material and/or reputation loss as a result of the continuing defamation and/or criminal defamation?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      mangochutney

      I think that’s pretty decent of you, although I still think go at them with all guns blazing to teach them a lesson and then give the money back to the individual idiots or to charity if corporate idiots like the BBC


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Hugh K

        I couldn’t agree more Mango – Until someone is made an example of by the courts that this CAGW fraud cannot continue without repercussions it will continue. I equally hope ‘the kid’ doesn’t suffer for the greater sins of those raking in the big bucks and were responsible for politicizing the issue long ago. The kid is being used by ‘the team’ as a tool/chump and he can’t bring himself to realize that is the case. And the fact that the kid doesn’t have the capacity to understand that fact does stir compassion for him – kids will be…. Never the less, this CAGW fraud has gotten so out of control, with so many lives negatively affected, someone will inevitably pay the price by some reasonable court. Will the kid be the fall guy for the team? Time will tell. My hope is it will be hockey schtickster Mann that uses people like the kid to perpetuate his infammy and purse.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      We have heard your confession and you are forgiven.
      Please say three Hail Spencers before bedtime.
      If you were ever a warmist in a previous life, your cosmic karma has been restored.

      History tells of the time soldiers of The Great War put down their weapons on Christmas eve and crossed no-man’s land to bury their dead, exchange small gifts with the enemy, express their shared humanity, and thereby acknowledge the senselessness of the tragic loss of life they had both been forced into.
      Perhaps the blogosphere shall look back on your act of kindness for at least 8 and half minutes longer than any other blog post and shed a small tear in awe of the divine power of forgiveness.

      Mind you, they’re a fickle bunch.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      You are a kind fellow MV. Mind you, if I was a judge, I’d just say to Heartland, “So this is the forged document. Show me the actual document and we’ll get the case started.”.

      Of course, the law is far to smart to do anything that simple…


      Report this

      00

      • #

        if I was a judge, I’d just say to Heartland, “So this is the forged document. Show me the actual document and we’ll get the case started.”.

        That’s why you’re not a judge John. Thank goodness for that or else our judicial system would be stuffed.

        Mate you’re getting worse by the day.

        Oh! by the way, do you remember when I thought you sent me a letter on the UWA letterhead where you said “corr! those uni girls look luscious”?
        It turns out the letterhead and the contents were forged. It would have been tough for you to “show the judge the actual letter” since there was never any actual letter eh John?
        (or was there?)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Robert

        So genius, please tell us if there never was an original document how someone can provide it to prove the made up one is false? First provide us with proof that you know there was an original document of the same title and purpose.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Duster

        As with the classic, “when did you stop beating your?” query, your request as a “judge” contains a prejudicial assumption. In the first case, the assumption is that the interrogated person did in fact at some point beat their wife on a regular basis. In your case, the presumption is that there was an original document. HI says the memo is not of their authorship at all. It is an original creation by someone outside HI – i.e. a forgery, many that HI could not possibly provide you with an original version. Instead they would quite likely institute a motion to have recuse yourself from the case, since you have demonstrated a prejudicial attitude.

        The internal evidence that the memo was written by a “warmist” is pretty evident. Among other things the author assumes that “deniers” think and talk bout themselves the same terms that a “warmist” might use to discuss a “denier.” Since sceptics do not think of each other that way, the sole possible source for such language is a non-sceptic – i.e. an AGW faithful. Also, while the odd whackjob of a religious fundamentalist like Rick Santorum might be a “denier” and might also want “science” out of the class room, many sceptics are agnostics if not outright atheists and want MORE, not less science in class rooms, including a better coverage of climate science that is not as authoritarian in outlook the Team would like it to be. In short, not all sceptics are so because of political, religious, or economic reasons. Some have scientific reeasons.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      I warned Greg about his going off half-cocked about the raid on Tallbloke Towers.

      For once, I find myself in total agreement with James Annan.

      Greg is an utter moron.

      An utter moron for publishing libellous remarks.
      An utter moron for believing that this edit of his page will erase the Internet’s “memory” of what it looked like before.
      An utter moron for ignoring the potential harm of his statements libellous as they stood for several hours.
      An utter moron for thnking that he is untouchable by defamation laws.
      An utter moron for not publishing a full retraction and apology.

      I could list a few thousand other reasons but they aren’t directly relevant to his libellous outburst.

      One can only hope that “Wow” @ 92 will be your defence counsel. Tallbloke has a glint in his eye for a personal super-computer.

      Posted by: Bernd Felsche | December 16, 2011 11:17 AM

      Funny; the comment doesn’t look like it went live on the blog.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry.

        Mine got through Bernd, check this out.

        96

        Don’t forget me Greg. I haven’t forgotten you.
        You made a big mistake lying about me.

        After all, when the rest have finished, your going to have to deal with me in the end. Your threat of getting friends to deal with me if I visited the States was the threat of a scared little boy.

        I will deal with you, as I have with others, in the fullness of time.

        It’s called Karma.

        Posted by: Markus Fitzhenry | February 20, 2012 5:00 PM
        ——
        99

        Markus, the first time you commented on my blog you threatened to kill me. Is that what you are doing now?

        Do you work for the Heartland Institute by any chance?

        No, wait, a quick check of your IP address (220.238.49.103) shows me that you are in Sydney Australia (Chatwood) and a user of Optus internet services. May you are part of Heartland Oz.

        Also, I see that your email address is markusfitzhenry123@gmail.com

        Don’t comment here again. Also, stop sending me emails. Stop making threats against me and don’t mention my family again in an email or comment.

        Posted by: Greg Laden Author Profile Page | February 20, 2012 6:07 PM
        —-
        100

        DON’T PICK A FIGHT, WHICH YOU DID, IF YOU ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH TO FINISH IT. AND YOUR NOT.

        Posted by: Markus Fitzhenry. | February 20, 2012 7:08 PM


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Robin Guenier

      Both your posts have now been published on BL’s blog – seems they were caught in moderation. And a lot of commentators are advising him to back off. Here’s the best:

      Imo, you have to decide whether it’s more important to cover your butt or score a few more points with your buddies on this Climate blog. Me? I would cover my butt.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    “So this is the forged document. Show me the actual document and we’ll get the case started.”

    That’s a world-class comment.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      The pathetic aspect of his comment is I suspect he thought he was being clever with it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gil Grissom

        It has to be the funniest “own goal” ever scored, anywhere, anytime, on any subject. Brookes has shown he is so angry and frustrated he can’t even have a coherent thought. And you are absolutely right. He really thought he was being clever, and the comment made perfect sense, and actually had merit.

        Hey Brookes, how does one go about producing something for the court to examine, that has never existed?


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    David, UK

    Andrew Barnham
    February 20, 2012 at 9:18 am · Reply

    I wonder if the tables where turned, if a similar thing indeed happened to Greenpeace what blogospheres reaction would be?

    You mean if someone posted a faked Greenpeace document? Or even a genuine-but-stolen one?

    Depends on the blogs, I suppose, but I know that those with integrity (like Jo’s or WUWT, for example) would be the first to disassociate themselves from such criminal acts and to call for the prosecution of the perpetrator.

    And before you claim a comparison with the Climategate I & II emails: those are publicly owned documents produced with taxpayer money that the public has every right to see. They were not stolen; they were liberated. Hence no one may be being sued for posting them. The same does not apply to the Heartland theft. Heartland’s internal, private documents are not subject to the FOIA and do not belong in the public domain unless so wished by Heartland.

    NOW do you get it? (I won’t hold my breath.)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      I agree with you entirely. It is not just that climategate exposed taxpayer funded assets. They exposed the internal workings of institutions that we, the general public, commissioned and funded in order to explore the (C)AGW hypthesis. The contents, the unprofessionalism and at times cronyism exposed therein, show they are undeserving of this task and our undeserving of our trust and patronage.

      HI and Greenpeace are private institutions with private backers that have set their own private agendas, which are primarily concerned with advocacy, not discovery. What they do is their own business; I don’t necessarily like what they do, especially when I turn on SBS news and watch a segment created and provided as is by WWF for example, but I respect the rule of law and that they are acting within its confines. The rhetorical question I positioned above is if the tables are turned, how would various actor behave. I agree that I would anticipate much higher standards from Jo, WUWT etc. For my own part, I would expect (and hope) that such materials would initially excite me, but more sobor and considered approach would quickly supercede. What amazes me in this instance is that days into this train wreck, the CAGW’rs are still carrying on in an excitable state.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    TimiBoy

    Wow, can you still buy Cheetos?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    Well everybody it looks like DeSmogBlog aren’t playing.

    So what happens if Heartland slinks away.

    How will you guys spin it?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      They won’t, you will. No spin needed.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      Jeremy C.

      When this goes to court there will be little discovery, there will be plenty of suppression of Heartland donors identities.

      Just think about it for a minute. Everyone in power will wake up as to how far Alarmists go in stealing, falsifying and cheating to protect their lies. Mate, you are naive. If the East Anglia Police do find the person who hacked the CRU, Alarmists will have their own goal that finally loses them the game. It was a inside job , most likely by a concerned whistle blower.

      I’ve added your name to the list of losers on this thread. Congratulations.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jeremy C

        Markus,

        The problem ith your statement is no body has ever claimed to be a whistleblower on CRU, even in some anonymous setting. Yet already we have someone claiming to be a whistleblower on Heartland’s shennaigans.

        Does it make you think…..?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Jeremy C

          What special definition of “whistleblower” to you own?

          Or are you stating that somebody working within the Heartland Institute deliberately released the material by intent? There is a huge difference between intending to something you would not usually do, and being fraudulently tricked by somebody else into doing it.

          As for your comment on the whistleblower at the CRU – perhaps they wanted to keep their job, so were quiet about their involvement? If it was a hack, then it was the perfect crime, since it left very little evidence. But either way, it is a red herring with no relevance to this latest drama.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Jeremy C

        “When this goes to court there will be little discovery, there will be plenty of suppression of Heartland donors identities. ”

        Now that is funny, very funny!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Jeremy,

          You are letting your immaturity show.

          People make donations all of the time under conditions of anonymity. They are obviously known to the recipients because they are sent a receipt, but otherwise their involvement is not made public.

          Many powerful people in the US are powerful because they make anonymous donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties, for example. They would not appreciate the public knowing that they are backing both horses in the race, now would they?

          The alarmists are hoping beyond hope that, when this gets to court, as it will, that the names of the donors will have to be made public. It is their only hope of salvaging some reputation out of this on moral grounds.

          But the courts will have none of it, if past precedent is applied, so you will lose that battle too.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Jeremy,

      There is no game to play. DeSmog must comply, or face the legal consequences. If they have decided to not comply, then that was their choice. I hope they have good lawyers, because it is game on.

      We will just sit back and watch and eat the popcorn – no spin required.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Robert

    I am thinking about it, and you are proof of how far liars and frauds will go.

    You’ve been warned numerous times about the D word by the mods. Can’t wait to see what they do to you this time.

    [He is in my sights] Fly


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    Suppose many of you were still working. (You found an organisation created a hostile environment in wage rise negotiation)

    Suppose your drinking was poisoned by Fracking below ground. (You discovered you were accused in being disloyal to your country by a organisation spreading lies about your political beliefs.)

    Suppose there were articles on the internet about Climate Change you trusted to be correct analysis of of some important science. (It was shown to be all pear shaped analysis – even gross distortion)

    Suppose you were a local independent in some office of Councillor, State or Federal. (You found your money was drying yet the well known parties were being funded by extreme amounts of campaign money)

    Now lets go through some of these.

    Do a Google search on the following:

    “heartland and fracking”

    “operation angry badger”

    “Republicans for Environmental Protection vs. Heartland” – you read correct – these are NO REDS under the bed.

    Concerned Republicans call for Heartland investigation (February 18th, 2012)

    Now for the big block – thick as bricks thinkers and anti-shakers on Climate Change propaganda in Australia, The “kings of the castle” are as follow: Journalists Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt, the Sydney Morning Herald’s Miranda Devine, the Telegraph’s Piers Akerman and the radio ‘shock jocks’ Alan Jones and Ray Hadley

    This is not going to go away. The pressure is mounting for propaganda in certain forms to be dealt a death blow.

    I predict this is only the beginning of the end of many things we have come to think that are norms.

    1. The journalist methodology developed by Murdoch and the Fox Media Corporation may well be in a death spiral in five years.
    2. The beginning of the end of reign of terrorism inflicted by a handful of core media people out spoken. The ratio of power curtailed that they have enjoyed will eventuate.
    3. The right wing organisations that dispense highly selective and culled information much like the propaganda methodologies used in the mid 20th century.

    That is FINAL say on this issue. Those who think the above cannot be proven – THINK again.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry.

      Mt dear Ross James, I really don’t want to be rude but it appears you are dribbling again. Now, go and get a cloth from your mum and wipe your face, while your at it clean that crap out of your mouth. :-)


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Ross,

      I need to ask a favour, mate.

      Go into your bathroom and say the following while looking into the mirror.

      This is not going to go away. The pressure is mounting for propaganda in certain forms to be dealt a death blow.

      I predict this is only the beginning of the end of many things we have come to think that are norms.

      1. The journalist methodology developed by Murdoch and the Fox Media Corporation may well be in a death spiral in five years.
      2. The beginning of the end of reign of terrorism inflicted by a handful of core media people out spoken. The ratio of power curtailed that they have enjoyed will eventuate.
      3. The right wing organisations that dispense highly selective and culled information much like the propaganda methodologies used in the mid 20th century.

      That is FINAL say on this issue. Those who think the above cannot be proven – THINK again.

      At the end, note how the edges of your lips have turned upwards.

      You see, we don’t believe it either.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        Tony (OZ) & Markus

        A new study [I imagine you have a reference for this "new study"?] ED shows that those who are ultra extremist conservative believe in fringe meetings held in secret, are of 10% of the population who believe strange things about conspiratorial tales and hold weird science to disagree. They want to change society to fit their paradigm. They are prone to having larger reptilian brains more then our normal liberal citizen counterparts. As they become more entrenched and feed this portion of the brain they become immune to logical realities and counter presentations. The brain’s IQ has effectively diminished somewhat.

        It is recommend that such attend de-programming camps [serious?] ED and are regenerating vitamins like Omega 3 and Vitamins E, C, B Complex and Calcium so that they may live out their lives in reality and peace lest some pre-mature senility sets in. They are then returned to society more productive then ever. They have lots to contribute because in the process they have gone from self deceptive knowledge to embracing truth. The exposure to the light of the greater democratic community brings the best in these now balanced folk. They now can warn others that such journeys are nothing but journeys of death and anarchy.

        The retraining camps of the reptilian brained have set up are very different. They wish to imprison all climate scientists that disagree and lock them up for LIFE! They want to shut down union workforces, allow fracking in any area, allow big corporations to take over, ban labour doctrine political parties and remove democratic votes from citizens who do not hold a sophisticated chip enabled identity card. You MUST be working to VOTE. Sadly those on pension who do not support them would see their pension reduced but those of this elite would see rewards go where intended.

        You know something – those who think libertarian movements are benign bedfellows where you can rest your weary anti-warmist head should reconsider how far to the right they want to go.

        It maybe too late before you begin the discovery that your thinking higher cognitive brain has given way to a reptilian expansion. Of course cognitive disorders are not found in right wing extemists orgs but also found in the extremist left orgs.

        The best choice is to always steer a middle path – just a step to the left for some of ultra right winging folk would help stop the reptilian brain alpha wave growth and expansion.

        This kind of actor portrayal of Hitler dubbed videos are so enlightening. Jo this is magnificent proof about the reptilian brain and how it perceives our reality and functions. The portrayal of a madman in his dying days before he committed SUICIDE. How very clever of you to imply that the whistle-blower about this little extremist organisation could commit suicide. How insensitive and how brave of you not to look at the facts growing daily by thousands of commentaries on the internet. How brave of you to use such satire.

        Now go back to your fiddles whilst Rome burns in the background and throw a party of celebration – please anything – just do not look at the facts – your reptilian brains may hurt.

        Ross J.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          he said whilst gnashing and wailing…….

          Ross, I suppose your left leaning brain isn’t reptilian? Therefore your rant above is simply racist? YOU racist PIG!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Markus Fitzhenry.

          Ross, I’m sorry you guys are losing the debate, no need to get nasty. I’d rather have a reptilian brain rather than a sponge brain.

          Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradictions between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior? Is that the type of reptilian brain you were indicating I have Ross? Do you ‘believe’ in AGW?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          PS where (except in your mind) is “Rome burning”?

          I happen to like fiddles….


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Joanne,

          please oh please leave this response from Ross here, and all you others, here’s the way to ‘ready reference’ this masterpiece from Ross.

          See just below his name at the top of the intro, well the date is highlighted in red.

          If you click on this date stamp, eg, ‘copy link location’ and paste it into a new comment, then this is the link back to this Comment.

          Ross, do you seriously believe what you have just said.

          You have just made yourself sound exactly like the very people you rail against.

          Man, you are classic. This is just prime.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            David Davidovics

            Always enjoy reading your comments, Tony.

            To Ross and the rest of the alarmists, I have one simple request;

            Please – PLEASE – don’t stop talking. You have done more damage to this scam than anything us realists could have dreamed. We are truly in your debt and the burning of rome (church of climatology) would not have been possible without you doing so much of the work for us.

            Again, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

            ROFLMAO!!!!!!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Coconutdog

          It has been said that when Hitler is mentioned in an argument, you can assume that they have lost.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          Ross James amazing rant reminds me of the kind of things I used to hear frequently in the late 60′s in Boulder Colorado from the self-identified “Freaks” (later to become “Progressives”) — only they were nearly always high on something when they went on like this.

          BTW, the next time you’re in a grocery store, see if they carry “Dr. Bronner’s” liquid peppermint soap (actually good stuff). Read the label: It’s a document frozen in time from the 1960s — and sounds just like Ross (except for the suggestions of violence in Ross’s rant).

          And don’t believe Ross is kidding about the re-education camps — if he had the power, he would do it (just like the 10:10 people would “liquidate” you for disbelief). If history teaches us anything, it is that the Left will stop at nothing to create their imagined utopia — even if it results in Hell on Earth.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Turnedoutnice

          I shall be very quick to make it easier. The so-called ‘climate science ‘consensus’ has in my view [40 years' post PhD international research, half of it in global warming related areas] been fraudulent. The latest date is 2004 when to keep polluted cloud cooling in AR4, NASA invented fake surface reflection physics, widely believed in climate science, a clear oxymoron.

          It could be 1997 when CO2 was shown to follow T at the end of ice ages, hence the ‘fake’ hockey stick and systemic alteration of T databases so CO2 climate sensitivity, then to be calibrated against modern warming, had to be maximised, when Mann had eliminated the MWP.

          But the strongest candidate is 1981 when Hansen claimed that present GHG warming is 33 K when he included lapse rate warming, most of that figure.

          You a supporting a crock of **it……


          Report this

          10

          • #

            Turnedoutnice

            You are totally correct of course.

            Next week my paper (now grown to about 14 pages) will provide a comprehensive explanation of the atmospheric physics involved, showing why carbon dioxide can have absolutely no warming effect, nor can even water vapour in so far as long-term climate is concerned.

            If you would like to (officially or otherwise) review my paper prior to the launch on Tuesday 13th, there’s still time and I would happily include you in the Acknowledgements. Email me privately re this enquiries@douglascotton.com


            Report this

            10

    • #
      BobC

      Ross James
      February 21, 2012 at 9:36 am

      That is FINAL say on this issue.

      Can we count on that? What a relief!

      Those who think the above cannot be proven – THINK again.

      I Googled them all. The fracking one gives you quotes from Heartland people decrying irrational bans on fracking that are not based on science or fact. OMG, what a controversy!

      The other two are people quoting the faked documents. I guess if someone who calls themselves a “Republican” quotes them, they must be authentic, right?

      I can believe that your mind works like this Ross — but why should the rest of us care?


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Mark D.

        Can we count on that? What a relief!

        Unfortunately Ross has assumed the missionary position at the request of the Green Bishop (the Church of Green & AGW). He likes the position so I’m pretty sure it won’t be the “final say”.

        I agree it would be a RELIEF!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Ross James

        (While you keep flogging Heartland with your opinions.What do you think of uber warmist cultist Peter Gleik now after he admitted he was the creep who did this?: Gleik admits his guilt – deception used to get documents in FakeGate – apologizes) CTS

        Okay Bob lets get you in the boxer ring.

        Do you agree with the following statement from Heartland:

        Shale extraction has proven remarkably safe for the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not found a single instance of drinking water contaminated by hydraulic fracturing, the technique used to extract natural gas from shale rock. Rock formations containing natural gas are hundreds or thousands of feet below groundwater tables and are kept separate from them by impermeable rock layers. Some minor instances of groundwater pollution have been reported, but these have occurred largely due to faulty pipe seals at the surface and are as likely to occur at conventional natural gas production sites as hydraulic fracturing sites.

        http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking-natural-gas

        You agree with Heartland? If you do not agree with that statement then obviously you disagree with Heartland.

        Note the bias Bob. Bias – correct when science involved in big business and energy but Climate Change science agreement NO – Hit the tilt button – something is wrong here. What? INCONSISTENCY to the SCIENCE.

        Now go and vote for the politics that support such mining in Australia. I bet you won’t or you may just end up voting on PARTY lines despite their support for it for or against.

        “Gov. Christie’s moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas wells is a terribly unfortunate mistake for the nation and his state. We do not need a year of study, as we have been hydraulically fracturing oil wells for well over 50 years with no significant harm to any groundwater supplies or impact of any kind on the environment.

        “Sadly the governor is pandering to environmental zealots who simply oppose inexpensive energy for the nation, which would allow us to move forward economically. It should be obvious that these people oppose coal, off-shore drilling for oil, or development of some 16 billion barrels of oil that could be extracted from a mere 2,000 acres of the 19.3 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.***** They favor only wind and solar for the obvious reason that they know those energy sources cannot move this nation forward – and not moving this nation forward is in fact their goal.

        ****** See how the rhetoric has expanded to everything. Its called “GISH GALLOPING” the issue. Now do you see or don’t you?????????

        “Gov. Christie has played a very sensible environmental hand up to now, but caving to these people even for a year surely indicates a crack in what was previously an outstanding record of common sense for the citizens he serves. Jobs will be lost in New Jersey for years to come as a result of this decision.”

        Jay Lehr
        Science Director
        The Heartland Institute
        [snip. policy here does not permit e-mail addresses]

        Bingo Bob Bingo.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          BobC

          Ross James
          February 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm

          Okay Bob lets get you in the boxer ring.

          Can’t wait to see what you think is a telling argument.

          Do you agree with the following statement from Heartland:

          Shale extraction has proven remarkably safe for the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not found a single instance of drinking water contaminated by hydraulic fracturing, the technique used to extract natural gas from shale rock. Rock formations containing natural gas are hundreds or thousands of feet below groundwater tables and are kept separate from them by impermeable rock layers. Some minor instances of groundwater pollution have been reported, but these have occurred largely due to faulty pipe seals at the surface and are as likely to occur at conventional natural gas production sites as hydraulic fracturing sites.
          http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking-natural-gas

          You agree with Heartland? If you do not agree with that statement then obviously you disagree with Heartland.

          I think the EPA’s study is essentially correct. In that, I agree with Heartland’s assessment.

          Note the bias Bob. Bias – correct when science involved in big business and energy but Climate Change science agreement NO – Hit the tilt button – something is wrong here. What? INCONSISTENCY to the SCIENCE.

          This is your problem in a nutshell, Ross. You apparently know nothing about science, and refuse to educate yourself. In your mind, you must either believe everything the government says, or nothing the government says — to do otherwise would be INCONSISTENT (apparently a grave sin).

          The rest of us here (except for some of the Trolls) do know something about science, and we believe that you can evaluate the data and follow the arguments to decide if a conclusion was properly reached. We also realize (as you do not) that nobody and no organization is always right or always wrong. Assuming that (as you do) is a profoundly irrational and ahistorical act.

          Bingo Bob Bingo.

          If your goal was to show that I’m not as crazy and ignorant as yourself, you have succeeded.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Ross, my dear fellow,

      you mention this, and I’m, er, a tad curious:

      “heartland and fracking”

      How disgusting is it that you have found some tenuous link that may associate that wicked Heartland Institute with what you think of as the disgusting thing known as Fracking.

      Say, I was wondering if you might like to comment on the following.

      How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry

      Odd isn’t it?

      That long term bastion of environmentalism, The Sierra Club took $25 Million from a Company who is engaged in just that very same practice, Fracking.

      Have you any comment on that for us Ross?

      That’s, er, $25 Million, Ross.

      While you’re looking in the mirror from the other request, see if your other foot fits in there too.

      Tony.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Ross James

        Tony,

        How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry NOT FRACKING GAS!

        I will not post the links – Heartland have clearly stated there FRACKING support in almost any area where the science by statement through the company bias is backed asAGAINST the WILL of the CITIZEN. If you speak up your a Anti-American socialist!

        Nothing could be clearer. Meet it head on mate in your own logic and stop allowing such such orgs to get away with it.

        Ross J.


        Report this

        01

        • #

          Hey Ross,

          can’t you read mate?

          I even provided the link for you, which you plainly did not take, PLAINLY.

          It says there, and gee, no need to look further than the first sentence.

          Mainstream environmental groups have struggled to find the right line on shale natural gas and the hydraulic fracturing or fracking process.

          The article then goes on to say:

          TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking.

          No wonder you’re discredited here.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      J.H.

      You’re babbling Ross… And what’s yer beef with Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Piers? ( you missed Janette Albrechtsen) You pretty much just named the only journalists that will give their readers a comprehensive list of facts to go with their stories critical of Catastrophic claims by proponents of the flawed AGW hypothesis. Obviously you think Propaganda is allowing people to read facts and figures pertinent to a story or critical opinion!….. Boy, can’t have readers being introduced to facts! Oh by Lenin’s pointy beard, Socialism would go nowhere fast like that.

      Anyway Ross….. how does it feel to be a lapdog for tyranny and media oppression?….;-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        J.H.

        I can well tease out what these journalists are saying inclusive of Janette Albrechtsen who to me is an extremist. I watched her on Q & A and the general reaction from the audience (at least 42% Liberal) was almost complete continual rejection of her commentary judging by the response. She is simply a very bad ugly journalist.

        She sets one Australian against another with propaganda like this:

        Elites VERSES the rest of Australia (herself and others in her “image”.

        “This time the elites are those that comprise the panel of experts advising the government on indigenous recognition in the Australian Constitution. There are reports the panel will suggest the repeal of two outdated, race-based provisions of the Constitution: section 25 and section 51(xxvi)”. This makes sense.

        Elites – This is journalistic clap trap NAME calling and objectification of person or person/s into opposing parties.

        There is a psychology to this and the way propaganda becomes established as from acceptable journalism.

        For example The Jewish national Government may always refer to the their walled up neighbour as Palestinians and never as plain fellow neighbours or humans or names with a face.

        Example: You conflate the issue by calling any person who disagrees (even me) a Socialist, a Greenie, A Religious climate believer etc etc

        Depersonalisation is what begins to undermine the democratic process. It stops a sector of the population and disfranchises them from active participation.

        That is why I call her out – she is a bad journalist using News Corp “culture” that is personalised, self-opinionated and grandiose. This is NOT GOOD journalism. This is biased and potentiating propaganda at its best is outworking.

        Number lesson for you today: Learn the difference between propaganda and what is reasonable truth.

        Ross J.

        ———————–

        REPLY: Righto Ross, so “Elites” (being people who put themselves above others) is namecalling apparently, but “Denier” is fair comment? “Extremist”? “Ugly Bad Journalist”?
        You are blind to the flaws of the team you defend who’ve raised depersonalizing nonsense to an art form: “Big-Oil peddling denialist lies”. When you protest against the worst name-callers you won’t look like a complete hypocrite. You are just angry that some people are sending back 5% of what your heroes have been dishing out for years. — Jo


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Ross wails:

          For example The Jewish national Government may always refer to the their walled up neighbour as Palestinians and never as plain fellow neighbours or humans or names with a face.

          Or as reptile brains…

          More:

          Depersonalisation is what begins to undermine the democratic process. It stops a sector of the population and disfranchises them from active participation.

          Ross, have you read the Leftist manual by Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”?


          Report this

          00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi RossJ

    Do a google search on “Global Warming FRAUD” !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    With the Climategate e-mails in mind, the Heartland Institute has no moral stance in objecting to the “stolen”, i.e. non-approved, release of most of the documents. I would, though a skeptic and general Heartland supporter, not support legally sought punishment for the accurate documents. I would support and do so strongly, legally sought punishment for the fraudulent document purported to be from Heartland. That was created for the sole purpose of harming the Institute’s reputation and those who support it. If the other documents are perceived by Heartland as harming its reputation, then both they and we have reason to investigate why that should be. (But they don’t: this is just a point of rhetoric.) Condemn, admonish, ply on the negative social commentary, yes. Prosecute, no.

    There should be no embarrassment in disagreeing with the CAGW narrative, nor in supporting it. That there is shows how emotionally charged the issue is, not that the issue itself has an emotional basis. Of course sides in any conflict wish to keep private correspondence and discussions private: what we decide ultimately may be the result of conversations far from our final conclusions or positions. We are allowed, both sides that is, to range about, to rant and rave, before we come to a position we are prepared to both pursue and support. The e-mails of Jones, Mann et al are of consequence only because they do not reveal a developing opinion, but an established one, and one with a program of dissemination, cover-up and suppression of other positions. The Heartland documents, in revealing what is going on within Heartland, may be considered awkward as there is an internal understanding of issues that is lost to the public and the Romm-type, but they cannot be said to be condemnatory. And this is in isolation, without comparison to those of the warmist side.

    The Climategate e-mails were not fraudulent. Mann et al never dispute their authenticity, but that they were presented out of context and “illegally” obtained and distributed. That is germane as a technical issue, but not as a statement about their societal value. Climategate letters revealed a lot of agenda being foisted on the tax-paying paymaster. The Heartland documents reveal the inner workings of a corporate structure which has a stated position that CAGW is both a falsehood and a known falsehood. Mann et al claim that their positions are about Science only; their own words reveal otherwise. And the money that the Heartland documents show went to various skeptic voices is negligible and unworthy of being charged as an influence on the skeptical positions. Which cannot be said of the monies that Mann, Hansen, Jones, Pachauri, Gore and others have received.

    We should welcome a public charge that the Heartland monies have influenced the skeptics’ opinions. Put side-by-side, the warmists would be convicted on the basis of their own mean-spiriitedness.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      J.H.

      The ClimateGate emails were from a publicly funded organization releasing publicly funded information or information the whistle blower felt the public should be aware of.

      …. The Heartland Institute is a private organization and the documents were obtained by deception and then a fake one introduced into the collection in order to defame…. You are talking chalk and cheese Doug.

      Without the faked document, the Heartland material just shows a rather boring and unimpressive funding stream with no controversy….. Hence the fakery and usual dishonesty by the Ecofascists.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Wow!

    Ross James is on a rampage for irrational thinking.

    He gets caught over and over in his silly replying statements then plows on as if it never happened.

    At 46.4 Tony shows the deep involvement by the ultra warmist environmentalist Sierra Club getting a nice load of “big oil” money

    Ross tries his patented deflection with this howler.From 46.4.1:

    Tony,

    How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry NOT FRACKING GAS!

    I will not post the links – Heartland have clearly stated there FRACKING support in almost any area where the science by statement through the company bias is backed asAGAINST the WILL of the CITIZEN. If you speak up your a Anti-American socialist!

    Nothing could be clearer. Meet it head on mate in your own logic and stop allowing such such orgs to get away with it.

    Ross J.

    Then Tony exposes your feeble debating skills by quoting from the Sierra Club link you apparently avoided reading to make your awful deflection.From 46.4.1.1.

    TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking.

    You should quit while you are far behind since it is not a pretty sight to see Tony make you look stupid in front of the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TG McCoy

    I see that this Fakegate thing is big down under too.
    This needs to be not let go…


    Report this

    00