Heartland Institute caught in a lie - Chinese Academy of Science objects

It's official, Heartland Institute and Anthony Wattsupwiththat have once again been caught out in a lie.

You can find the following statement at the official Chinese Academy of Sciences webpage:

http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

I have added the highlights

The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”

时间: | 2013-06-14 | | 【大 中 小】【打印】【关闭】

The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.  The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:

Chinese Academy of Sciences comments on Heartland / Watts claims

Since I've found that Anthony Watts and Heartland Institute can't be taken at face value, {considering their respect for the truth is non-existent}, I decided to email the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the hope of getting to the bottom of the mystery of the missing substance behind claims of a collaboration and June 15th Gala unveiling of the NIPCC attack on climate science.

Dear CAS Representative,

Anthony Watts at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/12/h ... -ceremony/

claims
Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony:

"All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013 to speak about the translation of Climate Change Reconsidered. Scores of additional scientists, economists, and policy experts reviewed and contributed to the volumes."

But I can't find any such event being announce at your website?
http://english.cas.cn/Ne/
=========================

Is this event happening?

Any information you can offer will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and hopefully interest.

Sincerely,
PM

This morning I received a reply to my question.

{#2} Watts attacking Christian scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe

Being a regular working guy {respectable mastery of 2 trades}, but with a life long love for this planet, science and experiencing life, I've never developed the real scientist's discipline, extra gray-matter horsepower, nor that steely eyed focus, to say nothing of the required stick-to-itiveness.  That's one reason I respect them and listen to them, even when it means reevaluating, adjusting or even dumping previously trusted conceptions.

Together with that I've got a bit of  'over attention syndrome' and not near enough hours in the day.  So I do what I can with what I got.  I bring this up because this post is a detour  on the way to writing another post about Anthony Watts, this time his desperate and ridiculous attack on Dr. Katharine Hayhoe.  

You see I was following WUWT's link to an interview with Dr. Hayhoe, that turned out to be a most interesting interview and I thought she did a great job of explaining some important concepts.  Then I got to comments section and oy vey WUWT's troops have been having a field day, dishing out grade school misconceptions right and left.

So I wrote me a little letter that I hope get's through moderation 

David Rose's "Global warming stopped 16 years ago" - examined

WUWT is having great fun with a tabloid reporter's front page claim:

Report: Global warming stopped 16 years ago 

Posted on October 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts
A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it . . .
Along with David Rose's assertions:

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

=====================================

Rose manages this claim by misrepresenting a Met Office study and their data.  In the process ignoring what the Met Office had already explained to him:

“. . . The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. 

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” 

For the full text visit:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Considering all the nonsense going on at WUWT I wanted to post a portion of the Met Office's reply to Rose's latest attack.

Met Office in the Media:  

October 14, 2012 

"An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’  

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one  here.  

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. 

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here. . . ."

=====================================

Rose's claim is an example of a well known phenomena - 
anything can be argued convincingly when done in isolation.  

Rose uses a fiction writer's license to contort facts, along with tunnel vision and convoluted logic in order to fabricate a sellable story of his own imagination.  
He refuses to honestly describe the greater body of evidence.  

Consider Rose's phrase "aggregate global temperatures" grand concept, but then he micro focuses on one study's data while refusing explanations.

Besides "aggregate global temperatures"

What is that?  He doesn't explain it.

In the dictionary the definition for "aggregate" is: "formed by the conjunction or collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum; total; combined"

Given that, why does Rose ignore this aggregate global temperatures index?

Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue).  From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

~ ~ ~ 

What pause Mr. Rose?

Why not look at the "aggregate of global warming observations" !

Consider these geophysical indicators:

Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming

By Joe Romm on Oct 15, 2012 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The world has not stopped warming.  It's easy enough to get acquainted with the evidence.  But it requires a sincere intellectual effort.  I hope you make the effort. Here's an excellent source for information based on the science, a good place to start.  A repost of SkepticalScience's review that deserves your attention... if you seriously want to understand Rose's myth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 23 October 2012 by dana1981 David Rose and Judith Curry have doubled down on literal global warming denial, as they continue to deny that the planet is warming. On 13 October 2012, Rose first published an article in the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday claiming that global warming…

Arctic Ice and the DMI deficit

Another great example of Anthony Watts' crazy making over at WUWT

Arctic Ice and the DMI deficit 

October 26, 2012 by Anthony Watts 

"There’s been some interest in these before and after graphs highlighted by the blog “sunshinehours” here. 

"Arctic Sea Ice Not As Bad As They Claimed??? DMI" ect..."

DMI being the Danish Meteorological Institute who recently revised their ice cover graph incorporating previously "unclassified coastal regions."  This slightly reduced the number for the total Arctic ice loss this summer.

It was predictable that WUWTzers would jump on that as more evidence the community of scientists can't be trusted, etc, etc.  But anyone who is familiar with Earth Sciences knows that it's untidy by it's very nature - it's not like physics or rocketry were replicability and >99.99% accuracy must be achieved.  And it is dishonest to attack every ragged edge of the mantle and imply nothing can be deduced until such unrealistic standards are achieved.  That approach is nothing more than a mesmerists trick to distract from what's really happening out there.  

As for what they are having such an uproar over, look at the two DMI graphs:

before

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

after

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

======================================================

It seems pretty trivial to me, but over at WUWT it's more proof for them that global warming is a hoax - that needs to be ignored by citizens and politicians.  A most dishonest treatment of Arctic Melting story.

And since WUWT refused to print my comment, which was made 10/28/12 at 1:42 PM "http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/26/arctic-ice-and-the-dmi-deficit/#more-73071"

I'll have to post it here and since my screen shot is rather small here's the text:

You know looking at the graphs side by side their differences are startlingly minor in contrast to the bigger story they tell.  And it's been pointed out the DMI clearly explained: 

~ ~ ~

"However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure. In late 2012 sea ice climatology and anomaly data will be available here. "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Earth sciences never achieves 99% accuracy nor 99% reproducibility, bet we can still learn from it.   The overwrought responses in these comments seems like strategic tunnel focus meant to avoid the bigger message: Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing way too fast for comfort. 

As for the influence of storms on the ice loss - you can learn more in an October 19th post over at SkepticalScience:  "What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?"

============================================================

Anthony's crazy making aside for those interested in learning more about what's happening in the Arctic and the science... as opposed to the politics of shouting down the science please refer to this interesting examination of the observations and science issues along with facts Anthony chooses to hide from his fans.

============================================================

What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?

Posted on 19 October 2012 by dana1981, Albatross

http://skepticalscience.com/2012-arctic-storm.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I also recommend  "Arctic Sea Ice Blog" 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/arctic-storms/

Anthony Watts proves Mt. Kilimanjaro escapes global warming

From the annals of Anthony’s WUWT blog:

"Al Gore’s global warming claims on Kilimanjaro glacier – finally dead and buried in the Climategate 2.0 emails – even Phil Jones and Lonnie Thompson don’t believe it"
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Anthony Watts

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WUWT: Al Gore said in his AIT bag of BS that Mount Kilimanjaro was losing its snow/ice cover due to global warming.
{...}
I’ve said this many times, Kilimanjaro’s loss of ice cover has to do with sublimation, not warming. The picture of Thompson next to the sliver of ice proves it. Note there’s no meltwater near him. {cc notes: he's standing on a talus slope, it is porous and sloped downhill. We wouldn't see standing water if a fire hose were dousing that ice sliver!} That sliver is a symptom of sublimation – ice evaporating directly into the air, just like ice cubes shrink when left in the freezer too long.

Almost a year ago I wrote this:
OSU’s Dr. Lonnie Thompson pushes gloom and doom, still thinks the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming

Then Anthony goes on to show some of those dastardly ClimateGate emails.  Reaching back to a 2004 email he producing this damning bit of evidence:

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong

 Since I'm already involved in a Hansen discussion thread over at the SkepticSociety's forum I found this recent post and the comments following another sad example of so-called "skeptics" ability to twist facts and avoid reality. 

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong 

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts
"From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone and WUWT reader tips.
{...}

John O'Sullivan: "Hansen, Sagan and Venus with magellan probe" > Examining The Art Of Deception

 This is an extension of a discussion of sorts over at SkepticSocietyForum 

and though I don't have the time to do it justice,  

the article by one John O'sullivan 

is so outrageously deceptive and plain wrong... 

add to that, 
being a perfect example of what I mean by denialist "crazy-making," 

that I need to at least take a stab at examining and exposing 
the long list of errors in this piece of propaganda over learning. 
 {June 7, 2012}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I wholeheartedly encourage anyone 
who see's anything here they like and might be able to use, 
please take it, do with it what you can.  


We need more people to vocally object to the crazy-making 
of agenda driven deceivers such a this O'Sullivan character.
{6/3/2012}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Black print represents O'Sullivan's paragraphs which I have included complete.
My replies and references will be in blue print.

====================================================================

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/top-scientists-vent-on-nasas-sub-prime-greenhouse-gas-hoaxere-optional/

Top Scientists Vent on NASA’s Sub Prime Greenhouse Gas Hoaxer
May 20, 2012
±2400 words

Climatologist James Hansen is under sustained attack accused of global warming fraud at a time when the powerful science journal, Nature admits “research is riddled with systematic errors.”

"Hansen, Sagan and Venus with Magellan Probe"

by  johnosullivan

=====================================

SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

I know some claim SkepticalScience.com is no different from WUWT.  

I have been told: 

"it's just a different perspective:

you choose to believe SkepticalScience.com 

and I choose to believe WUWT.”

But, is it as simple as that?  How do we decide on the respective veracity of each?

ScienceShot: No Letup in World's Warming by Richard A. Kerr

Here we have more data explaining "where the heat is."

ScienceShot: No Letup in World's Warming

by Richard A. Kerr on 20 April 2012, 2:15 PM
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/scienceshot-no-letup-in-worlds.html

Credit: Adapted from S. Levitus et al., Geophys. Res. Letts.; © AGU 2012

Global warming contrarians remind the public that the world has not warmed all that much, if at all, during the past decade or so. But that's the atmosphere. Oceanographers with their thermometers in Earth's biggest reservoir of heat—the world's ocean—report in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters that greenhouse warming has in fact been proceeding apace the past decade, not to mention the past half century. 

WUWT: What – You Mean We Aren’t Controlling The Climate?

As we've come to expect from WattsUpWithThat, Anthony will post just about anything, no matter how outlandish, if it's in the interest of raising confusion and reinforcing inaction.

This latest post, is an echo of an earlier post ironically titled : 
"The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 ? (August 5, 2011 by Anthony Watts)

Ironic because it's such a perceptive self-caricature of the kind of misrepresentation and misunderstanding and plain old crazy-making Anthony and his "WattsUpWithThat" has become so successful at.  
Up to and including the clueless factor.

Posted on April 19, 2012 by Anthony Watts

"What – you mean we aren’t controlling the climate?"

Correlation of Net CO2 emissions with climate properties shows that the growth in CO2 may be natural

Anatomy of Denialist Tactics, or how to know you're being conned

Fortunately I’m a self-employed working stiff, since it’s great having work and people hiring me... the unfortunate part is that when I have work it doesn’t allow me the time to properly pursue this main interest of mine.  That being to participate in the struggle against the dysfunctionality that our Anthropogenic Global Warming discussion has been forced to descend into - Thanks to a selective few, supported by some very rich individuals who’s wealth enables them to create “Think Tanks” dedicated to agenda over substance; to debate over learning; to self interest over citizenship.  
 
Heartland Institute, being but a recent superstar in that arena of public relations manipulation over substantive learning, recently released papers showing us how one ultra rich “Anonymous Donor” can supply the backbone for a group of ideologues to manufacture what amounts to nothing more than political crazy-making. - focused on diverting attention from the real issues we should be facing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
Unfortunately right now my time is limited so all I can do is post the following outline, one that was ironically supplied by Professor Peter Gleick some five years ago.  Still the following is a good outline of the deceptive tactics employed by the likes of Heartland Institute - and I will find many examples to attach to it, as time permits.  
 
That’s why I’m looking forward to examining Heartland Institute’s own ruthless actions over the years against the moralizing cloak they have draped themselves in...
but alas, that will take a few days... stay tuned.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The following comes from Senate testimony Dr. Peter Gleick gave regarding the degeneration of the standards of discussion and the tactics global warming denial organizations such as Heartland Institute resort to in their attack against rational peer reviewed science.

http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/20070207.html
Pacific Institute
Reported:  Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive” 
Peter Gleick Provides Testimony to Senate Hearing

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Political distortions of the scientific process have undergone a dramatic rise in Washington over the past six years, according to the Senate testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick’s testimony (download - PDF) was provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity Wednesday. Misuse of science and attacks on scientists, Gleick finds, have been pervasive and categorical.

“Good, independent science – indeed good information in general – is crucial to making good political decisions,” Gleick wrote. “It is difficult enough to make intelligent policy choices given the complexities of today’s political, environmental, economic, and social challenges. It is almost impossible when good science or data are ignored or distorted, or when bad science is sought out to support pre-determined political conclusions.”

{I have found it appropriate to add another category heading to Gleick's list}
==========
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf


Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7, 2007  Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Categories of Deceitful Tactics 
and Abuse of the Scientific Process

(source: P.H. Gleick, Pacific Institute, 2007)

There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, 

involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process. 

Appeal to Emotion

This is a large category and involves using various tactics to incite emotions in people in order to persuade them that a particular argument or hypothesis is true or false, independent of the scientific evidence. 

     Appeal to Fear
     Appeal to Flattery
     Appeal to Pity
     Appeal to Ridicule
     Appeal to Spite

 ~ ~ ~

Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks

This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.

     Demonization
     Guilt by Association
     Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)

 ~ ~ ~

Mischaracterizations of an Argument

This approach typically mischaracterizes an issue or evidence and then argues against the mischaracterization. It can include.

     Begging the Question
     Circular Reasoning
     Partial Truths (willful ignorance)
     Selective Choice of Problems (willful ignorance)

~ ~ ~

 

Straw Man Argument (includes substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented position for the one being argued

Loaded Question (includes posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have.)

 False Dichotomy (for or against)/False dilemma (includes assuming that there are only two possible opinions or choices.)

 Misplaced Burden of Proof 

 Confusing Cause and Effect

 Red Herring (includes presentation of an irrelevant topic to divert attention from another topic.

 Slippery Slope (includes the assertion that one event must inevitably follow from another)

Partial Truths

Willfully Ignoring (excluding all portions of information that undercut your argument)


~ ~ ~ 

Inappropriate Generalization

Accusing all of a group of people or arguments or set of facts as having the characteristics of a subset of that group. 

 ~ ~ ~

Misuse of Facts

     Numerical Mischaracterization 
     Selective Choice or Presentation of Data; Biased Sample
     Inadequate Sample; Hasty Generalization; 
                Leaping to a Conclusion
     Selective Omissions of Data  (willfully ignoring)
     Illusory Precision (where precision isn’t needed or available)
     Inappropriate Vagueness (where precision is needed)
     Unrelated Facts 
      (bringing unrelated facts that seem to support a conclusion)
     Willfully Ignoring (important facts)

 

 ~ ~ ~

Misuse of Uncertainty
     Misplaced Certainty
     Misrepresentation of Uncertainty

False Authority

Including appeal to authority not competent to address issue

Hidden Value Judgments

Including judgments based on ideological or religious rationales rather than reviewable and testable evidence.

Scientific Misconduct 

The violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research, including: 

    Fabrication (the fabrication of research data and observations)

    Falsification (manipulation of research data and processes or omitting critical data or results)

    Failure to Acknowledge and Correct Errors

Willfully Ignoring (inconvenient Earth Observation data)

~ ~ ~ 

Science Policy Misconduct 

The manipulation of the process of integrating science and policy, including:

    Packing Advisory Boards

    Imposing Litmus Tests

    Altering or Suppressing Information

    Bullying of Scientists

    Selective Funding or De-funding

HeartlandGate; FakeGate; DenialGate, what's the real debate

I listened to an interview that disturbed me. 

It highlighted a few core problems/symptoms of today’s crazy climate debate vs. climate science.  Since my perspective wasn’t represented in this discuss 
I’ve decided to make my own essay out of it.

I’ve, sort of, quoted from the broadcast, though with many gaps since in this exercise it’s the broader issues I want to touch on, besides no time for a polished version.  
The program is available at

================================
89.3 KPCC ~ AirTalk online
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/02/23/22646/heartland-leak
« Episode: AirTalk for February 23, 2012

Heartland leaker comes clean, stirs ethical debate
================================

Watts Up With DenialGate ?

Anthony Watts has made a good living proclaiming that the scientific community's “consensus” cannot be trusted.  A consensus that's been arrived at after decades of study by literally tens of thousands of researchers.  Instead trotting out a gallery of so-called independent scientists to present an alternative view of reality.

It seems that Heartland likes his work too.  As revealed by the recent revelations of DenialGate, or as I like calling it HeartlandGate.

Of course, Anthony is crying foul and claiming it’s all a fraud... though Heartland sounded less certain when apologizing to donors for their names being exposed.  They do assert at least one particularly damning document was a fake.  Worth mentioning is that Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman reporting for the NYTimes weren’t impressed with the denial writing:

“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. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.”

As for Anthony ~ seems he was paid $44,000 in January with another $44,000 promised for setting up a website “devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s website."  Which in Watts' world means finding the slightest flaw and hyper-inflating it to justify a total disregard for what the data is telling us.

Recall that Watts’ previous effort to undermine trust in the official temperature records, the Surfacestations Project turned out to be a dud that, just like the recent BEST Study, turned out to validate the official temperature records {and here}... unless of course one takes Watts’ egomaniacal stand that anyone disagreeing with him is in on the “climate conspiracy” one that involves tens of thousands of researchers across countless scientific disciplines, no less.

Among the contemptible revelations perhaps this one reported at ThinkProgress.org by Brad Johnson is the worst.  A strategic attack on science within schools {no wonder America is falling behind in science education} :

Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather“), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.

Wojick will receive $5,000 per module, with twenty modules produced a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv, is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology.

Another revealing and disturbing quote:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For more information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/13/205343/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-conflict-of-interest-weather-stations/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/ 

http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s-bird-it-s-hockey-stick-it-s-faked-document

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/16/denialgate-get-it-all-here/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73002.html

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Perhaps the finest example of the crazy-making Anthony Watts champions is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Anthony tells us we are supposed to trust a handful of scientists ~ while disregarding the efforts of tens of thousands of hardworking researchers.  

Ironically the 2011 Interim NIPCC Report's list of intrepid independent scientists consists of a total of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter and eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

So while WUWT glibly demonizes thousands of mainstream scientists for their greedy grant money grubbing bias ~ we should remain blind to the fact that most of NIPCC scientists are on the Heartland payroll.  

Check it out: “The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).”

As those Dana over at SkepticalScience.com have pointed out: 

“Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors {who donate their time}is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. 

Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RealClimate took a look at NIPCC’s alternate reality back in 2008, it’s worth a read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience reports on the breaking story as do many other good sources.  To mention just a few:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/02/dissuading-teachers-from-teaching-science-the-leak-of-alleged-heartland-institute-documents/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part two)

Regarding the substance of the Wall Street Journal’s letter “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” signed by 16 supposedly “prominent scientists”

The letter can be found at here.

{Below the letter’s text is in black, with my comments in blue.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶ one:
Yet, if this is the case then way could they only muster 16 signees?  Worse only two have actual climatology experience and seven of the sixteen are directly connected to right-wing think tanks that actively opposed any action to address Anthropogenic Global Warming on economic grounds.

{please do read on}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Don’t mock the Monck" ~ WUWT 11/20/11 ~ Anthony's claims examined

 I'd like to examine another post over at WUWT 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/
Don’t mock the Monck
Posted on November 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

“Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.”
{...}
“Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers. . .”

Yet if one takes the time to look up their member profile here’s what you’ll find for Hugh O’Donoghue:

A Comment at Watt's Up With That

 I've just posted the following at Watt's Up With That - 
it remains to be seen if their moderator decides to trash it... 
thus for good measure I figured I should 
document the post over here:

It concerns the discussion over there that seems to have 
gotten side tracked on Monckton's peerage rather on 
Monckton's serial misrepresentations of science and quotes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well it's official this comment did not get through 
the censors at WUWT, 
although their comments are finally moving away from peerage nonsense.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What's with this diversion about the Lord this or Lord that?
...
Monckton misrepresents both his standing as a member of the House of Lords as "FaceFirst" pointed out [January 16, 2012 at 5:16 am], if you don't believe him try to find Monckton's name on the official list of members [http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/]
And then there's this official reprimand demanding Monckton stop making these false claims: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
~ ~ ~ 
quoting from that letter:
"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.


Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. 
It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. . ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
He has also misrepresented is roll as Prime Minister Thatcher's advisor.  
From SPPI's personnel page: "SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. . ."
and then the lavish claims made here at WUWT see:
“Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”
Posted on June 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

...
Yet the man isn’t mentioned once in Margaret Thatcher’s 914 page autobiography.  In fact, she credits one George Guise as being her science policy advisor.
~ ~ ~ 
Why don’t such “inconsistencies” send up red flags to thinking skeptics?

And isn’t all this attempting to build up the Lord’s supposed “authority” in the eyes of his audience nothing more than an appeal to authority?  I thought you folks attack ‘appeals to authority’ why is it OK for the Lord to play that card so eloquently?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But the real concern should be over his constant misreporting scientific work as
John Abraham [http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/] and
Peter Hadfield [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM] have documented?

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files

Considering the recent dust up between Monckton plus Anthony Watts v. Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 - 
I figured I should repost these for interested students 

of the politics of Anthropogenic Global Warming denial. 

And to highlight that Monckton’s record of deception goes way back.

Admittedly the following isn’t the best 
since I am simply an interested citizen 

and neither an academician nor journalist, 

but the parade of deception has driven me to do 
what little I can to oppose it.

Please feel free to use any of the following - 

where I reference other sources please 
be sure to include those references.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Peter Hadfield Examines The Science of Climate Change

Since my interest is sharing what climatologists have to explain to us {as opposed to the crazy-making over at WUWT} - allow me to introduce a man that does a superb job of explaining what real scientists have been learning about our planet and the climate upon which all of us depend.  At the end of Mr. Hadfield's article is a list of Potholer54's "Climate Change" series along with links.