Warmist Peter Gleick Admits To Being Part Of Heartland Document Leak

By William Teach February 21, 2012 – 9:05 am

You remember the kerfuffle over the Heartland documents, right? The ones that include what is charitably called a completely faked “gotcha” document. And now, Peter Gleick, involved in globull warming advocacy for numerous organizations, including the National Academy of Science, has admitted to obtaining the documents by impersonating a Heartland board member

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Peter Gleick

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

An anonymous document and did not know the source, eh? Of course, Peter is going for the “fake but accurate” position, and, like all good Warmists, defends his pseudo-religion. And one must love the part about “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated.” Like Anthony Watts, I’m not anonymous, well-funded, nor coordinating with anyone. I’d love to see some of that money, which tends to be a whole heck of a lot less than the Warmists get, especially considering how much taxpayer money is funneled their way.

Then there is the part about “debate”. What debate? Warmists refuse to debate. They are the ones who claimed that the science was settled, and rarely allow themselves to appear with a Realist to discuss the issue. Then we get to “transparency”: remember, it is and was Warmists who did everything they could to block Freedom Of Information requests, including deleting material and emails, and looking to put it all under the banner of the UN IPCC, which is not subject to FOI requests, as we learned in the latest round of Climategate emails.

Andrew Revkin states

One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

Is anyone truly surprised at this, though? We’ve seen the lengths to which people on the Left, in this case Warmists, will go to protect their interests. One of the people commenting at Revkin’s article even mentions “Lucy Ramirez.” Remember her? She was intricately involved in Rathergate.

Obviously, this isn’t stopping the Warmists. Excitable Charles Johnson, the DeSmog Blog, and all manners of liberals are saying “who cares if any of the documents are fake and stolen from a private institution, climate change is real and Heartland is EVIL!”

And, and in an interesting bit of transparency and debate, the comments for Gleick’s HuffPo article were closed from the get go. That’s called “debate” in Warmist World.

Others: Michelle Malkin, Heartland Institute, blogs.telegraph.co.uk, EU Referendum, blogs.forbes.com/stevezwick, Guardian, Watts Up With That?, iOwnTheWorld.com, Tim Blair, The PJ Tatler, Watts Up With That?, Guardian, Vox Popoli,

More: The Other McCain says Gleick is blaming the victims: ““It’s not my fault!” The end justify the means: The alleged evil of their opponents excuses any shoddy smear Gleick and his allies may perpetrate against them. And despite their admitted amorality, they wonder why we doubt their claims to “science”?”

Warmist Greg Laden says this is proof, proof, I tell you!!!!11!!! that the faked document is real.

Excitable Balloon Juice whines about the “a massive, multi-billion dollar effort to convince the world that setting the place on fire is fine and that science itself is suspect.” Sorry, bub, the multi-billions are on your side, designed to convince anti-science dupes to give up their liberties, and Warmists have spent billions, and want to waste trillions, on limiting temperature rise with projects that won’t actually work.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Warmist Peter Gleick Admits To Being Part Of Heartland Document Leak »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Eating Shrimp Is One Of The Worst Things You Can Do For Globull Warming

By William Teach February 20, 2012 – 5:32 pm

Here we go, another example of why the climate change hoax movement is out of control: they take a real environmental issue, and drag it under the banner of “climate change”

(Treehugger) There’s perhaps no other animal on Earth so synonymous with all things diminutive as the modestly framed shrimp — but, as it turns out, not everything about those famed crustaceans is small. Biologists say that common shrimp farming methods across Asia are so devastating to fragile ecosystems as to make ordering a simple shrimp cocktail one of the worst things you could do for the environment in the name of grabbing some grub.

In an attempt to measure the economic costs of deforestation and habitat loss, Oregon State University biologist J. Boone Kauffman set out to quantify the oft overlooked true pricetag of harvesting shrimp. According to the researcher, over half of the shrimp consumed in the world originate from farms in Asia, with most of those farms having been established on land where mangrove forests once stood. And, as if that weren’t bad enough, the ecologically impactful farms are horribly inefficient.

How’s this for mindboggling: it takes five square miles of cleared mangrove forest to produce just over two pounds of shrimp — and that land is typically left depleted within ten years and rendered unusable for another forty. By comparison, the devastation left behind from cattle-ranch deforestation seems, well, quite rosy.

“The carbon footprint of the shrimp from this land use is about 10-fold greater than the land use carbon footprint of an equivalent amount of beef produced from a pasture formed from a tropical rainforest,” Kauffman tells the AFP, via Phys Org.

There’s no denying that the ecological degradation is horrific from a true environmental standpoint. Yet, instead of decrying the actual impact for what it is, the Warmists have to hijack the issue and place it under their banner, which deflects from solutions necessary to deal with the issue. And causes many people to roll their eyes when they see the phrase “climate change” and “carbon footprint.” This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Warmists, especially since their solutions seem to be “tax people” but never actually deal with the issue.

Over to the Physorg article

If the seafood is produced on a typical Asian fish farm, a 100-gram (3.5 ounce) serving “has an ecosystem carbon footprint of an astounding 198 kilograms (436 pounds) of CO2,” biologist J. Boone Kauffman said.

Who gives a crap? I’m more concerned with the what happens to the land. But, let’s go back to something else

The farms are inefficient, producing just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of shrimp for 13.4 square kilometers (five square miles) of mangrove, while the ponds created are abandoned in just three to nine years because disease, soil acidification and contamination destroy them, he wrote.

Seriously? 2.2 pounds of shrimp for 5 square miles of clear cut land? I’m not buying it.

I expect all Warmists to stop eating shrimp immediately.

Read: Bummer: Eating Shrimp Is One Of The Worst Things You Can Do For Globull Warming »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 20, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and cover all the landmasses, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

John Glenn Uses 50th Anniversary Of 1st Space Flight To….Attack Bush

By William Teach February 20, 2012 – 11:05 am

Sad, really

(Telegraph) Fifty years after Glenn’s groundbreaking flight on Feb 20, 1962, the former senator said he regrets that ignoble end of the heated space race that captivated the world in the second half of the 20th century.

“I regret that that is the way things have developed,” Glenn told a crowd at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex on Saturday night, part of a series of celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of his flight.

“We spent over $100 billion dollars putting the space station up there. It’s too bad in the previous administration the decision was made to end the shuttle, so now we have to go somewhere else to even get up to our station,” said Glenn, who served as a Democratic senator from Ohio between 1975 to 1999.

The Telegraph points out that yes, the shuttles were announced to be retired by the Bush administration, due to high costs and because Bush, and NASA, wanted to move to a newer vehicle to replace the much aging shuttles. What’s not mentioned by Glenn is that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, convened after the shuttle Columbia accident, pretty much recommended that all the shuttles be grounded. Immediately. Because they were possibly too dangerous to fly. Also not mentioned by Glenn is that the Democrat Congress, beginning in 2007, failed to properly fund the Constellation program, which would have provided the next generation of space flight.

Nor did Glenn mention that Obama was on-board with ending the space shuttle program, and has further failed to properly fund the next generation space vessels. And, why we certainly cannot place the “blame” squarely on Obama, either, nor should we, he did move $4 billion in NASA funds from space exploration to climate change idiocy.

Anyhow, Ed Morrissey has some nice words on the 50th Anniversary.

Read: John Glenn Uses 50th Anniversary Of 1st Space Flight To….Attack Bush »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs | Comments Off on John Glenn Uses 50th Anniversary Of 1st Space Flight To….Attack Bush | Trackback URL

Time: “Our social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us”

By William Teach February 20, 2012 – 8:42 am

Of course, this is all about the contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient mandate

(Time Magazine – Erika Christakis) There was lots of excitable talk last week about birth control, with President Obama dialing back his initial plan for mandating contraceptive coverage to exempt employers who object to such coverage on religious grounds. In those cases, the health-insurance provider, rather than the employer, will be on the hook to pay for the services. Tellingly, health-insurance companies seem quite happy with this compromise, knowing, as they do, that paying for contraceptives is a lot less costly than paying for pregnancies and neonatal care.

As Ed Morrissey points out from a Hill article, insurers are oddly unenthusiastic about providing completely “free” contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Because there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAFL. But, we all know that women were unable to get contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients prior to ……. what’s that? They were available? It’s just that people had to bear an actual cost for their sexual romps? Who knew?

People who cry moral indignation about government-mandated contraception coverage appear unwilling to concede that the exercise of their deeply held convictions might infringe on the rights of millions of people who are burdened by unplanned pregnancy or want to reduce abortion or would like to see their tax dollars committed to a different purpose.

Got that? In Liberal World, people having to actually use their own money instead of having Someone Else bear the full cost infringes on the rights of millions. Personal responsibility is a foreign concept in Liberal World.

Why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control coverage trump a society’s collective imperative to reduce unintended pregnancy? Should employers be allowed to withhold a polio vaccine or cataract surgery or safe working conditions on similar “moral” grounds?

Well, for one thing, there is that pesky little phrase in the 1st Amendment that restricts Central Government from passing laws that restrict the free practice of religion. Do liberals ever read the Constitution? As for the polio vaccine et. all, that’s a nice try, but, no Catholic organization is doing that, nor are they denying contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients: people can still get them, but, the organizations are refusing to pay for them.

We all enjoy the multifold benefits of a plural society, but the social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us. Most Americans choose to live with this trade-off because, on balance, the benefits of being part of a civil society far outweigh the costs…..

See? You must put up with decisions that morally offend you, all for some social contract that doesn’t actually exist in the Constitution, even if the decisions violate said Constitution. However, the debate is not really about contraception: it’s about the Central Government forcing decisions, laws, and regulations on the American People which violate their consciences, violate the Constitution, and violate their liberty. By Ms. Chrisakis’ definition, we simply have to put up with policies that, say, have put America on the path to economic shutdown in 2027. That force us to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax. That puts Federal Nannies in schools not only monitoring what children eat, but, force them to eat a different lunch, highlighting that Mommy is a Bad Mommy. That waste enormous amounts of taxpayer money of post-campaign kickbacks. That provide more stringent rights to some over the rights of others.

Ms. Chrisakis misses the point that our rights do not derive from Government: the federal government was given specific powers, and all others were reserved for the States and the People.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Time: “Our social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us” »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Jen Rubin: Is Santorum The Sharon Angle Of 2012?

By William Teach February 20, 2012 – 7:51 am

With friends like this, who needs enemies? Jen Rubin starts off her article with a mention of an unnamed and completely anonymous Republican Senator “quoted” in an ABC article saying Santorum would lose 35 states, then on to another article using another anonymous “tippy top” Republican discussing the need for another candidate if Santorum wins Michigan. Then we get to Jen’s “take” on the situation

(Washington Post) In other words: “Whom are we kidding? We’ll get slaughtered with Santorum as the nominee.”

You see, right-wing, socially conservative pundits don’t actually have to win elections, but experienced senators and party operatives who know how to win races outside Republican strongholds aren’t putting their heads in the sand. Santorum’s views and persona have limited appeal in a general election, and they know it.

They said the same thing about Reagan. Now, I’m not comparing Santorum to Reagan, but, Santorum is showing that he can compete. At least he actually jumped into the race, unlike others being mentioned for a “brokered” convention, like Chris Christy, Jeb Bush (no matter how good he is, think anyone is ready for another Bush?), Mitch Daniels, and Paul Ryan. That’s not to demean those folks, can you really blame them for wanting to avoid the soon to come smearing from Team Obama, outsourced through all the left wing groups and media?

But, but — you say — these people were the ones who wanted Charlie Crist instead of now-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). But, really, Santorum is no Marco Rubio. Whereas Rubio expands the party’s base of support, Santorum shrinks it. Whereas women, independents and young people see Rubio as a forward-looking reformer, Santorum seems stuck in a time warp from a different era, someone chasing issues that were “lost” decades ago

Obviously, looking to past American values, like family, and an economy not 5 steps behind Greece’s, are bad in Jen’s world.

Republicans should remember 2010. Republicans could well have had control of the Senate had they not nominated characters such as Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck — fire-breathing Tea Partyers, who were unable to win in swing or blue states.

Those Republicans scurrying for a back-up plan don’t want to lose the White House (and likely the House, in the event of a landslide) as they did Senate seats in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado. Voters concerned about electability should take note.

What do all three have in common? The GOP establishment refused to get behind their campaigns. Right leaning media pundits and establishment big wigs denigrated all three candidates. The NRSC stated they would send O’Donnell no money immediately after she won the primary. With friends like these, who needs enemies? They did the work of Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Excitable Jen Rubin: Is Santorum The Sharon Angle Of 2012? »

Posted in Elections, GOP | Comments Off on Excitable Jen Rubin: Is Santorum The Sharon Angle Of 2012? | Trackback URL

Oh, Noes: “Extreme Weather” Effects 80% Of US Citizens

By William Teach February 19, 2012 – 4:49 pm

We are told this because someone driving an SUV caused the extreme weather

(USA Today) Violent and deadly weather events have affected more than 240 million Americans — about 80% of the nation’s population — over the past six years, says a report out today from an environmental advocacy group.

Last year was particularly awful for weather in the USA, with at least 14 weather and climate disasters across the nation that each inflicted more than $1 billion in damage. They included a series of devastating tornado outbreaks in the central and southern USA, the ongoing drought in the southern Plains, massive river flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and batterings from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.

Environment America’s report looks broadly at county-level weather-related disaster declarations from FEMA for 2006 through 2011 to find out how many Americans live in counties hit by recent weather disasters. The report focused on weather and climate events, and did not include geological events such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

Question: why didn’t they look back further? Every year most people are affected by big weather events, but, of course, that’s not what they want people to know: they want to push their extreme environmentalist/global warming agenda on Everyone Else. As usual, this is highlighted by their “Take Action” page, which fails to highlight how Warmists can make changes in their own lives.

If climate change is helping to fuel some of these disasters, as Environment America claims in the report, the group argues the onslaught of catastrophes could become the norm in decades to come.

If they truly believed that, they’d all become “carbon neutral,” yet, they never do. Of course, natural climate change is always going to occur, it can’t be stopped.

Read: Oh, Noes: “Extreme Weather” Effects 80% Of US Citizens »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on Oh, Noes: “Extreme Weather” Effects 80% Of US Citizens | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 19, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is hot caused snow, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach February 19, 2012 – 11:30 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day here in America, though a bit rainy with a chance of global warming induced snow here in the mid-South. This pinup is by Al Moore, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Just One Minute has some thoughts on Obama’s need to replace Hope And Change. How about Theft And Graft?
  2. Zilla Of The Resistance has some thoughts on being betrayed on the contraceptive mandate
  3. Raised On Hoecakes points out that hurricanes and wind turbines are a bad combination
  4. Watts Up With That? points out that climate cycles will happen even if they are inconvenient
  5. The Blogmocracy has the latest from PBO on $5 a gallon gasoline
  6. All American Blogger has Mexico’s response to Eric Holder on gun-walking
  7. American Power discusses Rick Santorum and social issues
  8. Bob Owens covers Bruce Springsteen’s new album
  9. Dr. Melissa Clouthier discusses protecting citizen journalists
  10. Flopping Aces has your Sunday funnies
  11. Full Metal Patriot compares Bush vs Obama
  12. Gay Patriot has three points about Obama’s Big Budget
  13. Macker features the hideous artwork for the DNC in Charlotte
  14. Maggie’s Notebook points out that Obama is now giving away…..American owned islands
  15. And last, but not least, Randy’s Roundtable features your tax dollars at work
  16. And one to grow on: The Camp Of Saints features Liberalism 101
  17. And Don Surber highlights feminists with twisted panties

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

The posts do take a long time, so, if you want to send me your links for Rule 5 babeage or links, use ye olde email in the header bar (remove the NOSPAM part). Preferably, create the html link so I can copy and paste how you want it to read.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Sunday’s Worst Person(s) In The World

By William Teach February 19, 2012 – 10:16 am

Late yesterday, excitable John Cole decided to name Tyler Cowen his “worst person in the world” (that’s not particularly civil discourse, but, then Powerline highlights that civil discourse is so 2011) for a tweet that wasn’t necessarily for Virginia’s abortion bill, but simply highlighted Liberal hypocrisy

By informing consumers, he is of course referring to the Virginia bill requiring women to be vaginally probed against their will before electing to have an abortion.

Because, you know, most of those “consumers” were “uninformed” as to what was in there. Every day, somewhere in the country, someone has a sonogram and says “OMG- that is a potential baby up in there? I thought it was a magic 8-ball or a small alien I was getting rid of.”

Now, I’ll admit that perhaps the Virginia legislature didn’t quite think the law all the way through in what would need to happen to do a sonogram so early in a pregnancy. That’s one of the problems when you have people who aren’t experts making law, such as Stimulus (then again, experts were involved with creating ObamaCare, you know, Big Pharmacy and Big Insurance). Of course, we can certainly expect civility from the pro-tolerance crowd, right?

  • Can we stick a probe in his ear and see if there’s a brain in there?
  • I suggest that doctors do Conservative male’s prostrate exams by shoving a rod of white-hot iron up their asses.
  • What an asshole.
  • I think every time you want to have sex, Tyler, the State should put a probe up your bum.
  • Tyler Cowen should be compulsorily anally probed before he can eat a steak. Because it is vital that he be informed about the risk of colon cancer.
  • Cowen should get a mandatory proctology exam before…oh the hell with it. He should get it just because he’s an asshole

That continues on for a bit. Of course, it would be easy to name John Cole or any of his unhinged commentors as the Worst Person In the World, but, instead, let’s just name all of them, along with Barack Obama, Kathy Sebelius, and people who vote Democrat, the Worst People In the World, because they are requiring organizations which are morally opposed to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to provide them in their health insurance offerings against their will. Really, the “compromise” essentially does the same thing. These same WPITW also support requiring people to be forced to purchase health insurance against their will or pay a fine/tax. Possibly be forced to have a class II microchip implanted against their will that tracks their health if they choose the public health insurance option. That one might be a stretch, but, then, Pelosi did say we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.

Liberals love Central/Big Government that mandates people do things against their will. They love the thought of GPS trackers put in every vehicle (except their own) that allow Government to access a miles traveled tax. Force people to pay higher energy prices and taxes for the climate change hoax. Heck, they can force 4 year olds to eat chicken nuggets.

So, for removing liberty, choice, and personal responsibility, and being complete and utter hypocrites over the issue of Virginia’s abortion requirement, I proclaim all liberals to be the Worst People In the World. Unfortunately, my Greek temple columns are at the cleaners.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Sunday’s Worst Person(s) In The World »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove