Heartland Institute dupes, minions, & shills versus the Climate Reality Project: Whose side are you on?

via Climate Reality

"EVERY National Scientific Academy in the World"? Even the ones of countries that are otherwise ideologically opposed? That tells you something. I'm with Reality. The Heartland Institute's "scientists" can go have another cancer-causing cigarette, since they used to work for Big Tobacco as professional liars, right? They weren't helping nicotine pushers or anything, were they? Nicotine isn't extremely addictive or anything, right? Man, I hate it that people lie for money.

Heartland sent one of theirs here to complain to me that I had gone along with the Heartland memos (emails) that were exposed. Heartland claimed the worst one of those was a fake. It's their word against the exposer's, whose identity is openly known to Heartland. Whom do you believe, the proven Big Tobacco shills or that all of those emails were real? Well, when the exposer, Peter Gleick, says that one was fake, I'll consider it.

See here: "Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk". Also read the comment section there.

See this also: "Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose." It says, "Heartland also accused Gleick of forging the document." Did they?

Study: Gleick Forged 'Fakegate' Memo

March 14, 2012 – A computer analysis of the "climate strategy memo" at the heart of the widely publicized global warming scandal called "Fakegate" concludes disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, is the most likely author.

Gleick has already confessed to stealing confidential documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to expose the organization's sources of funding. While first claiming the memo came from Heartland, he more recently claimed to have received it "in the mail" from an anonymous source.

The new analysis is important because virtually all of the negative coverage of The Heartland Institute and the global warming "skeptics" movement that followed the release of the stolen and forged documents was based on the assumed authenticity of the forged "confidential memo."

Heartland has repeatedly said the memo does not represent its strategies or beliefs. See, for example, "An Analysis of the Forged 'Heartland Climate Strategy' Memo" by Heartland President Joseph L. Bast.

The computer analysis was conducted by Juola & Associates. According to the business's Web site, it is "the premier provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship. Our scientists are leading, world-recognized experts in the fields of stylometry, authorship attribution, authorship verification, and author analysis."

The analysis was conducted by Dr. Patrick Juola, director of research, and director of the Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Juola & Associates, headed by President Patrick Brennan, is a separate commercial entity that provides analysis and consultation on stylometry.

Dr. Juola's complete analysis can be found on the Watts Up With That Web site.

Dr. Juola concludes his analysis saying: "Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled 'Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,' and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute."

Anthony Watts, host of Watts Up With That, comments: "It seems very likely then, given the result of this analysis, plus the circumstances, proximity, motive, and opportunity, that Dr. Peter Gleick forged the document known as 'Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.' The preponderance of the evidence points squarely to Gleick."

The Heartland Institute asks the Web sites and blogs that have posted the forged memo to remove it, along with any commentary that relied on the false claims made in the memo. We also ask again that journalists who inaccurately reported that the memo reflected Heartland's true tactics and beliefs correct their errors.

Every day the forged memo and fraudulent claims based on its authenticity remain on the Web and uncorrected undermines the credibility of those media outlets and Web sites that refuse to do the right thing. We ask for the public's help in correcting the record and urging journalists and environmental activists to act ethically and responsibly.

# # #

For more information:

The Heartland Institute

Director of Communications, Jim Lakely, jlakely@heartland.org

Juola & Associates:

Director of R&D, Dr. Patrick Juola, pjuola@juolaassoc.com
President, Patrick Brennan, pbrennan@juolaassoc.com

Source: "Study: Gleick Forged 'Fakegate' Memo."

So, the leading deniers claim Gleick most likely forged that one document, which he denies. However, the remainder of the documents don't paint a pretty picture. Regardless, the Heartland Institute's work for Big Tobacco is something they haven't repented about, that I know of anyway.

Note that the blog post from Heartland cites and quotes Anthony Watts, of "Watts Up With That." Retain that for when you watch Peter Sinclair's video below. Anthony Watts is likely the worst of the worst of the AGW-deniers. He censors legitimate debate on his site.

Anthony Watts, of "Watts Up With That," has now censored Peter Hadfield. Why? Anthony Watts can't back up Christopher Monckton on all of the so-called science both Monckton and Watts allege.

Christopher Monckton is a farce on the subject of AGW. He knows next to nothing of value. He has made wild assertions, all of which have been thoroughly refuted.

Moving on, I could sue Heartland for publicly equating me with the Unibomber just as easily as Heartland could sue anyone over those revealing emails -- certainly much more truthfully revealing about Heartland's immorality than those so-called Climategate emails were concerning the scientists who were worried at how the likes of Heartland would exaggerate the importance of the 1960's tree-ring data divergence, which Heartland and their ilk did anyway.

The "Climategate" scientists were all exonerated via every formal investigation. There was no fire. There wasn't even any smoke. Furthermore, the Hockey Stick data has only been reinforced via newer data and even the investigations of AGW-denier scientists who peer-reviewed the actual work of Dr. Mann, et al. The AGW-denier community was holding its breath waiting for an AGW-doubting scientist to report different findings that would destroy the Hockey Stick and throw more doubt on the false fire. It didn't happen. Dr. Richard A Muller's "Berkley Earth Surface Temperature" project worked turned out this way:

One of my favorite videos on AGW: A must watch!

Preliminary Findings|BerkeleyEarth.org: study

So, those who originally termed it "Climategate" and spread all of the gross falsehoods owe Doctors Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Keith Briffa a huge apology!

Recent related post

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.