Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee « NoFrakkingConsensus

The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?

The Blackboard » Roger Jr. Presses Gleick

I emailed @PeterGleick to ask if he faked the Heartland document, no reply yet. I offered to publish his confirmation or denial on my blog.

The Blackboard » Tell me what’s horrible about this.

lets speculate as mann did about mcintyre in his book

...I will tell you the minute I read his name in this document I went..

THAT doesnt fit. What is Gleick doing in a heartland memo. nobody takes him seriously...

Anyway, whoever wrote that paragraph had mistaken views about how skeptics think and about the stature of Gleick. They also used weird rare words and a weird style of writing.

Now, can you find others who used that word? yes, of course.

did they have access to a 990? were they in a fight with heartland?

Can you find others who uses parenthesis weirdly? yes. Is it a consistent pattern in all their prose? not that I have seen.

motive, opportunity.

all speculation of course. But consider this. desmogblog spent an hour vetting these documents before publishing them as real.

I spent more than an hour researching this before pointing out a few things and drawing no definitive conclusion. Can we conclude it was Gleick? no. But the standard was set by Mann, we can speculate about Mcintyre playing a role in the hack and nobody complains. So, too in this case we can speculate about Gleick. I havent seen any evidence that indicates it wasn’t him.

Look, we have an explanation that explains the weird things we find in the memo. Kinda like a GCM that explains the warming only when you include anthro forcing. See, simple.

- Bishop Hill blog - [According to the "Richard Black rule", doesn't Gleick have a total of about 12 hours to deny that he wrote the FakeGate doc, otherwise he's probably guilty?]

The original version of the article said this:

The institute hasn't yet confirmed the documents are genuine - but equally, it hasn't said they're not, and it's had long enough (more than 12 hours, at the time of writing) to take a look.