44 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 19 February 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Do you understand the difference between a contractor and a salaried employee?  Would YOU give $44,000 to someone without having him sign a contract?  If you would, maybe we can do business.

you are implying that the project belongs to heartland and they are paying him to do it. its the other way around. it's anthony watts idea and project and they are just providing a donation to part fund the costs involved, so again where is the scandal????
this is just an attempt to create a false meme that "anthony watts is fnded by big oil" which is what they and their media lackies do all the time to anyone who does not swallow the cool aid.

Quote

BTW:  the courts have held that some contracts are, in fact, salaries.  There are about 30 different tests they apply to decide.

have you heard of a grant? someone gives you a grant and you think you are employed or contracted by them?

Quote

I think you just supplied the answer.  Mr. Watts is, indeed, a nefarious character.

eh, how is he a nefarious character?
I'm not following your logic at all.

Quote

Mr. Watts is really a side-issue in this.  It's Heartland that got caught with its pants down.  THEY'RE the ones that need to explain what they're doing.
Doug

how did the heartland institute get caught with their pants down??
again this makes no sense at all.
where is the "scandal"?

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 19 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

you are implying that the project belongs to heartland and they are paying him to do it. its the other way around. it's anthony watts idea and project and they are just providing a donation to part fund the costs involved, so again where is the scandal????

It was Heartland's money.  It went from them to him.  Doesn't matter who had the idea to begin with.

Quote

this is just an attempt to create a false meme that "anthony watts is fnded by big oil" which is what they and their media lackies do all the time to anyone who does not swallow the cool aid.

Strictly speaking, "big oil" is only one of Heartland's contributors.  They've been involved in a lot of other schemes over the years, including the tobacco industry's anti-regulation campaign, which worked for thirty years before the tobacco execs got caught lying to Congress.  I'm guessing that Anthony Watts is funded by a lot of other buinesses as well.  The unifying theme is preventing or forestalling regulation.

Quote

have you heard of a grant? someone gives you a grant and you think you are employed or contracted by them?

I have received more than a few, myself - and there's always a contract involved.

Quote

eh, how is he a nefarious character?
I'm not following your logic at all.

Misrepresenting findings, "disinformation", pretending he is some kind of scientist, pretending he is even able to read a research article and understand what it is saying...

Quote

how did the heartland institute get caught with their pants down??
again this makes no sense at all.
where is the "scandal"?

Heartland gets caught when one of their own employees leaks a plan for deliberately releasing false information and calling it "education."

Watts was not directly involved in that; he just got caught up in the leak.  Actually, Watts may end up doing us all a service if he actually presents the real weather data in a straight-forward, easy-to-understand format.  That'll be tough; there is a lot of data and more is being added every day.  And there are as lot of opportunities to misunderstand/misrepresent it.

Hope to find my own chronology on the NCDC website in a few months.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 20 February 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

It was Heartland's money.  It went from them to him.  Doesn't matter who had the idea to begin with.

no it didn't. do you accept it is a pledge? that means they will give later, as in they have not yet given. watts says there's no strings attached, what evidence do you have that he is lying?

Quote

Strictly speaking, "big oil" is only one of Heartland's contributors.  They've been involved in a lot of other schemes over the years, including the tobacco industry's anti-regulation campaign, which worked for thirty years before the tobacco execs got caught lying to Congress.  I'm guessing that Anthony Watts is funded by a lot of other buinesses as well.  The unifying theme is preventing or forestalling regulation.

why do you care so much where the money comes from. its only $44,000, how is displaying NOAAs data so the public can read it such a crime in your opinion?

Quote

I have received more than a few, myself - and there's always a contract involved.

do you have any evidence that heartland will be pulling the strings? I suppose you think that the data will somehow be manipulated or processed (even when watts says it won't be) - it would be a very easy thing to uncover if it were. this is just getting nuts.

Quote

Misrepresenting findings, "disinformation", pretending he is some kind of scientist, pretending he is even able to read a research article and understand what it is saying...

your opinions have no bearing on this pledge of funding issue.

Quote

Heartland gets caught when one of their own employees leaks a plan for deliberately releasing false information and calling it "education."

another mistatement of fact. the employee was tricked by deception into giving out documents, they thought they were sending documents to a member of heartland. there was no "own employee leaking plans" in some whistleblower type of way as you insinuate.
how do you know the education plan is "false information"? this is just getting silly.

Quote

Watts was not directly involved in that; he just got caught up in the leak.  Actually, Watts may end up doing us all a service if he actually presents the real weather data in a straight-forward, easy-to-understand format.  That'll be tough; there is a lot of data and more is being added every day.  And there are as lot of opportunities to misunderstand/misrepresent it.

so you think it will be incorrect, even when the project hasn't even started. the data is available publicly on noaas site, if watts misrepresents the data, then it will be picked up immediately.

where is the scandal?

[Doug1o29]

You seem to be misunderstanding just about everything I wrote.

I hope Watts does make NCDC data available in an easy-to-understand format.  But there is an awful lot of data; he will have to make choices about what to present and what not to.  And he has a reputation for misunderstanding and misrepresenting things.  I could present you with a long string of websites to support that, but you dismissed the last bunch I listed without even reading them (I am thinking of the one where the author was demanding an apology from Watts for misrepresenting what she wrote.).

The reason NCDC data is not used more widely by the public is that it is mostly just numbers.  Column after page after volume of numbers with little explanation and most of that techical.  It's very boring stuff, even if you're interested in the subject.  I doubt Watts can do much to make it more interesting without distorting it - I doubt whether anybody can.

And $44,000 to reproduce a site that's already available sounds suspicious.  He could present NCDC data a lot cheaper just by providing the links.  That's a lot of money for a list of links.  So I assume he plans to make changes.  And if he is making changes, what is getting filtered out in the process?


And how Heartland's information got out doesn't really matter.  The fact is:  it got out.

Trouble with this sort of nefarious realease of correspondence is:  if you can do it to me, then I can do it to you.  Sounds like the stolen Michael Mann emails, but this time the shoe's on the other foot.  Pinches, doesn't it?
Doug

[Little Fish]

Peter Gleick confesses to deceptively stealing heartland documents.

http://wattsupwithth...eick-confesses/

Peter Gleick preaches integrity in science, accuses others of needing integrity.

http://www.agu.org/p...1EO470009.shtml
http://www.pacinst.o...erce_2-7-07.pdf
http://www.huffingto...n_b_770658.html
http://www.huffingto...t_b_811295.html

what a hypocrite!

his apology is irrelevent, court cases WILL follow.

statement from Heartland
FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.


An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists,  policy experts, and organizations we work with.

A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a  more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.

Edited by Little Fish, 21 February 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 20 February 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

You seem to be misunderstanding just about everything I wrote.

I am not misunderstanding you, I am using your own statements. you have continually stated or implied that anthony watts has been paid and is under contract to the heartland institute, this is false and has been explained to you why it is false, but you keep reiterating those false assertions. even gleick's confession takes a swipe using the same false propaganda.

"For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir." - anthony watts.

Quote

Trouble with this sort of nefarious realease of correspondence is:  if you can do it to me, then I can do it to you.  Sounds like the stolen Michael Mann emails, but this time the shoe's on the other foot.  Pinches, doesn't it?
Doug

michael mann's emails were not "stolen". you know this because we have discussed it more than once. michael's mann's emails were released under FOIA as they should have been under law. it was michael mann that tried to prevent their release. will you now again claim that I misunderstand you when you clearly and falsely portray mann as a victim rather than the truth which is someone who tried to subvert the FOIA law.

also, there is no evidence that the climategate emails were stolen by anyone outside of the CRU. they should have been released according to the law of the land, but again michael mann's sidekick phil Jones of the CRU illegally blocked their release. all the crimes, coverups and refusal to debate are coming from your camp doug.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 21 February 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

you have continually stated or implied that anthony watts has been paid and is under contract to the heartland institute, this is false and has been explained to you why it is false, but you keep reiterating those false assertions. even gleick's confession takes a swipe using the same false propaganda.

By his (and your) admission, Anthony Watts received $44,000 from Heartland.  How does he receive the money if Heartland doesn't pay him?  Nobody just gives someone else $44,000 without some sort of agreement (contract) regarding what is expected in return.  Even a handshake constitutes a legally enforceable contract (providing both parties can later agree on what they shook on).

Quote

michael mann's emails were not "stolen". you know this because we have discussed it more than once. michael's mann's emails were released under FOIA as they should have been under law. it was michael mann that tried to prevent their release. will you now again claim that I misunderstand you when you clearly and falsely portray mann as a victim rather than the truth which is someone who tried to subvert the FOIA law.

My mistake.  It was the East Anglia emails that were stolen.  Put "East Anglia" in place of "Michael Mann" and read it again.

Just how are those emails relevant to Mann's (or Jones') research?  I have reviewed Mann's paper (See above.) and found only minor problems.  I haven't reviewed anything by Jones.  I have found more problems in the papers by Wegman, McKittrick and McIntire - mostly the result of not understanding how to apply the models.


How about we put the Anthony Watts discussion on hold until Watts gets his site up and running?  Then it will be easy enough to compare what he does with what is on the NCDC site.  Until then, we really don't have any hard evidence.  Watts MIGHT do something different this time.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 21 February 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

By his (and your) admission, Anthony Watts received $44,000 from Heartland. How does he receive the money if Heartland doesn't pay him?

are you trying to wind me up?

it has been explained to you a dozen times that he has not received $44,000, it has been pledged for a future project.

Quote

they have pledged

http://www.unexplain...2

Quote

the heartland has pledged $44,000, the rest he is trying to raise from other donations

http://www.unexplain...2

Quote

heartland have PLEDGED $44,000 towards a future project watts wants to do to make NOAAs data accessible to the public free of charge

http://www.unexplain...0

Quote

"the figure pledged thus far is $44K"

http://www.unexplain...7

Quote

the figure pledged thus far is $44K,

http://www.unexplain...3

Quote

then you will have noticed the word "pledge", the way the article is written does not make it clear that watts has been pledged part funding for a future project. the article makes out using weasel words that he has been paid by heartland

Quote

so you read that to mean watts said he has been paid, when the truth is that money has been pledged

http://www.unexplain...7

Quote

no it didn't. do you accept it is a pledge? that means they will give later, as in they have not yet given

http://www.unexplain...4

Quote

Nobody just gives someone else $44,000 without some sort of agreement (contract) regarding what is expected in return.

it is a pledge of money for part funding a future project.
he is not a contractor, it has been explained to you.
he is not salaried, it has been explained to you.

and yes organisations do donate money to fund projects without taking control of the project or expecting something in return.

[Doug1o29]

You made your point.  They haven't paid him YET.  So a contract doesn't exist YET.

For people that don't use "donated" money in the manner approved by the donor, check out the recent lawsuit between Garth Brooks and Integris Baptist.  They didn't have a contract, either, but the court's ruling was that Integris had to return Brooks' money because they hadn't used it the way they had implied.

So a "pledge" is almost as binding as a contract.

Now, if we can quit splitting hairs and get on to a relevant topic...


On another subject:  a few years ago, Colorado State University realized that downloading digital elevation models from the USGS website every time a student needed one was costing them a fortune.  US government agencies can charge for downloads (as NCDC does with many of its datasets), but they can't copyright the data.  CSU downloaded all USGS dems for Colorado and put them on a robot computer and gave their students free access.  Then they decided that it wouldn't cost them any more to make them available to the public; in fact, it would cost them less because they wouldn't have to go through all those security procedures.  So one can now download USGS dems from the CSU website for free (or pay the USGS $10 each for them).

Partly in an effort to bring in revenue and partly in an effort to stifle climate research, the US Congress ordained that NCDC had to charge for some of its datasets.  This NCDC did, at $4 per page.  If you want just one page, it doesn't sound like much, but my work over the last ten years has used 22,000 pages.  Fortunately, I have free access, but a lot of people don't.

If Watts makes the data free-access, which I believe he has said he would, and if his datasets are accurate copies of NCDC data, then he may well end up facilitating climate research.

Let's wait and see how this plays out.  Things could get ineteresting.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Doug1o29, on 21 February 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Partly in an effort to bring in revenue and partly in an effort to stifle climate research, the US Congress ordained that NCDC had to charge for some of its datasets.  This NCDC did, at $4 per page.  If you want just one page, it doesn't sound like much, but my work over the last ten years has used 22,000 pages.  Fortunately, I have free access, but a lot of people don't.

Guess what I just discovered - no kidding.  I just now clicked on NCDC's storm data site and up popped a bar that said that effective 02/13/2012, all NCDC publications are free to all users.
Doug

[Little Fish]

these greenies are so good at own goals.

"Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”"
http://online.wsj.co...3D171EB260.html


FakeGate: It’s What They Do

"this is standard operating procedure for the global warming industry—and they often do much worse things. They have ruined careers, blacklisted scientists, knowingly spread lies about dissenters, called for the imprisonment of skeptics, and used government pressure to cut off rivals’ funding. One associate has had the lug nuts on his tires secretly loosened when his rejection of climate orthodoxy became public.....
Isn’t it relevant to the debate about global warming—what to do about global warming—that the alarmist side engages in this systematic campaign consisting of intimidation and threats, wheels falling off cars, abuses being inflicted on schoolchildren, demands of censorship, revising history, and telling flat-out lies?

Well, yes. People should know. And now they will."
http://wattsupwithth...s-what-they-do/

Read Horners book "red hot lies" for the full evidence of why you should be concerned.

[Little Fish]

Steve Mosher predicted beforehand it was Peter Gleick that stole the documents.

"If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody who tweets the word “anti-climate”. you’ll find it. Look for somebody on the west coast ( the time zone the document was scanned in)
You’ll find somebody who doesnt know how to use parenthesis or commas, both in this memo and in other things he has written.
you’ll find he mentions himself in the memo
that’s all the clues for now. of course its all just speculation. Note, he’s not tweeted for a couple days. very rare for him."

"If he didn't write the memo, how did Mosher correctly identify his involvement?  A good portion of Mosher's argument was based on the similarity in writing styles. Is this an amazing coincidence?"
http://www.theatlant...etenses/253395/

which indicates that Peter Gleick forged the fake document himself.
time to fess up more of your lies Gleick.

Edited by Little Fish, 22 February 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[Little Fish]

EPA has given Peter Gleick $468,000 in grants.

[Little Fish]

Gleick broke the law, maximum penalty is 20 years for obtaining property using deception. even this new law has maximum penalty of 1 year in prison.
I don't see anyway out of this for him.

http://sfappeal.com/...ffect-jan-1.php

Edited by Little Fish, 24 February 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Little Fish]

who would trust Gleick not to misrepresent the science when he does something like this, that goes for anyone who supports what he did.

the document is fake.

The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.

“[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.

We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer-reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.

We do not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.

We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of fora, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

We are not “cultivating more neutral voices” by reaching out specifically to Andrew Revkin or Judith Curry. I do not view Revkin as a neutral voice in the debate.

http://fakegate.org/...on-forged-memo/

fake document:
http://heartland.org...RTLAND MEMO.pdf