Warmist DeSmog Blog Deems Heartland Doc “Authentic”, Fail To Consult Dan Rather
Megan MCardle has the perfect quote
“When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right”
And they will go to any lengths to protect their religion
A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged. On the contrary, the Climate Strategy document is corroborated by Heartland’s own material and/or by its allies and employees.
It should be interesting when they have to prove this in a court of law, which seems to be the direction Heartland is moving.
It also uses phrases, language and, in many cases, whole sentences that were taken directly from Heartland’s own material. Only someone who had previous access to all of that material could have prepared the Climate Strategy in its current form.
Except, it’s rather easy to go Heartland’s website and put together a document, coble together some phrases, and provide a document. Just ask Lucy Ramirez and Bill Burkett. How’s Dan Rather doing after saying the document was “real”?
In all the circumstances — taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position — DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.
They then go on to try and “prove” the document is real. And fail. As MCardle stated in a previous post
It was probably not written by anyone who had intimate familiarity with Heartland’s operations, because it made clear errors about the Koch donations–the amount, and the implied purpose. It also hashed the figures for a sizable program, and may have made other errors that I haven’t identified.
The time zones and other things seem to have been changed. The Koch donation was for health care, not globull warming. There are massive run on sentences. The style is different from the other documents, both in the dump and docs on different subjects from Heartland. My favorite paragraph is this one
Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts). Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out. Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Rornm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters). AVe have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data. Finally, we will consider expanding these efforts further, or developing new ones, if funding can be obtained.
It’s a Warmist’s wet dream, basically saying that there is tons of coordination being driven, when, in reality, Realists see a big story somewhere, like at WUWT, Climate Depot, Tom Nelson, Junk Science, or others, and post it up.
Then there is the phrase that has bothered me from the get-go: “anti-climate.” Has anyone seen a Climate Realist say they are “anti-climate”? I thought not. And Realists actually look forward to the Warmist voices, and continually challenge them to debates, which the warmists are too chicken-sh*t to accept.
Of course, most of the Warmists are accepting DeSmog’s “analysis” as fact, as a way of confirming their biases, as a way of saying “see? Those damned deniers hate science, and look at their coordination!” A bit like calling the kettle black.