- Bishop Hill blog - Watts' analysis

Perhaps more interestingly, some of the details of how the document came to light have appeared, and it seems that DeSmog had the documents for only an hour before posting them online. As several people have commented, the contrast with Anthony's conduct when the Climategate emails fell into his lap could not be starker. The WUWT team held onto the UEA disclosures for several days while they tried to authenticate them rather than assuming the worst and rushing to publish.

The fallout from the headlong rush to damn Heartland and Anthony looks as though it is going to be interesting too:

UPDATE: Heartland Documents Stolen and key one is Fake. No “insider” leak. « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Major embarrassment for Joe Romm, and DeSmog and their unthinking fans.

In the hours after the ClimateGate emails were released, skeptics asked about their authenticity (as we are want to do). In the hours after the Heartland Documents (including at least one complete fake) were released, the commentators on the other side did not even ask (just as they uncritically accept any weak report in favour of their pet theory).

They leapt to their defamatory conclusions in a smear-fest. At least one person out there has probably committed a criminal act. The rest are guilty of small brained unskeptical blind hatred, defamation, and ignorance. And will any of them apologize? I’ll be shocked if even one has the decency or manners.

We should not allow them to forget it. DeSmog=DeSmear. They are a group happy to promote lies with no compunction. They are not interested in the truth, just in the PR. Oh the fool journalists who think the paid hacks at DeSmog ever had anything to say on science that was not biased or deceitful. Richard Littlemore, where is your apology? Instead, knowing the document is

faked, he continues to promote it. So does Brad Johnson, and Joe Romm.

1970s Reality Check: "The Coming Ice Age" | Australian Climate Madness

Check out Leonard “Spock” Nimoy presenting an episode of the “In Search Of…” series in the late 1970s about the changing climate – and the coming Ice Age. Stick with it to part 3 to hear the late Stephen Schneider spreading what one can only call Global Cooling Alarmism:

Quote of the Day: Andy Revkin | Australian Climate Madness

Let me make a few obvious points:

• Whereas the Heartland documents relate to a relatively small amount of funding for a handful of sceptics, the Climategate documents cast doubt on the integrity of “consensus” climate science as an entire discipline;
• Funding for sceptics is literally microscopic compared to the massive swill trough available for the consensus, but more importantly, and irrespective of that, the suggestion that any reputable scientist can be bought for a few bucks is offensive (on both sides of the debate);
• Whereas sceptics have minimal influence on policy (at present at least), the consensus influence is significant, since the majority of national governments have subscribed to the politicised, and alarmist, UN/IPCC process;
• Whereas the Heartland documents reveal little of substance regarding the discipline of climate science, the Climategate emails reveal:
  • a concerted effort to manipulate and/or suppress inconvenient data;
  • a desire to minimise uncertainty in order to maintain a consistent political “message”;
  • attempts to subvert and corrupt the peer-review process; and,
  • evidence of destruction of documents and correspondence in contravention of FOI requirements.
• UPDATE: A number of commenters have suggested (thanks!) another differentiating factor: UEA is a publicly funded institution, which, as a result, should be thoroughly transparent in its operations, whereas Heartland is a purely private organisation which does not draw upon the public purse.

Wow, they really are almost in the same league, aren’t they, Andy?