Just in, see Andy Revkin’s blog:
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs,congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself.
Gleick, in a blog post at Huffington Port, says:
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.
There may be more to this story, however. I’ve been aware that there was an very active investigation already in progress, and I can now reveal that it had been narrowing down on Gleick from early on. I just talked with Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That, who passed this along:
Steven Mosher first noticed language similarities, and language analysis is what led many of us studying the event to conclude Dr. Gleick was the main person of interest. Comparisons of his writing style from language specialists as well as software show strong similarities to the faked document and strongly suggest that he authored it.
On his own blog, Anthony adds:
For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.
A statement from Heartland Institute is expected momentarily. I’ve asked DeSmogBlog for comment, but haven’t received a response yet.
Update (21:52 Mountain Time Monday)
While we wait for the Heartland institute statement, Judith Curry makes an interesting point:
Gleick on integrity:
- A brief lesson in the integrity of science
- Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
- AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
- Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony
I even referenced his testimony in my uncertainty monster paper.
My first interaction with Gleick was he invited me to speak in an AGU session that he was organizing on the integrity of science, my presentation can be found here.
He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).
The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.
It will be interesting to see how his position on scientific integrity is evaluated in the future.
Update (22:09 Mountain Time Mon)
Heartland Institute has now responded. Here’s the Heartland statement, via Anthony Watts’ blog:
FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.
Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.
An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.
A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.
In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.
Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.
We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.
We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions. [Emphasis added.]
Oh, there’s gonna be more eggs on faces over this one than there are hens in the USA.
Hey, Flaming Liberal, how you gonna spin this one?
Peter may have stolen those docs but doesn’t that need to be proven? Obviously someone sent them to him as I doubt Heartland has him on their sensitive mailing list do you? Of course we can always trust any organization that hires Fred Singer now can’t we. After all he writes about junk science which he seems to be an expert in. He railed against anyone who would write that smoking was bad and the science that said so was junk science. I suppose if PJM were alive then everyone here would be assailing doctors and scientists who said smoking was harmful. Heck I bet even Fred thinks that now unless someone would pay for him to say something different.
Actually I feel this is kind of ironic that the poor Heartland Institute would feel embarrassed by stolen documents when they themselves had a field day with stolen documents from another organization in 2009 in which they took a whole bunch of things out of context. Hopefully this will be investigated with the same vigor that the other was and maybe Issa should convene an investigation in which he can only call supporters of Heartland to testify because he can find many here.
He ADMITTED that he stole them!
But don’t let me stop you from keeping your mind firmly closed.
He did? Maybe you can point out where he said he stole them. I see where those documents were sent to him. Maybe you need to understand what stealing is – The person who sent him the documents stole them he didn’t.
FL, that would be the part where he says: “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.”
Oh so being deceitful is stealing? I always thought that was lying. It’s not like he hacked into the system and stole those documents – he certainly didn’t steal the first ones.
But then what does it matter as those stolen emails in 2009 didn’t matter to you now did they Charlie. Did you care how they were obtained as long as you could mischaracterize them like Heartland did. Let’s see the investigations on this as the important thing is are the “fake documents” not really fake as much of it has already been verified. Oh and aren’t you at all embarrassed about someone actually paying Fred Singer to do anything that tired to resemble something legitimate.
FL:
Stole them from a group that was not entitled to isolate them from those who funded their research?
That “research” is not secretive, as in defense technology, critical military intelligence or strategy. It is secretive only in the mind of statist fascist pigs that ought to be taken out and hung.
Nice little psychosis you got going there.
There is a crime called “Theft by Deception or Deciet,” the common term for this is “fraud.” It’s a felony.
Quite frankly that’s for the police and Heartland and Peter G to duke it out. I’m just glad they became public knowledge. Of course we know about Peter Singer and his tactics as he’s used them in the past. I’m just shocked that any organization that even tries to give the impression that they have integrity would use Fred Singer wouldn’t you?
Sorry Patrick that’s Fred Singer
FL, if you don’t think “obtaining property by deception” isn’t “stealing” you might want to consult a dictionary.
Charlie – the first documents were not stolen. I haven’t seen the other documents and at this point I’m just glad Heartland has been exposed.
We’ve known all along that Fred and Craig Iso just try to deceive people and make crap up and now it will be harder and harder for the leaders of the deniers to wear anything but shame. Don’t you feel duped by Fred and Craig and all their deceit or were you taken in by them and the Oregon Institute and things like the Oregon Petition and the George C Marshall (Exxon) Institute. At some point the leaders of the deniers will have to show they have some integrity for duping people like you don’t you think?
You should be a defense lawyer.
“He went into the bank many times to cash checks before he robbed the bank, so he’s technically not a thief!”
FL, the “first document” according to Gleick’s own admission is the faked one. So yes indeed it wasn’t stolen, because it was the product of a fraud. It’s just the rest of them that were stolen.
Why you imagine this helps anything mystifies me.
Charlie this is what Peter wrote and maybe you can point out where he says that he faked anything? What he is clearly saying is everything that was first mailed to him was made public. You seem to be getting very confused but I can understand why. Having to defend the likes of Fred Singer and Craig Iso is a daunting task and I don’t envy you. Did you defend Fred’s how tobacco was good for you and science saying it was bad was junk science too?
Peter’s quote:
“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.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
Sorry, the sentence was clumsy. The document which Gleick says was the first one he received is the faked one. The other ones, which Gleick admits he got by deception, are the stolen ones.
Once again Flaming Wingnut: Theft by Deception/Deceit is a felony, it’s commonly called fraud.
What Gleick did was to deceive HI into giving him documents to which he was not entitled. This is no different than if I wrote you a bad check in order to get you to sell me a car to which I was not entitled.
Both are a crime, both are theft.
I also rather enjoy the moral relativism on display here. “It doesn’t matter that Gleick lied, because HI lies (they don’t but neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion) therefore he’s justified.
Did momma never tell you two wrongs don’t make a right? Or is that too simplistic for you?
Patrick fine he committed fraud and lied. Daniel Ellsberg stole the Pentagon Papers and the NY Times and Wash Post published them. The papers did nothing wrong and American found out about our deceitful government. I see the same parallel here except certainly not as serious.
The Heartland Institute has now been exposed and so has some of the people that work and fund them. What happens to Peter is not my concern as the much bigger story is the junk science they produce along with that slime ball Fred Singer.
FL, the thing is, absent the forgery, all that’s been exposed is that Heartland pays people to create content for them — like the NIPCC report, which has Heartland’s logo in color on the title page. There’s nothing slightly secret about that — hell, I’ve been to their climate conferences, they glory in telling people they support those things. It’s only in the forgery that anyone says anything like “dissuade them from teaching science”. Without it, what you have is an advocacy group doing advocacy — just like Think Progress.
I’m not following this in detail because my opinion has never been for sale to overfunded lobbyists like “heartland”
so I’m not even bothering to follow your links.
But if he “got documents by deception” doesn’t that mean that they’re not “fake”? If they were fake he’d have made them up.
But I guess Heartland’s media team came up with the name “fakegate” so you have to use it.
I mean you could think for yourself but that wouldn’t be the PJ media way.
In other words, you’re completely closing your mind about the possibility that you’re wrong, and proclaiming your closed mind proudly.
Congratulations, you’re a perfect little mind-numbed leftist robot.
I see, so it doesn’t bother you that he admits he lied to get hold of the documents. *nod* OK, so now explain to me why we should believe anything he says at this point. As a journalist, you know a real live journalist who works for a newspaper, the most important thing I have is my credibility. It goes double for a blogger because there are so many bloggers who can’t be trusted.
This guy has destroyed his credibility by admitting he used unethical means to obtain the documents.
The heartland institute’s lies were never relevant to me before, why should I care about them now?
Also didn’t I hear they employ some of the tobacco industry’s old liars?
Heh, great company.
Yup, it apparently does suck to have to defend this now.
Yep, that’s right, use the Dan Rather defense. It worked so well for him, after all.
Face it, your side is the one that’s lying, and I’m sure that it’ll be proven in a court of law someday.
Not that it really matters, people aren’t being fooled by your song and dance any more… except for those of you for whom more government control over everything is a religion.
Ahh yes, the old liberal conformation bias. Anyone who disagrees with AlGore (GreenPeace Be Upon Him) the great Prophet of Global Warming (GPBUPH)must be lying.
Some Scholar. I had always been led to believe a real scholar kept an open mind and questioned his basic assumptions. Was always prepared to accept new ideas.
You sir, would have fit in well in Jonestown.
“Come to me my babies! Let me quell your pain!
“The heartland institute’s lies were never relevant to me before, why should I care about them now?”
Read for content boyo, HI didn’t lie to obtain the documents this guy admits he did.
Embrace teh suck Josh, embrace teh suck…
Their lies were the ones about the climate that they pay plenty of people to disseminate.
Once again, why should I consider these losers a good source of info now, I did’t before.
Ahh you mean like the ones in An Inconvenient Truth where a British court found several substantive errors in Al Gore’s (GreenPeace Be Upon Him) little powerpoint? You know like the part about Polar Bears drowning and becoming extinct? Except of course they can and do happily swim for miles and their numbers have been on the increase for years.
Lies like those Joshey? Your friends on the left lie only on days which end in “y” so explain to me why I should believe anything they say either?
Josh,
You seemed to consider the documents credible before it came out that they were stolen.
Now that the cats are out of the bag, you’re trying to claim that you’re not interested, but you were before.
I wish I could hook you up to a generator. Your spinning would power several western states, including Nevada with the City of Lost Wages.
“You seemed to consider the documents credible before it came out that they were stolen.”
There are so many fallacies in your statement it would be a waste of people’s time and effort to argue them.
In short, I don’t take HI’s word on climate just like I wouldn’t let tobacco paid “scientists” tell me that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Funny that the large oil companies themselves have signed on to global warming, it’s just a few nutcase billionaires and foundations who keep the ball rolling.
So it’s not actually the oil companies themselves who are still paying for these lies, it’s just some of their owners.
Actual businesses have to make plans based on honest assessments. They’d better take reality seriously.
Mr. Scholar, I went to a very liberal college. Even there, we pledged to the honor code where we would not lie, cheat, or steal to produce our work. It matters not that one steals, cheats, or lies about only 1%. A dis-honorable person needs to be recognized as such and deservedly earns the scorns and disdain comes his way.
Must suck to be trying to defend this now.
I, too, have not followed this in depth, but it looks to me like the guy stole personal info and documents, and used it to create a fake memo for the express purpose of smearing Heartland.
And you just shrug?
Oh, right. It’s all in a good cause, so, it’s fine. That path leads to murder, Josh.
“Thou shalt not steal.”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Most of those Commandments were proscribing the things which cause us to kill one another. They are truly evil things, Josh. They are nothing to shrug off. Libel and slander are very serious things. As is theft.
You shrug, because to you, these are not personal things. “Oh, just another lawsuit.” The lawsuit process makes it seem sterile, an ordinary, every-day sort of thing, but the terrible alternative to a lawsuit is… murder.
Men used to fight duels over such things, or simply murdered the other guy. It is very, very serious, Josh. I do not have the money to fight it out in court. If you did something like this to me, Josh, I would simply have to kill you, having no other recourse. That is where such things lead. It is a terrible thing.
Gleick is trying to walk it back, now. He realizes he is in serious hot water. He committed a crime for which he could go to jail. He cannot win against the suit, either. He stands to lose it all, and Heartland is in no mind to be merciful. They are going to destroy his life over this, and he deserves it.
He is in this place, because he never gave any thought as to the seriousness of what he was contemplating doing. You, likewise, Josh, do not give enough thought to the great immorality of what he did, and the possible consequences.
I think this is the great problem with those on the Left. There simply is not enough time spent in deep contemplation of morality, of right and wrong.
We, on the Right, see these things the Left do, and are sickened by the immorality of it all. We are sickened by the sight of the corruption. To us, it is truly ghastly, like some walking, rotting, dead thing. After awhile, we no longer see the masks. We see right through them. Maybe it’s the stench or something.
You would do your cause more good, Josh, if you insisted on greater probity from your side. After all, such underhanded undertakings only serve to diminish your side’s credibility. If Gleick’s actions are dishonest, then likewise, his words have no value… and he represents your side in the debate.
As yet there is no evidence that Gleick faked anything.
The fact that he’s gone public instead of say, releasing this all on Wikileaks or some similar site seems more like standing up not “walking back”
Maybe he’s daring Heartland Institute to sue him. The publicity will not be good for them. None of this will be.
In the end the only issue that’s really important is the social split in our society that makes our politics irrational.
Liberals and conservatives are so busy hating each other that there is a fault line that valid information can not cross, and this fault line can be exploited by corrupt people.
You could see it during GW’s presidency in the way that Liberals were incapable of listening and understanding what our foreign policy in the Middle East was for.
And I have always said that Climate change denial is, intellectually, the American equivalent of the conspiratorial Antisemitism that grips Europe.
I see the same closed mindedness, the same level of crazy conspiracism, the same hatred for one’s opponents.
Except that Anthropogenic Global Warming is bollocks.
The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means they can not use a finite number of past states to predict long term future states. AGW pretends to do just that.
Warming is good. Iowa would produce less corn under a mile of ice. Heat from the sun drives our weather. With insufficient heat from the sun, weather cycles don’t progress, and we get stationary cycles like those that caused the drought in Texas last year.
“Hey look! Over there!”
Malone, that was imho well-thought, well-said & most well-writ! i agree with you, the Ten Commandments do have that heliotropic quality of giving to each individual intellect as much as can be taken at any particular time in any given exchange.
Because no one has to turn and behold, some will not, and thus will fall to the blooming consequence told in the basic warning.
But after all, what is it but a test, and what is a test but to open or close, one way or the other, between the two eternities?
And so, once again, a “progressive” covers his ears and goes “La la la, can’t hear you!” when confronted with an “inconvenient truth.” I’m referring to the part of this story you studiously ignore: “An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo …” Got that, genius? A FORGED MEMO.
Dear Josh Ignorance…
In the past I have always advised people to exercise care that they do not confuse Ignorance with Stupidity.
You see the difference between Ignorance and Stupidity is that Ignorance can be overcome. You exhibition of Willful Ignorance borders on Stupidity.
I must say, however, it is not the fact that you are exhibiting behavior that borders on stupid that bothers me, it is the fact that you are proud of it.
That’s exactly what Heartland said from the beginning, and there’s nothing wrong with 99% of the docs, it’s only the completely fake doc that he mixed in that would upset anybody with a brain. I gather he has not yet admitted to that.
You’re talking about a man concerned with our delicate eco-system but who cozens the wholesale transfer of millions, legally and illegally into the U.S. to further stress that eco-system. But somehow it’s never the fault of those from the Third World who care nothing for the concept of the greater good but of those who created environmentalism.
Please don’t defend a man who is a Critical Pedagogic religionist rather than a pragmatic rationalist truly capable of putting 2 and 2 together – he’s not. Gleik’s politically correct world view comes first and logic and science must fit into that. Gleik is like Batman and law and order an inconvenience cuz Gleik “knows.”
No, but see the note from Anthony Watts: the investigation was narrowing down on Gleick based on textual and forensic evidence in the fake.
I imagine that evidence is gonna come in real handy at the trial.
I don’t see that they have any forensic evidence, I see that they are asking HIM to provide forensic evidence as proof. That’s very different.
I don’t know any details, I just know the same kind of deluded hysterics who go for AGW, think nothing of creating “fake but accurate” documents. I’m not sure they know the difference themselves, even while they’re writing them.
“…I just know the same kind of deluded hysterics who go for AGW…”
The majority of climate scientists are “deluded hysterics”? How do you know that?
You want to be careful about this “majority” thing. As I noted on an earlier fakegate thread, the paper that’s usually quoted on that majority point turns out to have been a self-selecting Internet poll, there were only 79 “yes” respondents, and the questions were phrased in such a way that even so-called “deniers” like Dick Lindzen at MIT would have answered “yes”.
And they still only got 97 percent.
ONLY 97%?
Well, Josh, you spotted the joke, even if you didn’t understand it.
Of course 15 seconds on wikipedia finds another study.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
And a mention that “Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[101] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[6][7]“
That study only found a 90% consensus among climate scientists.
I suppose the consensus on PJ media is that 90% of earth scientists are Marxists.
Here we go again.
You’re using the same failed spin attempt that the sock on your other hand used on the earlier FakeGate thread, which I demolished thus:
The reason you’re hanging on so desperately to the “majority” meme is because the actual, you know, facts and science are unalterably against AGW, so opinion–and deception and theft, a la Gleick–is all you have left!
“…I just know the same kind of deluded hysterics who go for AGW…”
The majority of climate scientists are “deluded hysterics”? How do you know that?
I didn’t say scientists, I mean the politicians and crazed activists, who mostly wouldn’t know scientists from labradoodles, for example Algore and his Hollywood buddies.
As for the IPCC phonies, they are just pathological incompetents and bastards, by their own words, without even the common decency to own up to their own foolishness, instead trying to brazen it out further. Science is rational, these guys couldn’t predict the next day’s sunrise.
Josh, there’s actually quite a lot. but it’s Anthony’s, and HI’s, story to tell. But I will say that Gleick may well have committed Federal crimes, and Federal agencies are involved.
of course it depends on the questions, their design and objective. Sure, humans affect the environment –what on earth doesn’t/ The question of what to do with existance tho is properly considered in the largest sense, not in the forward edge sliver of surety so far gained by climate science.
IOW, the question is not “is a bowl of pottage worth anything?” –of course it is. But is it worth everything ? No, it can’t be, mother nature doesn’t allow such perversity to scale so, she kills it lower, sooner, younger. Yet, that is the question the political climate scientists not only insist we answer when no one yet can, but that we answer with nothing other than “YES, yes, yes yes yes, at your pleasure, whatever you say!”
But I will say that Gleick may well have committed Federal crimes, and Federal agencies are involved.
Yeah, but do you expect AG Holder and the overwhelmingly liberal DoJ (and long before he became AG) to get right on that and actually prosecute?
The ends justifies the means and that’s the long and short of it when it comes to liberals. They have a world view that they claim is based on logic and reason yet the Left itself is impervious to logic and reason. Even in admitting his guilt he suggests Gleik “knows” he’s right.
The Left’s view of the world amounts to the very religions the purport to despise since that view is based on faith; faith in such things as global warming, “white privilege,” the immorality of the wealthy but which excludes any wealthy within their own camp and more.
I used to love the Dem Party but their world view is so depraved nowadays that it really amounts to choosing a side and sticking to that side come hell or high water. Obama can do no wrong, the Third World (itself an offensive term) can do no wrong, white folks can do no right without admitting they are racists by nature, straight folks are effectively measured by gay standards of living and there is also more of this. Screw them and screw Gleik. They have no tools for self-criticism and only come close to admitting they’re wrong when caught in the act and even then they don’t truly believe they’re wrong – they simply are never wrong.
Josh Scholar is certainly proving that above.
Your proving that your thinking is based on prejudice because I was not involved in this, and I don’t care about it.
It’s not that there is ONE LIBERAL in the world you can blame this situation on, what there is is a majority of people who have come to a different conclusion about the climate than you and your oil industry lobbyists.
Ouch. You got me there. J.R. Ewing’s been paying me the big bux to come here and argue with you ecoaltruists. And to plant fake memos about Cliff Barnes.
Next time you talk to Mr. Ewing, tell him I haven’t gotten my check yet.
Gleick’s not concerned with delicate eco-systems such as the desert border with Mexico which is being trashed by illegal aliens wholesale towards no productive purpose whatsoever. I imagine you need and drive a car: you do not need and drive an illegal alien.
A scientist is supposed to be dispassionate and not dispense “science” only where the harm is politically approved. And if Gleick’s correct does he go to the U.N. and say let’s figure out a way to stop the world’s poor from pooping out babies so India and China and Nigeria can stop fouling the world’s air with motorcycles or Guatemala and Indonesia can stop leaving giant clouds from firing jungle that create pollution in Florida and Asia? No, that would be politically incorrect. Poor people occupy a default position of morality no matter how ignorant, depraved and destructive their actions while drilling for oil is the devil’s tool.
These “scientists” are not scientists but propagandists who prop up their world view and impinge it on us in a manner that is suicidal for our economies. As long as these “scientists” dispense morality by location rather than by actions, they will only really be engineering societies based on the cheapest psychology and Marxist politics. The clock’s striking 13 in Gleick’s world and that’s a call to action in his self-righteous and smug “mind.”
Yes of course, the majority of scientists are secret Marxists out to destroy capitalism and impose Sharia on the world and did 9/11 and only the former tobacco lobbyists at Heartland Institute tell the truth ONLY THEM!
Also they’re keeping the evidence about Noah’s ark a secret as well as the fact that the last rock that Mohammad touched floats 5 feet off the ground (that last one was told to me by a member of Hezbollah).
Fascinating to see how shrill you get, Josh. Can’t actually address what’s being said, so you lie about what someone said?
Mocking is not lying.
How can you even communicate if you can’t even begin to sarcasm and humor?
That should read “…can’t even begin to recognize sarcasm and humor?”
Sure “sarcasm and humor”. Except that nothing you’ve said is humorous. You’re just trying to shutdown discussion with abuse and repetition. Some “scholar”.
I did not say they were Marxists; I said they employed Marxist politics. Many people employ Brazilian “educator” Paulo Friere’s Critical Pedagogy without being the least aware of its origins or its dispensing morality according to one’s social or class position. Even a recent documentary about high school debate teams covered how one team, a black one to no one’s surprise, discovered Freire’s tripe which values awareness of race above actual knowledge or productivity. Political correctness in general is very similar to Critical Pedagogy. Gleick himself displays all the classic signs of CP and PC. In other words, he’s a fool born in a stereotype factory.
I can tell flop sweat when I see it.
What effect will it have on you and your anti-science politicians when, a few years from now, the ocean levels have risen a bit and a few island nations had to be evacuated?
Was it really a good idea to hitch your wagon to this star?
The “anti-science” is pushed by clowns like you. Read up on the ocean levels; Hansen predicted that TODAY the levels would have risen enough to flood the edge of Manhattan island. Hasn’t happened. The islands whining the loudest about being flooded — and pulling stunts like holding parliament underwater — are either subsiding on their own or show no net change.
Well, since the rate of increase has had to be revised downward radically — as Rob notes, those predictions have turned out to be about as sound as the other doom predictions — and I’m nearing sixty, I only hope to live that long.
Ah, yes. Healthy and natural skepticism is now “anti-sicence”. Good to know you’ve manned the fort there, Rob. Thanks so much for protecting us from those darned “deniers”.
Is there a need for the sarc tag? Or are you sufficiently advanced in your emotional state to pick up on that Rob?
Oops. Not Rob. Josh.
Tired eyes scanning too many comments at once….
FWIW, Gleik was the one who libeled “Tallbloke”, and then issued a retraction after a letter from Tallbloke’s attorney. They guy’s a five alarm loose cannon.
100,000 quatloos say that he wrote the FAKE memo.
Meh. I don’t give a quat about the faker. Not worth the bet….
You’re not gonna win any sucker bets from me, even for quatloos.
Gotta love how the “free thinkers” on the left rally to defend the government line on this. Can’t let those evil big bidness men (with a fraction of the budget of the Greens) get away with dissent!
I must say, this thread is hilarious.
Josh S. misses the 97% joke, proceeds to lecture about not catching sarcasm and humor, then grinds on to a sputtering grand finale with, “What effect will it have on you and your anti-science politicians when, a few years from now, the ocean levels have risen a bit and a few island nations had to be evacuated?”
Oh, be still my heart! Ol’ Josh is a pratfall machine.
Heh, you’re hoping that if you summarize the thread then no one will bother to read it?
Heh, is the reason you won’t criticize the implications of the content of the documents the fact that Heartland Institute is sending threatening letters, pretending that they’re gonna sue anyone who discusses what is now public knowledge?
You’re so tame.
You’re so lame. Some of the docs include personal information — that stuff should be removed from public eye. The only part worthy of comment is the faked doc, which begs the question: if they’re so bad, why the need to make stuff up? CAGW can’t stand as either science or PR without fraud — why is that?
Why should I take HI’s word that the document is faked?
And you know, if the government couldn’t sue any papers for discussing documents from wikileaks, what makes you think that HI can be more successful?
Where is the principle different?
You should take Heartland Institute’s word because they know which are their documents, and which are not. Noone else would know that.
Gleick has already agreed to theft. Should you take his word?
I don’t worry too much. Just as the fake Bush memos revealed their source (A Kinkos copier in Amarillo Texas) these will also reveal their source, which is likely to be Gleick’s printer, or a nearby copier. Forensic information in the computer age is ubiquitous.
Bunning is still in the brig.
Yes but no one can stop the newspapers from talking nor the bloggers.
Massive difference between a governmental institution (being funded by tax payer moneys, their “private” info isn’t really), and a private institution that has fundamental property rights, as defined by the courts.
You wouldn’t understand that, though. Too complex for your “scholarly” mind.
Heh. If your case is so strong, Josh Scholar, why haven’t you been joined here by other warmists to substantively address WHY Gleick was moved to lie. WHY to purloined docs are real, or why they are “fake but accurate”.
Was it “testilying”?
Was it “Lying for Justice”??
I suspect “Butthurt” doesn’t even begin to describe your emotional state right now.
But better get used to it: No amount of Warming K-Y is ever going to take the sting away!!
As I said: Heh.
Why should I have an emotional state? I don’t even know who Gleick is.
I have opinions. I argue them. I hope to make the world a little better place by spreading good ideas.
But there are things in my life that are life and death for me and this isn’t one of them.
Josh Scholar said: “I have opinions. I argue them. I hope to make the world a little better place by spreading good ideas.”
Your argue fallacious nonsense disguised as semi-factual blather. And BTW, you don’t argue opinions idiot. Opinions are simply that… opinions. No right or wrong about them. You should argue facts… facts like no global temp change in 16 years, no snow mass loss in the Himalayas and all Asian mountain ranges in a decade, a decrease in ocean levels this year, etc.
Ah, but then you have a dearth of facts supporting your ‘opinions’. Computer models based on inaccurate code or erroneous assumptions… yep got plenty of that. Hyperbolic squealing from the warmista community… check, loaded up on that. Broad personal attacks on anyone who won’t fall in line with your warmist doctrine and dogma… yessir loads of those.
Facts… not so much.
And you don’t “make the world a little better place by spreading good ideas” unless you actually have a good idea or two to spread. You apparently do not. If you stumble across one, be sure and let someone know.
And to everyone else on here, Hello. I’m new here, so maybe someone can explain why you are all arguing with a third grader?
There’s a scene in Richard Feynmann’s book “You must be joking Dr. Feynmann” where he describes being at a dinner for the Nobel Prize, and some woman said to him “we can’t talk about physics because no one knows anything about that”
He pointed out to her that she has it backwards, they can’t talk about physics because people know A LOT about physics, and there’s too much data, too much theory too much knowledge to discuss.
The problem with discussing facts while positing that the experts are liars or incompetent is that, short of getting the same degrees as those experts, there are such large holes in your knowledge that you can be easily led astray and you aren’t competent enough to weigh claims.
And you aren’t competent to judge who may or may not be “competent to weigh claims”. To believe otherwise is to exhibit incredible hubris. You are qualified to speak on your own lack of knowledge or inability filter nonsense from fact, but you are not qualified to speak about anyone elses erudition on the subject. And frankly, your lack of knowledge speaks for itself. That is apparently why you never actually address a fact that is presented. I may have been generous in my previous assessment… not 3rd grade, but rather kindergarten.
I said this elsewhere in this thread and I’m gonna repeat it here, because it’s what I think about this debate:
In the end the only issue that’s really important is the social split in our society that makes our politics irrational.
Liberals and conservatives are so busy hating each other that there is a fault line that valid information can not cross, and this fault line can be exploited by corrupt people.
You could see it during GW’s presidency in the way that Liberals were incapable of listening and understanding what our foreign policy in the Middle East was for.
And I have always said that Climate change denial is, intellectually, the American equivalent of the conspiratorial Antisemitism that grips Europe.
I see the same closed mindedness, the same level of crazy conspiracism, the same hatred for one’s opponents.
I have often thought that if violence will come to American politics, it’s likely to come from a climate denier attacking some innocent scientist he thinks is lying.
Did you know that there have already been several terrorist attacks associated with AGW? Problem for your side is, they came from those who promulgate the AGW theory.
Examples include numerous bombings and arsons performed by terror organizations ALf and ELF all around the world. A non-ALF/ELF example occurred in 2010 at the Discovery Channel HQ in Maryland when James Lee, an environmental activist, took several Discovery Channel employees hostage for four hours, demanding that they broadcast nothing but messages warning about the damage to Earth caused by humans, citing such sources as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
And let’s not forget the Unibomber, whose manifesto presaged many of the complaints shared by by eco-activists such as Josh here.
Fact is, far more terrorism has been already conducted by eco-fascists than ever by those who oppose them. The next act of terror performed by an anti-AGW activist will the the first one. Of course, the MSM will blow it way out of proportion, just as they ignored most terror acts performed by eco-fascists whose views they largely share.
One last thing: it is important to keep in mind that the only documents from Heartland Institute that have been confirmed by HI are the technical ones. The so-called strategy memo has been disavowed by the HI. And that is the “source” of most of the sensationalized “revelations” from this leak.
My theory: Peter Gleick obtained the technical documents via his subterfuge. He was disappointed in their lack of sensational discoveries. So he made up the “strategy memo,” figuring that if he included them with the rest of the material, the memo’s validity would be unquestioned.
Unlike some of the others here, I don’t have a particular issue with purloining some documents via fraud. But making up a document is unconscionable.
Let me correct this “each other” fallacy right now Mr. Scholar. Name me one mainstream political construct formally founded around the concept of race that is supported by the Right. Just one. Just one with mainstream ads and the participation of mainstream writers and celebrities.
On the Left I can name many: La Raza, affirmative action, hate crimes, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, so many other Latino groups I can’t name them all.
Then, apply that same mainstream concept and find me just one website anywhere in the U.S. constructed around the white race. Mainstream ads, mainstream writers and celebrities. There is not a single one.
On the Left there is The Root owned by the Washington Post, TheGrio owned by NBC/Universal and so many more I can’t list them.
And yet who is it who cries racism the loudest and who is it pointed at. Well, it’s pointed at the people who have the least interest in it. Relativism is not an absolute and there are not always 2 sides to a story in the sense you mean and there is such a thing as right and wrong.
When you’re done chewing that over look at American film from the height of Jim Crow, 1930-55 and tell me about any overarching interest in white supremacy at a time racists supposedly had a free hand; show me even 5 evil black guys who are evil cuz they’re black out of thousands of films. Then look at any Rainbow Coalition Hollywood film in the last 20 years and it’s nothing but race advocacy and interest by skin color. If the latest Whitney Houston debacle isn’t proof enough I don’t know what is. The Left is completely delusional or perhaps merely stupid.
That delusion has even spread now to science and we also have Muslim multicult proposals from our post-racial Prez to diversify cis-lunar space.
Pretending, eh….
And where, one asks breathlessly, does Heartland threaten to sue “anyone who discusses what is now public knowledge”?
Since when does stealing private property and publishing it, make the thief immune from being sued for theft?
Since when does a libelee not have the right to insist the libelor not continue to publish his damaging falsehoods? I guess you missed that in Torts 101.
For your sake, Josh, I sure hope you had no hand in this. If you did, your Mom’s not gonna like it when she has to sell her home to pay your bail and legal fees. After all, she let you live in her basement for free!!
I could paste URLS of half a dozen blogs who have gotten threatening letters but of course having more than one URL triggers the moderation filter.
Here have one
http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/
And where is the explicit threat to sue in these exchanges? We all notice the piteous bleatings, the self-serving description of the writer as a “71–year-old veteran, but WTF does that have to do with anything?
Are you familiar with the legal term “boilerplate”?
Face it, you’re sucking wind.
No, you’re just sucking.
Here have another
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39944_Climate_Change_Denial_Front_Group_Heartland_Institute_Sends_Emails_to_Bloggers_Threatening_Legal_Action
Really, if you’re gonna cite Chuckles Johnson from LGF on *anything*, you are hopelessly boned….
Johnson posted an email he got.
Is it your claim that he did not get that letter?
Really?
No, I’m saying Chuckles is batsiat crazy, as the purge of LGF commenters/members who do not toe his line has shown.
BTW: Is there a reason, intrinsically, you post your comments as an anonymous voice? Handles come and go… identity; taking possession of your words, means everything.
You are failing in that respect, cousin, by hiding behind that Momma’s dress….
Heh, he’s a bit paranoid.
He called me a “right winger” and banned me. No joke, he really did.
I had rejoined (after losing my password) the same day as some American Muslim cleric who at one point had lost his f*cking mind and tried to chase all the Jewish bloggers away from his website by arguing some modern version of the blood-libel, this one being that Israel had made a virus that kills only Muslims.
I won’t go into details, but I attacked him on LGF and that set off Charles.
I tried to come back a year later and my new account was disabled before I even posted. That’s what control freak Charles and crew are.
But he was almost alone among the center-left about being right about Islamism (too bad he’s shut up about that) and he was right that the American right has gone too far long before some of the people he kicked off his site started saying how much they like Anders Brevik.
He’s got some good intuition even if he is too extreme.
I don’t know why my comment didn’t appear.
Heh, Charles is a bit paranoid.
He banned me from his site calling me a right winger. He really did.
I had rejoined (after losing my password) the same day as this apparently liberal Muslim cleric who at one point had lost his f*cking mind chased all the Jewish bloggers away from his own website by promoting some modern version of the blood-libel, this one being that Israel had made a virus that kills only Muslims.
I won’t go into details, but I attacked him on LGF and that set off Charles.
I tried to come back a year later and my new account was disabled before I even posted. That’s what sort of control freak Charles and crew are.
But Charles was almost alone on the center-left about being right about Islamism (too bad he’s shut up about that) and he was right that the American right has gone too far long before some of the people he kicked off his site (like Pamela Geller) started saying how much they like Anders Brevik.
He’s got some good intuition even if he is too extreme.
TC, the evidence seems to be that he’s a previously banned commenter who’s returning with a sock puppet and a proxy server.
Took you a while to invent some spin for my IP address.
God, you’re a dishonest creep.
Hmm neither of the comments I made about being banned from L/G\F appeared.
I wonder what word set off a filter?
Josh, I’m damned if I can see what it was, but sure enough Akismet had nabbed them. I unspammed them.
Actually, I do see what it was — we try to keep the comments pg-13. I’m about to add some judicious asterisks.
“Took you a while to invent some spin for my IP address.
“God, you’re a dishonest creep.”
Heh. Now you made me interested. I own modems older than you… You talk garbage real good… have you ever seen a modem, for no apparent reason, ignite? I mean, just burst into flames?
All of the scientists are lying to destroy our economy?
Really?
What sort of person could believe a conspiracy theory that covers the whole world?
Well we have LOTS OF EXPERIENCE with that sort of conspiracy theory, it’s just that innocent scientists aren’t the usual target for paranoia.
What sort of person thinks that all scientists are in agreement on global warming?
the answer is “people who poll them”
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Josh Scholar “What effect will it have on you and your anti-science politicians when, a few years from now, the ocean levels have risen a bit and a few island nations had to be evacuated?”
I have it on good authority from Al Gore associate Rep. Hank Johnson that those affected will be relocated to the island of Guam, provided it isn’t overpopulated in the process.
I think we’re seeing the new narrative here. At some point in the future an ‘innocent’ scientist is gonna be attacked (for real or faked). At that point the attack will be laid at the feet of the ‘denialists’ as another means to shut them down and/or get the public to ignore/condemn the denialists.
Sooo transparent.
Yes, if I say that denialism, with it’s constant demonization of scientists and claim that they’re all part of conspiracy is reminiscent of other poisonous conspiracisms then the immediate response is to say that I’m playig a part in a conspiracy
Thank you for proving my point so wonderfully.
Thank you for proving my point so wonderfully!
“I have often thought that if violence will come to American politics, it’s likely to come from a climate denier attacking some innocent scientist he thinks is lying.”
Lemme clue you in, meine junge: violence came to American politics a long time ago. MOST of it has come from the left.
The perps have always been losers, or on the losing side.
You know, like Bill Ayers, Obama’s buddy. Or communist Lee Harvey Oswald. Or th idiots who kill abotion doctors.
But lets bring matters up-to-date:
* Climategate has destroyed your side’s credibility. There’s no way to claim that actions to get critics removed from their jobs or discredited can be “taken out of context”. Dittoes with avowed declarations to destroy records to make them beyond FOIA disclosure.
* The roiling debate utterly falsifies the Goracle’s claim (and yours) that “the science is settled”
* global temperatures have not gone up in almost 15 years, while CO2 levels have. Explain that!
* cap-and-trade is dead in the US. In fact, it’s dead everywhere, Kyoto or no.
* Europe is abandoning wind and solar power, and their subsidies, right and left. Why? They suck.
* In the US solar and wind are dying left and right. Chapter 11, anyone?
* the predictions of millions of climate refugees by 2000 have not materialized
* the IPCC has become a laughingstock. Just how many times does a UN org have to f*ck up before they are considered whack.
IOW our side, the side of science and rationality, is winning ALL the major fights.
So why should anyone want to attack some “innocent” warmist?
Face it: you’re just micturating into the wind.
I hope you get a whole lot on your Birkenstocks.
I am not a customer for HI’s output. I know they made claims and I know that other people say that HI’s claims were bull..
And I don’t care.
As I linked above, there are surveys of relevant scientists OTHER than the one HI claims to debunk that show there’s pretty much a consensus.
The name for someone who isn’t fully educated who tries to disprove current theories is a “crank” or “crackpot”
I let experts understand their own field. I could link to cranks who claim to disprove relativity – I think they have holes in their understanding of mathematics, but that’s not the point.
The point is that it is that it is easy to be a crank, you just need an incomplete understanding and a lot of chutzpah.
But in this case there is money and interested parties trying to create cranks.
It’s an easy job. Look around the world, conspiracism is more common than knowledge.
Look around the world, conspiracism is more common than knowledge
–by golly that’s right! Also, time flies like an arrow and fruit flies like a banana!
In some places most of how people explain their world is in terms of conspiracy.
To mention an example that you’d be aware of, ask yourself this “how many people believe in the international Jewish conspiracy?” Don’t forget to include people in East Europe, Africa, parts of Asia, the Middle East.
Conspiracism is insanity. It is the definition of paranoia, and it stems from ignorance.
It is also a common mode of thought and discourse. It is as common on PJ Media as it is on any Islamist forum. If you look, you can see it. And then, maybe you can’t take these writers seriously again.
I let experts understand their own field. I could link to cranks who claim to disprove relativity – I think they have holes in their understanding of mathematics, but that’s not the point.
Of course data coming out of the Large Hadron Collider and CERN are showing some holes in relativity but whatever…
I don’t think the data from the LHC has anything to do with this guy’s objections
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Notice that he calls all scientists crackpots and claims that he’s the only correct one. That pattern should be familiar.
I hope you get a whole lot on your Birkenstocks
I can still laff! It’s three ayem and a good sleep screwed, the week to start with a cardboard face –and i can STILL laff!
Dear Anna,
I think it is time to conclude that Josh has clearly established himself to the point of Self Parody.
For myself, I’ve gotten to the point where when reading the comments I will read one or two of his comments, but mostly skip over anything he writes and I read the intellegent replies to his comments to determine if I want to read and reply to his drivel.
While I think it would be best to ignore Josh in the future, I also note some value in all of the replies that I read which helps in my face to face interactions with the liberals I have to deal with IRL.
In Other Words, the posts in response to Josh by You, Conservative Wonderer, Marc Malone, et. al. are not wasted words, they are merely wasted upon Josh – Pearls Before Swine – as it were.
yeah josh the concern scholar. Maybe those innocent scientists will have a few issues, but the ones who lied, stole, faked and otherwise attempted to hysterically destroy modern society with millenarian prophesy perhaps have something to answer for?
You seem to be intent on disrupting this thread. Why do you think your friend Gleick thought stealing, lying and faking information was going to improve your case?
Do you think someone who makes a profession of “ethics” should steal, lie and fake if he really really believes in the cause?
Really?
Bwuhahahaa
” Climategate has destroyed your side’s credibility.”
IMO, the global warming side never had any credibility.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/headline/germanys-solar-powered-money-pit/
” By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.”
The giant sucking sound throughout the world’d economic system is the money lost to the global warming scam. Future generations will be paying forever for this fraud.
Remember this is the same dufus who thought it was OK to author a nasty book review of Donna Laframboise’s book “The Delinquent Teenager . . .” on Amazon.com without having read the book.
We knew about his honesty and morality then, so this fraud should not be surprising.
Hahahaha, the global warmists couldn’t get their own Climategate so they had to manufacture one. Now it has blown up in their faces!
Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people.
More sucking sounds from the Global Warming scam.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/19/lomborg-germany-phasing-out-giant-solar-subsidies/
” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.”
$260 avg per consumer down the giant Global Warming Rathole, That’s from just one country.
Yes, whenever I am absolutely convinced of the soundness and merit of my arguments/stance, I immediately go out and dishonestly try to defame the opposing view/commit crimes. That’s how confident I am.
“How are we supposed to have a debate if you keep disagreeing with me?”
I think that sums up the entire thread-wide discussion with Josh ‘Scholar’ rather nicely.
It’s all about the power. The AGW folks are watching their power slip away similar to how the Great Ice Age of the 1970′s, and the Great Starvation of the 1980′s are now reminders of just how wrong doom-mongers can be.
The Gleick fellow is probably looking out a couple years, to when we don’t have billions to spend on studying polar bear farts or whatever, and he is desperately trying to keep some power/money for his favorite research.
It really doesn’t matter what the “settled” science is, if there isn’t grant money coming in, these scientists will starve. Good for them.
So, what this amounts to is that, in order to come up with the conclusion he *wanted*, he faked a document.
In other news: Water is wet!
::giggle::
Seriously, great overview of the whole slimy mess, Charlie!
Just picked this up at Newsbusters:
Pacific Institute, the group that lied in order to obtain the documents, received $275,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2006. This vicious attack by the left resulted in the release of information on the Heartland Institute’s fundraising strategy, budget, and plans to combat global warming alarmism
“Open Society” …from navel to chin, with a chainsaw.
Hmmm, “Comparisons of his writing style from language specialists as well as software show strong similarities to the faked document and strongly suggest that he authored it.”
This sort of analysis was of no use in proving William Ayers was the ghost writer for Dreams from My Father. I doubt it will stick here either. As compelling as it may be, it’s not conclusive.
bgres swears this guy got the documents from a Ms L. Ramirez.
I just have to say – after plowing through the sludge of Josh’s comments, I’m struck by how absolutely silly the debates with hard leftists here is.
Look, Josh, if you read this comment – answer me one question.
Would you be astonished if I posited that conservatives just -might- want to address more concrete environmental issues that we already have a strong grasp of? Like perhaps pushing for more nuclear power. Fixing up and modernizing energy infrastructure. Easing regulations on automobiles so that the free market, rather then ‘government knows best’ guides consumers towards more efficient vehicles.
We’re not getting paychecks from the Koch brothers. We’re not cowering in the corner, clutching a bible and a shotgun and hiding from almighty science. We’re not frantically adjusting our tin foil hats as we struggle to keep our hats tuned in to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy News Network.
There’s just this -slim- little chance that our reasons for our positions on global warming might have -some- validity. Just thought I’d point that out.
Cheers!
Meant “bgates” at no, 27
According to the rigors of scientific discipline,no hypothesis is worthy of any consideration unless it implies the sort of evidence that would prove it wrong.Projections based on the theory are checked against the facts.How many anomalous results are required to invalidate a theory?To paraphrase Einstein..A mere one.The last couple of decades are replete with failed global warming predictions.Ergo the Anthropogenic Warming Theory has been discredited.