The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Theft and Apparent Forgery of Heartland Institute Documents

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Theft and Apparent Forgery of Heartland Institute Documents

By Ross Kaminsky on 2.17.12 @ 5:10PM

Ross Kaminsky is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and former member of its Board of Directors as well as an occasional donor to the organization. He has never been paid anything by the Heartland Institute, but has been a donor in support of its pro-free market work. Nobody from the Heartland Institute has ever attempted to influence the content of Mr. Kaminsky’s writing.

Earlier this month, on more than one occasion, someone pretending to be a member of the Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors deceived a Heartland staff member into sending him documents related to Heartland’s upcoming Board of Directors meeting. These documents, along with another note which Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely describes as “a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute” were then posted on a web site called DeSmogBlog.com, a project of Jim Hoggan, a self-styled public relations expert, global warming alarmist and aggressive member of the climate thought police.

The documents are being treated by the hyperventilating climate alarmism industry as a smoking gun when in fact they disclose nothing surprising or particularly secret except for certain donor information.

Everyone who is involved in this debate knows that Heartland works hard to counter the alarmism industry, not because Heartland is shilling for any particular group or industry, but because my former colleagues truly believe that the science is at best unsettled, and that the economic disaster of so-called “solutions” to this dubious problem must be prevented if our standards of living and our economic and political liberty are to be preserved.

The Heartland Institute takes its educational role seriously, and I’m proud to be associated with them in our efforts to stop those anti-capitalists who have found the “climate change” debate a useful tool with which to try to achieve their far-left policy aims.

The Heartland Institute is in contact with law enforcement officials, which may have the perpetrator feeling a little nervous.

One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft — and this is just my speculation — is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute. Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter that he shares Forbes magazine’s pages with Heartland’s James Taylor.

The document which the alarmists have been trying to make the most of is called “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” It appears to be of a similar nature to the forged “Rathergate” documents which ended Dan Rather’s long career promoting leftist views disguised as news.

First, the Heartland document is written in a way which makes it appear unlikely to be genuine. As a commenter on a Forbes.com article about this mini-scandal notes, “It uses the term ‘anti-climate’ to refer to Heartland’s own position — a derogatory term which climate skeptic outfits never use to describe their positions (and…) it is written in the first person, yet there’s no indication of who wrote it. (Have you ever seen a memo like that?)”

Downloading the document, I find that the document properties list no author and say it was created on Monday by a scanner.

A check of the same sort of data for other documents, such as the Board directory and a notice for the January 7^th Board meeting, show authors (including Heartland President Joe Bast) and show that the documents were not created (as PDF files) by a scanner but by software instead.

If the document thief could convert any documents received by e-mail from Heartland into PDF files with software, he could convert all of them. Or, if Heartland distributes its documents as PDF files, then the thief would have received a PDF dated prior to the last theft of documents. In either case, this document seems remarkably, suspiciously unlike the various stolen documents.

Furthermore, as others have noted on the web, the data shows that the file was created on a computer set to the Pacific time zone (signified by the -08:00 in the timestamps), where Gleick is based but where Heartland does not have an office. The stolen documents show their creation in the Central time zone.

In other words, all evidence so far supports Heartland’s emphatic assertion that the document is a forgery.

Interestingly, Gleick, who would normally be preening and prancing in glee at this sort of attention to the Heartland Institute has so far been utterly silent at his Forbes blog and on his Twitter feed.

One has to wonder if Peter Gleick or an alarmist fellow traveler he knows is concerned about an FBI agent knocking on the door sometime soon. Perhaps people should keep an eye on the dumpsters around Gleick’s house for discarded computers or an Epson scanner.

View all comments (148) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Sam Barber| 2.17.12 @ 7:49PM

The Heartland Institute had long since discredited itself as one of the prime movers of the Climate Science Denial movement.

Ross Kaminky's politically-motivated diatribe against the defenders of sound science only illustrates how low Heartland Institute and it's supporters will go to misrepresent science and facts inconvenient to them.

Ross Kaminksy has no shame.

BD57| 2.17.12 @ 10:29PM

Mr. Barber is a troll appearing here to advance the interests of the perpetrators of this attempt to smear Heartland.

Of course the document is a forgery. No one with the slightest bit of media savvy on Heartland's side would distribute such a thing - but those on the other side, who do indeed consider skepticism of the enviro-religion "anti-science" would.

fckewe| 2.19.12 @ 10:28PM

you can't SMEAR something that has NO WORTH or has NEVER EARNED REPECT of intelligent people.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:01PM

Strange that Heartland's own documents "an attempt to smear Heartland," according to you. Regardless of the authenticity of the strategy documents, everything else is clearly legitimate and casts some very poor light on Heartland, their strategies, and their status as a non-profit.

Sam Barber| 2.17.12 @ 10:56PM

BD57 is having a curiously hard time sticking to the subject matter, Heartland Insititutes long history of deliberate limate incentive denialism and Ross Kaminsky's shameful misrepresentations.

I can understand BD57 's nervousness.

Ross Kaminsky | 2.17.12 @ 11:13PM

Mr. Barber claims misrepresentations without naming a single one. How typical of those without a fact on their side.

Nobody denies that climate changes. We deny that humans are having a substantial impact on it and/or that "solutions" to human impact involve much greater cost than benefit. Personally, I believe both, having read quite a bit on this topic (while assiduously avoiding Revkin and other alarmist cheerleaders at the NY Times and similar anti-capitalist organs.)

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:06PM

Could you please post links to peer-reviewed sources that haven't been shown flawed by future publications that support your claim that humans aren't "having a substantial impact." It would be very interesting to read those papers, seeing as Foster and Rahmstorf recently published a study in which they removed natural cycles from temperature records and found a very clear warming trend.

Also, could you please demonstrate that a majority of economists with climate expertise believe that the solutions will cost more than inaction? Everything I've read has shown that the position your furthering is in the minority.

Dan Phillips| 2.17.12 @ 11:33PM

I have generally avoided this debate because I hate politicized science. I'm commenting here because Sam Barber is the type in this debate that most rubs me the wrong way. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not false because conservatives don't like the political implications and it is not true because liberals find the political implications useful. It is either true or it isn't regardless of the potential political implications. What really bothers me, however, is the smug AGW believers who insists the debate is settled. The debate is manifestly not settled and no amount of foot stomping that it is makes it so. Insisting that it is settled and hence dismissing skepticism out of hand is a form of bullying and is intended to thought stop. People such as Mr. Barber who attempt this irrational tactic are the ones who have no shame.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:10PM

97% percent of climate scientists actively publishing support the "consensus position." A vast majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals endorse the "consensus position." There is also far more evidence that climate change is occurring than not. Science is not like politics, where all ideas should be given equal weight. Ideas are given precedence solely by the weight of the evidence for or against them.

A common tactic to try to delay and obfuscate is to claim there is "no consensus" without any evidence. The tobacco industry did the same thing with smoking and second hand smoking even into the 1990s. And deniers of the ozone hole also liked to claim that there was no consensus (funnily enough, some of the same false and unsupported arguments they used have now been recycled by climate-change deniers).

Bob K.| 2.17.12 @ 11:39PM

All one needs is a modicum of common sense to be a global warming skeptic.

Bob K.| 2.18.12 @ 8:47AM

And clearly, Mr. Barber does not trust a democratic electorate that has common sense or else he would let the debate about it continue as Stan Redmond below observes .

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:15PM

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of science. It is not determined by the vote of the public, especially those without any expertise in the matter.

BobM| 2.19.12 @ 11:54AM

Agreed, but the terminology is important, as it often plays into the hands of those who equate skepticism with being anti-science. "Global warming skeptic"? No, clearly the globe warms and cools.. and has done so in my lifetime. And how can one be skeptical of "climate change" ? The climate had to be different where I'm sitting now when there was a mountain of ice sitting on my lot 15,000 years ago... I'm a skeptic of CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I'm a skeptic of the Global Warming ALARMIST viewpoint and agenda. And I have a healthy skepticism about the results of some of the "leading climate scientists" who may be overzealous to the point of confirmation bias in their results. Global Warming has certainly occurred, as has Global Cooling many times in Earth's history... it's been hotter and colder; nothing controversial there. I'm skeptical that the last 30 years or so represents "unprecedented" or calamitous warming, that human society causes most of it, or that it's relatively benign effects cannot be easily mitigated or adapted to in the normal course of things, as humans and the worlds creatures have done successfully for thousands/millions of years...

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 4:27PM

No, there is a fundamental difference between "skepticism" and "denialism," BobM. A real skeptic does not deny the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real nor it's implications. A denier claims the science is not real, that uncertainty and risks do not exist as the science demonstrates, and that there is no difference between an ice age with few human beings and 7 billion people dealing with an ice age.

That makes you a classic climate science denier, BobM, a very sad thing to be.

fckewe| 2.19.12 @ 10:32PM

To completely deny that industrial human pollution has affected is by definition ignorant. Will the world end because of derainforestation? As those who live in the Sahara. Will the world end because of rising world sea levels, ask the citizens of Atlantis.

Will this happen in our lifetimes, I doubt it, but to CLAIM it has no relevance, or even more preposterously, that it is patently false nonscience... is patently false preposterousness.

Mark Bahner | 2.26.12 @ 12:01AM

"Will the world end because of rising world sea levels, ask the citizens of Atlantis."

It's pretty hard to ask the citizens of a mythical city what they think.

But what do you think? Do you honestly think the world is going to end because the sea level rises a foot or two over the next 100 years?

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:17PM

That's interesting. Seeing as you seem to believe yourself to be a skeptic, could you please refer me to the peer reviewed research by others that supports your skepticism, or the peer reviewed research you've done yourself that supports your position?

To truly be a skeptic, your reason for skepticism has to be grounded in critical thinking and evidence. Otherwise, you're just a denier playing with words to make your position sound more reasonable.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:13PM

Actually, no. Science is not based on "common sense." It is based on evidence. Many aspects of science, such as quantum mechanics, dark matter and dark energy, and so on run counter to the world we're used to experiencing. To be a global warming skeptic, one needs to be well-informed on the level of current understanding and have physically supported, verifiable, and extensive evidence to support their position. Anyone else is just a denier.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 12:08AM

Sorry, Kaminsky, you have personally attacked individuals and misrepresented them and Heartland has consistently attacked the overwhelming sciences - I repeat, science - that overwhelmingly demonstrates AGW is real and the risks associated with. Heartland's conferences feature the most discredited climate science deniers repeating debunked nonsense.

There is no mystery that the political Right is committing political suicide by going against its long-standing principle of supporting science no matter where it leads. You realized long ago that dealing with the reality of AGW meant more government involvement and global cooperation between governments. You don't like that. You didn't know how to deal with that. So the Right made the outstandingly foolish calculation to deny the science, to portray it as a "leftist hoax", a conspiracy theory you won't admit would necessarily involve thousands of scientists "faking" research and peer-reviewed papers over several decades.

You've ended up in an untenable position, Mr. Kaminsky, of marginalizing yourselves by refusing to participate in dealing with a looming, man made problem. You are standing on the sidelines instead of taking the lead in presenting , advocating, and financing free market solutions to AGW, pretending no problem exists, attacking anyone, even Republicans, who dare agree with the science.

You, Mr. Kaminsky, and Heartland Institute are parties to willfully handing to the government the responsibility to deal with the problem because of your refusal to in the solutions. You are shooting yourselves in the feet, marginalizing Republicans, conservatives, and Libertarians, attacking climate scientists for doing science you find inconvenient to your politics. You are destroying the Right from within and you just don't get.

As a once-proud Republican, you can rest assured that I have nothing but contempt for groups like Heartland. I suggest you do some serious soul-searching, Mr. Kaminsky, because what you are doing is unethical and self-defeating.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 9:43AM

Ah yes, the former Republican! How they seem to proliferate whenever the Alarmists come under pressure. Mr Barber's prattle is simply boring. This com-box script (the dejected Republican) has been played so often and on so many forums that one wonders if Mr Barber is nothing more than some fantasy ginned up by one of Soros's Script-Kiddies.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 10:15AM

Mainstream, moderate, intelligent Republicans scare you the most. We're the ones that are going to throw you out and have to clean up your mess.

Like we had to do with Joe MCarthy.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 12:24PM

Please name one moderate, intelligent and mainstream Republican. In 1999 only 1 Senator voted for Kyoto, and he wasn't a Republican. And when Reid and Pelosi attempted to ram through Cap and Trade in 2009 (when they didn't need 1 GOP vote to get it passed), Cap and Trade never made it for a floor vote.

Take your stawman and return to the land of Koz.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 10:20AM

Here's a whole bunch:

http://www.rep.org/index.html

Maybe you'll learn something, purple lips.

Bob K.| 2.19.12 @ 11:22PM

This is simply an election year blog recently set up by Democrats masquerading as Republicans, just as you are doing here, to attack Republican legislators on their votes on specially selected "environmental" bills. Virtually all of the Republican legislators were given "X"'s as voting against the bills.

Sam Barber| 2.20.12 @ 10:10AM

Keep deluding yourself, Bob K.

Evan| 2.20.12 @ 11:46PM

If you'd do an ounce of researching before posting, you'd know that the REP was founded in 1995. They supported McCain in 2008.

Honestly, what is it with people ignoring facts when they're not convenient to them? You'll sit there and openly deny that a group is real whenever a quick google search would prove you otherwise?

fckewe| 2.19.12 @ 10:34PM

They should have just destroyed the tapes, shredded the documents and erased the hard drives with magnets. Just like Nixon, Enron's accountants and the Bush White house staffers.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 12:33AM

Dan Philips,

There is no debate amongst and between scientists about the science. You should know that.

There has been a consistent, manufactured, political attempt by the Right to make it seem there is a scientific debate. There is not. Climate science deniers cannot refute the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real and has severe risks for mankind.

They know they cannot refute the science. This is why they have framed it both as Leftist and a conspiracy. That is the only way denialists like Heartland can sway voters away from the actual consequences that the science leads to: increased government involvrment and global cooperation between governments. There is nothing like claiming Leftist plots and scientific conspiracy theories to awaken the Right.

No matter, of course, that any conspiracy that could successfully cause thousands of scientists, their research, their peer-reviewed papers over several decades to con everyone without a single whistleblower, a single hint of malfeasance, a single scientific paper blowing the whole "conspiracy" sky high. Better not try to explain how such a consipracy could possibly work and climate science deniers don't - and will evade the question if asked.

Groups like Heartland succeed in denialism because we as citizens don't question their claims. If you just accept those claims, then they've got you hooked. And Ross Kaminsky wants to make sure you stay hooked by even more misreprentation.

They know how to make it work. After all, it worked for the tobacco industry for 30 whole years.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 3:45AM

HA. Science is always debated and questioned. The only "science" that is vigorously protected by a worldwide politically motivated machine is climate science. AND it just happens to be the most profitable and government expanding "science" is climate "science." The most closed minded people occupy the halls of climate science ans are not even scientists. And ALL have a huge profit to make monetarily or through raw power.

Ross Kaminsky | 2.18.12 @ 8:46AM

Mr. Barber,

Clearly nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

However for the benefit of rational readers, I will point out several articles by leading scientists which either (1) say climate change is not an important problem or (2) say that proposed solutions are an enormous waste of money even if there is human impact on climate or (3) say that the closed-mindedness of the alarmists is truly anti-science:

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....21366.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....lanet.html

Ross Kaminsky | 2.18.12 @ 8:46AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....akout.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46212

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:20PM

Neither of those are scientific journals, or even science magazines (and "several" isn't "two," but that's unimportant).

Regardless, though, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers that provide evidence for global warming. I don't think posting links to a few blogs, or news magazines makes a rational case for skepticism.

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 2:30PM

Ross... The number of scientists who are actually active in the field of climate science who hold such a position is vanishingly small. Those scientists who do reject the broader consensus position are, in most cases, backed by fossil fuel interests. The notion that the consensus position is "anti-science" is probably the most outrageous thing I've ever read.

My suggestion would be that you spend more time reading the actual research. There is a very good reason that every National Academy of Science on the planet has a published statement expressing serious concern about man-made global warming.

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:06PM

Mr. Rob Honeycutt, I suggest you start reading wattsupwiththat.com and you will see that there is NOT a "vanishingly small" number of scientists who hold the skeptical position. Perhaps The Team silences some of them, or tries to. But they are considerably more numerous than you are willing to admit. I have to laugh at your citation of "every National Academy of Science" in support of your lame assertions. As wards of the government, they certainly have even less reliability and a greater vested interest than those whom you claim to be "backed by fossil fuel interests" (another canard thrown out there, by the way; most of the oil companies are going along with the alarmist types on this nonsense, in order to be politically correct and have given precious little money to skeptical organizations).

Besides, to paraphrase Einstein, it only takes one set of facts to upset the consensus of many in science. Stop playing numbers games with us and start confronting the fact that the science on climate is NOT settled.

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 11:23PM

Larry... Believe me, I'm quite familiar with WUWT. There is nothing on WUWT that suggests anything other than what I've stated.

The fact is that, as far as science is EVER settled, this is a settled issue. Clearly you can not add 4 watts per square meter to the entire surface of the planet and expect that it's not going to warm things up. That is basic physics that even Einstein would accept.

Alan D McIntire| 2.22.12 @ 11:10AM

With a temperature of 288K, a blackbody would have a flux of 390.7 watts. Add 4 watts to that and you get a temperature of
(394.7/390.7)^0.25 * 288 K, or 288.73 K. So a DOUBLING of CO2 would increase average temps by 0.7 K, hardly catastrophic. In fact that would be beneficial. We'll run out of fossil fuel long before temperature increases become an issue.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:08AM

You're also illustrating my case for me, Larry. Why you would go to an auto mechanic to have a tooth pulled is one of the wonders of denialism.

Here's ome help for you:

"What is Denialism?"
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

Evan| 2.20.12 @ 11:51PM

I'm curious, Larry. Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper on climate change on your own, just for the sake of furthering your understanding of climate science?

I'm curious because so many people out there aren't interested in the science. They pay attention to it just long enough to find something that they believe confirms their preconceived notions and ideology. Those types enjoy the pre-bottled opinion that sites like wattsupwiththat give them, because it allows them to deny science without taking the time to understand it.

Alan Wilkinson| 2.18.12 @ 2:44AM

Sam Barber, unluckily for you it seems that all Fakegate has proved is that at least one CAGW fanatic is a cheat and a fraudster and that many CAGW bloggers and journalists are gullible fools who swallowed his obvious, childish fraud - hook, line and sinker.

And if you think there is no debate between scientists about the science then you have nothing scientific to contribute and have evidently restricted your reading to the censored CAGW sources that allow no debate.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:22PM

I fail to see how any of that is valid. Heartland has only denied the legitimacy of the strategy document. Quite a bit about their funding of "skeptical" scientists has been revealed. But choose to follow your ideology rather than the evidence, if you wish...

martin j smith| 2.18.12 @ 7:56AM

A criminal act was committed lets find the perp(s )
I truly believe that within the Left there is a greater by far proportion of anti-social personality types that on the right. The Left is far more likely to use criminal tactics and the percentages of those brought up for charges of law breaking are higher. That is based on my observation of the number of reports of curruption charges against law makers in my very large city., So--as I say lets find the perps.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 12:34PM

According to Heartland et al, the perps are thousands of climate scientists who successfully pulled off a conspiracy for three decades right under our noses and no one blew their cover.

If you believe that is plausible and possible you are just the kind of gullible soul Kaminsky and Heartland thrive on.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 2:00PM

They have pulled off a hoax. How much money has been wasted on bogus manmade climate change (manmade climate catastrophe seems to be the new buzzword since global cooling, global warming, climate change et al) science? Trillions all over the world. Funding in public institutions the world over demand strict obedience to the prophet Al Gore or the are out of the club for good. If science were settled the way it "settles" in man made global warming there would be no need for any new research in any field of science. Why build the large hardon collider in Switzerland? The science is settled. There's no debate left. New satellites to actually measure solar radiation on the effects of planetary climate should all be scrapped for the settled science of what is spit out of a computer model from East Anglia? Sure. The science is settled.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:21AM

So you actually think conspiracies of that massive scale are actually possible, Stan. You actually think a conspiracy was hatched three decades ago and thousands of scientists signed on. You actually think such things are possible.

Amazing.

Now, sit down and outline for us how such a conspiracy could work. Please note that NO ONE has yet done so. None of the climate science deniers has shown you how such a conspiracy could work, much less present any evidence for one. Yet they've got you believing such a conspiracy is not only possible but has been happening right under everyone's nose for 30 years.

So, do the exercise, Stan, and show us how the "conspiracy" works. If you can't, then maybe you should think how snake oil salesmen like Kaminsky and Heartland depend on you not thinking.

Aiken_Bob| 2.19.12 @ 7:51PM

As far as a conspiracy there have been a very dozen pulled off by the elites - how about:
- the stimulus money will make unemployment go away,
- dead penalty doesn't deter crime,
- peak oil is real,
- sex education will make all responsible,
- drugs do no harm,
- head start is about the 'kids',
- the poor are not fat
- etc.
All you need is a catchy phrase, a media that is pro government, lots of Soro dollars, and naturally several useful idiots like yourself.

Sam Barber| 2.20.12 @ 10:18AM

You forgot 9/11 "was an inside job."
And Rosell, of course.

The fact that you think science comes from the media, Bob Aiken, and that you fall so easily for conspiracy theories really means you're the useful idiot.

Evan| 2.20.12 @ 11:54PM

It goes beyond that, actually. Science deniers must believe that the conspiracy is over a hundred years in the making, considering that the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide were discovered during the early to mid 1800s.

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:16PM

Sam Barber, you are a complete idiot and a troll/shill for panicked alarmists everywhere. Because your side is losing the political argument, and thus you are reduced to foolish arguments and old, tired, previously refuted arguments (e.g. the fossil fuel industry is responsible for keeping skepticism alive). The perps have been hard at work trying to intimidate opposing points of view and keep them from publishing in peer reviewed journals. The Climategate e-mails contribute some insight into the tactics of these charlatans. In addition, most average people (including the media) weren't paying attention to the issue until the early 2000s, when that true climate idiot Al Gore put out "An Inconvenient Truth," at which point things started to get rather interesting.

I suggest you consult Megan McArdle's piece at the Atlantic on the latest Heartland stuff, and weep bitterly. You fraud!

http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.....te/253276/

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:26AM

Science doesn't take sides, Larry. And those who understand that AGW is real are the ones who questioned the authenticity of the "Climate Strategy" page first.

You choose to be gullible, Larry.

TinaB| 2.20.12 @ 10:11AM

Science doesn't take sides, and AGW is a side, hence it is not real proven science, just a bogus scientific theory. The globe warms, then it cools, then it warms, then it cools, get it Sammy? You try to sound so sure, and you know the numbers are not really there. Just Algore's smelly theory, making Algore very, very rich. Among others.

Sam Barber| 2.21.12 @ 9:06AM

AGW is the conclusion of the science, TinaB, no matter how far you stick your head in the ground.

Get real.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 9:33PM

I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that climate change was "Algore's [sic] theory," TinaB. Climate Science, just like any other branch of science, is an accretive process. John Tyndall discoevered the irradiative properties of CO2 in the 1830s. Svante Arrhenius proposed the greenhouse effect at the end of the 19th century. And climate change has a physical basis, relying on basic scientific laws that have been known for centuries. It isn't just something that some politician made up one day.

Also, I really would advise you to look up the difference between natural variability and external forcings on the climate system. Past warming and cooling is well explained by orbital changes, volcanic activity, positive and negative feedbacks, and--over very long timescales--rock weathering.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:23PM

Do you also agree that the hacking of the UAE (which actually didn't expose any wrongdoing) was criminal and wrongful as well? If not, how do you explain your double-standard?

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 10:25PM

UEA* Talking about the University of East Anglia, not the United Arab Emirates. :P

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 10:27AM

I think it's instructive that Ross Kaminsky would so readily illustrate my case for me by pointing you to articles, particularly the WSJ article.

What better way for Kaminsky to show contempt for his own readers by trying to con them into believing the WSJ article represents the science of climate change. Readers doubting me simply can spend a little time doing research on how that single WSJ editorial did more to reveal the profound intellectual dishonesty of those like Heartland Institute, ClimateDepot, Watts Up With That, and the snake oil salesman, Senator James Inhofe.

Ross Kaminsky depends on his readers being, and remaining, idiots and he just showed you how he does it.

albert constantine jr.| 2.18.12 @ 11:05AM

Throughout all you've posted, I see no mention of theft and forgery of documents, or a condemnation thereof. Apparently (if one accepts for the purpose of discussion the viewpoint that the Heartland Institute is as you describe) it is bad when they are dishonest, but all dishonest and criminal acts perpetrated by those who oppose them (and their ilk, as well, I guess) are justified, presumably on a self defense/defense of others viewpoint, I suppose.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 12:24PM

See open letter below.

albert constantine jr.| 2.18.12 @ 3:23PM

From that open letter, it appears that the scientists condemn the hacking of e-mails and posting of same online. Curiously, though I did not see the name Sam Barber amongst them, it does not address the falsification of data or documents. This seems to suggest that the consensus of these scientists is that the invasion of privacy is bad, but deliberately misleading others draws no comment.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:29AM

Albert, perhaps you missed the part where no falsification of data took place and the science hasn't changed.

Perhaps you should ask yourself how and why you missed that after all those investigations.

albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 11:00AM

I have reviewed the open letter yet again, and while it claims false allegations or distortions were made by its opponents, I keep missing where the open letter says no falsification of data took place. The issue of falsifying documents attributed to those who disagree with you is not mentioned at all.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 4:30PM

I'm talking about the so-called "Climategate" e-mails that blew up in climate science deniers' faces when the investigations showed no data manipulation.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 2:03PM

You just don't understand Albert,

The Apostle Barber has an entire planet to save. You don't understand the burden that comes with that. If the saints of global warming have to resort to fraud, forgery, and theft it's worth it to save all life on Earth from us knuckle dragging anti-science climate deniers.

There is no debate, the science is settled. There is no questioning the holy scriptures from the Gorecle.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:32AM

I rely on the science, Stan, you know that science that is so inconvenient to your political ideology.

That you can only look at through a dirty political lense is a measure of how much you've fallen for the Climate Science Denial Movement.

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 9:37PM

Why is it that, when discussing a scientific issue, you use nothing but appeals to emotion and rhetoric? If you have evidence to disprove decades of scientific research, why not post it here? Or, better yet, submit it to nature. Anyone whose findings could revolutionize science in such a way would have no problem being published.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 12:36PM

And the Guardian is a forum for Climate Science?

Sam,
Do you know the difference between an eigen vector and an eigen value? Can you follow Dr Mann's use of Principle Components and his EOF (Empirical Orthogonal Function) analyisis when he deconstructed long term instrumental records when crafting his hockey stick? If you wish to debate these things I look forward to your presence at Climate Audit.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 10:54AM

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy.....rtland.pdf

Wxcynic| 2.18.12 @ 12:04PM

Ok, I read it. There is no observational data set of sufficient quality to scientifically draw the conclusions that this matter is settled, regardless of how many PHDs pile on. AGW is theory, not fact. There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence such as sea level rise and submerged coastal villages to suggest that this has been going on for thousands of years, and it has happened before. The only theory I know of that fits the enecdotal evidence is the earth's wobble affecting the amount of incoming solar radiation. Go talk to the Russians. They have a far better theory as it is not politicized.

Sam Barber| 2.18.12 @ 12:30PM

Your problem, Wxcynic, is twofold .

You won't be able to refute the science based on your claim.

You conveniently ignore that throughout the eons there weren't 7 billion human beings around worrying about agriculture, floods, droughts, famines, ice ages, and cities built long sea coasts.

In other words, you've bought into climate science denialism. Only you can change that.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 2:13PM

This is a good example of the fanatical devotion required of the global warming crowd.

With devotion like this everything is explained in a dark ages mind set. As if humanity has NEVER lived along oceans and flooding rivers. Humanity never worried about droughts and agriculture.

It is pointless to debate or even point out contradicting research or evidence that climate change is a normal natural occurance. Anything that contradicts this is heresay and the apostate must be excommunicated and condemned to climate hell.

30 years we've been hearing about this crap. We are all suppose to be dead by now. Killed by monster hurricanes, droughts, floods, maelstroms, OH THE HUMANITY.

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 3:01PM

Where has mainstream science been claiming that we are all supposed to be dead by now? Are you exaggerating or badly informed?

You say It is pointless to debate or even point out contradicting research or evidence that climate change is a normal natural occurance. Anything that contradicts this is heresay and the apostate must be excommunicated and condemned to climate hell.

But as I mention in an earlier post the first sentence of the introduction of the IPCC SPM talks about "the human and natural drivers of climate change".

jstwndring| 2.19.12 @ 12:03AM

"Where has mainstream science been claiming that we are all supposed to be dead by now? Are you exaggerating or badly informed?"

Actually, 30 years ago I was not quite in my teens and I remember being taught in school that we were all going to freeze to death because of the impending ice-age bearing down on us. I was not sad though--no, quite the opposite. I knew that in just a couple of years I would be old enough to go snowmobiling! I was looking forward to the years ahead when I would have to use a snowmobile to go everywhere. Sadly, that world never materialized, and now, 30 years later, I have to worry about suffering from possible heat stroke from supposed AGW. The reason many of us don't believe all the hype is because all the "scientists" have been crying wolf for far too long to be taken seriously.

In fact, I remember reading somewhere that all this crying about global cooling/warming has been going on for well over 100 years. Newspaper articles going back to 1895 have been found warning us about "climate change". It started with write-ups about global cooling. Then, 20 years later, global warming was the concern. Then, 10 years after that, back to global cooling. Then, a few decades after that, back to warming. What was found is that every 20 years on average they switch the story from cooling to warming to cooling to--well, you get the idea. Sorry, but I think it's all a bunch of B.S..

Aiken_Bob| 2.19.12 @ 7:59PM

The 20 year cycle is about a human generation - there are lots of culture idea that change every generation -- just interesting

Wxcynic| 2.18.12 @ 6:59PM

I think you missed my point. There is no science about climate change that can make any scientific claim. The data does not exist in any way, shape or form to support the conclusions being drawn from it. All the data sets have been altered by the validation process which were based on asumptions. The raw data collected was based on assumptions and still is. The world can't even agree on the temperature of freezing, which we base our thermometers on. We can not accurately measure the temperature of the planet, we have nothing accurate to compare it to anyway.I spent a great deal of my life measuring and reporting weather data, including some climatological work. Any scientist who claims to have answered the questions about AGW is simply not being truthful as he or she should know the state of the data being used. I don't know whether we have an impact or not. Our activities are more like gnats on an elephant, iritating at some locations, but mostly irrelevent.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:56AM

Your claims don't come from the science, Wxcynic. Observational data validates that AGW is real after eliminating every other cause to explain the *observed* data.

The range of uncertainty in the long-term effects on climate are still large but narrow over time as research goes on. It is that uncertainty that imposes potentially large risks. Climate science deniers like Heartland love to say "there's too much uncertainty so don't pay attention." They don't like to admit tt uncertainty cuts both ways - to the high end of temperature changes as well as to the low end.

That's where risk assessment comes in and the real potential that unless we take action globally now we may have to take extreme measures later. That would mean, of course, MORE government involvement.

I repeat, no one is able to refute the overwhelming science that AGW is real. But then why would anyone not accept the science? Why should we not accept the science no matter WHERE it leads? But Heartland et al don't want you to because they don't like the policy implications of how to solve a global problem that respects no borders. So they have to make you think the science is "fake", an implausibly massive conspiracy theory they can't even demonstrate.

You need to sit down, reason, look at the science from the original sources, Wxcynic.

Wxcynic| 2.19.12 @ 11:51AM

As one of the originators of the data I understand its limitations. Admit it, AGW is more like religion, based on faith., bad data and all. If you want to be worried about something, consider that the earth's wobble cycle is about 26,000 years and we have been warming for approximately 13,000. (study the angle of incidence effect on our weather if you want to understand). Our next ice age is not that far off. Vast regions of the northern hemisphere will become uninhabitable, including where I live. Not to worry, we'll be long dead. BTW, the real message of all this is that we are along for the ride and are powerless to stop anything on a global scale. You would be better off worrying about the hazards within your own dwelling or car as they are more real and you can affect them. Nice chatting with you as you are at least civil, we just disagree about the so-called science.

Sam Barber| 2.20.12 @ 10:14AM

The overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real is all you have to refute, Wxcynic.

Let us know when you're finished.

Evan| 2.20.12 @ 11:58PM

Wxcynic: Your fears about a soon-to-come ice age are probably unfounded. The earth's orbit and tilt are currently out of phase. The last time conditions were like this, the interglacial of that time lasted ~30,000 years. And that's not even considering the fact than human-caused warming outweighs current natural negative forcings.

http://www.skepticalscience.co.....ce-age.htm

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:25PM

"You won't be able to refute the science based on your claim." What kind of an argument is that? Nothing but your own conclusion. Let's see your science degree, Barber. You fraud, where did you get yours? DeVry Institute? You haven't demonstrated one whit of any knowledge of the science to any of the posters you have responded to, and that is because you fall back on the typical alarmist slogans and rely on the myth that the science is different now because there are "7 billion people." The science that I have read doesn't prove anything about there being extraordinary anything in the climate. All of it has happened before, and will at some point probably happen again.

You seem to arrogantly presume that mankind has a far greater impact upon nature than things like cosmic rays (Hendrik Svensmark), the sun (Willie Soon and others), the ENSO and similar oscillations in the oceans. I am not so presumptuous.

By the way, based on the statisticians I've read, Mike Mann needs to learn a lot more about statistics than he thinks. He doesn't know diddly.

Sam Barber| 2.19.12 @ 9:58AM

You're a perfect illustration of the "arrogance of ignorance" in action, Larry.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:01AM

Foster and Rahmstorf recently removed the effect of natural forcings like ENSO and the sun on temperature trends. This is what they found:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Fig5.jpg

Full paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022 (I encourage you to read it--it's an interesting read)

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:03AM

Also, if you want to look at the entire system (the ocean included, not just the atmosphere), the ocean has been accumulating heat in recent years too (in fact, far more than the atmosphere). Since the entire climate system is gaining energy, "cycles" can't be causing warming, because cycles just move energy around, they don't create it. Therefore, the energy is being added to the system. AGW explains this.

Cosmic rays have not been shown to have any significant effect on climate change, and certainly have not been shown to be the driver of current temperature trends.

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:18PM

Barber, I find that funny. Get your hand caught in the cookie jar, then piously proclaim that surely it only LOOKED bad, it wasn't really what was happening. Yeah, sure. You fraud!

cal Smith| 2.18.12 @ 11:13AM

Are Sam Barber and Dan Rather brothers with different mothers?

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 12:38PM

Why does the fact that the so-called fake document was produced on a scanner prove that it was a fake?

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:20PM

Ordinarily it would prove the opposite, however I'm guessing in this case the stolen documents were originally in digital format, thus there would have been no need for it to have been created by a scanner if it was genuine.

They are attempting to avoid the error they made in Rathergate where they used a modern computer to create fraudulent documents in a font that didn't exist when the memo was supposed created and had variable-spaced typing which was impossible for something of that supposed period.

In this case, it seems they created a phony document, printed it out and then scanned the forgery on a scanner to make sure that no one could verify the date/time stamp among other things.

While I believe that there is climate change, I also know that climate change has occurred on this planet all the way back to when the planet first formed, so this argument that it is all caused by man (even when it has been warmer on this planet than it is now before man even existed) is a bunch of malarchy.

Furthermore, the regulations that eco-nuts try to push on people are often totally nuts, instead of coming up with ideas that work with businesses and homeowners, they try to wreck homeowners and businesses.

I'm sorry but environmentalists need to start thinking of solutions that:
1. Actually work.
2. Minimize harmful effects on businesses and homeowners while protecting the environment.
3. Denounce anyone that starts pushing for population control.

They also need to do the following:
1. Allow more honest debate on the issue instead of insulting or blackballing people that disagree with them.
2. Stop politicizing the issue, when you let politicians get involved in this you lose credibility.

Look at the lightbulb ban, so we replace a bulb with a more efficient item that happens to contain mercury?!?!?! Sorry but mercury is more destructive to the environment than the old 100 watt bulb.

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 2:43PM

So basically there is no proof that it is a fake, just speculation.

What is surprising is that AFAIK the HI still haven't confirmed whether at the other documents have been altered or not. Humm, 4 days and counting. Also why don't they release the e-mail that was sent which contained the documents. That way they can lay to rest any speculation about the veracity of their claims.

Kudos to Sam Barber for his reasoned responses in reply to some impolite posters.

Contrary to what you see on TV, shouting untruths louder does not win arguments.

BTW: there is more mercury in a tin of tuna than a CFL light bulb. That particular fact has been known for at least 3 years. http://www.lamprecycle.org/public/images/docs/LD+A August 2009.pdf

BTW Garfield: no one in mainstream science suggests that all climate change is due to mankind. If you look at the IPCC reports, e.g. first sentence of the introduction of the Summary for policy makers: "The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change,[1] observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.....ction.html

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:12PM

There is no proof to demonstrate that it is real either.

Furthermore, the reason that can't show you what was actually on the e-mail doesn't make these documents genuine.
1. They don't know what all was in the e-mail.
2. The person that took the documents (to make fraudulent ones), deleted the log and covered their tracks. Considering they can't figure out who it was, this seems to be the most likely scenario.

I honestly think this is the result from both sides turning this into a political issue and I'm to the point that they need to start over from scratch. That means both sides of the debate need to kick the politicians (especially Al Gore) out of this debate.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:08AM

Your argument that, since climate change has been caused before, present warming must also be natural is a logical fallacy. Man made and natural warming are not mutually exclusive. Would you argue that, since lightning strikes have caused forest fires in the past, there is no way a person could start a forest fire? No.

The difference between today's warming and past warming is fingerprinting. There is no physical explanation for current warming based on any natural cycle (e.g. the sun, ENSO, AMO, PDO), and many natural cycles are currently "working against" warming.

We know that current warming is human-caused because 1) We have a physical mechanism to explain it and 2) It meshes well with the current trends we see in global average temperatures.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 1:19PM

One wonders why the Alarmists are so obsessed with the comings and goings of such a small enterprise like the Heartland Insitute. I mean, the Alarmists have got the entire MSM on thier side. Add in some $300 million of ALGORE's money to get the "message out", the efforts of our public schools, entertainment entities such as the Weather Channel, the Discovery Channel, Nature, Scientific American, The Nobel Committee, the vast majority of our universities, federal bureaucrats, the UN, George Soro's run entities, not to mention the hundreds of well heeled private philanthropies, and it is apparent that the Heartland Institute is just a mere speck. Even the fossil fuels industry (BP and Exxon especially) have joined the global climate alarmist band wagon.

Yet, for all of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollar spent to spread the Gospel of Anthropogenic Global Warming most people (especially Americans) do not believe in it. All of those well heeled , over credentialed, highly paid climate experts cannot deliver; they have failed to seal the deal.

And as a result, the Alarmist Borg has dispatched its spawn to destroy dissenters. The Alarmists of today are similar to Stalin when confronted by the Catholic Church some 80 years ago. Stalin once asked in frustration, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" The Alarmists ask similar questions, "How can denialists succeed when we own the issue?"

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:22PM

I honestly think the entire issue has become too politicized.

I think both sides need to kick out the politicians and sensationalist media, then have an honest discussion.

I'm at the point of saying neither side has much credibility on the matter.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 1:36PM

I agree. The entire issue became boring about 7 years ago. If you're interested in the fascinating statistical gymnastics that surround so much of the Global Warming "science" it is better to search out the statisticians who shed light on the subject. Ross McKitrick of Guelph University is a good place to start.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:10AM

I'm not sure why you're going on about "statistical gymnastics." There is a solid physical basis for AGW. It's not about manipulating data and finding correlations based on cherry-picked time series like it is for people who try to blame present climate change on the sun, ENSO or the AMO.

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 2:48PM

PL: you're repeating a theme that has gained a lot of traction recently. The millions and billions that you claim are spent in support of AGW go towards doing science. That costs more than a bloke with a computer and no conscience making up stuff.

This chart may lead you to a grounding in reality: http://www.desdemonadespair.ne.....-more.html

Aiken_Bob| 2.19.12 @ 8:10PM

Your simple chart starts off with the "obscene" oil profits funding all the anti AGW material. Does your simple mind understand that the profit margin of oil companies is typically less than TV companies, drug companies. If you are using this it only show your complete lack of understand of basic economics. Given that lack of understanding it is kinda obvious why you buy into AGW.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 2:16PM

Mr. Barber,

You being the resident expert on the science of climate. Please. Tell us since this is never discussed in the halls of East Anglia.

What is the ideal climate and weather for the entire planet?

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 2:56PM

There is no ideal climate and weather for the entire planet. Why did you think there was?

A moment's thought would surely lead to the conclusion that the current climate in any particular place is comfortable for life that lives there. (Ideal is too strong a word.) Given that Man as a species is dependent on other species for food, perhaps we shouldn't be too blasé about unusually fast climate change taking our food species out of their comfort zone.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 4:47PM

So you can't say what it is but you can say what it shouldn't be which is anything changing from what it is now.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:15AM

You're going about the idea all wrong. You assume a "perfect" climate. It's not like that. Life evolves over time, resulting in species best suited to the climate in which they live. Life today has evolved for a climate that can't be sustained if atmospheric CO2 levels are allowed to reach much higher than 350ppm for an extended period of time.

Life evolves on the timescales of gradual climate change over long timescales. The problem is that current climate change is happenly much faster than evolution (and even some adaptation) occurs.

So really, your question isn't the best question to ask. The better question would be "What rate of change of global temperatures would be acceptable in order to ensure that life isn't adversely effected to the extended that mass extinction is likely."

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:16AM

extent*

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 3:18PM

Stan... There is no "ideal" climate, but what we have had over the course of the past 10,000 years is a remarkably stable climate that has allowed our species to prosper. If you look at the brain cavities of early homo sapiens 100,000+ year ago they are functionally identical to our own. They had exactly same mental capacity we have today. So, why did human civilization start thriving just 8-10,000 years ago? It was because we had a climate stable enough to allow cultivation of plants and animal husbandry. What we are looking at doing, by altering our climate, is ending that advantage. We are changing the fundamental stability of the climate that propelled us to where we are today.

stan redmond| 2.18.12 @ 4:43PM

There is enough arrogance to assume we are changing the climate, always in a catastrophic way that requires surrendering liberty and money to bureaucrats mind you, but we never hear what it should be? When the global cooling scam was going on we were all doomed. Then, when that didn't go anywhere global warming was cooked up. No pun intended. So the brief period of time between 1974 and 1980 was the ideal time between global cooling and global warming.

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 11:17PM

Have you read ANY of those papers regarding climate that were published in the 1970's? Any of them?

Daniel| 2.19.12 @ 4:17PM

Stan/

The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. You can check that without relying on anyone else.

Thomas Peterson from NOAA read all articles published on the subject and published a scientific article about what he found (in 2008). I suggest you read it or look at his results here: http://tinyurl.com/7paq6a8

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:34PM

Honeycutt, your pathetic presumption of a "remarkably stable climate" is nothing but an intellectual yawn, because in that 10,000 years we've had a Medieval Warm Period, a Little Ice Age, and a whole host of variations inbetween. If this is what you call a "stable" climate, then there is no such thing. There is considerable proof even further back than 10,000 years that there were equally "stable" periods of climate. Climate is something you establish over hundreds of thousands of years. And there are a whole lot of other reasons, geological and otherwise, why man-in-civilization has only emerged in the last 10,000 years or so. You attribute a larger part of the reason to climate than it deserves.

There is NOTHING "unstable" about what we are seeing now. That is, unless you are prepared to admit that there is as much a chance of a new Ice Age as likely there is a chance of further warming. Mind you, warming, NOT "catastrophic" warming.

Your arguments are nothing but a lot of noise about a small piece of the puzzle.

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 11:16PM

Larry... I highly suggest you spend some time reading some of the published literature on the Holocene because you're clearly not very well informed on this issue. Start with Miller 2010, "Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic." That paper will give you a good overview. There clearly have NOT been any interglacials (with humans) that were anywhere near as stable as the Holocene.

For an example here... The difference between a glacial and interglacial is about 8C. The variation within the Holocene has been around 1C. So, yes, the Holocene has been a very stable climate.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:20AM

The MWP was likely more of a regional event than a global event. Talk about making "a lot of noise about a small piece of the puzzle."

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 2:24PM

Being that he has been willing to accuse someone of a crime with the most circumstantial of evidence (just how many people live in the Pacific time zone?) I hope that Mr. Kaminsky will be prepared fully retract and apologize to Dr. Gleick once he is ruled out as the possible culprit.

In the country I was born (USA) we are innocent until proven guilty. Apparently that system doesn't work for the political purposes of Mr. Kaminsky.

albert constantine jr.| 2.18.12 @ 3:14PM

For the purposes of the government holding you to account with a crime charged, you are entitled to a presumption of innocence, until the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you possessed the state of mind and committed the act or acts that constituted the offense.

Mr. Kaminsky or any other non-state actor), on the other hand, has no so obligation to confer any presumption of innocence, as he does not wield the punitive power of the state. He can make whatever charge he wishes, and support it as he sees fit. Others can choose to read it, and believe all, nothing or parts thereof.

One problem with lefties and elites is since that seem to conflate their interests with the power of the government, they have a difficulty in distinguishing this.

Tom Curtis| 2.18.12 @ 7:00PM

Mr Kaminsky has just slandered Gleick on national media. He has done so the most circumstantial of evidence. Indeed I have witnessed the online lynching of Gleick, and the initial evidence was that the probably fraudulent "strategy document" and Gleick both use a word combination that turns up in a google search with 26 million hits.

Given the potential of Kaminsky's article to cause Gleick to be the subject of abuse and death threats (a common consequence for climate scientists singled out in this way be conservative commentators) Kaminsky should have not indulged in speculative comments on the matter.

I notice, however, your assumption that it is OK for conservatives to harm the interests of people of "the left" (if Gleick even belongs to that group) on purely circumstantial evidence. Apparently the new credo of American Conservatives is that being Conservative means never having to take responsibility for your actions.

albert constantine jr.| 2.18.12 @ 8:47PM

Mr. Curtis:
If Mr. (or Dr., if a title is important to him) Gleick feels he was slandered (or libeled) by anyone, he has civil remedies available to him. Of course, the truth is generally a strong defense against libel and slander.

I am unaware of what "online lynching" is, but if it involves a mob of individuals not normally posting on a site rushing to it, trying to assert that their position is the ONLY position rational people could hold, and insulting the intelligence and integrity of those who hold differing opinions (which unlike facts, all are entitled too, whether or not they choose to label it "settled science"), I may have recently viewed an example.

Regarding death threats, my recommendation is that they be reported to the police, investigated, and if some live person can have been found to have made them in an unlawful fashion, they should be arrested and prosecuted (subject, of course, to the presumption of innocence noted above). At that time, their party affiliations and political positions can be examined, dissected and studied by all.

I notice, however, your statement that somehow because assumes that the readers of Mr. Kaminsky's article will be inspired to do violence based on statements such as "One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft -- and this is just my speculation -- is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute". I would suggest this is even more speculative. By your standard, you have endangered the life of every American Conservaive.

From my viewpoint, though, I won't tell you what to write. You are of course free to post as you see fit, and I am free to offer my views. I don't believe that I (or those who agree with me) hold a monopoly on the truth, and while I might question those with whom I disagree (as well as those with whom I agree, or partially overlap in viewpoints), I don't try to censor or bully them.

After reading your sensitive post about the hazards Dr. Gleich and his fellow travelers have endured as a result of a free exchange of ideas, though, I expect to see Climate Change Alarmist added to the protected class in various state and the federal Hate Crime statute.

Mark Bahner | 2.26.12 @ 12:32AM

"Mr Kaminsky has just slandered Gleick on national media. "

I'm not a lawyer, but Mr. Kaminsky has most certainly not "slandered" Peter Gleick. For one thing, "slander" is spoken language; written language is "libel".

But more importantly, libel requires that one print something that one knows to be false. What do you think Mr. Kaminsky has printed that you think he knows to be false? He wrote, "One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft -- and this is just my speculation -- is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute."

Peter Gleick has already admitted to fraudulently obtaining the documents.

I assume you're going to apologize?

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:36PM

Kaminsky has no obligation to you, Honeycutt. Gleick is just one suspect. There may be someone else. He has as much right to speculate here as you do. And I can definitely say that what you have said here is speculation, not fact.

Rob Honeycutt| 2.18.12 @ 11:08PM

Gleick is one suspect? Based on what? That he lives on the west coast? And you're saying what *I* have said is speculation? The irony in that statement is thick as it gets.

Vladimir| 2.26.12 @ 12:33AM

How about based on the fact that he's now admitted doing it? Sounds to me like you owe Mr. Kaminsky an apology. But on the bright side, your post is now famous.

Mark Bahner | 2.26.12 @ 12:35AM

Peter Gleick has already admitted obtaining Heartland Institute documents by fraudulent means (impersonating a member of the Board of Directors by in an email to the Heartland Institute).

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 3:22PM

He can make whatever charge he wishes, and support it as he sees fit. Others can choose to read it, and believe all, nothing or parts thereof.

His support so far seems to be: One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft -- and this is just my speculation -- is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute. Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter that he shares Forbes magazine’s pages with Heartland’s James Taylor.

and
Interestingly, Gleick, who would normally be preening and prancing in glee at this sort of attention to the Heartland Institute has so far been utterly silent at his Forbes blog and on his Twitter feed.
One has to wonder if Peter Gleick or an alarmist fellow traveler he knows is concerned about an FBI agent knocking on the door sometime soon. Perhaps people should keep an eye on the dumpsters around Gleick’s house for discarded computers or an Epson scanner.

That's pretty thin stuff in my opinion. YMMV

albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 10:51AM

That is the point. The article says what it says, leaving a reader free to discern what, if any value it has. It is not a true bill or indictment, it is a blog post by a writer who discloses his association with an organization that he feels has been victimized, and speculates as to who may be responsible. To use a tautology that has seen much overuse of late, it is what it is.

On the other hand, though, I have no idea what YMMV means. I caution my staff when writing to avoid using acronyms and jargon, as they are too often the tools of the lazy and the crutch of a crippled poor communicator.

Regarding “fellow travelers” , as you ask below, what “alarm bells” should be ringing? I am a regular reader of a poster on the AMSPEC Blog, which is a site associated with a magazine that “has attempted to balance the Left’s domination of the media by debunking its perceived wisdom and advancing alternative ideas”. I regularly peruse the articles here, and post comments when I feel the desire to do so. I am but one of many who do so, and am quite familiar with many others who do the same. Some of my fellow posters might agree with me on an issue, but differing viewpoints abound. At times, the debate is quite vigorous, and devolves into personal attacks, etc. Nevertheless, I am not ashamed to call myself a ” fellow traveler” of many of the conservative ideas expressed here, and am quite capable of separating myself from any which I do not.

I have found, though, that those who engage in Group Think have difficulty in defending their ideas when challenged. As a result, they try to form mobs of their ‘fellow travelers “ to beat down the challenger, rather than intellectually defend their positions, and gaining converts through the free exchange of truth, fact and opinion. They generally gain control through deceit. When they are given the reins of power, they censor and oppress, which is why they must be exposed, and defeated in their attempts to dominate.

Does this clear it up at all?

Turboblocke| 2.18.12 @ 3:23PM

BTW: doesn't the phrase an alarmist fellow traveler make alarm bells ring?

Russell | 2.18.12 @ 3:28PM

HI's refusal to release the originals is itself a violation of transparency.

There's nothing fake about the fact that The real reason Kaminsky is gunning for Gleick here in the science -free TAS is that Heartland's hacks just can't stand up to real scientists on opposing pages of Forbes.

Gleick's columns there have been outdrawing Taylor & Michaels by up to 15 to 1.

Copner| 2.18.12 @ 8:15PM

> Gleick's columns there have been outdrawing Taylor & Michaels by up to 15 to 1.

How do you know that?

How did you get access to Forbes statistics on page views of different articles?

Do you have some connection to Forbes? Or do they share that information with anybody interested?

MikeN| 2.18.12 @ 4:01PM

Yes that is thin stuff with which to accuse Mr Gleick. However, let me raise a suspicion of my own. Mr Kaminsky did not come up with this theory by himself, and is instead stealing from te work of Steven Mosher, who rote The CRUTape Letters. He has simultaneously dropped the strongest evidence, so it's not too obvious. If you want to see the strong circumstantial evidence, take a look at Mosher's comments in a post at Lucia's The Blackboard. The style of writing in the fake memo is similar to that of Gleick.

Ross Kaminsky | 2.18.12 @ 5:10PM

I haven't heard of Steven Mosher, so it's unlikely I'm "stealing from" him.

Larry| 2.18.12 @ 7:38PM

I know of Mosher, as I read his posts on wattsupwiththat.com. Mosher, in spite of the fact that I sometimes disagree with him, is a respectable skeptic, and I would not be surprised if he is right with respect to Gleick.

Copner| 2.18.12 @ 8:05PM

@Russell

> Gleick's columns there have been outdrawing Taylor & Michaels by up to 15 to 1.

How would you know that? Do Forbes provide you a breakdown by article of the popularity of different pages on their site? And if so, how did you get this special privilege?

Glenn Tamblyn| 2.19.12 @ 3:48AM

"alarmist fellow traveler"!!!

Please wake up and smell the roses. This isn't the 1950's. J Edgar Hoover is dead, Joseph McArthy is dead. The 20th century is dead. As are all similar zombie ideas from that era.

Fellow Travellers!!! Get a life man.

albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 9:08AM

When you can't counter arguments with the weight and strength of ideas, claim that they are dead, try to associate these ideas with individuals you view with opprobrium, and engage in meaningless name calling.

When one looks to define irony, though, posting "get a life, man" on a blog at 3:48 a.m. on a Sunday morning (even if it was actually 12:48 a.m. Pacific Time, where many of those concerned about the information in this articles and accompanying posts seem to be concerned with) does seem to occupy a high water mark.

Fiscal| 2.19.12 @ 10:12AM

This is just another case where a religious sort of belief by Republican evangelicals trumps scientific fact. I guess if your religious belief contradicts science you'll denigrate the science -- just like with evolution. Evolution and climate change are different sides of the same coin.

I've read most of the research on both sides, and the following seems to be true.

1. There is climate change without a doubt.
2. There is strong evidence that man contributes to it.
3. From a pure mathematical perspective, while there is a correlation with rising CO2 levels, there are so many factors involved, that it is hard to determine the level of causality from any specific source.
3. There is no rational evidence that any of the plans presented to fix this will have any major impact on the result or will be cost effective in the short to mid-term.
4. We already have efforts to clean the air in the U.S. and it has had positive effects on our health. Anyone who has ever lived in Southern California over a long period of time knows this.

Unfortunately, the extremists on both sides dominate the discussion -- both Heartland and the alarmists -- rather than understanding the issue. The fact instead of spending money on solutions at this juncture, we should be spending money to answer the scientific issues and research solutions. The advantage to this approach is that we gain more data and research is far less expensive than any half baked implementation.

The one thing I don't quite understand about the alarmists, is why they say they are so scientific, and yet dismiss nuclear energy as a solution. The deniers, like Heartland, take primarily a political approach rather than a scientific approach. There are always minority opinions any any subject, and you can always find someone who makes your point for you. This is Heartland's problem. I've even heard people say you can turn water into gold!!!!!!

True science is NOT political, whether it is climate change or evolution. Again, this is an example of the dangers of combining religion and politics.

Purple Lips| 2.19.12 @ 12:14PM

As to item 1 - You raise a strawman. Weather constantly changes, and with it "climate". Climate, BTW is a human construct. It can mean anything you want it to be.

As to item 2 - there is a huge amount of debate concerning CO2 climate sensitivity. No one, I repeat no one can tell you with any precision what the sensitivity of CO2 is to " average global temperatures (another human construct). If they could they would be picking up thier Nobel.

I suggest, if you wish to really see what drives climate, educate yourself on ENSO and the AMO. Research in this area of atmospheric science is ongoing and exciting. But, I warn you the material will not get headlines.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:25AM

Both the atmosphere and oceans are currently gaining heat. ENSO and AMO are cycles, meaning they simply move heat around in the system. It's physically impossible for a totally internal system to increase the total energy of the system. Therefore, it would be impossible for ENSO or AMO to be causing energy buildup.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr.....8794.shtml

Daniel| 2.19.12 @ 2:27PM

NASA's posistion on global warming is: "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

Other scientific organisations that agree:

American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
NOAA
National Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
etc.

Anyone disagree with this or should I post links that support it?

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:30PM

I know what they say and quite frankly I don't really care.

I don't think they have any credibility due to climategate.

Daniel| 2.19.12 @ 2:45PM

...which makes your view a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are much more often than not without substance so please be cautious, considerate and skeptical!

Daniel| 2.19.12 @ 4:21PM

By the way Garfield,

How are

American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science

involed in climategate?

Alan D McIntire| 2.22.12 @ 11:29AM

I don't see where they've taken polls of their members, and published the results of the polls.
This is a case of leftist editorial boards promulgating their totalitarian political agenda.

Daniel| 2.27.12 @ 4:23PM

I am about to tell you that there have been several polls amoung scientists about climate change and even provide links to each of them. However, I get the sensation you'll adjust your conspiracy theory from claiming "leftist editorial boards" are behind it to acctually blaming the scientists themselves. Perhaps you'll call them greedy. Or you'll say something vauge like "they don't bite the hand that feeds them".

Well, I'll give it a shot. Chaeck the following scientific papers on the subject:

Orsekes, 2004 "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Doran, 2009 "Examining the scientific consesus on climate change"
Anderegg, 2010 "Expert credibility in climate change"

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Evan| 2.21.12 @ 12:35AM

There have been many independent invesigations that have cleared those involved in "climategate" of any wrongdoing. Do some research and you will discover why the emails that you likely consider damning were misrepresented.
http://www.skepticalscience.co.....hacked.htm

Regardless, HadCRUT is just one temperature record. GISS, NOAA, and BEST also show warming, as well as satellite measurements from RSS and UAH.

albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 2:39PM

I don’t think anyone disagrees with the “posistion ”that NASA and the organizations listed hold such a position, or that said positions could be found on their respective websites. NASA’s chief also believes that a primary mission is Muslim outreach, which is likewise a political statement.

Daniel| 2.19.12 @ 2:57PM

Hypothetically, if most of the global warming in recent decades could be attributed to human activities, how should NASA communicate it without you considering it a political statement?

albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 5:18PM

Here’s how NASA , a government agency funded by American taxpayers has credibility with me. An elected political leader makes a political decision to go to the moon by the end of the decade. Hearings are held, funds are allocated, staff is hired, contracts are filled, etc. By July of 1969, the law of gravity (generally once thought of as settled science) as experienced on this planet is overcome, and Neil Armstrong is broadcasting his “One small step…” line.

It was all a political decision that a government agency employing scientists and others was able to achieve. While there are some who believe it did not really take place, I think NASA generally is credited with delivering on its promise, though it was funded to the tunes of billions of today’s dollars to achieve it.

Unfortunately, because decisions to set missions and fund government agencies are political ones, all that they do involves politics. Their directors are politically appointed and their actions subjected to political oversight. I don’t say this as a criticism of politics; this is one of the ways we as voters get to influence the world we live in.

In politics, though, one cannot easily silence debate merely by calling the matter settled. Consensus is also a political process, not necessarily a scientific one (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is not taught because it got the most votes at the time, but has not been overcome by further scientific inquiry). At one time, the consensus of the institutions of science in the West was that the sun revolved around the earth. It didn’t make it so.

If non-government scientists wish to credibly communicate a scientific conclusion, my advice would be to stick to science. They could communicate that they were charged with studying the climate of Earth. They could tell how they intended to establish data to measure current and historical climate trends, why they believed it was relevant, and make all of this information transparently available to anyone else who wished to review what it has to say. The conclusions should be relevant to what was studied, and would be replicated by all who undertook to study the same thing, no matter what the source of funding was.

Most importantly, though, if a scientist wishes to have credibility, stick to science, and not politics. Don’t appear before political bodies offering political testimony. Real scientific facts will remain scientific facts, and the debate does not need to be cut off. Real scientists welcome inquiry, charlatans and totalitarians try to stifle it.

Daniel| 2.20.12 @ 11:12AM

Thanks for the reply Albert. It is interesting to read your thoughts about this and I try to do so with an open mind. I will explain my view on what you have written as soon as I have time.

Russell | 2.19.12 @ 5:26PM

Copner, the readership stats appear next to the Forbes column titles online ,and are updated daily.

So to answer your question , I read them and did the math.

John Callender | 2.20.12 @ 9:22PM

From the beginning I've been scratching my head about the origin of that presumably-fake 2012 strategy memo, and the relationship between it and the larger batch of presumably-legitimate documents. Peter Gleick's admission earlier today that he was the source of the leaked documents, and his claim that he received the strategy memo from an unknown source first, then obtained the others via a social-engineering attack on Heartland, makes me wonder about this scenario: Maybe Heartland themselves faked the strategy document, and supplied it to Gleick with the intention of pressuring him with exposure or outright exposing him if he released it. This kind of "false flag" operation is very reminiscent (as Kaminsky points out in the original post here) of the "memogate" scandal involving the Killian documents that ended up ending the career of Dan Rather. Then, as now, there was a juicy document supplied to an "enemy" of political conservatives, which, upon publication, turned out to be fake, leading to exposure and discrediting of the too-greedy liberal who received it and publicized it.

If the above scenario is correct, then this item by Kaminsky explicitly naming Gleick as a suspect would make sense, as part of Heartland's gradually ramping up pressure on Gleick (who they would actually know to have been the source of the document leak, since they had secretly supplied him with the faked strategy document).

All speculation, of course. But it passes the sniff test, at least for me, better than any of the other scenarios I've seen described so far.

Ross Kaminsky | 2.20.12 @ 11:44PM

To those whose alarmist religion has caused them to excoriate me for this blog note, the politest thing I can think of to say to you is "I told you so."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02......html?_r=1

John Callender | 2.21.12 @ 12:50AM

Yeah, you did. Good call by you, obviously.

I'm impressed by your ability to deduce that Gleick was the leaker. I don't actually know the personalities of any of the principals in this whole thing, and it sounds like you do, so maybe you can help me figure out something that's troubling me: Where did the original faked strategy memo come from? Andy Revkin has said that suspicion will now fall on Gleick of having forged it himself. But if Gleick did forge the strategy memo, why would he have included it in the document release after he got the legitimate documents from Heartland? From my reading, there really isn't anything substantive in the fake strategy memo that isn't in the legitimate documents. If Gleick was the one who forged the strategy memo, why risk including it in the release? It just seems like he'd be asking for Heartland to disown it as fake, thereby discrediting the entire release (as actually happened).

It bugs me, because it just doesn't seem to make sense. The scenario as Gleick has described it (he received the fake memo anonymously, verified it by obtaining the legitimate documents, then released them all together) sounds more credible to me, at least in terms of explaining Gleick's actions. But in that case, who created the forged memo, and for what purpose?

The forged strategy memo is similar enough to the legitimate documents that it seems clear that whoever forged it had detailed knowledge of Heartland's internal budget and planning. But if the person who created the strategy document and leaked it to Gleick had that knowledge, why bother leaking him the forgery? Why not just leak him the legitimate documents in the first place?

As I say, I don't really know the personalities involved here; I'm just looking at the known facts and trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. Can you help?

albert constantine jr| 2.21.12 @ 6:55PM

With regards to your speculation of the culprit, there’s a scene in Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum (as Professor Malcolm, who predicted disastrous consequences would result from dinosaurs and man being alive at the same time on earth) is lying injured in the back of a fleeing Jeep, with a Tyrannosaurus Rex chasing close behind him, snapping with those huge jaws. Referring to his earlier prediction, he says “I hate being right all the time”.

With all of the shrill alarmist visitors here on this thread, I ask whether or not you hate being right on this?

Evan| 2.22.12 @ 9:57PM

Please in some way explain how any of this invalidates the science of climate change?

Whether or not Gleick faked the strategy document (that would have been an incredibly stupid, dishonest, and unproductive thing to do), it is only an ethical delimma. Gleick could have turned out to have murdered a dozen people and stowed their bodies in his basement and the case for climate change would have been none the weaker.

I think it's telling that people who deny climate change have latched on to personal stuff of this nature to try to discredit climate science--it shows that this, for those that do it, the weight of the evidence isn't important. It's simply finding any way to cast doubt and distract.

I think it's also telling that so many people who chastise Gleick for his actions were the same ones who lauded the hacking of UAE and ignored later investigations that cleared all involved of wrongdoing.

Most telling, however, is the way people ignore the implications of this for Heartland. Heartland does not serve as a platform for any research that agrees with AGW. Their funding is wholly dependent on it. Don't think that scientist who gets paid six figures a year by them (Craig Idso, for example), could continue to keep their funding if they started publishing research that agreed with the "consensus position." That's the difference between Heartland, organizations like NASA, and universities (that Richard Lindzen still has a job at MIT, and that Spencer and Christy still work at UAH is testament to that).

This information could lose Heartland their non-profit status if pursued, and it casts into serious doubt the ability to maintain objectivity by a number of well-known skeptic scientists.

NaSa| 2.26.12 @ 6:54AM

Evan,
Gleick has just admitted to being a fraud and a disgraceful liar at best - legal proceedings are now underway and he may very well be indicted for fraud.

Your evangelical zeal for "APGW" shows how this has become a dogma for typical rent seeking idiot leftists like you. Keep crowing all you want about how the science is "settled" and you only show how ignorant you are about science itself.

For all those "peer reviewed" global warming alarmists, there are enough people in the world with genuine honesty and scientific temper and most of all enough humility to understand that there is very little we know about this planet that has been for existence for God knows how long. Climate gate exposed the fundamental fraudulence of "peer review" and how scientists become yes men so that they can abrogate more funds for their so called "research".

Real scientists do not "deny" climate change but only the rate at which it happens and the impact of such a change... is it going to destroy our world by creating a catastrophe that we are not going to be able to cope with? No, not even close.

They do not subscribe either to the "human beings are the curse of the earth" leftist rage either.

Coming from India, I can tell you first hand about the concerns people with common sense share about a world population that is north of 6 billion... how ever even we do not get fooled by this patent alarmism created by so called "scientists" who are so convinced by the righteousness of their cause that they indulge in such transparent fraudulence. We were once fed with Malthusian dread on how millions of Indians were going to starve to death by the same leftist gasbags that tried their hardest to prevent Norman Bourlag from trying to provide a solution to Third World Hunger.... even today we remember him and the father of India's Green Revolution M.S. Swaminthan pays tribute to him.

The whole point of this alarmism by the Left is to even further intrude nosily into the lives of the average citizen ( not just the American citizens)... Every rent seeker from Enron to Sierra Club is licking his chops at the enormous windfall that awaits them should cap and trade legislation pass in Congress.... why else would Paul Krugman of all people be an "adviser" to Enron of all companies ??

Your ignorance is only further compounded by the moral sanctimonius that seems to leave your chest puffed - here's a piece of advise for you - lose your know it all attitude - you know very little and you dont have the humility to learn any thing that contradicts your so called knowledge.

The Church of Global Warming is filled with dogmatists like Evan, Sean Barber etc - fortunately there are enough scientists - and i mean this in the true sense of the world who are out there standing up to this nonsense.

more power to them - i hope Gleick learns something in jail but iam afraid its going to be too cold a place for him.

defense attorney Harris County | 4.11.12 @ 6:48AM

Forgery is one of the most common white collar crimes. It is a federal offense that is punishable by law. Those who are engaged in activities similar to the nature of this crime should be discouraged and hopefully authorities will apprehend them for this unlawful act that they committed.

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?