Heartland Institute and Green Funding

Update 2/24: WUWT has a ton of links on this whole affair, which the alarmists are defending. Rep. Markey has definitely swallowed the kool-aid here.

Some notes on the Heartland fluffle:

There’s been a lot of bed-wetting in the alarmist blogosphere about “the evil Heartland Institute” (corrupting small children, spreading rumors, etc.) They’e horrified, just really outraged and totally frazzled, that Heartland had the unmitigated gall to contribute some money to skeptic climate concerns. Many of them don’t even care that the core Heartland doc was faked (hence the label, Fakegate.) Doesn’t bother me, since it just makes them look even sillier than usual.

Heartland. Oh the horrors. Oh the wet sheets. Ugh.

JoNova, as usual, puts it all in perspective.
(click image for a bigger pic.)

Image is a slightly modified on from JoNova’s site: Fakegate: the smog blog exposes irrational rage, innumeracy, and heartland’s efficient success.

So we have this:

• Heartland budget, $7 mil
• Greenpeace, WWF, Pew, Sierra club: about $1.4 billion.

So with a little math… 202 times that of Heartland. One could make interesting remarks about their credibility, I think.

By the way, being green pays rather well: see green funding,

As far as this non-scandal Vs Climategate? Well, there really isn’t any comparison, but I don’t think anyone’s mind will be changed here.

Update 2/18: Can’t really argue with what Steve says:

The scandal has nothing to do with HI funding skeptics.

It has to do with warmists engaging in felony fraud, forgery, libel and defamation of character. Any journalist who hasn’t figured that out yet is clearly in a weakened mental state. They should be running away from this as fast as they can.

Here’s the post.

Update 2/19:

• Briggs on Heartlandgate Versus Climategate

Update 2/21:

Peter Gleick has fessed up to all but forging the memo. I seriously doubt the he, or most on his side feel that he’s done anything wrong.

Gleik is too valuable an asset to the cause. His legal costs till be covered by the cause and he’ll lay low for a little while, until the smoke clears, Shortly thereafter he will start making noises again, after all is forgotten and forgiven by the green side. I doubt that any legal action brought by any parties damaged by his actions will amount to much. He’ll be back.

Judith Curry writes, in part:

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate.  Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels.  There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.

On the one hand, Climategate involved a large number of people that were involved in the IPCC.  Apart from the FOI avoidance that was arguably criminal, everyone seems to have been ‘cleared’ by the various investigations.  On the other hand, Gleick is only one person, but his actions are far more serious, particularly if they involve fabrication of a document.

If the scientific and environmental communities were to react like Andy Revkin, then the damage from this potentially can be contained (one bad egg):

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

Joe Romm, at least so far, has ignored the whole issue.  Which strategically is not a bad move.

Unfortunately, already we are seeing signs of exactly the opposite strategy.  Over at DeSmog Blog:

Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

Scott Mandia, a leader of the Climate Rapid Response Team, is quoted:

…”Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years,” wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. “They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ;’teach the controversy’ where none exists.”He went on: “Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”

The climate insanity factor has just jumped upwards a big notch.

Here’s the whole article, well worth reading: Gleick’s ‘integrity’

As far as DeSmog and Mandia’s remarks, I don’t think they can be called lies since these guys believe them to the core of their being. That they are nonsensical is another matter.

2/23: Monckton weighs in on WUWT: Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted

…what we call Fakegate – the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible.

I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else….

But will anyone act?

I’ll be very surprised if anyone faces criminal charges, much gets anything more than a slap on the wrist. I fully expect that all guilty parties will be well defended by their crowd and will, in a few weeks, be continuing as if nothing had happened. More likely it’ll be “Dude! Fake, but accurate! You spoke TRUTH to the evil-doers!”

2/23b: Should anyone get jail time? Hmmm….. Maybe it’s enough for the skeptic crowd to know the lengths these people will go to. They’ve lost credibility in the eyes of a group who gave them none to begin with. They’ve lost a few people more or less on their side. They’ve reinforced themselves in the eyes of their hysterical base. Would libel penalties be a deterrent or a call to further Martyrdom?

2/23c: Dr. G. wins the coveted Hippie of the Week award. Congratulations!

2/25: Gleicks possible motives? Is this the editorial which pushed him over the edge. Gleick joins another association.

2/27: About the funding of the evil climate denial (there is no climate???) machine, check this out.

2/28: Killer question, since the alarmosphere considers Gleick’s escapes to be wonderful: “Would Copernicus and Galileo have been right to lie about the nature of the solar system if that lie prevented the undermining of the Catholic Church, which most everyone at the time felt to have substantial positive benefits?”

2/28: Donna Laframboise adds : Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Climate audit explains why Gleick could be in serious trouble (not that he will be.) Idiocy from the LA Times.

Heartland info & FAQ

WUWT Gleick thread, part two.

Fakegate timeline

3/1: A graphic which beautifully illustrates the overwhelming superiority of Heartland funding.

3/11: Nice to be proven right (2/21 above:)  17 Days Later, Peter Gleick is Back in the Saddle

3/19: The climate of history – condemned to repeat it. “Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.” Includes bits appropriate for classroom discussion. Also includes links to what the hysterics believe should be done to “deniers,” including the 10:10 video.