Desmogblog's first post about these documents was yesterday (2/14) at 14:13. I'm not exactly sure what time zone that is, but this means -- if I'm downloading and interpreting this data correctly -- they posted this document within about 24 hours of it being created.
Does that seem likely? Maybe, but I would think they would have first done some vetting and checking and had discussions among themselves and maybe even a lawyer.
So I am really wondering if, indeed, this file is fake. And again, why was it scanned if the documents were leaked via email?
15 comments:
Scanning a document would ensure the *original* metadata of the document didn't show up, I believe, something that is consistent with hiding one's tracks.
It *could* be that the person used scan-to-email function of a copying machine to get it out quickly.
In most places, this is not restricted and reduces the ability to audit who did what + when.
if you are trying to insinuate that DesmogBlog faked the document, then you might be interested in the fact that Think Progress Green actually posted the story BEFORE DeSmogBlog did, with the same memo
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/
if I'm downloading and interpreting this data correctly -- they posted this document within about 24 hours of it being created.
...
And again, why was it scanned if the documents were leaked via email?
I think you're overinterpreting. The simple view is that a paper copy is what they had, and they scanned it for email distribution.
'Nother interesting factoid. All documents were created with the same version of acrobat: PDF version 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x)
Interesting that the most "incriminating" document happens to be the one without attribution to an author and a later date to all the others. This has the makings of a false flag attack against skeptics.
With the history of reality distortion from sites such as Think Progress and Desmogblog, I wouldn't give any credibility to their blog entries or to any other "reporters" who jumped the gun on this without actually verifying first ie. journalism.
D. Bonson.
The strategy document has very little real information that is not in the funding or budget docs. It mostly reads like Bast, but anybody who had the other docs and familiar with Bat could fake it.
So, ignore it. The education stuff is perfectly consistent with Heartland's efforts since 2007. They kept trying, it didn't take, so Wojick offered them another try.
Really, go read the first 4 pages of Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax. and then use Full Search. Many of the things people are arguing about or speculating on are already answered. For instance, read about DONORS CAPITAL/TRUST, the mechanism the Anonymous Donor uses to stay that way and still get a tax break.
Read about Fred Singer having a dead Chairman for 2 years, and a nice tax-sheltered nest-egg. Read about rules for 501(c)3, including why it is a Very Bad Idea for US charities to send money to foreign non-charities.
Read about Heartland taking tobacco money since 1993, with Altria and Reynolds still with him. Read about his defense of Joe Camel, the most brilliant marketing campaign ever ... for addicting children to nicotine. Then he begged for more money.
...tip of the iceberg...
John Mashey,
It is interesting what you are saying.
The person who did this faked a document. If we agree that one of the documents is faked, it follows that the intent of the person who did this was to deceive us.
Do you not see any irony in telling people to "ignore" this fake document and instead go off and read your page all about "fake" skeptics and "fake" scientists?
What this exercise has revealed is that Heartland is an advocacy group (no news there), that it funds a few scientists (no news there), and that someone has lied to us so that we'll know how bad Heartland is.
It does not read like Bast, it reads like Gleick. It gets facts wrong. It doesnt read like a strategy document.
It has one sentence, the smoking gun, that doesnt even make sense.
The person who had the other mails had electronic copies. All had attribution, formated as official documents.
The organization disowns it. the issue is to prove its real, not the other way
moshpit
I am sick and tired of the disinformation that is going on in this country. Ironically in the name of freedom of speech and the heartland. When it is in the interests of BIG OIL. But I digress Let me say this as plain as I can:"ANYONE who denies global
warming IS UNAMERICAN.
THE U.S. NAVY in it's own paper titled:
Navy Climate Change Road Map 21 may 2010
an excerpt:
"A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets
(Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing." ref 1,2
"While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that
climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.
Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations worldwide.
Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure,and may limit the
availability of overseas bases."
The following is from The Director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change.++
Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley:
"The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year, So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters,or roughly eight inches of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than
the average sea level rise in the 20th century."
'nough said!
references:
1. UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009:
Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science (November 2009).
2. United States Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States, Cambridge University Press (2009).
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
+http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110324/ap_on_sc/us_sci_restless_wind?
cmtnav=/mwphucmtgetnojspage/headcontent/main/apus_sci_restless_wind//num_rating_up/desc/11/0#mwpphu-container
++ http://www.navy.mil/Search/print.asp?story_id=54197&VIRIN=83499&imagetype=1&page=1
Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
Story Number: NNS100621-08
6/21/2010
By Bob Freeman, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
other sources hopelessly out of date yet correct and still ignored:
* Popular Science Aug 1989 "Global Warming: Are we waking up 15 years too late?"
**Fundamentals of Meteorology Second Edition Louis J. Batton ISBN 0-13-341123-0
Please read this information with an open mind. And without malice. Save our planet.
Of course it's a fake. Just read the text. As Mosh says, it doesn't make sense. The language is the kind of gibberish Mashey and Desmog use, not the style of Heartland.
"two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."
I used a pdfinfo script to analyse the memos. The info I got is that all the meta data dates changed on the day of the leak in the Pacific time zone (-8 GMT). This is likely where our thief resides. This is also where the “fake” was created on 2/13. The other docs, with the exception of the IRS form were in the central time zone (-6 GMT). The IRS form was -4 GMT. This has been corroborated by a commenter at Lucia’s. Based on this, and I’m not sure if I’ve covered every base, the strategy memo is a fake.
The only other option would be if the create dates were faked, highly, highly unlikely or, the sender from HI didn’t have the doc, and someone from the west coast scanned it , emailed to her to send to the leaker. This, to me, doesn’t seem likely either. Logically, I have to go with HI’s story.
Yes, definitely looks suspicious. Phrases like "dissuading teachers from teaching science" sound like a Thinkprogress or Desmogblog description of Heartland rather than Heartland internal language. Did some zealot get the Heartland documents and decide there wasn't enough there and added a fake?
Yes, definitely looks suspicious. Phrases like "dissuading teachers from teaching science" sound like a Thinkprogress or Desmogblog description of Heartland rather than Heartland internal language. Did some zealot get the Heartland documents and decide there wasn't enough there and added a fake?
Better handwaving and misdirection, please.
Best,
D
In no way does the strategy pdf read like any of Peter Gleick's writings.
It reads perfectly like Joseph Bast's writing.
Are you accusing Dr. Gleick of attempting to imitate the writing of Joseph Bast?
moshpit, if this is the best analysis you can do, it does not speak well for your abilities.
Post a Comment