Tidligere kortavarig  Knessetmedlem for Arbejderpartiet Einat Wilf forsøgte med lidt optimisme ovenpå FNs resolution 2334, der delegitimerer alt israelsk udenfor 1967 ‘grænsen’, inklusiv Øst-Jerusalem med Grædemuren og det gamle jødiske kvarter. Wilf påpegede at resolutionen ved sin skelnen mellem bosættelser og selve Israel “essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem”. Optimismen slutter vi af med, men først til Caroline Glieck der i Jerusalem Post skriver om de palæstinensiske araberes diplomatiske svikmølle

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

Anne Bayefsky, der tidligere så glimrende har beskrevet FNs konstante krig mod Israel, skriver på Fox News

The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Abbas ser frem til at kunne stille israelske sikkerhedsstyrker for den International Krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Elder Of Ziyon mindede med et par gamle avisudklip om arabernes jødefri ønske for ‘Palæstina’. Men videre og måske mere foruroligende skriver Bayefsky

At its core, this UN move is a head-on assault on American democracy. President Obama knew full well he did not have Congressional support for the Iran deal, so he went straight to the Security Council first. Likewise, he knew that there would have been overwhelming Congressional opposition to this resolution, so he carefully planned his stealth attack.

He waited until Congress was not in session. Members of his administration made periodic suggestions that nothing had been decided. There were occasional head fakes that he was “leaning” against it. He produced smiling photo-ops from a Hawaiian golf course with no obvious major foreign policy moves minutes away. Holiday time-outs were in full-swing across the country. And then he pounced, giving Israel virtually no notice of his intent not to veto.

Profound betrayal of a true democratic friend of the United States is the only possible description.

FN taler ikke om Yemen og den slags får Charles Krauthammer at foreslå at USA burde stoppe med at være vært for FN og omdanne FN-bygningen til ejerlejligheder. Og netop Trump er optimismen

Daily Mail skriver at et hold psykologer under ledelse af Stephan Lewndowsky mener at kunne godtgøre at klimaskeptikere ofte er konspirationsteoretikere.

They found around a fifth of the comments about the research ‘can be considered conspiracist’.

It builds on a previous survey that the researchers conducted, which found up to 40 per cent of those who are skeptical about global warming use imagery that invoked conspiracy theories.

This includes the use of words like ’scam’ and repeated references to faked data and collusion between scientists and governments to deliberately conceal evidence.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, an experimental psychologist at the University of Bristol who led the work, said: ‘These results add to a growing body of research on the nature of internet discourse and the role of the blogosphere in climate denial.

‘It also confirms that conspiratorial elements are readily identifiable in blogosphere discourse’

The paper, which is published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, provides a damning view of skeptical bloggers and those who comment on their websites.

Og det kommer fra de, der dyrker allehånde teser om , Big Oil, Big Kooch, republikanere, kapitalister og gamle, hvide, protestantiske mænd. Som titlen på Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt praler med, så er hele debatten om klimaet skabt og holdes kunstigt i live af skumle interesser. Læs blot Al Gores et als anbefalinger

- Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ’safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book. (Former Vice President Al Gore, author of An Inconvenient Truth)

- The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn’t get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists … Oreskes and Conway do a great public service. (Huffington Post)

- Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide[s] both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now. (OnEarth)

- Merchants of Doubt might be one of the most important books of the year. Exhaustively researched and documented, it explains how over the past several decades mercenary scientists have partnered with tobacco companies and chemical corporations to help them convince the public that their products are safe - even when solid science proves otherwise…Merchants of Doubt is a hefty read, well-researched and comprehensive…I hope it sells, because what it has to say needs to be heard. (Christian Science Monitor)

- Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? (Austin Science Policy Examiner)

Merchants of Doubt udkom også som film. Jeg kunne benytte lejligheden til at tale om Climategate, den store email-lækage fra East Anglias klimaenhed, hvor man sorte på hvidt kunne læse hvorledes nogle af FNs klimapanels mest centrale forskere aftalte manipulation af data og metoder, obstruerede offentlighedens tilgang til date, truede kollegaer og påvirkede fagbladsredaktører, manipulerede fagfælle processen, skændtes og udtrykte stor tvivl. Men ikke mindst inddelte verden i de der var for og imod ‘tha cause”, ’sagen’. Men når det nu handler om, hvad der er man synes at se i skyggerne, der ikke er der vil jeg hellere slå ned på en skandale ud i klimadebatten, der hurtigt blev døbt Fakegate.

Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne nemlig i 2012 afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine, der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute, modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere,  der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister, der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder, at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!), der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David i kamp for sandhed mod Goliat.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt en tid at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele.

Sådan kan det gå. Men vi skal tale om sølvpapirshatte for selv om Glieck gik over stregen og forfalskede den virkelighed han gerne ville se var han ene om sin udåd. Men reaktionerne fra fremtrædende medier og forskere afslørede til gengæld at hans konspiratoriske univers var fast forankret bredt i den klimaalarmistiske højadel. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed EFTER at Heartland selv havde påpeget at det var et tydeligt fremmedelement

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikret sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med, kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sværere ved og sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser, som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Også Information havde en artikel om sagen, som de lystigt kaldte “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin”, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen. Såøh, sølvpapirhatte er mere udbredt blandt alarmister, der jo i udgangspunkt tror mennesket står bag vejrliget. Derfor er det heller ikke så overraskende når man læser i Daily Mail, at en professor Peter Wadhams ved Cambridge tror at ‘dem’ går og slår hans forskerkollegaer ihjel, blandt ved hjælp af lynnedslag - ja, vi kontrollerer jo vejret

Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces.

The trio had been studying the polar ice caps - with a focus on sea ice - when they died within a few months of each other in 2013.

Professor Laxon, 49, a director of the Centre for Polar Observation at University College London, was at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex when he fell down a flight of stairs and died.

Meanwhile oceanographer Dr Boyd, 54, was out walking his dogs near his home in Port Appin, Argyll, western Scotland, in January 2013 when he was struck by lightning and killed instantly.

Just months later in April, Dr Giles, 35, was cycling to work at UCL where she lectured when she was hit by a tipper truck in Victoria, central London, and died.

(sammenfatningen om Fakegate er sammenklistret af nogle tidligere posteringer om sagen)

For et par måneder siden brød en skandale ud i klimadebatten. Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og  Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!) der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David mod Goliat i kamp for sandhed.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele. Denne forklaring virker ikke troværdig. Heartland Institute offentligjorde forleden en rapport, der slog fast at strategimemo’et var et falskneri

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

Og Anthony Watt’s fra Watt’s Up With That bestilte en analyse hos Patrick Juola, Ph.D der leder Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory ved Duquesne University i Pittsburgh til at analysere om det var Glieck eller Heartlands direktør Joe Bast i et anfald af agent provocateur der mest sandsynligt havde forfattet strategimemo’et. Med nogle vigtige forbehold konkluderes der

In response to the question of who wrote the disputed Heartland strategy memo, it is difficult to deliver an answer with complete certainty. The writing styles are similar and the sample is extremely small, both of which act to reduce the accuracy of our analysis. Our procedure by assumption excluded every possible author but Bast and Gleick. Nevertheless, the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.

Imens i Danmark har Information endnu ikke berigtiget deres kolportering af historien, som den så ud da klimaredaktioner rundt om i verden troede at de havde fundet skeptikernes rygende pistol. “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” skrev Informations Jørgen Steen Nielsen som overskrift til en artikel, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen.

På Watts Up With That kan man læse Heartland institutes svar på Fakegate.

Background on Fakegate from The Heartland Institute

1. What is Fakegate?

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

On February 14, 2012, an environmental activist named Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and sympathetic journalists several documents he stole from The Heartland Institute, along with a fake memo he claimed was also from Heartland. On February 20, Gleick confessed to stealing the documents but claimed to have received the fake memo “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

The fake memo, titled “January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a mixture of text copied and pasted from the stolen documents and original commentary by the forger. By distorting and misrepresenting the plans set forth in the stolen documents, the fake memo paints a false and disturbing picture of Heartland’s motives and tactics.

2. What did the stolen documents reveal?

 

The budget document revealed that Heartland has a broad base of support – about 1,800 donors – and expects to raise about $7.7 million in 2012. It presents confidential personnel information including reasons for termination of former employees and salaries. It also lists scientists we work with to produce Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports presenting an alternative perspective to the United Nations’ IPCC reports.

The fundraising plan identifies some of the donors to The Heartland Institute during the past two years and our estimate of how much they would contribute in 2012. It also describes a series of new programs, including four on climate change, that we plan to fundraise for. Are all well within our charitable mission of “discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Another stolen document reveals contact information for members of Heartland’s Board of Directors, including home addresses for some Directors.

Three things the stolen documents do not reveal are substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for our work on climate change, substantial funding from David or Charles Koch or Koch Industries, and anything other than a sincere and professional effort to advance the organization’s tax-exempt mission.

3. How do you know the “climate strategy” memo is fake?

We know the memo is a forgery for four reasons:

• The memo contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation that no one at Heartland would have made. Significantly, every error in the fake memo has the effect of casting Heartland’s fundraising and education efforts in a negative light.

• Juola & Associates, the country’s leading provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, studied the document and concluded Gleick is the most likely author. So have many other independent scholars.

• A thorough forensic analysis of Heartland’s computers (and those owned by Heartland’s president and his spouse) by Protek International concludes “the Memo was not created on Heartland’s computer systems and never existed there, or within Heartland’s email systems, prior to its posting online on February 14, 2012.”

• The memo references only the documents that were stolen by Gleick. Except for Board members, no one except Gleick had access to all of the documents cited in the memo.

4. What does the fake “climate strategy” memo say?

The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Institute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

• 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 a highly qualified and respected expert 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 “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in 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 forums, 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. In fact, we invited Peter Gleick to debate a Heartland expert on climate change at our upcoming annual benefit dinner and he turned us down.

5. How does Fakegate compare with Climategate?

Fakegate invites comparison with Climategate, the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in 2009 and again in 2011. Both scandals reveal how desperate and delusional the leading figures in the global warming movement are. If you are confident that you are right, you don’t steal documents and try to undermine other organizations.

Groups on the left claim The Heartland Institute, which reported frequently on the Climategate story, is being hypocritical now when it denounces the theft of its documents and calls on journalists to stop assuming the fake memo is authentic. But the “hypocrisy” charge is easily answered:

• The Climategate documents show a pattern of misbehavior – trying to suppress debate, destroying data, fudging research findings – while the documents stolen from Heartland actually vindicate the organization from claims that it is a “front group” for the fossil fuel industry.

• None of the Climategate documents was fake. One of the Fakegate documents was.

• The documents in the Climategate scandal were leaked, not stolen: apparently no crime was committed. Our documents were clearly stolen, and the culprit, Peter Gleick, has confessed.

• The Climategate documents were apparently being stored to respond to FOIA requests that the University of East Anglia had been stonewalling. The university is a government agency and subject to FOIA; The Heartland Institute is a private nonprofit organization, and is not.

So where Climategate and Fakegate are similar, they reveal the dishonesty and basic moral corruption of the global warming movement. Where they differ, they justify The Heartland Institute taking legal action against Peter Gleick and his co-conspirators.

6. Where does Fakegate stand today?

Environmental groups are using false statements contained in the fake memo and the list of donors in the stolen fundraising document to demand that our corporate donors stop funding us. Since many of our donors give to support our work on topics other than climate change – school reform, health care policy, insurance regulation, and others – they should not be exposed to this kind of harassment.

Similarly, Greenpeace is using the fake memo and the list of scientists in the stolen budget document to demand that universities discipline or fire the climate scientists who work with Heartland. This is an outrageous attack on free and open debate, yet it is being cheered on by many reporters and other environmental activists.

Environmental groups and their allies in the mainstream media still refuse to remove the stolen and fake documents from their Web sites or to issue retractions of editorials and news stories that assumed the authenticity of the fake memo, despite our repeated requests that they do so. This is a clear violation of journalistic ethics.

The Heartland Institute has assembled a top-notch legal team and is asking the government to pursue criminal charges against Peter Gleick and his accomplices, as well as preparing to file civil suits against Gleick and his accomplices on behalf of Heartland and the scientists who have come under attack because of his actions.

7. What is The Heartland Institute?

The Heartland Institute is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization with offices in Chicago and Washington, DC. The Heartland Institute was founded in 1984. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Three things make Heartland unique among free-market think tanks:

• State and local elected officials nationwide are our primary audiences. We are in frequent contact with some 7,300 state elected officials and more than 8,400 county and local officials.

• We produce publications that actually get read by elected officials. Six monthly public policy newspapers – Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, FIRE Policy News, Health Care News, InfoTech & Telecom News, and School Reform News – present free-market ideas as news rather than research or opinion.

• We promote the best work of other free-market think tanks on our Web sites, in our newspapers, at our events, and through our extensive government relations and media relations efforts.

Expertise: Approximately 140 academics and professional economists participate in Heartland’s peer review process as policy advisors and 213 elected officials serve on its Legislative Forum. Fourteen senior fellows are available to write, speak, or comment in depth on a wide range of policy issues.

Media Relations: We send out a constant stream of op-eds, news releases, letters to the editor, podcasts, and much more. In 2011, we contacted journalists more than 410,484 times and appeared in print and on television or radio 1,093 times.

Online: We are leaders in online communication and grassroots organizing, generating nearly 2 million page views and 1.3 million visitors on 16 Web sites and blogs in 2011. Our Facebook page has more than 52,000 fans, and registers approximately 75,000 impressions every week.

Credibility and Influence: Our 28 years producing solid research and educational materials and repeated communications with state legislators have made Heartland a credible, independent, “go-to” source for thousands of elected officials and other opinion leaders. A 2011 survey by Victory Enterprises of 500 randomly selected public officials found 79 percent of state legislators and 66 percent of local elected officials read at least one of our publications, and almost half of state legislators say a Heartland publication changed their mind or led to a change in public policy.

Bipartisan: The Heartland Institute’s influence is not limited to a single political party. The Victory Enterprises survey showed strong across-the-aisle appeal as well. Approximately 73 percent of state Democratic legislators said they read at least one Heartland publication sometimes or always, 64 percent of these legislators said they consider one or more publications a useful source of information, and 38 percent said a Heartland publication influenced their opinions or led to a change in public policy.

Besides its monthly public policy newspapers, Heartland publishes books, policy studies, booklets, and other publications and produces videos, podcasts, and other online features.

Heartland’s 13_member Board of Directors is chaired by Dr. Herbert Walberg, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and research professor emeritus of psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Heartland’s 2012 annual budget is $7.0 million. It has a full-time staff of 41. Funds come from approximately 1,800 individuals, corporations, and foundations. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budget. Contributions are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

8. What is Heartland’s position on climate change?

Heartland’s researchers acknowledge, as do most scientists, that the Earth experienced a rise in temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century, that human activities may have played a role in that increase, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Heartland disagrees with three claims made by many environmental groups: That most of the warming of the twentieth century can be attributed to anthropogenic causes, that computer models are sufficiently reliable to forecast future climate conditions, and that a continued moderate warming would be harmful to humanity or the natural world.

Heartland’s position is supported by many of the world’s leading climate scientists, and many (possibly most) scientists in the United States. We are not “on the fringe” or “anti-climate science.” We are expressing a perspective that is very mainstream, even if it is not what liberal environmentalists and reporters believe.

9. What is Heartland doing on climate change?

We produce more research and commentary on climate change than any other free-market think tank in the world. We have distributed millions of books, booklets, videos, and other educational products to opinion leaders in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Britain, and other parts of the world.

We report on the climate change debate every month in Environment & Climate News, a publication sent to every national, state, and most local elected officials in the U.S. We fund the writing and publication of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), including two volumes in a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered totaling more than 1,200 pages and citing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

We have hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC), attracting nearly 3,000 scientists, policy experts, and policymakers from around the world. We plan at least one and possibly two ICCCs in 2012.

During 2012, we plan to undertake nearly a dozen projects specifically addressing climate change. An updated proposal is available to donors and potential donors.

# # #

For more information about Fakegate, please visit www.fakegate.org or call Jim Lakely, communications director, at 312/377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, please visit www.heartland.org or call Gwen Carver, membership manager, or Rachel Rivest Dunbar, corporate relations manager, at 312/377-4000.

Contributions to The Heartland Institute are tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Please send your gift to The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606.

Full report in PDF form here: Background on Fakegate

Information kolporterede også Gliecks løgne og har i skrivende stund endnu ikke fulgt op med en berigtigende artikel.

Information har rent faktisk haft en historie om Fakegate, forfalskningen af tænketanken Heartland Institute’s papirer for at bringe dem i miskredit, som jeg har overset da jeg tidligere skrev om sagen. Som de fleste abonnenter på FN’s Klimapanels svovlende dystopier faldt også Information i gryden. Under overskriften “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” lægges der allerede i første sætning mere i kakkelovnen

Da ukendte gerningsmænd i november 2009 hackede en klimaforskers computer på det britiske University of East Anglia og lagde omkring 4.000 interne e-mails og andre stjålne dokumenter på nettet, blev det af klimaskeptikere set som den ultimative chance for at få punkteret klimaforskningens troværdighed, aflivet påstanden om menneskeskabt global opvarmning og skudt klimatopmødet i København, COP15, i sænk.

Ingen ved til dags dato hvorledes e-mails’ne fra East Anglia universitetet fremkom. Politiet har ikke fundet tegn på indbrud - hackning - og det vil derfor være en mere naturlig konklusion at de blev lækket til offentligheden. Betydningen af dette ligger i den afledte tolkning - for er der tale om en hackning, som Information’s Jørgen Steen Nielsen antager uden skyggen af bevis, er skeptikerne forbrydere, eller gerningsmænd, i tanke, hvis ikke i direkte handling og deres indveninger mod Klimapanelets autoritet derfor forbryderiske. Er der derimod tale om et internt læk bliver e-mails’nes indhold derimod det forbryderiske, som en whistleblower af samvittighedsgrunde ikke længere kan stå model til.

En ukendt person har narret den indflydelsesrige konservative og klimaskeptiske tænketank The Heartland Institute til at maile sig et antal fortrolige strategidokumenter, som nu er blevet delt med offentligheden via hjemmesiden www.desmogblog.com

Modsat e-mails’ne fra East Anglia ved vi nu, hvem der narrede The Heartland Institutet til at maile sig fortrolige dokumenter - han hed Peter Glick. Glieck var, for hans tid som gårdsanger ser ud til at være ovre, en fremtrædende klimadebattør, som for mere end ti år siden kom på frasen om at debatten er ovre. Han har senere undskyldt sit svig med at det var et forsøg på at højne debatten. Det skal man vist være klimaekspert for at forstå. Han havde også en fremtrædende post som videnskabsetiker grundet den store tiltro til hans hæderlighed og integritet. Med Jørgen Steen Nielsens ord var denne hædersmand og debathøjner, Peter Glieck, gerningsmanden.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen’s artikel bygger, som man kan se i citatet, på Desmogblog, en klimablog som deler FN’s Klimapanels dystre verdensbillede, men han lader læseren forstå at han selv har studeret det belastende materiale fra Heartland; “…forstår man godt, når man studerer dokumenterne”. Og det er bemærkelsesværdigt for han kommer til nøjagtigt de samme spektakulære fejlkonklusioner som Desmogblog

Ét [dokument] fortæller bl.a., at en anonym donor siden 2007 har givet over otte mio. dollar til Heartlands klimaskeptiske arbejde og for 2012 lovet yderligere 629.000 dollar. Blandt andre donorer er Charles G. Koch Foundation, der med midler fra den multinationale olie-, gas- og kemikoncern Koch Industries støtter f.eks. Teaparty-bevægelsen. Ifølge dokumenterne går tænketankens midler på klimaområdet bl.a. til at betale »et hold forskere« 300.000 dollar om året for med en modrapport at »undergrave« de officielle rapporter fra FN’s klimapanel, IPCC. Dertil får en håndfuld ’eksperter’ fast betaling af for deres klimakritiske arbejde i offentligheden, bl.a. den mest prominente, pensioneret miljøprofessor Fred Singer fra University of Virginia, der modtager »5.000 dollar om måneden plus omkostninger.«

Mest opsigtsvækkende er et projekt, hvor Dr. David Wojick — en velkendt klimaskeptiker, der har arbejdet for kulindustrien, men aldrig publiceret én videnskabelig artikel om klimaspørgsmål — skal hyres til at fremstille et undervisningsmateriale til de amerikanske skoler, som kan så tvivl om den menneskeskabte klimaeffekt.

»Hans indsats vil fokusere på at levere et undervisningsmateriale, der viser, at emnet klimaforandring er kontroversielt og usikkert — to centrale punkter, der er effektive, når det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab.« »Vi planlægger foreløbig at betale Dr. Wojick 5.000 dollar pr. modul, omkring 25.000 dollar pr. kvartal, for dette arbejde med start i andet kvartal 2012. Den Anonyme Donor har givet tilsagn om de første 100.000 dollar til dette projekt,« hedder det.

Det pinlige er nemlig, at det eneste dokument, der indeholdt belastende oplysninger var forfalsket. Men det var ikke blot forfalsket, der var helt tydeligt forfalsket. Skrevet i et andet format, på et andet tidspunkt, i en anden tidszone og med et anderledes sprog, et sprog som Atlantics Megan MarCarthy beskrev som forbrydersprog i en batman tegneserie - “det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab“! ih, hvor er vi onde - end de andre og ægte dokumenter. Og så havde det tillige en særlig brug af tegnsætning og stavemåde, som Steven Mosher hurtigt genkendte som Glieck’s egen. Glieck havde jo været en flittig publicist, hvilket han åbenbart selv havde glemt.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen og Desmogblog havde altså overset nøjagtigt det samme i deres grundige og kritiske research, hvem skulle have troet det kunne lade sig gøre? Og så meget mere pinligt bliver det når Jørgen Steen Nielsen slutter sin artikel med denne hoverende sarkasme

…i en særlig henvendelse direkte til sine sympatisører skriver Heartland Institute:

»En flok bloggere og venstreorienterede aktivister og deres nikkedukker i de følgagtige medier publicerer og citerer nu disse ’lækkede’ dokumenter. Jeres modige støtte er nu mere nødvendig end nogensinde. Dette angreb ville ikke være kommet, hvis det ikke var fordi, vi afslører sandheden.«

Well, 2-0 til Heartland, de kunne præcist forudse hvor stupide deres selvglade modstandere var, fra Desmogblog henover BBC til Information. De ægte dokumenter afslørede at Heartland havde et meget lille budget, 4,4 mill dollars, som de fordelte på fire interesseområder, hvor klimaet altså blot var et. Grinagtigt bliver det at en så lille organisation skulle kunne true FN’s organer. Eller have sat sig for at skræmme lærere over hele USA fra at undervise i videnskab.

Det værste er dog at jeg ikke kan se at Information og Jørgen Steen Nielsen har bragt en rettelse til dette nonsens, hvilket måske betyder at de har efterladt deres læsere med en fejlagtig opfattelse af virkeligheden? Nåh ja, det er jo Information så læserne har alligevel fået hvad de kom efter.

Der har udspillet sig en bizar sag mellem modpolerne i klimadebatten i den seneste måneds tid. Den estimerede klimaforsker Peter Glick, der sideløbende med dommedagsprofetier kraftigt har slået til lyd for videnskabelig etik kunne pludselig afsløre slibrige detaljer om en af benægterfløjens kerneinstitutioner, The Heartland Institute, som var blevet ham tilsendt af en “Heartland Insider”. En whistleblowers moralske habitus giver ubetalelig tyngde til enhver afsløring. Gennem fortrolige dokumenter blev både Heartlands finansiering og målsætning rullet op og til ingens overraskelse var det den fossile industri, sammen med andre skurkagtige kapitalister der købte sig ind på Heartlands plan om at forkludre klimadebatten og videnskaben som sådan. Historien spredte sig hurtigere end nogle kunne nå at fact-tjekke dokumenterne - lige indtil altså, at nogle gjorde. Og så gik det stærkt den anden vej.

Det viste sig ikke bare at dokumenterne ikke var fra en Hertland insider, men var fremskaffet af Glieck selv på en ikke særlig videnskabsetisk måde. Glieck havde udgivet sig for et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse, identitetstyveri, for at opdage at Heartlands finansiering var ganske beskeden, ikke ulovlig, ikke hemmelig, men faktisk ganske uskummel. For hele den umiddelbare bestyrtelse hvilede alene på et enkelt dokument, det nu berygtede “stategi-memo”, som var en fabrikation - og endda en dårlig en af slagsen. Og mon ikke dette forfalskede strategimemo stammer fra Gliecks egen hånd?

Heartland leverer det bedste samlede modstykke til FN’s Klimapanels fortælling, men med et budget på på 4-5 mill. $, hvoraf kun en del er afsat til klimadebatten er Heartland økonomisk en dværg i klimadebatten. EUReferendum sammenlignede Heartlands budget med, hvad der regnes for moderat på den modsatte side af klimadebatten

The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

Eksemplerne på økomastodonter og deres statslige opbakning er mange og man kan med fornøjelig gru læse flere hos EURerendum. Judith Curry har bl.a derfor undret sig over, hvorfor Heartland af alle benægtere blev et mål for bagvaskelsesattentatet og meget aktuelt spurgt Heartlands chef Peter Bast, som pr. email bl.a svarede

We send publications to every national, state, and 8,400 county and local officials in the U.S. on average about once a week. 79% of state legislators say they read at least one of our publications. “Environment & Climate News,” one of six monthly publications we produce, is read by 57% of state legislators, a higher percentage than read the New York Times. It has been published continuously for 15 years, and every issue features the work of leading climate realists. No other organization produces a regular publication that reaches more people with this message.

Many policymakers and other opinion leaders in the U.S. and around the world recognize the names of (to use those in your list) Pat Michael, Chris Horner, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer only because they read their work or about their work in Environment & Climate News.

ECN is just the tip of the iceberg. You know about our International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCCs) – six held since 2008, total attendance of more than 3,000 people. The press and online coverage of these conferences was greater than anything else done by climate realists, and the videos of the presentations posted online have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The personal connections created among scientists from all around the world created a genuine social movement in favor of a more realistic understanding of climate change.

(…)

In addition, we’ve distributed more than a million DVDs, nearly 2 million short booklets and reprints, and 200,000 copies of a New York Times best-seller. Most were sent to educators, opinion leaders, and policymakers over the course of the past five years. We deliberately bypassed the mainstream media, for reasons made obvious by their coverage of the Fakegate scandal. Our strategy worked. All surveys show informed opinion has moved decidedly in the direction of climate realism and away from alarmism.

Heartland er altså gode til at advokere for sin sag ved hårdt benarbejde, rene argumenter og i åben kamp. Heartlands konferencer er ikke kun for de indviede også fortalere for det herskende paradigme inviteres med selv om de oftest udebliver. Efterhånden har nogle dog taget mod til sig, som ovennævnte Judith Curry og har fundet om end ikke enighed så en behagelig, saglig og fagligt berigende debat. Peter Glieck var endda var inviteret til åben debat på Heartlands konference, men takkede nej dagen før han bestemte sig for at forfalske Heartlands motiver! Han har senere forklaret sit attentat på Heartlands renomme med at han forivrede sig i forsøget på at højne debatten. Ironisk nok for Peter Glieck er efter sigende manden som for ti år siden opfandt sætningen “debatten er ovre!”

Gliecks karriere ligger nu i ruiner og i den spillevende klimadebat deler skeptikerne lystigt håndmadder ud til rå mængder af røde ører. Denne absurde sag er altså mere end en enkelt mands momentane galskab og en enkeltstående ydmygelse af klimasagen - det er et afgørende punkt i klimadebatten. Det mener jeg fordi Fakegate, som sagen hurtigt blev døbt, er så pinlig for så mange betydningsfulde forskere og meningsagenter, som opretholder det samlede klimaparnas at det er katastrofalt for parnassets i forvejen slidte renomme - og det renomme er med virkelighedens manglende samarbejdsvilje parnassets sidste argument. Tag dette nylige eksempel fra LA Times anmeldelse  af Ishockeystavgrafens skaber Michael Mann’s seneste bog (Mann vender jeg tilbage til)

As of January, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 393 parts per million of carbon dioxide. And rising.

To understand why that’s a very sad number, it helps to know that from the dawn of human civilization until the 19th century, the concentration was about 275 parts per million, and that many scientists believe 350 parts per million is a sort of tipping point: Irreversible impacts and feedback loops start to kick in, and the cost of repairing the resulting damage from such things as sea-level rise and droughts not only skyrockets, the cost of adapting to the changes does too. But we’ve already sailed past that point. And , the truly scary level at which 3.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial global average temperatures is locked in. The predicted result: centuries of weather extremes, drought-fueled global famine, mass migration, the vanishing of low-lying islands and territories as sea ice melts away, wide-scale species extinction and other horrors too numerous and depressing to list.

To global warming denialists, the above paragraph constitutes the “alarmist” perspective on climate change. Never mind that it is backed by a wealth of research, the world’s most state-of-the-art climate models (whose accuracy in predicting the recent effects of climate change has been repeatedly demonstrated), the national science academies of the world’s developed nations (including the U.S. National Academies), the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other prominent academic and scientific organizations.

Kun tåber går op imod så imposant prominens. Men, men, men. Påstanden om at klimaet allerede har passeret et ‘tipping point’ komplet med ’feedback loops’ står uagtet de mange fine institutioners opbakning svagt i lyset af at temperaturen ikke er steget i 15 år. Noget må altså have modvirket CO2 effekten med stigende styrke i samme tidsrum. Men alle naturlige noget er allerede udelukket gennem analyser af de bedste klimamodeller milliardbeløb kan købe og det kan enhver tåbe se er problematisk. Clive Best har f.eks denne graf, som sammenstiller Klimapanelets virkelighedsopfattelse, hvor “we’re heading inexorably toward another one that’s far worse: 450 parts per million” med den virkelige verden

Så argumentet hviler alene på de centrale institutioners allerede tyndslidte renomme. Fakegate’s betydning er at det afslører niveauet og anatomien af klimaparnassets på alle måder dårlige dømmekraft og i tillæg en moralsk som politisk skruppelløshed. Og det er en katastrofal skade på den troværdighed der er deres sidste våben i kampen, som vi skal se. Den ellers klimavenligt stemte Megan Mcardle skrev tro mod sin journalistiske træning i The Atlantic hurtigt om sin mistanke om ugler i mosen da afsløringen af Heartlands arbejdspapirer blev nyhedsstof

Heartland denied that the “strategy memo” was theirs.  And after reading through it–and the documents–carefully, I was inclined to believe them; the text was all wrong, and while the other documents had been printed to PDF sometime in January, this one had been scanned into a computer less than one day before it was sent to the climate bloggers.  While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

Endnu hurtigere var Steven Mosher, som havde bemærket at det falske memo’s sprog var ganske mistænkeligt af flere årsager. Det adskilte sig ikke bare klart fra Heartlands egne skribenters normale sprogbrug med et barnligt skurkesprog, som i sætningen “key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” - det passede som fod i hose på Gliecks eget sprog, komplet med specifikke grammatiske fejl (en af grundende til at jeg holder mig på dydens smalle sti). Her er, hvad han smed som en foreløbig kommentar i et kommentarfelt

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.

Sammenhold med at det forfalskede dokument var blevet til på baggrund af det uforfalskede materiale, som Glieck var den eneste udenfor Heartland der var i besidelse af. Og læg mærke til, hvor let det er for Mosher ikke bare at se forfalskningen, men hurtigt at stille med en kandidat, mens klimaparnassets mest prominente aktører villigt lod sig forføre. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikre sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde de sværere ved hos Guardian. Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Jo, hvis man hedder Mann, en af hovedpersonerne fra Climategate, de lækkede emails, som afslørede urent trav hos klimapanelets centrale eksperter. Mann var sammen med sine emailkammerater (lidt for) hurtigt ude med en fordømmelse af Heartland Institute i et åbent brev

The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

At argumentere ud fra autoritet kræver autoritet og med dette utidige udfald af dårlig dømmekraft undergraver FN’s centraleste af centrale klimaforskere endnu engang deres autoritet. Attentatet mod Heartlands troværdighed, som selfølgelig skulle smitte af på selve klimatvivlen blev hurtigt sammenlignet med den lækkede emailkorrespondence fra East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed, den såkaldte climategate. Climategate var et stort nederlag for klimabevægelsen fordi den afslørede uhæderlighed i kernen af klimaforskningen og underminerede ideen om et videnskabeligt konsensus og dets krav på respekt. Men modsat hensigten med at bringe balance i regnskabet ved at hænge Heartland ud i en tilsvarende afsløring af fordækthed er “Fakegate” blot en bekræftelse af den tvivl, som Climategate efterlod  - klimabevægelsen er politisk og pilrådden. Uhæderligheden taler et tydeligt sprog om at argumenterne er tørret ud, som kun bliver forstærket af flokmentalitetens larmende demonstration af inkompetence og villighed. Det værste er ikke at svindel og manipulation klæber til deres side af debatten, men at de i nær samlet flok ikke kan skelne mellem det virkelige og det åbenlyst uvirkelige, at de ikke kan se hvor løgnene begynder og slutter, at de på alle planer ikke kan skelne mellem rigtigt og forkert.

Hidtil er det lykkedes at benægte naturens uvilje mod at spille med på konsensusteoriens diktater ved at henvise til at debatten er ovre fordi vi siger den er ovre. Med Fakegate er “vi”’s troværdighed knust og journalister vil nu igen driste sig til at rette mikrofonerne mod naturen og spørge hvorledes den egentlig reagerer på alt dette hurlumhej. Og naturen vil svare “Jeg gør som det passer mig!” Titanic sank ikke så hurtigt som en kåd jæger i vaders og fortællingen om den udiskuterbare globale opvarmning vil fortsætte en rum tid endnu. Mange et budget og mangen en karriere er stadig afhænig af at bølgen fortsat ruller. Men troværdigheden, som hele argumentet om konsensus hviler på, er endeligt udhulet.