Bishop Hill Watts' analysis
Feb 16, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: fakegate Media Anthony Watts has published an analysis of the fake Heartland strategy document, looking at the text and document metadata, both of which seem to confirm that it is not what it purports to be.
Perhaps more interestingly, some of the details of how the document came to light have appeared, and it seems that DeSmog had the documents for only an hour before posting them online. As several people have commented, the contrast with Anthony's conduct when the Climategate emails fell into his lap could not be starker. The WUWT team held onto the UEA disclosures for several days while they tried to authenticate them rather than assuming the worst and rushing to publish.
The fallout from the headlong rush to damn Heartland and Anthony looks as though it is going to be interesting too:
The question to ask then is this: who benefits the most from the existence of such a document? A disgruntled employee? Hardly. Such things often backfire. And, who would know best how to craft such a document for maximum public impact? I think the answers are there, but the question needs to be asked. From what I hear, Heartland is going for criminal prosecution and/or civil liabilities on this one. They certainly have a case.
All of those news outlets and bloggers that regurgitated this document and the claims in it without checking for the veracity of it first are going to have some defending to do to. The Guardian seems particularly vulnerable.
I think that's right. GuardianEco seems to have an unfortunate approach to factual accuracy and this is yet another instance of the behaviour we have seen before. Amusingly, Leo Hickman was ribbing me the other day for mentioning Fox News in the same breath as the Guardian. I don't watch TV much, so I can't really compare the two, but I wonder if Murdoch's baby has done anything comparable to the Guardian's latest.
Reader Comments (98)
Here is challenge could we draft a better 'fake' document than the original 'fake' document?
What are pitfalls we should avoid in drafting such a 'fake' document in comparison to the original 'fake'?
We could list a series of general pointers that will allow future fakers to make a better job of it than this bodged job.
From our good friend Leo Hickman in the Guardian...
If you like your hypocrisy sandwiches served with a side order of double standards, then these leaked documents are certainly the place to dine out.
God this sandwich tastes good...
There's been some Black propaganda trying to pump this up into some akin to climategate by naming it "deniergate".
This is excellent!!!
The real truth is that there has been a fraud, and the smoking gun for that fraud is sitting in the lap of the eco-warmists.
Deniergate is a scandal, it is the scandalous way the warmists have tried to deceive the public, but worse it is the scandalous way the warmists journalists have fraudulently tried to portray anyone who is sceptical of their poor quality biased journalism as [holocaust] deniers.
Deniergate ... Deniergate stands for poor quality journalism!
Bish,
The Guardian could only but wish they were the UK's version of Fox News. Ignor what the ignorant left says, the next chance you get sit down and watch some of the political programmes aired by Fox News. What will strike you is just how "different" it is from anything produced by the BBC or printed by the Guardian simply because unlike here, Fox actually allows views from both sides of an argument to not only be heard but heard uninterrupted!
I usually watch a little before heading off to work in the morning and enjoy the often testy discussions between the anchors who support the right (Republicans) and the left (Democrats)!
The other thing that wil strike you is just how smoking hot done of the women are and not only that, how intelligent they and their male counter parts are.
The reason the left hates Fox with a passion is they are unashamed about airing the inconvenient stories the other alphabet MGM outlets won't touch. And for that reason (along Ruth others), that is why Fox News is Americas most trusted media outlet, with daylight second.
The UK needs its version of Fox News to counter the blatant leftist propaganda broadcast daily by the BBC and the Guardian, and it is that reason alone that these two organisations made phone hacking the scandal it became....to keep Murdoch out and protect their monopoly!
Mailman
The last thing we need is more News Corp in the UK. We need open and honest journalism. At the moment journalists are occupying the same gutter as politicians.
Mac,
"At the moment journalists are occupying the same gutter as politicians."
And politicians, as we all know, do not like to share.
And still no update from Leo Hickman and the lion cubs at the graunaid.......
Must be a very long soul-searching/arse covering/s**t throwing editorial meeting.....
Mac,
And what have you got now? The BBC IS the UK's news monopoly to the point where the BBC dictates what is AND isn't news. Newscorp, he'll they we're doing exactly what all of the other mfm outlets where doing, including the Guardian.
What the BBC, along with their print version fear is a voice on the right that can challenge their monopoly.
Let's not forget that the outrage that the Guardian fuelled specifically to destroy Murdochs bid to take over Sky was a lie (Molly Dowler) and what's worse is that for 6 weeks the Guardian KNEW it was a lie.
Hell, what this country needs IS more News Corp! We need diversity of opinion, not less which is exactly what you have got right now.
Regards
Mailman
Mailman
Here is challenge could we draft a better 'fake' document than the original 'fake' document? Mac
An interesting challenge. However, a better challenge would be for a sceptic to create a pro-warming policy document.
The pitfall for someone trying to put the other side, is that they just can't help putting in incidental information which shows which side they support.
E.g. we have "Official IPCC report", whereas I would put something like "lying cheating, scumbag, scandalous, ... etc. report.
But seriously, why would a sceptic suggest it is official?
Towards a greener future - strategic options for World Wildflower Fund
After ten years of unprecedented global temperatures, the need is even more pressing to continue to educate and inform policitians and the public of the dire consequences for global wildflowers which are the inevitable effects of out of control consumerism which must be curtailed if we are to avoid the calamitous descent into runaway global warming.
WW-FF is the premier NGO fighting for our greener future ... etc.
I see someone has a spoof of the fake...
Actually this would be a good one for a Hitler Downfall spoof. When he finds out it is a fake, and his dreams of glory are broken.
Thanks to those who replied about "The Blackboard". Fortunately it seems to be back on-line now :)
I once heard mention of some research that puported to show that while 'conservatives' are able to anticipate 'liberal' arguments, 'liberals' are unable to reciprocate. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it.
The present episode would seem to be an example of this phenomenon.
Has anyone here heard of this?
“the bond of trust between the Guardian and its readers”
Shame it has to rely on used-car sales for its income. I’m coming to think of it as Arfur Daley’s love-child, if that’s not too horrible to contemplate...
Isn't UK libel law a wonderful thing? Shub
If Richard Black worked for any other organisation .... or if the BBC did what it is legally required to do and had a balance of views ... then I would have to say ... "I defence Black's right to say what he said".
But Black is not part of a balance of views, he is defacto ... the official view of the BBC which is entirely biased ... a view that would be cringingly awful if contained in some tin pot blog, but is just unacceptable as the one and only view of the BBC.
Interesting comment from WUWT:
"TerryS on February 16, 2012 at 6:07 am said:
Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence."
If, as appears to be the case, DeSmog fabricated the document, the Guardian might not be very happy to be made fools of (again) by their own darlings. Bring on the popcorn..
JJB MKI
That code is common to Adobe, it is all over the web if you search for it. There are no conclusions to be drawn from it.
Yes, there are probably several million copies of that software out there. I have a copy myself and I assure you that I have a MUCH better scanner, so it wasn't me.
Interesting enough, few people know it, but scanners also leave fingerprints. That is because each LED in the scanner array has a slightly different sensitivity and thus leaves a pattern of streaks. They are usually so faint the average person would not see it, but it is there.
While it takes someone with an seriously well equipped laboratory to do the match, it has been done.
So, if whoever did scan that document in is reading, trash that scanner immediately. Besides, it is such a piece of crap you really need to get a better one anyhow.
"That code is common to Adobe, it is all over the web if you search for it. There are no conclusions to be drawn from it."
Had the version numbers been different, it would have reasonably excluded desmog from suspicion (leaving aside the possibility of them having multiple versions in operation).
@Leopard:
Fair point. Is this the most recent Adobe XMP revision? Do you know how many there have been? I'm no expert but if there have been 20 revisions since 09/10, a coincidence would look more striking..
JJB MKI
I'm no expert on docs so all the forensics on the document history is a mystery to me but I entered the
code into google and it gave 500+ hits all over the place back to 2011.
So while it looks complex and unique, if you add into the equation the fact it is unlikely that many places would have this number on their web sites (it is fairly boring to read!) I think it is very common .
Mac
“could we draft a better 'fake' document”
I know exactly who you need...
Link
Try:
this
Normally I don't like to cross post, but that string "Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26" is a particular DLL version. That DLL version is in both the "ESPON scan" product and the "Adobe InDesign CS5 (7.0.3)" product. The former was used to create the (presumably faked) Heartland doc, the latter was used to create the desmogblog fracking document. Two different products, no relationship except a common version of a DLL.
There is a website that specialises in making fake documents (just for fun).
HI is now claiming identity theft has been perpetrated [to change an e-mail address], a criminal offence.
Correction:
Sorry, but I meant CCD, not LED. I was just starting my morning coffee and I was off to the store for my shopping when I realized my mistake.
I think we should all be aware that ANY digital document generated using software from copies like Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft leaves all sort of fingerprints in the files they generated. This includes the XML metacode you can see, but such things as the devices serial number (as in the case of a camera) or activation code is also hidden in any file. And even your printers leave marks that can be traced to you Yellow Dots
These people must have taken "Natural Philosophy" (aka Science for Poets) when in college and don't have a clue just how easily digital files can be traced back to their source.
The 'M' in XMP is for metadata, allowing the resultant file to contain identifying details, so while the XMP version won't tell you much, the file may, if you know where to look (I don't, but I'm familiar with the principle).
James P
All you have to do is google "XMP editor" and take your pick. This is a free-bee.
XMP editor
However, these are simple minded ones that only show the most common fields. There are "professional grade" XMP editors what show everything. EXIF is what is commonly used on RAW digital files, such as generated by my NIKON D90. While Photoshop will show some of this information, it doesn't show it all. I have an EXIF editor I got through my personal sources and it actually lists not only everything about the exposure that I could possibly want to know, but also an audit trail of what I had done to the subsequent PSD files.
As for what the fake document might have in it, I leave that to others who have access to a professional (aka forensic) XMP editor. I assume in time we will receive a report on it.
But for the fun of it, download one of the amateur grade and free-bee XMP editors and have fun. You will be shocked to know just how much information in is in your Word documents and digital photographs.
Bob Ward has just put up an article up on the New Scientist site
:
Here’s a bit of fun you can have with Hickman’s article at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism
Choose one of the 700+ comments which quotes the forged document. Click on “report” to the right of the comment. Choose “legal issue”, add a comment if you like, and click “report”. If the Guardian’s lawyers aren’t off their heads, the moderators will delete the comment.
Just a bit of stupid revenge from a six-times-banned ex-Guardian reader.
TLITB
Wild Bob Ward is desperately trying to stir up some interest in this but, to be honest, all the documents show is a think-tank going about its business in the way that all think-tanks do - eg who do we tap for donations, what we should focus on etc. I wonder how Ward will react to the bits of Mann's new book where he appears to admit that McIntyre and McIntrick were correct in their dismantling of the hockey-stick -
"The tests revealed that not all of the records were playing an equal role in our reconstructions. Certain proxy data appeared to be of critical importance in establishing the reliability of the reconstruction–in particular, one set of tree ring records spanning the boreal tree line of North America published by dendroclimatologists Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D’Arrigo."
When you think of it IPCC AR4 contained a lot of fake documents.
Watts has another update on the apparant fake. It's this article by Megan McArdle, senior editor of The Atlantic. Her forensic analysis of the "2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" document is especially convincing as she makes it clear that she disagrees "pretty strenuously with Heartland's position on global warming".
I believe it settles the matter beyond serious doubt.
Robin Guenier
I agree, that is an totally brilliant forensic analysis.Until the leaker fess's or material proof appears there will always be that gnats whisker for the disingenuous to splash around in as if it is genuine - brings me back to the whole question about what the hell enviro journos are for if they can't do this themselves - shows up the (willing?) dupes for the utter useless ****s they are? Anyway, while still having no fandom for the HI I find I've discovered some new scorn for sections of self-regarding narcissistic hypocritical humanity. May have to take break from this ;)
From a post on WUWT. What say you Latimer Alder?
A. Scott says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:14 pm
… our computer systems manager for the past 10 years, was let go in late 2011 due to chronic truancy. She received severance pay for 2 weeks in January, so she still appears in the personnel budget for 2012. She will not be replaced, as her duties are being picked up by others in the office … and a [computer] contractor we’ve increasingly been relying on …
From the “Budget” PDF posted at deSmog. Makes one say hmmmmmmm …..?
I finally had the time to read the entire blog at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
What caught my eye was
Well, yes, and guess were Desmog lives? Wanna try Vancouver BC?
As their tag line says "
“An exposé of planetary scale.”
~JAMES E. HANSEN
Ironic.
DUMB.
As some noted earlier (I am sorry but I can't find it right now) It is the Smoking EPSON scanner.
J4R,
You should be! Because what I meant to say was more like what Delingpole says here:
"No, indeed. If you're going to pretend to be one of the "enemy" at least have the intelligence to try to think like the "enemy" would." I cannot believe anyone, let alone Joe Bast, would furtively write such stuff in private memos.Secondly, trying to 'undermine' the IPCC would be to accord it too much importance, in the first place.
If Joe Bast wanted to undermine the IPCC I would expect him to say it out loud, and in the open - as you and I do. The origins of the IPCC are in the past and they are no individual's fault, now. But it should certainly be terminated. It served some good, one would say perhaps - it helped many scientists' careers, and spurred large-scale data collection projects. But I think we've had enough.
J4R,
You should be! Because what I meant to say was more like what Delingpole says here:
"No, indeed. If you're going to pretend to be one of the "enemy" at least have the intelligence to try to think like the "enemy" would." I cannot believe anyone, let alone Joe Bast, would furtively write such stuff in private memos.Secondly, trying to 'undermine' the IPCC would be to accord it too much importance, in the first place.
If Joe Bast wanted to undermine the IPCC I would expect him to say it out loud, and in the open - as you and I do. The origins of the IPCC are in the past and they are no individual's fault, now. But it should certainly be terminated. It served some good, one would say perhaps - it helped many scientists' careers, and spurred large-scale data collection projects. But I think we've had enough.
For those of you who are wondering about the EPSON scanner bit.
While there are many who understand exactly what happened in this sad episode of dirty tricks, I thought I would explain it to those of you who are not so technologically accomplished.
It appears that some sad soul living in the Pacific Time Zone faked the document, scanned it on an EPSON scanner, probably a Epson Perfection V30 or V300 Scanner with One Touch Scanning . These scanners do not need a computer to create a PDF as they have their own little computer built in. Early recognition of this led to the following:
There were also references to DDLs and all that which most of you had no idea what that was about.
What appears to have happen is somebody (in the PST time zone) wrote a document (most likely on an Apple computer because they used the Times font, and not Times Roman), printed it to hard copy and then scanned it in on a scanner because they knew that there would be all sorts of XMP information imbedded in the Word (or perhaps Word perfect) file. They were obviously trying to hide their tracks, as several other commentators have pointed out. The intent was to create a PDF of the file for the internet which was sanitized. That is to say “anonymous” and which cannot be traced back to the source.
Unfortunately, the conspirators were not very sharp, because although the EPSON scanner can create the PDF without a user’s name attached, it still creates an XMP file in the PDF.
One blogger, named Duke C at the Blackboard has the correct software for reading the XMP file and posted the following:
While he did remove the HTTP labels, for whatever reason, the XMP file clearly shows that the file was CREATED on Feb 13, 2012, at 12:41 in the eighth time zone (AKA PST)
Now, of interest is that DeSmog is located in Vancouver BC, and they released the file about an hour later.
Are they a “person of interest” as the police like to say in the US? In my mind, yes. Should somebody raid their offices and find a EPSON scanner, forensic examination could show if it actually created the file as each scanner does leave its on fingerprints on a scan.
So now we know why they scanned the file, and where the smoking scanner is located.
Not clever of them at all. If you are going to play the game, learn how to do it. This is rank amateur behavior.
With regards "undermine" as Megan McArdle says in her excellent analysis of the fake* document linked above:
It is risible to use this word, as I have always said this episode has engendered no further love from me for the HI, except for sympathy they have been stitched up with lies, but it does surprise me how it has drawn out some prevaricating justifications from, what I guess where, apparent fans of HI who assumed the prima facie truth of what they saw. It does seem they kinda expect the worse from them as if they were some melodramatic windswept and interesting revolutionary underground movement.
That is rather pathetic and disturbing to some degree but not terribly surprising. There is a definite benefit to this episode, it is a watershed, it has split some sides apart and brought some things more clearly out into the open it has clarified where things stand.
Hopefully a lot of the people on all sides will have realigned their opinions and tactics in this debate for the better, and I know the archetypal alarmist/believer has lost most from this, if only because they started from the most powerful position and had most to lose, and have now shown how pathetic they are in the starkest way here.
When you see the inevitable obnoxious bull and spin that will be piled upon this in the upcoming days and months, I think people should not let it over antagonise them beyond rationality, there has been a breaking of the back here of the power of mainstream alarmism. I admit I can't quite put my finger on it, but I see it.
*no quotes now ;)
Suzanne Goldenberg has yet another article up at the Guardian on this, quoting both Heartland’s threat of legal action, and the fake document (again). This is astonishing action for a newspaper in financial difficulty. The environmental team must believe sincerely that the documents are genuine, and have convinced the editor and their lawyers. Suicide.
Suzanne Goldenberg has yet another article up at the Guardian on this, quoting both Heartland’s threat of legal action, and the fake document (again). This is astonishing action for a newspaper in financial difficulty. The environmental team must believe sincerely that the documents are genuine, and have convinced the editor and their lawyers. Suicide.
see lucias for my speculation about the author of the memo.
Read the smoking paragraph from the smoking gun memo.
which name doesnt belong. pacific coast. more at lucias
OK, I'm finally convinced. The memo's a fake. Megan McArdle nails it in her update at the end.
Steve is talking about this...
Lucias post
Use browser page search on Mosher to cut out the noise.
I think he is on to something. If I were the feds I would be knocking on the door...
steven mosher: "the smoking paragraph from the smoking gun"
Glock or Gleick, that is the question.
@Jiminy Cricket Feb 17, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Geeeze! I just got back from a fascinating read at Lucia's ... For those who don't want to wade through the entire thread, "Mark" has provided an excellent summary:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/#comment-90107
My initial thought was that the creative writing exercise was the work of Mashey (who's known for his mashups); but the textual analysis - along with a number of other lines of evidence - presents a very compelling case. Certainly far more compelling than any "analysis" one has ever seen from Gleick - or Mashey for that matter!
And Gleick certainly fits Latimer's profile, particularly:
Then again, it might have been a "team effort" :-) One of the unique "fingerprints" in the memo is the use of the word "anti-climate" - and, as there has been here, there's also been discussion about techno expertise.
As I have just posted at Lucia's, here's something I found at the smoggy site:
Source