The Latest Climate Change Kerfuffle
I have gotten some emails regarding the latest climate scandal.
First, let’s look at the L.A. Times, long a paragon of objective journalism, and see if we can read between the lines to see where the reporter stands:
Once in a while, there comes along a reason to believe in karma.
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute, a self-described “free-market think tank” that pilloried climate scientists whose stolen emails were released in 2009 as part of the so-called Climategate flap, found itself duped out of several confidential fundraising documents that were then distributed widely over the Internet, offering a glimpse of its priorities.
It’s pretty difficult, but a professional like myself can discern tiny hints that point to a point of view.* Come with me as I walk you through the analysis. The use of the word “karma” in the first sentence of the article — not an opinion article, as you might think, but an actual news story — is what Sherlock Holmes used to call a CLEW. Let’s read on:
Heartland is working with a consultant named David Wojick to develop a K-12 curriculum “to help teach the scientific debate regarding climate change.”
In an email, Wojick said he approached Heartland to fund his project, which would help educators “teach one of the greatest scientific debates in history. This means teaching both sides of the science, more science, not less.”
The problem is that there is very little debate among the world’s climatologists about the vast body of peer-reviewed data that has shown that human consumption of fossil fuels has led to a warming of the planet. The debate in the United States is largely political.
OK, so we have a pretty good idea where the L.A. Times stands. So where did the documents come from? A guy named Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute — and here is his statement, thanks to Watts Up With That:
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.
Peter Gleick
I have a feeling you have not heard the last of this.
Yes, I’m kidding. This article pretty much whacks the reader over the head with its point of view, doesn’t it?
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:15 pmme I see the hand of Satan here
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:29 pmFather. Of. Lies.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:30 pmI hope Mr. Gleick kept the alleged envelope that the alleged anonymous document presumably arrived in. I suspect that he will need it for the discovery process and/or court hearings that are likely to follow his actions.
Sue (40062f) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:37 pmIf he produced it and it was in his handwriting he would probably claim he copied the original and then burned it. Fake but accurate!
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:44 pmLet’s assume a lawsuit. Where would any trial take place? I ask ’cause I live in Oakland and I don’t believe there is a chance in h**l of getting 12 people here to convict. And we’ve all seen it before…..
RWS (9d1bb3) — 2/21/2012 @ 5:54 pmAnd here I waited all evening for a Fisher v University of Texas article.
The disappointed Dana (f68855) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:16 pmPhony but accurate!
carol (447e47) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:19 pmheh
lol
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:29 pmAnybody have background on Peter Gleick?
Has he done stuff like this before? Anyone recall incidents where he has demonstrably published falsehoods, or actively sought to deceive the public?
Wasn’t he involved with central valley water issues, cutting off water to protect bait fish, driving thousands of farmers out of work?
Imported from Japan, non-indigenous bait fish.
Oh and where did “rational public debate” come from? How did that sneak in there?
Only fact that my jumbled mind can pop out right now is that the phrase “The debate is over” made famous by Al Gore in the doc An inconvenient truth was originally coined by
Peter Gleick in the U.S. News & World Report.
Peter has retained counsel.
Chris Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white colar criminal defense attorney. – from a politico article.
Anybody have background on John Keker or Chris Lehane?
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:35 pmInteresting Keker who came to light prosecuting Oliver North during Iran Contra, his firm was one of those defending Solyndra,
narciso (87e966) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:37 pmhttp://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFS1E78J1KE20110920
narciso (87e966) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:37 pmLet me get this straight-
– There’s been stuff put out on the Internet supposedly originating from the Heartland Institute that puts them and the AGW skeptics in a bad light
– This guy Gleick is admitting he did it under false pretenses, but claims it is still authentic stuff
– Gleick is in all kinds of hot water, getting fired, etc., but some at the Daily Kos and HuffPo are treating him as a hero and martyr for the cause, apparently admitting he was dishonest in his expose’, but claiming the substance of the material is still true and accurate from Heartland
– We are awaiting further action from Heartland to prove material claimed to be from them is fake
Is that the summary?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:44 pmYes, that’s about the size of it, MD, and yes the folks who spread unknowledge like the Huff Po, are going for it.
narciso (87e966) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:52 pm“- We are awaiting further action from Heartland to prove material claimed to be from them is fake.”
It seems to me that HI is under no obligation to prove anything. They have said that the document is fake and I will presume that it is fake unless Gleick and/or others provide some pretty convincing evidence that it isn’t.
RWS (9d1bb3) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:56 pmMD in Philly
The Heartland Docs this guy stole have zero incriminating evidence about the Heartland Institute. The “incriminating” part is a fabrication, done up in the writing style of Peter Gleick, which incorporates snips and tid bits and spins them into unflattering light. Implying there is a secret cabel within Heartland trying to deceive HI’s board of directors.
Gleick claims he was mailed the fabricated document, then committed his crime to authenticate the fake doc.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/21/2012 @ 6:58 pmSorry …” incorporates snips and tid bits from the legitimate documents…”
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:00 pmI suspect that the familiar phrase “fake but accurate” is about to experience a comeback on moonbat blogs, and–as when the phrase first became popular–it will be used to defend something that is most definitely fake, but not accurate.
M. Scott Eiland (003254) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:07 pmYou all can save yourself some trouble by reading Megan McArdle’s posts at the Atlantic over the last few days. She’s been kind of all over this already. Several posts, so here’s the main URL
JBS (07cf78) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:09 pmhttp://www.theatlantic.com/megan-mcardle/
Thank you all for your kind assistance. I cannot say, as feets does, that no one tells me anything, because you just did.
So now what our host is showing us is that the dogtrainer is going to persist in the claim that the fake documents are real, while continuing to ignore and mislead concerning the real Climategate emails…
No wonder it is so hard to convince the average liberal that everything they think they know is wrong. You wouldn’t believe a movie with the premise of the scale of journalistic malpractice that actually exists. What is in their water?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:09 pmFor my money, i think the best part is that this means Charles Johnson has come full circle. Now he is peddling fake documents.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:10 pmYep, The vast majority of the documents are real (pdf files from original source documents).
There is one “incriminating” document that was a scanned hard copy (west coast PST stamp) that was completely different than all of the rest of the documents.
This appears to have been written (possibly by Gleick) using a mix of facts from the rest of the documents (although, there are errors in facts in the scanned document) plus a whole nice set of unsupported “facts” (by other Heartland documents) that make for some very nice print bites (which the “left” had been vigorously quoting from the first release).
BfC (c3ee03) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:13 pmOh, there’s this little tidbit in McArdle’s post for today–that he was
And, she notes further on in the post, the Task Force seems to have memory holed him. Wonder why?
JBS (07cf78) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:18 pmOne is tempted to say ‘those words you are using’
narciso (87e966) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:22 pmAt the New York Times blog on this thing:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
There is a comment that goes: (This is the first one you see when you click here – I think it might be the most recent right now)
* David in Cal
* Menlo Park, CA
Report Inappropriate Comment
*
Vulgar
*
Inflammatory
*
Personal Attack
*
Spam
*
Off-topic
Submit Cancel
Flag
I posted two comments mentioning reasons to suspect that Gleick had written the false memo. Neither made it through moderation. The comments were not abusive. They simply provided evidence in support of their thesis.
I don’t expect this comment won’t make it through moderation, either. I’m writing it to request some guidance in understanding why my other two comments were rejected.
Thanks
David Skurnick
davidskurnick1@gmail.com
* Feb. 21, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.
Maybe somebody could e-mail him and encourage him to post here and explain.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:22 pmThe science is settled BEEYOTCHES!!!!!!!
And we will just keep making shlt up until you accept it.
JD (516dcc) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:30 pmWhen asked for comment, Mitt and Newt were not available.
JD (516dcc) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:30 pmJBS – Correct – Glieck was big on promoting scientific integrity and ethics. Sort of the antithesis of the “transparent and tolerant” global warming movement in its efforts to hide data, prevent publication of studies by skeptics and blackball skeptical scientists.
The bogus document in question sounds like it was written by an alarmist attempting to pose as a skeptic. Tone deaf phrasing leaps out. Just like progressives attempting to pose as conservatives on blogs. They trip themselves up because their ideology betrays them.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:31 pmWell remember that Orwell based the Ministry of Truth, in part on his experience with the BBC World
narciso (87e966) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:32 pmService during the war.
Newt should ask Nancy Pelosi to comment on his behalf.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:33 pmWattsupwiththat does have a great round up of commentary from both sides.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:36 pmI heard the old boy on “Coast to Coast” several months back.
Andrew (a198bc) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:46 pmTrust me. This dude knows his stuff.
23. Comment by JBS — 2/21/2012 @ 7:18 pm
this little tidbit in McArdle’s post for today–that he [Peter Gleick]
was
apparently until very recently, the chair of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.
And, she notes further on in the post, the Task Force seems to have memory holed him. Wonder why?
They apparently wanted to wait to announce it until until they had a replacement.
News bulletin: (via Quark Soup – http://davidappell.blogspot.com)
This gets you the whole blog – a link just to that post albeit you may need to click to how original post is http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28837843&postID=5155218292524977990
Here is where he links to and quotes in full:
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml
Paragraphs 4 5 and 6:
On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.
Following Dr. Gleick’s resignation, a search began immediately for a replacement. Effective today, 21 February, the new chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity is Linda Gundersen, Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).
The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit society of Earth and space scientists with more than 61,000 members in 146 countries. Established in 1919 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, meetings, and outreach programs. For more information, visit http://www.agu.org.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:47 pmThat whole task force on scientific ethics in just three months old?
It was therefore created by and for Gleick.
This may mean he botched up a little bit what he wanted to do.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 7:50 pmNot tonight. I have to read everything and do it right.
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:15 pmYeah, here it is.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/11/21
Filed under the story of Judyth Vary Baker, a once promising science student and cancer researcher, who was recruited by Lee Harvey Oswald to work with Dr. Mary Sherman on developing a cancer bioweapon that would reportedly be used to assassinate Fidel Castro.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:18 pmMitt and Newt were both not available for comment cause they’re both randy climate change whores in heat is why.
It would be nice if they had to repeatedly defend their climate change lust in these “debate” things.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:35 pmThank you, 36.
Andrew (a198bc) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:36 pmI knew I remembered the interview. He is supposedly a bottled water expert, to boot…
The science is so settled that the warmists have to create fake scandals for people on the other side of the debate. The science supporting the warming side of the argument is JUST THAT STRONG.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:40 pmVisions of the research dollar and conference gravy train circling the drain makes people do crazy things.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:42 pmOriginal New York Times story last week (and the only thing until today)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/in-heartland-institute-leak-a-plan-to-discredit-climate-teaching.html?_r=1&sq=heartland&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=all
Paragraphs 3-5:
While the documents offer a rare glimpse of the internal thinking motivating the campaign against climate science, defenders of science education were preparing for battle even before the leak. Efforts to undermine climate-science instruction are beginning to spread across the country, they said, and they fear a long fight similar to that over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
In a statement, the Heartland Institute acknowledged that some of its internal documents had been stolen. But it said its president had not had time to read the versions being circulated on the Internet on Tuesday and Wednesday and was therefore not in a position to say whether they had been altered.
Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.
Sounds like maybe something wrong is going on here, right?
Paragraph 7:
Heartland said the documents were not from an insider but were obtained by a caller pretending to be a board member of the group who was switching to a new e-mail address. “We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes,” the organization said.
That’s why Peter Gleick now has a lawyer and is no longer commenting on the contents (he needs to show regret and not appear to be exploiting this any more)
There seems to be some effort to get Heartland into trouble: (plus of course put pressure on donors not to contribute)
Paragraphs 9 and 10:
The documents raise questions about whether the group has undertaken partisan political activities, a potential violation of federal tax law governing nonprofit groups. For instance, the documents outline “Operation Angry Badger,” a plan to spend $612,000 to influence the outcome of recall elections and related fights this year in Wisconsin over the role of public-sector unions.
Tax lawyers said Wednesday that tax-exempt groups were allowed to undertake some types of lobbying and political education, but that because they are subsidized by taxpayers, they are prohibited from direct involvement in political campaigns.
Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman note that oil companies are NOT the big donors and the article carries a statement from GlaxoSmithKline, which contributed $50,000 towards a medical newsletter, that “We absolutely do not endorse or support their views on the environment or climate change.”
The writers feel compelled to tell us that the point of view that Heartland is pushing is, in fact, false:
Paragraphs 19 and 20:
Heartland’s latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”
It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 8:47 pmIt is totally idiotic to say there is any kind of long term risk. There’s no basis for saying that whatsoever, except the worst kind of speculation, or fearmongering, and, if anything, there’s an argument that global warming would prevent a future ice age! Not to mention the attempted hoax of making the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age go away, which is to say to claim that nothing else but carbon dioxide and methane levels can affect global temperature. (It, of course, becomes much more difficult to forecast climate if you have to factor in non-man made effects that happen anyway)
It’s not even demonstrated that carbon dioxide have levels have gone up because of man made causes. No calculation has been made that I know of. I’ve never heard or read of any claim that anybody tried to calculate it. We only know that levels went up, but not why and how. And there is reason to believe that global warming causes an increase in carbon dioxide levels, and not the other way around!!
Of course some carbon dioxide has been added by burning of fuel or trees. So has water, and di-hydrogen monoxide is a far far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There’s a vast reservoir of water in the oceans of course. But there’s also certainly a vast reservoir of carbon or carbon dioxide outside of the atmosphere.
N.B. Carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere, which were raised by nuclear tests, have dropped tremendously since the early 1960s, far far more than can be explained by radioactive decay, which is negligible, and considerably more than can be explained by dilution.
You could look it up.
All carbon 14 dates for anything past 1890 are not standard. (The standard itself isn’t so standard but it really goes off standard after that) Carbon 14 (and Carbon 13) concentrations can be used to learn a lot like if somebody ingested human growth hormone because the levels will be different than the average in the person’s and even more specific questions, but all sorts of special considerations need to be made. It’s not simple, like dates for before about 1890. Carbon 14 levels first went down due to the Industrial Revolution then up with nuclear tests about double and have dropped back down since and were only about 20% higher in he 1990s and will soon be back to 1950 levels.
There just a vast reservoir of carbon dioxide or carbon, although I wouldn’t expect the proportion of carbon not in the atmosphere to be as high as that of water..
It is even more idiotic to claim that the way to do something about anything is to just not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If there is a problem, adaptation makes the most sense, or, if you like, spraying sulfur dioxide over the North Pole to cool the atmosphere (like Botox, it fades away so there’s nothing really terrible if you went too far) or seeding the South Pacific with iron to encourage the growth of plankton and the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We don’t know enough to do anything like that? Then we don’t know enough for anything. And we don’t really. But all kinds of ideas are better than this simpleminded “just don’t add CO2 to the atmosphere” like that’s easy to do and has little effect on people.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 9:17 pmSummary of what Gleick said on “Coast to Coast”
Bottled vs. Tap Water
First hour guest, author Peter Gleick talked about America’s obsession with bottled water. There has been an intentional effort to make the public fear tap water, but in blind taste tests people actually can’t taste the difference between bottled and tap water, he reported. Further, tap water quality is monitored by the EPA, in a much more stringent process than the testing of bottled water, which is typically done by the companies themselves rather than by independent sources, he noted.
I think it depends a little on what location tap water you are talking about. Consumer Reports tested bottle vs tap water one time many years ago, I think when Koch was mayor, but they used New York City tap water, and tap water came out better or best! Of course later they realized that New York City tap water was special.
Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1) — 2/21/2012 @ 9:31 pmPainted Jaguar (tail twitching, typical feline expression of annoyance on visage):
I would like to say something witty and brief about this kerfuffle, but all I can think of is that down by the dark turbid waters of the Amazon we don’t need no stinkin’ ethics panels, it’s put up or shut 24/7. On a warm day you can watch the carbon dioxide leave my nostrils and get sucked into a growing orchid as the blossum forms, of course, you would have to get pretty close to do that…
MD says Global Warming is as indisputable as the N. Vietnamese winning the Tet Offensive, and the NYT should win a “Cronkite Award” for their coverage. On second thought, they may have to share it with others…
MD also says that while some Vikings were known to be inhospitable and not very generous, it is less well known that they were big jokesters with a wry sense of humor. That’s why they called that big hunk of ice “Greenland”. Too bad there were no cameras to catch the expressions of the second group of explorers, showing up in their Bermuda shorts. (You didn’t know bermuda shorts have been around that long, did you? Bermuda was named after them.)
My Mummy says it’s bed time.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/21/2012 @ 9:44 pmI thought Peter Gleick was smarter this, I really did. (Morals aside)
He not only torpedoed his nascent career as a climate hero and science ethicist, but lost out his new position at the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE brought Gleick on board to broaden its mission from fighting creationism to fighting “denialism”. With an utter lack of judgment, the NCSE is still defending this decision. NCSE risk being considered just another left-wing activist group, which I find sad, because it has done excellent work defending the teaching of evolution.
And that memo — I thought it was too crude a forgery for someone of Gleick’s putative stature as an academic. How much other dirty laundry is there?
Read Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog for a good perspective on this debacle.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (7111ab) — 2/21/2012 @ 9:46 pmCome on Brother Bradley. “Smarter than this?”
He’s been tub thumping the AGW for twenty years.
That’s all you need to know about anyone to say how smart they are.
The answer is not very.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/21/2012 @ 10:09 pmAnd the republicans melt away. It sucks to be on the side of chickenshit leadership.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/22/2012 @ 2:44 amAnd I’m as full of shlt as the next guy.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/22/2012 @ 4:45 amSo don’t be shy about cuffing me one if I get too frisky.
Scientist Peter Gleick admits he lied to get climate documents
He assumed a false identity to obtain and distribute internal documents from the Heartland Institute, which questions climate change. L.A. Times.
The light dawns at the LA Times as realization sets in that their hero, water bottles are the devil Pete Gleick, might actually go to jail.
Looks like they’re positioning themselves to kick him under the bus.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/22/2012 @ 5:58 amyeah, he forged the “sound bite” memo. What mental disease has taken hold of those fools. It’s like they expect the fakeness of their actions to discredit anything real.
SarahW (b0e533) — 2/22/2012 @ 6:44 amyeah, he forged the “sound bite” memo. What mental disease has taken hold of those fools. It’s like they expect the fakeness of their actions to discredit anything real.
SarahW (b0e533) — 2/22/2012 @ 6:45 amOur Philadelphia physician wrote:
I hereby nominate this for the Patterico Line of the Day Award.™ Our esteemed host does have such an award, doesn’t he?
The suitably impressed Dana (3e4784) — 2/22/2012 @ 7:09 amCome on Brother Bradley. “Smarter than this?”
He’s been tub thumping the AGW for twenty years.
Sadly, intelligence has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. Global warming activism is a political movement, and some very intelligent people put politics before facts.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (7111ab) — 2/22/2012 @ 7:47 amI saw this whole scam, around 20 years ago, in James Burke’s ‘After the WArming’
narciso (87e966) — 2/22/2012 @ 7:49 amWe’re going to Hell, so pick your poison: hot air balloon or handbasket?
Colonel Haiku (f638f0) — 2/22/2012 @ 7:51 amIn the comments on the LAT story, a CAGW activist repeated the unsupported claim that the Climategate emails were “hacked,” when the evidence indicates an inside job. The author also falsely called the Climategate emails “private” when they actually from a public university and subject to FOIA.
Another commenter is directing people to go to the CAGW sites Skeptical Science and 350.org. Not even a pretense of confronting the issues.
Everything the CAGW movement has accused skeptics of doing — the dishonest hack, the well-funded movement attacking scientific integrity — has turned out to be a projection of how they operate.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (7111ab) — 2/22/2012 @ 7:53 amGleick, like Hanson, feels like his opinion is supreme, regardless of the actual facts. Deception is acceptable becuase he holds the “ultimate” truth. Newton.ditz used to comment here, and despite the revelation that the climate computer models couldn’t replicate the current climate conditions given known data for the last 70+ years, he/she/it repeatedly claimed superior knowledge regarding the science. It’s laughable, as well as, perdictable.
∅ (721840) — 2/22/2012 @ 8:01 amMegan McArdle asks: “Why was this mailed only to Gleick?”
Consider the idea that Gleick was setup by “HeartLand Insider.”
Somebody modified one HeartLand document with obvious BS, generated it with a time stamp in the future to show it was fake, and sent this one document to him. After reading it, Gleick was too pumped up on his own adrenaline to see the tree for the forest. He proceeded to assifiy himself by asking for a retransmission, only to receive other valid HeartLand documents. This takes enough time that the time stamp on the first document catches up, so it looks like he modified the first document.
This doesn’t absolve Gleick of his acquisition through deception, but it explains why he says he didn’t modify any documents. It does show that Gleick is an idiot.
Neo (d1c681) — 2/22/2012 @ 8:19 amGeneral question here: Why does this subject of “climate change” have to resort to so much politics?
I’m a meteorologist – and yes – I’m on the side of the reality of AGW.
Jon Flatley (5651fc) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:00 amWhy does this subject of “climate change” have to resort to so much politics?
cause all of the principles what underlay the prescribed response to this “climate change” are indistinguishable from textbook marxism?
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:03 amIt has become political because politicians are using it as an excuse to seize power and eliminate rights, and people have found that by pandering to those politicians they can loot the public coffers for vast amounts of money.
Only one side is doing this.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:07 amNotice that Hanson’s models predicted global cooling until he found there was no big payoffs and then the same models using the same data predicted global warming. The solutions to both just happened to be the same and as Happyfeet said, involved government seizing power. He has done much better financially since seeing the light.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:10 amIt would be a lot better if so called “climate scientists” would simply release the raw data and make predictions. And when those predictions repeatedly are wrong, admit there is something very wrong with their theories.
Instead, we get ‘why are you being political’ to those who very properly exercise the scientific method and skepticism.
I think global warming will go down in history as much like the fools who insisted Copernicus was obviously wrong about the Earth not being the center of the universe. The experts had all those calculations explaining their Earth centric theory, after all.
It’s interesting that ‘I’m an expert’ is still used as an argument instead of ‘here is my argument’.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:10 amWhen “scientists” stop seeking truth and start pushing an agenda that is politics.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:12 amDustin, I wish you were right, but my guess is that Global Warming will go down in history just like:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:54 am1) How FDR got us out of the depression
2) JFK was a great President
3) Vietnam was an example of a Republican wrong war
4) the North Vietnamese won the Tet offensive and the Vietnam war
5) JF Kerry was right the first and third times, American soldiers are baby killers and terrorize populations reminiscent of Genghis Khan
6) Ronald Reagan had domestic policy based on “voodoo economics”
7) Gorbachev is responsible for the end of the Cold War and disbanding the Soviet Empire
8) Bill Clinton was a great president unreasonably persecuted
9) Bush lied
10) Sandy Berger is messy and accidentally stuffed useless papers down his pants and mistakenly destroyed them
11) Valerie Plame was a top secret spy working under deep cover, posing as a worker at Langley
12) Barack Obama finally gave the United States something to be proud of
Hmm, that’s interesting. that was supposed to be an “8” followed by a “)”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:55 amMD, you make a powerful case.
8)
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:57 amThank you Dana, but that wasn’t me, it was Painted Jaguar. He is more creative than I am. He also has bigger fangs, sharper claws, and better-defined muscles, I don’t take credit due him.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/22/2012 @ 10:58 amDustin, I’m afraid I did. That is one thing I hope I’m wrong about. (Unfortunately, most things I wish I was wrong about I’m not.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/22/2012 @ 11:01 amTea Party WINS: Locally, State-wide, Nationally, and INTERNATIONALLY!
Mutnodjmet (c4995d) — 2/22/2012 @ 11:19 amWhen the government and taxpayer money is involved, how can you avoid politics? Does the word “Solyndra” mean anything to you?
∅ (721840) — 2/22/2012 @ 11:34 amDustin good call on #57.
I mean how do you even engage someone like that without cussing him?
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/22/2012 @ 1:13 pmit’s so dishonest to ask about politics then, follow it up with your appeal to authority campaign speech.
I was thinking, maybe we could get a straight answer from this guy, Jon Flatley, being as he is a random global warming believer from the general public.
But then he goes “I am an expert and you’re all political hacks.”
Fuck you Jon.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
papertiger (e55ba0) — 2/22/2012 @ 1:19 pmSure, he’s a criminal now, and he blew up his career real good, but he’s PURE AT HEART!!
mojo (8096f2) — 2/22/2012 @ 3:55 pmThe proposed solutions do not match the danger of Global Warming. Here in California we have the AB32 law which stands to collect $40 billion in cap-and-trade fees. Gov. Brown says $1 billion a year of that should go to High Speed Rail. The rest of that goes to whatever else the Governor and Air Resource Board decides is worthy of green-energy money dumps.
California’s plan of having the world follow California’s lead in curbing CO2 output – has completely failed. But the state plows on forward with its suicidal economic plan.
Gleick’s assclownness is hilarious. This envirowack blogosphere infatuation with the Koch Brothers caused them to self-destruct. It’s the new Halliburton. The episode shows the willingness of leading climate scientists to lie, fudge the numbers, and use deliberate misinformation for political gain.
Wesson (1dbab0) — 2/22/2012 @ 4:10 pmI saw this pulled from the NYT:
(Warning, swallow food, put down hot drinks)
Heartland officials say one of the documents was a fake, but the curriculum plans were reportedly discussed in more than one. According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, among other things, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”
That is a lie so big that, to quote from Mein Kampf, it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
I guess they should know. Pot, meet kettle.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/23/2012 @ 5:17 amReminds me of the old SNL sketch, where the Lyndon Larouche manque, said ‘they are endeavoring to make me
narciso (87e966) — 2/23/2012 @ 5:47 amlook insane’
🙂
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/23/2012 @ 5:52 amDENIERS !!!!!!!”
JD (516dcc) — 2/23/2012 @ 6:22 amWhat do you mean by politics? Is saying that climate change should no longer be debated politics? Or do you mean attempting to debate it is politics?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 2/23/2012 @ 6:42 amGeneral question here: Why does this subject of “climate change” have to resort to so much politics?
Comment by Jon Flatley — 2/22/2012 @ 10:00 am
He means the science is settled and you racist deniers are just playing politics. The science is so settled they have to hide emails, hide raw data, and apparently now, make up documents to they to discredit pole. Jon is kind of silly.
JD (516dcc) — 2/23/2012 @ 7:03 amThat’s what he meant by ‘I’m one the side of the reality of [it].’
Assume it’s “reality based”, and then scoff when it’s time to explain why that’s so obvious.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/23/2012 @ 7:34 amThe AGW proponents have engaged in obstructionism, ad hominem attacks on their critics, and corruption of the scientific process for decades.
And they wonder why the debate is so poisoned? Because they dumped tons of poison into it themselves.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/23/2012 @ 10:34 am