39 replies to this topic

[Frog79]

Reminds me of the unverified, fake Natl. Guard documents the lefties, especially CBS, paraded around in an attempt to discredit Bush just before the election.  Just add this to the ever-growing AGW alarmist scandal list:

Quote

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several  documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute's 2012 budget,  fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen  from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland's  president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was  traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has  not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland  Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and  discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone  associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express  Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and  gross misstatements of fact.

Quote

Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal  acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

http://heartland.org...-fake-documents

Looks like these leftist goons were trying to create some sort of Climategate for the skeptics but instead the bungled attempt, showing how desperate they are.  Despite massive advantages in funding, but bereft of solid science, the alarmists are losing the public opinion battle.  As I have said before, the lay public may not understand the nuances of climate science but they do understand cheating and fraud.  If the alarmists' case was so good they would not need to resort to fraud to state their case.  But, alas, that's what leftist elites tend to do these days when they are losing.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Joe Bast (HI's pres) then...

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters,  academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their  opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The  experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed  plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their  predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.  This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment  on publicly.

Joe Bast now...

honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts  and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened. Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before  we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of  their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when  judging their credibility now and in the future.

Interesting comparison, to my mind at least.

[Duquesne Frog]

Apparently what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander ... if you're the gander.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 17 February 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Apparently what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander ... if you're the gander.

As I said previously, there is nothing in the released docs that wasn't either documented or obvious in any case. They're really a non-issue except to the clueless.

[TCUSA]

Nice analysis by Megan McArdle of the Atlantic, not a publication known for its conservative leanings:

The Atlantic-Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake?

and a follow-up today:

The Atlantic-Heartland Memo Looking Faker By the Minute

The truth is never enough for the left.  They've always got to embellish to make their point.  That's how you spot the fake nooses, the fake vandalisms, etc., etc.  Their "graffiti" is always over the top and a caricature of what a lefty THINKS a right wing kook would say--it always sounds like it came from a comic book.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 17 February 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

As I said previously, there is nothing in the released docs that wasn't either documented or obvious in any case. They're really a non-issue except to the clueless.

So you have no problem with fake documents slandering Heartland?  Talk about clueless.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 19 February 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

So you have no problem with fake documents slandering Heartland?  Talk about clueless.

As the article notes, nothing in the "slander" isn't well documented in the non-"slander" portions.  That would make it not a slander at all. You cannot slander with the truth.

Of course, it could still be either the fruits of stealing or of forgery. Stealing is probably provable here with more luck than the previous case. Forgery? ...That would be much harder as to establish a forgery conviction you have to establish an "intent to defraud". It is hard to establish such an intent here for the same reason that slander won't be established: Even if there was a forged memo, there was no intent to defraud given that all the info came from the portions that are not under dispute.

Definitions are important.

Anyway, as I said, the documents are of little interest to me as even the non-"slanderous" portions document nothing that wasn't pretty well known already. You won't see me quoting from them out of context and interminably in any manner akin to the manner some I could point out have done with certain other stolen documents. Quite out of context and quite interminably. In signature lines even. But of course that is different, I realize. That crime was a "good" crime where this crime is a "bad" crime.

Finally, there is nothing stopping Heartland from opening up and showing people the non-"slanderous" truth except for the fact that there is likely no way it can do that. The major part of the packet seems real enough whether or not the memo was or wasn't. So disputing the memo while glossing over the rest seems more than a bit silly to me in context.

[STL Frog]

So let me get this straight: NFF is still having trouble drawing a distinction between stolen, authentic documents (which are hardly damning to Heartland, btw) and altogether fake documents.  Let me re-read his posts....

Yes.  He is.  Hilarious.

Btw, thanks for posting Megan Mcardle's takedown of this sham, T.  A liberal who "strenuously" disagrees with Heartland's position on AGW, writing for a decidedly liberal publication knows a fake when she sees one, and has enough honesty to write about it.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 19 February 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

So let me get this straight: NFF is still having trouble drawing a distinction between stolen, authentic documents (which are hardly damning to Heartland, btw) and altogether fake documents.  Let me re-read his posts....

Yes.  He is.  Hilarious.

Btw, thanks for posting Megan Mcardle's takedown of this sham, T.  A liberal who "strenuously" disagrees with Heartland's position on AGW, writing for a decidedly liberal publication knows a fake when she sees one, and has enough honesty to write about it.

Let's be a tad more accurate. Heartland is not contending that the stolen/fraudulently obtained packet is not primarily authentic documents. They are specifically contending that a single 2 page document--about which MM above notes:"Every single verifiable fact that's in the memo is found in another one of the documents, or available in a public source; in fact, many of the sentences are cut and paste jobs from the fundraising document, the binder insert, or the budget"--is not authentic. They do not contend that the rest of the package is a forgery, though they try to imply doubt by saying they haven't had time to check even though any organization should have been able to do that with a leak of this small size within hours. In point of fact, by apologizing to named donors, they confirmed the accuracy of at least part of the documents. As have the subsequent statements of certain named donors. As for "forgery", who knows? It could have been almost anything laying around or forged or whatever. Screaming "forgery" does not establish forgery.

Of course Heartland could put this all to rest in a second by showing what actually was sent out including all headers--especially DKIM signatures--which would constitute a very high degree of proof of forgery, or not. That they have not done so is interesting.

As for "damning", there was nothing "damning" in the previously released memos, either as Duq and I pointed out years ago.

My stated position is actually that I really don't care about about Heartland's documents or whether one 2 page memo might be a forgery. The information covered was really out there already to anyone with a clue. If you were interested in characterizing my position accurately, that is.

And yes, I have trouble distinguishing between 2 rather equal crimes in terms of what is obviously criminal. Especially as I think fraud and slander will never be established here for the reasons stated in a post above. Screaming "crime" does not establish crime. Well in reality, anyway. Your mind may be a different sort of place. What is obvious is that there were two thefts using faked, stolen, or misused credentials. Both are quite equivalent crimes.

You laugh easy but rather all too often over the triumphs in your mind.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 19 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Let's be a tad more accurate. Heartland is not contending that the stolen/fraudulently obtained packet is not primarily authentic documents. They are specifically contending that a single 2 page document--about which MM above notes:"Every single verifiable fact that's in the memo is found in another one of the documents, or available in a public source; in fact, many of the sentences are cut and paste jobs from the fundraising document, the binder insert, or the budget"--is not authentic. They do not contend that the rest of the package is a forgery, though they try to imply doubt by saying they haven't had time to check even though any organization should have been able to do that with a leak of this small size within hours. In point of fact, by apologizing to named donors, they confirmed the accuracy of at least part of the documents. As have the subsequent statements of certain named donors. As for "forgery", who knows? It could have been almost anything laying around or forged or whatever. Screaming "forgery" does not establish forgery.

Of course Heartland could put this all to rest in a second by showing what actually was sent out including mail-generated hash codes which would constitute a very high degree of proof of forgery. That they have not done so is interesting.

As for "damning", there was nothing "damning" in the previously released memos, either as Duq and I pointed out years ago.

My stated position is actually that I really don't care about about Heartland's documents or whether one 2 page memo might be a forgery. The information covered was really out there already to anyone with a clue. If you were interested in characterizing my position accurately, that is.

And yes, I have trouble distinguishing between 2 rather equal crimes in terms of what is obviously criminal. Especially as I think fraud and slander will never be established here for the reasons stated in a post above. Screaming "crime" does not establish crime. Well in reality, anyway. Your mind may be a different sort of place. What is obvious is that there were two thefts using faked, stolen, or misused credentials. Both are quite equivalent crimes.

You laugh easy but rather all too often over the triumphs in your mind.

Wow.  I just can't keep up with the ever-changing definition of "ignore."

Anyway, let's recap: Another meandering, multiple paragraph spin-job that doesn't say much at all except, "Fake documents crafted by someone completely unrelated to the Heartland Institute really are the same thing as real documents so this is, uh, like, exactly the same as Climategate."

[NatonWolf]

Just curious: why is this topic so important at this time in history when there are more urgent matters that need our attention?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 19 February 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Wow.  I just can't keep up with the ever-changing definition of "ignore."

Anyway, let's recap: Another meandering, multiple paragraph spin-job that doesn't say much at all except, "Fake documents crafted by someone completely unrelated to the Heartland Institute really are the same thing as real documents so this is, uh, like, exactly the same as Climategate."

You keep putting that 's' on there that Heartland does not. That's an accuracy problem with your communications, you see. When and if Heartland ever puts the 's' on documents and actually proves it, you will have a case for a real difference.

So yes, I do say it's highly related, whether or not 2 pages are forged--at present an allegation not a reality which you are accepting whole hog.

All Heartland has to do is post the msgs and the full headers of their multiple mailouts to the faker. It's really not much to ask at this point given their quite publicly expressed wish to catch the perp criminally.

There's another difference, this release was apparently of everything obtained. The previous release was only of a cherrypicked 2 or 3 percent.

As for not being able to verify yet: This takes seconds. Here, I'll help...

C:\Users>fc /?
Compares two files or sets of files and displays the differences between
them


FC [/A] [/C] [/L] [/LBn] [/N] [/OFF[LINE]] [/T] [/U] [/W] [/nnnn]
   [drive1:][path1]filename1 [drive2:][path2]filename2
FC /B [drive1:][path1]filename1 [drive2:][path2]filename2

  /A     Displays only first and last lines for each set of differences.
  /B     Performs a binary comparison.
  /C     Disregards the case of letters.
  /L     Compares files as ASCII text.
  /LBn   Sets the maximum consecutive mismatches to the specified
         number of lines.
  /N     Displays the line numbers on an ASCII comparison.
  /OFF[LINE] Do not skip files with offline attribute set.
  /T     Does not expand tabs to spaces.
  /U     Compare files as UNICODE text files.
  /W     Compresses white space (tabs and spaces) for comparison.
  /nnnn   Specifies the number of consecutive lines that must match
         after a mismatch.
  [drive1:][path1]filename1
         Specifies the first file or set of files to compare.
  [drive2:][path2]filename2
         Specifies the second file or set of files to compare.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

NatonWolf, on 19 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Just curious: why is this topic so important at this time in history when there are more urgent matters that need our attention?

Why do you say we should ignore climate science and efforts to distort it?

That said, personally I agree wholeheartedly with Heartland:

"But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal  acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened."

"Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before  we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of  their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when  judging their credibility now and in the future."

The major problem as I see it is that Heartland doesn't agree with Heartland. So of course that brings in the hypocrisy angle as well.

And for my part, I will not be quoting from their apparent docs. The IRS might should quote from them, however. In tax court.

[NatonWolf]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 19 February 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Why do you say we should ignore climate science and efforts to distort it?

That said, personally I agree wholeheartedly with Heartland:

"But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal  acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened." "Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before  we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of  their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when  judging their credibility now and in the future."


A major problem as I see it is that Heartland doesn't agree with Heartland. So of course that brings in the hypocrisy angle as well.

Not saying that we should ignore it at all. What I am saying is that if we don't make an effort to fix what is right in front of our faces, right now, then control of the climate or fraud concerning there of, is a moot point.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

NatonWolf, on 19 February 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Not saying that we should ignore it at all. What I am saying is that if we don't make an effort to fix what is right in front of our faces, right now then control of the climate or fraud concerning there of, is a moot point.

True enough...IMO there are several related rather negative things going on some of which I know we agree on. For me the anti-science campaign in climate research is certainly one of the negative currents that is interrelated to others.

As I've said before, I suspect only hitting a few brick walls is going to really force any changes in any of them.

[Frog79]

NatonWolf, on 19 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Just curious: why is this topic so important at this time in history when there are more urgent matters that need our attention?

Because there is a group of leftists out there who want to create a 'crisis' (called The Cause in the Climategate emails where the AGW scientists were caught in fraudulent, maybe criminal activity) where there is no crisis.  The reason?  They want to shake down corporations punitively with bogus 'carbon taxes' so that they can realize their goals of wealth redistribution,  punishing successful corporations (who create jobs, btw), and eventually implement socialism.  

The fact that liberals, like Newf, are blind to fraud is disturbing.  If it were just a matter of publishing stolen or leaked documents (like Climategate) most would have no problem with it but the activists have chosen to also publish a fake document  with the intention of hurting a free-market think tank which is not sympathetic to their bogus Cause.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 19 February 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Because there is a group of leftists out there who want to create a 'crisis' (called The Cause in the Climategate emails where the AGW scientists were caught in fraudulent, maybe criminal activity) where there is no crisis.  The reason?  They want to shake down corporations punitively with bogus 'carbon taxes' so that they can realize their goals of wealth redistribution,  punishing successful corporations (who create jobs, btw), and eventually implement socialism.  

The fact that liberals, like Newf, are blind to fraud is disturbing.  If it were just a matter of publishing stolen or leaked documents (like Climategate) most would have no problem with it but the activists have chosen to also publish a fake document  with the intention of hurting a free-market think tank which is not sympathetic to their bogus Cause.

So you're fine with the stealing of all but 2 pages, correct? Your standards for supporting criminal activity are rather below mine.

And you've accepted  that a fraud occurred? OK. What would you bet that it will ever be established instead of merely alleged? Your evidentiary standards are rather low compared to mine. But that's been evident for a long time.

[STL Frog]

NatonWolf, on 19 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Just curious: why is this topic so important at this time in history when there are more urgent matters that need our attention?

Exactly.  Thanks for injecting some much needed perspective.

[STL Frog]

Frog79, on 19 February 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Because there is a group of leftists out there who want to create a 'crisis' (called The Cause in the Climategate emails where the AGW scientists were caught in fraudulent, maybe criminal activity) where there is no crisis.  The reason?  They want to shake down corporations punitively with bogus 'carbon taxes' so that they can realize their goals of wealth redistribution,  punishing successful corporations (who create jobs, btw), and eventually implement socialism.  

The fact that liberals, like Newf, are blind to fraud is disturbing.  If it were just a matter of publishing stolen or leaked documents (like Climategate) most would have no problem with it but the activists have chosen to also publish a fake document  with the intention of hurting a free-market think tank which is not sympathetic to their bogus Cause.

Frog 79, NFF is being entirely consistent.  A fake document kinda resembles a real one and is only fake if it can be proved it was fake...in a court of law.  Got it?  Even more absurd, it's apparently Heartland's responsibility to prove they didn't write the real - er, uh, fake document. Funny, didn't think burden of proof worked that way.

Anyway, you should've seen how many threads NFF started about the Wikileaks controversy.  He was outraged I tell you...outraged!  NFF, as a time saver favor, I've typed out your next few posts for you: "Blah blah blah tobacco....blah blah blah deniers...blah blah blah fake documents are like stolen real ones...blah blah blah..."

Finally, not sure if Heartland is on record condoning the means by which the Climategate emails become exposed however, below is an official statement from one of its environmental policy specialists, John Monaghan:

Quote

“Though I don’t condone the act by which these emails were obtained, I think the scientists involved should use this as an opportunity for self-reflection. If the first round of Climategate emails was any indication, they won’t.”

- John Monaghan, Heartland Institute

Hmmm.  Doesn't sound so hypocritical now does it?

Again, rather than parroting alarmist blogs (see, I can name call too!) I'm sure NFF has done extensive research and found that Heartland officially approves of the manner in which Climategate emails were revealed.  I don't believe I've seen this in any of their positions but I'm happy to be proven wrong.  NFF?  Do enlighten us...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 19 February 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

...an official statement from one of its environmental policy specialists, John Monaghan:

Hmmm.  Doesn't sound so hypocritical now does it?

Again, rather than parroting alarmist blogs (see, I can name call too!) I'm sure NFF has done extensive research and found that Heartland officially approves of the manner in which Climategate emails were revealed.  I don't believe I've seen this in any of their positions but I'm happy to be proven wrong.  NFF?  Do enlighten us...

Poor thing. You know, this is just one of those times you have to take your medicine and deal with it. Squealing and squirming really doesn't help! That said, a few specifics...

Actually, I've posted the official statements from Heartland here and in another thread. Perhaps you missed them together with their rather rank hypocrisy. I'll repost a small teensy hypocritical bit here to save you the intense struggle you have of trying to characterize correctly. It was in a thread entitled "Heartland Institute Press Release" (i.e., no alamist blog quotes, only official Heartland quotes):

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal  acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before  we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of  their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when  judging their credibility now and in the future.  

At the bottom here you will see Bast's 2009 official quote. Compare.

The statement you provide from Monaghan is bundled with the statements of Singer, Taylor, Trzupek, and Martin in 2011 none of whom--including the lawyer!--express any problems at all with the theft. A bit of a cherrypick there one might say if one were being fair and balanced. But of course you knew that. Or, were you getting your own quote from--dare I say it???--an "alarmist blog" rather than the original source where you would have seen this? Perish the thought.

As for the official position of Heartland vis-a-vis approval of the previous release, these official policy statements from the Heartland site are fairly clear: Specifically, at the time of the release, they state no objections whatever in their official   releases of the day. Note the language now versus then. See if you are able to discern a trace of hypocrisy or not !

See Heartland web site at the time (Nov 2009) for their official words. (Anyone with old eyes can just click on the links):

Policy Documents
The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths
L. Gordon Crovitz –
November 30, 2009

... For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data. ...

As is Bast's (HI president) official statement of the time. Note the date to see how long Heartland's president followed his present advice "to sit back and think about what just happened."!

Policy Documents
Climategate: An Opportunity to Stop and Think
Joseph Bast –
November 23, 2009

Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released emails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The emails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.

The misconduct exposed by the emails is so apparent that one scientist, Tim Ball, said it marked "the death blow to climate science." Another, Patrick Michaels, told The New York Times, "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud."

Although I am not a scientist, I know something about global warming, having written about the subject since 1993 and recently edited an 800-page comprehensive survey of the science and economics of global warming, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, written by a team of nearly 40 scientists for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The content of the emails doesn't surprise me and other "skeptics" in the global warming debate. We have been saying for many years that the leading alarmists have engaged in academic fraud, do not speak for the larger scientific community, and are exaggerating the scientific certainty of their claims. Tens of thousands of scientists share our views, including many whose credentials are far superior to those of the dozen or so alarmists the media choose to quote and promote.

The implications of these emails are enormous: They mean the IPCC is not a reliable source of science on global warming. And since the global movement to "do something" about global warming rests almost entirely on the IPCC's claim to represent the "consensus" of climate science, that entire movement stands discredited.

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.

It is possible that the emails and other documents aren't as damning as they appear to be on first look. (I've read about two dozen of them myself and find them appalling, but others may not.) Looking at how past disclosures of fraud in the global warming debate have been dismissed or ignored by the mainstream media leads me to suspect they will try to sweep this, too, under the rug. But thanks to the Internet, millions of people will be able to read the emails themselves and make up their own minds. This incident, then, will not be forgotten. The journalists who attempt to spin it away and the politicians who try to ignore it will further damage their own credibility, and perhaps see their careers shortened as a consequence.

Recent polls show only a third of Americans believe global warming is the result of human activity, and even fewer think it is a major environmental problem. This new scandal, combined with a huge body of science and economics ignored or deliberately concealed by the alarmists, proves that the large majority of Americans was right all along.

How did the Average Joe, who knows so little about the real science of climate change, figure out that global warming is not a crisis when so many journalists were completely taken in by it? I think he saw some clues early on that most journalists, because of their liberal biases, missed.

Average Joe noticed how Al Gore and other Democratic politicians were quick to capitalize on the matter, even before the scientific community could speak with a unified voice on the issue. He figured out, correctly, that politics rather than science was the force that put global warming on the front pages of the newspapers and on television every night.

He also probably noticed that spokespersons for liberal advocacy groups like Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists were suddenly being quoted in the press as experts on climate change, whereas just a few years earlier they were (rightly) considered radical fringe groups. Fenton Communications fooled the mainstream media, but not the rest of us.

And Average Joe noticed how global warming "skeptics," even distinguished scientists and trusted people like former astronauts, were ignored, rejected, or demonized by the press just for asking for proof, and for not going along with the latest and increasingly silly claims about all the things global warming was supposedly causing: droughts and floods, warming and cooling, "global warming refugees," and so on.

While the issue of global warming is complex, one need not be a genius to figure out that man's role is small, that the effects of modest warming of the kind seen in the latter half of the twentieth century were at least as positive as negative, and that scientists who can't predict next week's weather probably can't predict what climate conditions will be like one hundred years from now. This isn't "denial," it's just common sense. The executive summary of Climate Change Reconsidered makes these points and more, in plain English, and it is only eight pages long. The report itself contains more than 4,000 citations to peer-reviewed literature.

The IPCC email scandal makes this a good time for reporters and other opinion leaders to take a serious look at the skeptics' case in the global warming debate and perhaps move to the middle, where serious journalists and honest elected officials should have been all along. A good place to start is The Heartland Institute's Web site devoted to global warming realism, at www.globalwarmingheartland.org.

It's not too late to regain some of the native skepticism that Average Joe relied on all along to see through the global warming scam.