Purity of Heart test for FOIA requests?  Who used FOI requests to access the Wegman emails and then used them in his book?  Fun stuff in the court debate over Michael Mann's emails.

Gleickgate:

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”
The new report contradicts disgraced climate scientist Gleick’s claim to have received the memo from someone affiliated with The Heartland Institute and adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to Gleick’s guilt. A month ago, Juola & Associates, the premier provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, said “it is more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”

More FOIA follies: Remember the death threats allegedly sent to Australian Climate Scientists? Somebody requested them via FOIA.  And it came down to 11 rude emails, no death threats, and one of the 11 said to sllude to vague threats- no death threats at all.


Tsk, tsk, the IPCC predictions are wrong, Cook at Skeptical Science is, um, misleading, and so it goes:

Have the 1990 IPCC predictions been proved completely, unarguably and utterly wrong? Yes.
They predicted that if our emissions stayed the same, temperatures would rise by 0.3 C per decade, and would be at the very least 0.2, and the most 0.5. Even by the most generous rehash of the data, the highest rate they can find is 0.18 C per decade which is likely an overestimate, and in any case, is below the very least estimate, despite the world’s emissions of CO2 continuing ever higher.

 How misleading?

1/ There is no direct quote of the IPCC prediction.
2/ The IPCC used the term “prediction” — but unskeptical science repeatedly used the term “projection”. They even retitle graphs.
3/ They didn’t use the original captions on the graphs, instead writing their own.
4/ The IPCC talked of “emissions” leading to a temperature rise. Skeptical Science talks of “radiative forcing”. (A clue, emissions are measured in gigatons, not in W/m2. The SkS page is discussing something other than the main point.)

 That's pretty misleading.

And this is sickening and disgusting.  Climate change funding in Britain was used for forced sterilizations in India.