Dear GWB, the temple of Deltoid is a perfect illustration of the sectarian non-scientific off spring of real climate science. What more do you need? (C)AGW is a hype based on a manhandled scientific hypothesis. Peel off the thick ideological and political layers from it and you will find a core of science, of course. But we are not there yet, but we are getting there.
The backlash(s) you guys have been suffering lately will continue until all the anthropogen methane has escaped from the climate scare bubble. And then we will be able to see all the great uncertainties that's been there all the time â in the real science underpinning the CO2-hypothesis.
Not to self: uncertainties of great magnitude are best handled in a lab â by real scientists â not by politicians and ideologists talking on their behalf in unscientific milieus.
However, like members of a sectarian church you are not able to take such an objective stance nor are you willing to question your convictions. And when called upon you usually get very angry and agitated, which of course is very understandable. Somebody is questioning your belief system (which adds meaning to your very existence):
Yesterday I drafted a comment stating that the trolls were waiting for Josh to tell them what to think before they responded. Then I replaced it with something else because I thought that was too facetious - for even me.
Of course, it must be fake. Look at how Heartland are responding - by threatening the internet to vanquish the documents that are apparently so irrelevant. *That's the behaviour of an innocent party.
MikeH is right. They are hypocrites. Not that the usual trolls will care - look! A cartoon to reassure our delusions!
>Not to self: uncertainties of great magnitude are best handled in a lab â by real scientists â not by politicians and ideologists talking on their behalf in unscientific milieus.
I agree!
Now remind us - who is doing the actual science? Lab bound climate scientists or Hearland affiliated shills like Carter and Watts?
GWB, I forgot no. 5. Ban/ostracize those in opposition.
Many of you deltoids nurse the idea that criticism of climate scientology should be labeled blasphemy and hence be forbidden. I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
I guess Regan..sorry Tim couldn't stand Jonas' well intended and well needed scientific exorcism: "The power of science compels you". ;-)
Olaus, that is even more comical than I expected. Do you really think your diatribe addresses my challenge? So I'll re-issue it:
The scientific underpinning of climate change has been developed through research undertaken in multiple institutions in multiple countries; published through peer reviewed literature, in journals that encourage debate and discourse; discussed at single discipline and multi-disciplinary conferences, many of which have an open submission policy for abstracts (e.g. EGU General Assembly and the AGU Fall Meeting, at which I have personally seen Steve McIntyre present, by the way); and then supported by unequivocal statements by all of the major National Science Academies around the world, each of which has examined the evidence underpinning the science and come to the same conclusion.
So I challenge you to explain clearly and succinctly in what way this resembles either religion or scientology.
Note clearly and succinctly, and the challenge is to derscribe how the scientific underpinning, not Deltoid, resembles either religion or scientology. Please stop side-stepping the issue with incoherent rants.
> Many of you deltoids nurse the idea that criticism of climate scientology should be labeled blasphemy and hence be forbidden.
Citation needed. Or is this another of your own private interpretations of the data?
> I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
Your implication via juxtaposition that this was due to Jonas criticising climate science is false (if indeed he has been banned). He was warned that he would be banned if he left his own thread. He left his own thread. Occam's Razor eliminates your implication.
(Some might even speculate that Jonas would find it more convenient to get banned than to continue to try and defend some of his less defensible claims - but seriously, who gives a shit?)
As Petri amply demonstrates, when the urgent call for 'maximum effort, damage limitation' went out to the Rapid Response Teams (so urgently that even Jonarse undertook one final suicidal mission) it was 'all trolls to the pumps'.
A little more care on the part of the Hearland High Command might have found it worthwhile to add the rider 'without making deniers look even more stupid with clumsy, half-baked, home-made metaphors'.
But alas, for some it was too late. Petri was already beyond contact, as he had been for some time.
>I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
Hmmm, I haven't seen the post where Tim said that Jonas N had been banned from Deltoid (validly, given JN's breaking of the rule), so I can only assume that Jonas N received a private email from Tim, and that Jonas N told you via the Scandinavian Troll Collective.
Or have you been spear phishing, Olaus Petri?
Now, if only we could exterminate the rest of the STC cockroaches...
Delingpole and JoNova make themselves look like utter idiots for comparing *funding for primary research* with *anonymous donations channelled specifically to authors to produce partisan "educational" material*. In other news, apples have an entirely different taste to oranges.
Olaus, are claiming that governments fund climate research for a particular outcome? Because that would be a conspiracy theory, the kind you claim you don't traffic in.
Over at Scholars & Rogues, Rutan is still trying (assisted by the odd goalpost shift, and complete non-response to almost all demonstrations of outright falsehood). It's quite a remarkable performance.
I've started analysing his slide deck, slide by slide, as best as I can. It's not a good look for someone touting their professional skills as giving them some insight.
We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.
I would be overjoyed if Jonas is finally gone! He can believe he's Galileo all he likes, we know a goose when we see one. Who will his acolytes focus their neural-outsourcing on now? I know - Josh! See above.
Something that may or may not be of interest. Australian Senator Cory Bernardi is known for his right-wing views, is anti- same sex marriage and a climate science denier. On the 15th Feb (same day the Heartland Inst âleakâ occurred), the Adelaide Advertiser (News Limited) featured an article on Bernardiâs views on the CSIROâs âCarbon Kidsâ program (a national childrenâs scientific program part of which teaches kids the science behind climate change). The Adelaide Advertiser article is here:
Bernardiâs attack bears remarkable similarity to Heartlandâs angle on teaching climate science in schools.
As it turns out, The Age reported back in October last year on Bernardiâs anti-carbon price activities. That Age article also details his role in several âconservativeâ anti-climate change groups. Relevantly, it mentions his involvement with Heartland, including:
âBernardiâs Registrar of Senatorsâ Interests shows that last year he travelled to the United States as a guest of the Tea Party think tank, the Heartland Institute. He denied he had talked about Tea Party tactics or organising âgrassrootsâ groups on the web, but said he spoke at its conference in May. In October last year he also declared the institute paid for his accommodation in Sydney during another conferenceâ
I was just wondering if these donations/ expenses paid to Bernardi explained one or more of the amounts going to anonymous beneficiaries in Australia.
(Cross-posted at Deep Climate)
(Thanks to Liz A and joe2 at Crikey's Pure Poison weekend thread)
Hey Steve - I took up your message over at Hot Topic; John M's been 'round there a bit due to the Heartland / NZCSC [*cough*] connection.
Do you remember when Bernardi was running his anti-Earth Hour poster? The curious might ponder what the brightly lit country north and west of North Korea is! ;-)
Thanks Bill, I was wondering whether it was worth adding to DeSmog but John M is pretty much all over here, DC and at Hot Topic. Now you mention it there is a dim memory of "Human Achievement Hour" (as if deliberately using more non-renewable resources just to spite others somehow celebrates human achievement). It doesn't take much poking around to see who Bernardi is connected with and that SMH article you link to brings up CEI so it wouldn't surprise me if he was also linked with the IPA.
While we're on the Bernardi-Heartland theme, Watching the Deniers did a piece on this much earlier which is worth the read. The same old faces keep turning up together - the IPA, David Evans, Jo Nova. Bernardi seems to have swallowed (or is that "Bolt"ed) the Potty Peer's snake oil, and the whole nexus puts me in mind of that irresistably gruesome video that Graham Readfearn highlighted a week or two back, that linked all the foregoing with the Poet Laureate herself, Gina Rinehart.
I suppose the upshot of all this is the lie it gives to those who say how little funding Heartland has compared to the communo-fascist one-world collectivist dictators at Greenpeace, the WWF and so on. It ain't what you know, but who you know.
Dear Johnnie, I/she served you some perspectives. Nothing more. And there is no need for conspiracy theories when explaining group thinking and sectarianism, which I have told you many times already.
As usual, and in common with Wattsisface and Bishop Shill and all the rest, the Strawberry Tart misses the point (deliberately). It's not relevant how much Heartless splash about the place, it's what they do with it off their own bat - specifically, campaigning to turn teaching of science in schools into a political propaganda lecture. Also relevant (and thus glossed over by the Strawberry tart) is the Heartless is not, by any means, the only right-wing stink tank addicted to tea parties, climate science denial, anti-environmentalism, and right-wing propaganda, as several posts above (including mine and the links to Watching the Deniers posts) demonstrate. Lastly, the Strawberry Tart signally fails to mention Heartland's wholesale hypocrisy in complaining bitterly about its internal documents being leaked when it has spent years and untold $$$ relentlessly lying about the content of the UEA/ CRU hack and making personal attacks on climate science bods.
I've said it before and I will say it again - if you hitch your wagon to the circus that the Strawberry Tart is part of, don't come whinging when it drags you out into the desert and leaves you there.
I/she served you some perspectives. Nothing more. And there is no need for conspiracy theories when explaining group thinking and sectarianism, which I have told you many times already. Pay attention will ya.
I have to concede one point, that there's no need for talk about conspiracy theories when most of the links between Bernardi, IPA, CEI, Heartland, Jo Nova, Watts, Monckton, etc etc ad nauseum are on the record. Anti-science, anti-environment and antithetical to the truth, they're all linked together in a giant tea party, and they all have their heads so far up each other's arses it's a wonder to science you can even mention words like "perspective" and "paying attention" without disappearing into a localised black hole created by you blanking out your own hypocrisy.
Steve, the news value in finding out that a tiny lobby-organization not in favor of the CO2-hypothesis is supporting research not in favor of the CO2-hypothesis, is rather limited. The fake-thang is interesting though, if there's any truth in it.
SteveC: thanks, I missed that at DC somehow, but saw mention over at Hot Topic.
For the education angle, "fakey" almost had a section that pulled out themes from Heartland's glossy E&CN newsletters. One theme was going to be something like "Fakeducation from fakexperts" but it was already long enough. Do visit Hot Topic and see my quick comments, which end with a note on the proposed "Roosters of the Apocalypse" polybag.
Always remember: Heartland cares so much about children and their education that:
- Joseph Bast defended Joe Camel, the most successful campaign in US tobacco history to addict younger children to tobacco. See "Fakery", Appendices F and G.1. See p.46 on The "Smoker's Lounge",
'Welcome to the Smokerâs Lounge, the place to go for sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues'
- I cited clear tobacco funding 1993-2002, and likely through 2008. Somewhat to my surprise, I find Heartland was getting even higher funding in 2011: $50K From Altria, $110K from Reynolds American.
- Roy Marden of Philip Morris was on Heartland Board at least 1996-2008.
- The image at top right in "fakery" was from Heartland E&CN, showing a guy smoking right next to a child.
- Heartland's E&CN ran smoking-supportive articles and ads fairly often. E&CN = Environment and Climate News ...
well sure, that needs ads for Smoker's Lounge.
- As explained under Figure F.2, for most people, the only way to addict them to nicotine is to get them early while brains are developing. Since smokers tend to stick to first brands, there was a "race to the bottom" to get there first. In US that succeeded in moving the typical smoking-start age from 15-16 down to 13-14.
- So, Heartland has consistently tried to help tobacco companies, who survive by killing children slowly (of course, they prefer very slowly, since that yields profits longer.)
- So for Oz, it will be very interesting to see where the money went, "Fakery" H.3 and H.4. Who paid for Skeptics Handbook, for example? Inquiring minds want to know.
For those of you with a sense of humour, Megan McArdle's article on the 'faked' strategy document is bouncing around the blogosphere, the best quote from which is
âBasically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.â
Anthony has picked up and run with it in his post
"Top Ten Things Heartland Institute Will Do With $6.4 Million in Funding"
My favourite is
"10. Build a secret -strike oil-powered nuclear-powered strike- coal-powered lair on a South Pacific Island."
>One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft -- and this is just my speculation -- is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute. Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter that he shares Forbes magazineâs pages with Heartlandâs James Taylor.
I think that part of the response from HI has been even worse than the contents of those documents (including the alleged fake one).
That says so much about the ideology and motivations of the denialati.
the Protocols of the Elders of ...
What a foul and trivializing metaphor. The ironic thing about OP is that, while he does nothing but spew propaganda, he is completely inept and artless about it.
re: #530
See "fakery"
section 0.6, the Recipient glossary.
Notice a line labeled American Spectator Foundation?
Notice it gets funded by some of the same folks, including tobacco? L&H Bradley has been a consistent funder.
Also, as a funny connection, see Weird Science.
Tom Bethell was very active in American Spectator. His wife Donna is a a lawyer who somehow on the Board of Sandia Labs and also on Fred Singer's Board at SEPP. In fact, her letter to Washington Post is what set me off on the recent trek through From 990s, including finding Singer's little fibs, like telling IRS Frederick Seitz was SEPP's Chairman, for 2+ years Seitz's demise. Maybe Fred had a good spirit medium? Seitz was claimed to work an hour a week.
Watts is trumpeting the "Protocols" metaphor as if it's some satirical masterstroke ([link](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/top-ten-things-heartland-institut…)). Of course it's continuing the deniers' long-standing attempts to smear the mainstream as simultaneously communists, Nazis, socialists, fascists, anarchists, ad nauseam.
Watching Epistemic Closure in action is a fascinating process, in a trainwreck sort of a way...
Understand that WUWT crowd / Bishop of The Stick / and/or the local Scandinavian Smokers' Lobby live in an alternative reality, where a question mark over a single document means they don't have to think about all that inconvenient, corroborative stuff in all the other docs.
Or the multiple independent corroboration from outside the docs, including Bast himself melting-down on his blog and inadvertently confirming much of both the key content and the language in a stunning piece of tactical ineptitude!
Yep; all magicked away, simply by routinely uttering the spell 'Protocols of Heartland' every time the dissonant topic comes up!
Note that they are forced to link to their own sealed, self-referential blogosphere, because in the real world they're getting a pasting.
WARNING: Scandinavians - contains factual information of a distressing nature which may not confirm deeply held prejudices. Not recommended for Deniers.
Ben Cubby (Fairfax/ SMH) joins a few more dots in the Heartland stink tank debacle. Not especially in-depth but at least one Australian journo is giving it a go. Also a wrap-up by Amber Jamison at Crikey's Rooted blog.
"In 2009, the US arm kicked in $60,699 in funds - virtually all the Australian organisation's entire budget of $62,910 - the ASIC documents show. Donations from the public, at a time when debate over the federal government's proposed emissions trading scheme was at a peak, were just $138.
In 2010, the Australian group had an income of $50,920, and $46,343 of that came from the American Climate Science Coalition, an offshoot of the International Climate Science Coalition, the ASIC documents show. The amount of public donations received was nil.
The public support figures are pretty damning. Not at all what denier claims would've led one to believe.
re chek, sounds like our Scandinavian friends can add the Australian Climate Science Coalition to Bjorn Lomborg's recently demised foundation as a focus for charity funding from their forthcoming 'Just Say No to Climate Scientology' Cake Stall.
While I don't think many in the real world will be all that willing to swallow your guff, guys, I do think you might improve on $0 - say if your mums came over - and perhaps even beat $138 if you pick your venue... say the next Heartland Conference?
She is a sad, sad person. Doesn't even know the history of her own discipline and buys Stopa's piece of crap. Doesn't say much for her intellectual rigor (or is that "say much about her intellectual rigor mortis?").
ianam, I agree with your verdict on JC, although I'd go even stronger and say JC has gone rejectionist, to use Eli Rabett's term.
Anyway, one answer to the asinine question "What if they're^fn1 wrong" link is really simple---"What if you're^fn2 wrong about the climate scientists being wrong?" The obvious infinite regress should be sufficient to illustrate the lunacy of this line of thinking, but in the Alternate Reality pervading JC's blog, I'd guess they haven't noticed.
Of course, the "What if they're wrong?" question is simplistic, for it ignores the fact that the most credible source of scientific knowledge about climate science is the community of climate scientists. It is highly unlikely that some outsider is going to overturn well examined and/or tested theories of climate science, especially where empirical data requires skill to analyse.
And if the climate scientists are proven wrong, down the track, one thing is almost certain: it will be the climate scientists themselves who discover that, not some amateur outsiders. That's the way science usually progresses. Hoping that this time is different, that this time the scientists are all wrong, is a belief system, not a credible viewpoint.
Fn1: they = climate scientists
Fn2: you = JC and her physicist chum
PS: for better or worse, I've said much the same thing over at John Quiggin's blog post on just this topic of bone-headed stupidity.
Yep. The blog post she cites links to the Daily Mail's "...it's cycle 25 we need to worry about..." stupidity and the claim that "it hasn't warmed for 15 years". Not a word from Curry on that. And the article relies to a large degree on postulating no water vapour feedback mechanism.
It also pulls a "Climate Friedman" arguing that "the truth of the matter should be apparent in about 15 years".
Never mind that the blog poster accuses some scientists of outright deception, and argues the tired "the rest are just going with the flow to get grant money" without any evidence or demonstrating any understanding of how science works - and that appears to be near the core of what impresses Curry. (Rutan is making similar arguments at Scholars & Rogues, or was before the Admin told him to engage with the arguments presented rather than repetitively pontificating...)
>Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent studies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted.
Let's all guess what the deniers will cherry-pick out of this report.
Hey Bill, to save you feeling like you're blowing your own trumpet, I recommend anyone interested in the Bernardi/ Fartland connection go read your follow-up posts (all of them ) at Hot Topic.
Even if John Mashey can't find much use for the info you've collated, at least the Bernardi/ Heartless nexus has been documented.
I confess the links to Josh are getting harder and harder to resist due to the all-too-human rubbernecking response. It has been observed in many forums that political conservatives so rarely manage genuine humour - even when they think they do.
@568
See Spooner in The Age. Another Climate Change denier. His drawings are magnificent but he has to include huge amounts of text so that you know what you are supposed to be laughing at. They are usually cringe inducing rather than funny.
Compare that to Bruce Petty. I still have his cartoon on the last Victorian state election on my notice board. He has the three main parties on a winner's dais. The Green rep is holding a placard reading "Save the world", Labor's is "Save Victoria" and the Liberal Baileu's is "Save yourself".
Brilliant. Absolutely nailed it in one scribbled drawing.
If you've been following the story further, the 'scientists' letter doesn't seem to have been authored by any of them. The author was a press secretary from the union of concerned scientists, an NGO lobby group.
So the letter has the full weight of the NGO behind it. The names at the bottom? just the usual crowd, happy to have their names used in whatever way to promote the cause.
Makes you think doesn't it? some of their peer reviewed papers read a bit like that too.
Olaus, do you believe that climate scientists being paid by governments to study science is the same as retired or out-of-field scientists being paid to "undermine" that same science by poltical bodies funded by vested interests?
You also claim you don't like politicised science - so how can you have taken the side of Heartland in this sordid tale of sceptical failure?
It couldn't be a) you are lying, b) you're a hyprocite or c) all of the above?
And that means what, GSW? That Heartland aren't accepting vested interest money and giving it to deniers to "undermine" science for political reasons?
Or are you claiming the UCS is a political group that should be ignored? Are they equal to Heartland? Do they have political motivations? Are the scientists' words now wrong because, shock, they signed a form letter, not unlike the denier one you were all championing a few weeks ago?
"Or are you claiming the UCS is a political group that should be ignored?"
Well, I can't think of reason for taking them seriously. Their distinguished membership includes, amongst other visionaries of our time, Athony Watts dog Kenjii. He's a fully paid up member, whether the letter actually represents Kenjii's views, is at this stage 'Unknown'.
Ho hum - a PR person wrote it? Woohoo! Oh, the Humanity! Next.
Any luck finding any evidence of your 'fakegate' drivel outside your hermetically-sealed blogosphere yet? You know, we have the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Age, WA Today, the NYT, the BBC, AAP, et al; you have Watts, Josh and Delingpole.
PS: Boys, if you ever want to see people who can actually draw, caricature, and are bona-fide satirists (with a knowledge of Art History as well) the best in the world are Messrs. Rowson and Bell and they both happen to work for The Guardian. (Boo! Hiss!)
Now, you most likely wouldn't be able to work out what the joke is most of the time - your soul-mates who comment on the threads below the drawings certainly never can - but never mind; you wouldn't like it if you could figure it out anyway!
If not otherwise occupied at WUWT or over at The Sticky Bishop's your mate Josh would be illustrating community-service leaflets on the perils of gum disease and the benefits of keeping your colon healthy.
The silence of GSW about his own hypocrisy is telling. A political organisation caught paying money from vested interests to irrelevent and out-of-field to promote their political cause? Not a peep!
As Greg Laden ironically points out "I have no way of telling if it is authentic."
On the assumption that it is:
The Heartland Legal Notice claims that the allegedly faked document "...does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics." That's a very interesting claim to make, given that several of the goals in that document appear to be at least partially corroborated by publicly available information (e.g. see John Mashey's report) and 3rd parties. Heartland shading the truth in a legal communication, perhaps?
It's clear they apply totally different rules to confidential documents from others that they obtain as compared to their confidential documents when obtained by others. Gross hypocrisy by PR warriors for big business is nothing new though.
And the legal threats - if genuine - go a long way to validating the other documents. If they weren't largely accurate there would be a very loud PR message pointing out that they were all non-genuine. (You don't seriously believe they haven't had enough time or motivation to check the other docs yet, do you? If so I have this bridge for sale, low mileage, one genuine owner...)
Greg Laden in comments:
> The lawyer who "signed" the "email" is ironically one of those right wing "law suits are evil and must be stopped" persons, as far as I can tell, who works for Heartland...
That'd be right - lawsuits for me, but not for thee!
As someone else points out if they had genuine grounds for legal action they would have expressed them correctly, rather than this mish-mash of assertions (most of which I suspect do not hold legal water). For example, noting that it's from a non-lawyer:
> You do not owe Heartland a duty of confidentiality. You don't work for them do you? DO YOU?
> You did not leak the documents, and in the US, it's the leaker that's liable, not any media agent that then distributes the documents. ...
> Heartland could DMCA you, but then would have to authenticate the documents and claim copyright. They cannot have copyright over fraudulent documents.
Note that they apparently haven't invoked the DMCA - and you can be damn sure they know about that option. Any guesses why?
It seems that even the simplest of fact-checking actions is beyond your ken, GSW.
If you can't figure out how to corroborate such a trivial statement, what in the world permits you to imagine that you know how assess the credibility of the science?
>Heartland could DMCA you, but then would have to authenticate the documents and claim copyright. They cannot have copyright over fraudulent documents.
I've just had a delicious thought - what if Heartland faked the "fake memo"?
Of course, that raises the serious point that Heartland actually needs to prove that it's a fake if they want any traction on that front, and frankly I can't see how they could (although I am not a lawyer). It doesn't matter if that document wasn't obtained with the other emailed files, as it may quite plausibly have been found by the Insider and have been the catalyst for the phishing request for the other documents.
Even if there is no evidence of the memo on any Heartland computer there is still nothing to say that it wasn't composed "unofficially" elswhere for the purpose of discretion at an inner-circle meeting.
Proving fabrication would seem to be a fraught exercise indeed, especially without airing for all to see Heartland's dirty laundry. And without such proof the case against Laden falls largely to the releasing of confidential documents, which is:
the Insider's, not Greg's, responsibility
likely nothing to do with fraud/faking, as Heartland would have pointed out the actual errors by now
in stark contrast to Heartland's hypocrisy over their support of publication of the stolen (not phished) UEA material.
And on the matter of stolen versus phished, I would have thought that in law the former act is substantively more serious than the latter. After all, one has a minimum duty of care to ensure that one is observing security in correspondence (especially with confidential correspondence) - one has the choice to send material to new contacts, after all - whereas one is not so freely able to choose to avoid being the victim of a sophisticated institutional hack.
Perosnally, if I were Bast I'd shut my mouth. Dragging this into the light of day will only demonstrate to the public how much Heartland has spun science around 180 degrees for the benefit of corporate profit, and at the expense of Joe Public. With such scrutiny Heartland's utility could be irreparably compromised. Donors are likely not going to want to be found standing so close to the institute any more, and other institutes such as George C. Marshall and Cato may similarly be inclined to shuffle away lest the machinations of their own activities suffer excessive attention.
>The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to âre-sendâ board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.
Heartland's current position seems to be "some bugger stole the fake documents that we gave to them!"
It will be fascinating to see how this holds up in court, especially in light of their promotion of *actual* stolen materials.
> It will be fascinating to see how this holds up in court...
...especially if they're clueless enough to litigate and open themselves up to discovery. I suspect they won't - but you never know. They apparently haven't even heard of The Streisand Effect, which indicates that they're not a particularly savvy PR firm either. If I were a donor seeking to advance certain interests I'd be looking for a new vehicle by now.
"some bugger stole the fake documents that we gave to them!"
Thats an entertaining summation, John!
Does anyone seriously doubt the veracity of the non-scanned PDFs? As observed above, if there was real material there for Heartland to go on the attack over, wouldn't we have heard, and heard, and heard, by now?
(Also, you're clever enough to alter PDFs and apparently leave them with their original author, creation and modification dates, but then type out and scan a doc to PDF without attibuting any authorship and leaving an asynchronous creation date for good measure? You think?)
So; the 'strategy' doc. We've had to forego using the discouraging teachers from teaching science stuff, but we've got plenty of confirmation of the funding, the programs themselves, and the ideas behind them, and these stories are now running solidly without any need of the leaked docs themselves.
And if we were looking for examples of outlandish and strident language, Joe Bast's own efforts on Heartland's own blog in response to the NYT's article made it all too easy!...
Bernard, I agree. It's very possible that the "Climate Stratergy" doc may just be an unoffical summation by a low level staffer of their various activities, but not one that passed the computer screen of Bast or received any kind of offical rubber stamp, thus allowing them to use it to cast doubt on the others and to reassue the gullible fake sceptics who were really quite rattled for a couple of days.
> Dave Padden, Heartland's founder and long-time chairman, used to say that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings. Of course he was right. We're witnessing that right now.
>Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartlandâs âAnonymous Donorâ, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the instituteâs funding.
At least Heartland are consistent in their belief that opposing views should be silenced.
>DeSmogBlog: Heartland has never identified the alleged "obvious and gross misstatements" in the "climate strategy" document. We have not identified any. Neither does Heartland specify anything "unlawful" about publication of the "climate strategy" document.
Lotharsson, re your irony meter; plus what sort of a closed system would you have to be living to attribute that old saw - usually assigned to Mark Twain anyway (but apparently more correctly to the credit of evangelist Charles Haddon Spurgeon) - to 'my dear old mentor at Heartland'? Sheesh!
I think the irony mostly is that Heartland is threatening desmogblog because it published and commented on supposedly unlawfully obtained documents, while they also claim that they have not authenticated those documents yet. Quite funny.
"Remove our documents which we have not yet authenticated as ours!"
One of the more delicious possibilities is that this turns into a conspiracy to commit tax evasion case, in which case HeartlandInsider, rather than stealing documents, was whistleblowing crime ... and if those documents mattered to the case, and they filed the right forms, might well get a reward... Heartland might not have any money left, but Mr Big would, and he's been funding some naughty stuff that I'd allege breaks the rules. Actually, the whole funding chain could be in trouble.
Also, for here, the AU/NZ connection is especially amusing. US charities *cannot* just send checks to random people in foreign countries.
Take a quick look at Fakery, p.20. Any of the red tags is potential trouble... This is not just embarrassment.
I think that 'the Heartland Consequence', where the party attempting suppression instead ends up severely damaging or even destroying themselves as a direct consequence of their attempts to impose cease-and-desist, should be recognised as a corollary to the Streisand Effect.
Surely Heartland was/is obliged to take all steps possible to minimise any damage to its own reputation, and its sponsors', as rapidly as it possibly can? You know; like identifying their own property to the offending party/s clearly and swiftly and demanding its removal, while simultaneously clearly identifying any 'fake' and giving detailed notice of any defamatory harms it contains? Particularly if it intends to claim redress? This would appear to be the line of DeSmog's responses. I know we have some lawyers about... any ideas?
Instead we have this apparent "Schrödinger's cat" status, where the documents are simultaneously both stolen property and fakes. This may play well to the peanut gallery, but, let's face it, they don't count.
So much for the extended solar minimum. The sunspot count just went up by one... :-(
@John Mashey - regarding the possible whistleblower status, can you tell us how US law works with this? I would have expected that a whistleblower would normally be expected to pass the information confidentially to the relevant authorities, rather than spray it into the blogosphere. So if there have been tax abuses shouldn't this have been passed to the IRS, without divulging the contents to the public? (Not that I have a problem with it going public, just curious about the legal niceties).
>This ongoing summer rain is mostly derived from the oceans warmed during the current La Niña event. To the extent that the oceans are warmer than in the past, the resulting additional consistency of rain events, driven by La Niña, will have exacerbated the flooding beyond what it might otherwise have been.
>[My latter emboldened emphases]
If you still can't assimilate this, a year after the original flooding, and after numerous additional record-breaking floods later across eastern Australia, I'll frame it thus:
last year and this we had/have the warmest La Niña on record
warm La Niña waters bring rains to eastern Australia
to the extent that the extra warmth of the latest La Niña was the result of global warming, the 'additional' amount of flooding over average may be attributed to global warming.
If you still don't understand it, I was (and still am) saying that CO2 contributed to the magnitude of the flooding; it did not cause the flooding.
It's interesting to see that the passage of twelve months have brought to you no additional comprehension/education. There's a definitely a fool here, but it's not me...
Course, the thing is, there's a small army of anti-AGW proponents out there that will just do this for free. Not that they're fanatically devoted to their cause or anything, oh no.
Letters to the editor, writ large and writ often...
....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." On one side of the "controversy" are credentialed climatologists around the globe who publish in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals and agree that the planet is warming and that humans are to blame; on the other are fossil-fuel-industry-funded "experts" who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truths.
Scribe "I am puzzled. Why is MicroSoft funding the Heartless Institute?"
Tax deductions.
They supply just about anyone and everyone with the appropriate charity status for taxpurposes with their homemade goodies. The organisation gets its computer stuff for free. The company gets kudos for its charitable actions. The company also gets tax deductibiity for the retail value of the services supplied from its wholesale production.
You can bet your boots that if the charity tax exempt status disappears, so will the 'donations'.
It's not so much the "kudos", it's the fact that MS effectively gets a tax deduction for locking out any other vendor from those organisations it "donates" to.
Otherwise, charities would naturally gravitate towards open source products.
(But not Red Hat - seen their licensing fees lately? Crikey!)
Hey, Olaus, I notice you posted a link to the weather-man's blog-site.
Let me remind you what the LA Times has to say about that kind of thing:
fossil-fuel-industry-funded "experts" who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truth
So, instead of reading junk, read some science for a change.
We here sure are far too sceptical to take any notice of junk like Watts'. What's your excuse?
Perhaps he's intellectually easy. All anyone has to do is cosy up to him a little and whisper sweet nothings that he wants to believe in his ear and he'll fall in love with the stories they spin.
And when he projects this on to other people who think those sweet nothings are unsupported bulldust, he rationalises that they *want* to believe the bad news as much as he wants to believe the sweet little stories, and from there it's a short step to priests and religions and sociological conspiracy theories and the whole shebang you can see on display here.
But of course, I may be wrong. Examine the evidence for yourself!
Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent studies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted. Let's all guess what the deniers will cherry-pick out of this report.
To a denialist of the quality we see trolling around here, that report can simply be re-posted as:
"...the earths energy imbalance is....error....the authors confirmed that.....global warming has halted....."
Oh sure, a couple of insignificant bits would be omitted in the name of brevity, but nothing that would change the context of course.
>At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Instituteâs climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Instituteâs 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 elseâs 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.
The headline is "Concerned Scientists Respond...", the WSJ having still not corrected its false claim about the signatories on the previous Op-Ed.
They make much of IPCC *projections* from various past reports, but conflate them with *predictions* (despite Rutan having been called on it at Scholars & Rogues). And they characterise the trends in the graph for the reader without bothering to calculate them...and the projected trends after the 1988 report don't look too bad "by eyeball" despite their claims to the contrary.
They *still* make the claim that "many proxy indicators indicate that the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent", despite that not being accurate and adding weight to the case that climate sensitivity is higher than currently thought.
And so on with much the usual bullshit...I'm sure all sorts of analyses will pop up in the next couple of days.
(And according to the Op-Ed "aeronautics" and unspecified "forecasting" are some of the "key science and engineering disciplines ... on which climate science is based" - who knew?!)
And unsurprisingly Burt Rutan is a signatory - I suspect he has learnt very little from his time at Scholars & Rogues...
We all know that the more you disprove the notions of certain species of aging 'conservative', the more they believe them to be true. The world becomes a sort of surrealist OJ Simpson trial, writ large, where all that amassed evidence only proves the relentless persecution of my client, your honour!
The Rutans, Plimers, Carters etc. will go to their graves disbelievers, even if they live to see an ice-free Arctic, Greenland melting accelerate (again), the PNG and Kilimajaro glaciers disappear, a new global temp record, this decade warmer than the last (again) etc..
Gleickâs use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility
I disagree that it has destroyed his credibility. Has his admission made him any less believable?
His use of subterfuge lays him open to charges of hypocrisy, sure, but he doesn't back down from that.
But does his admission cast any real doubt on his claim that the leaked documents are genuine?
I don't think so. After all, his trickery was employed specifically to ensure that the documents were genuine.
And his admission means that if he is charged with some criminal offense, the court case will confirm, one way or the other, whether all of the documents were real. He's hardly running away from the truth, or trying to hide it.
I'd also add that his decision to come clean was obviously not the act of someone comfortable with ethical aspects of his deception.
Can you imagine whoever hacked the CRU emails putting his hand up?
As if.
If someone sets up a Peter Gleick defense fund, I'll be donating to it.
I salute Gleick's act of civil disobedience,and disagree with Revkin's clueless editorialising that the act has set back '..any prospects of the country having "rational public debate" that [Gleick thinks] is so desperately needed.' The bizarre pathology of pseudo-skeptic self-delusion hinders discussion already.
The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the ârational public debateâ...
Nonsense. Heartland, WUWT are their funders are not and never will be interested in "rational public debate".
I am with Gaz - where can I donate. Gleick may well pay a high price but there is no putting the documents back in the box.
It will only damage his credibility amongst the deniers, most of whom hated him anyway. Now they'll ramp up their campaign against him. He should expect to be the target of a rabid attcks, death threats and hilarious Josh cartoons over the coming year.
Yeah, this whole "damage rational debate" thing is an echo of "Obama shouldn't hurt Republicans' feelings by calling them out on their shit" thing because it will allegedly "damage bipartisan initiatives" - which is conveniently premised on the fallacy that Republicans actually want to allow non-Republican governments to govern.
I whole-heartedly agree with Gaz and JRC that Peter Gleick's stepping forward to identify himself as the phisher does not destroy his credibility.
Revkin's whining, hand-wringing comments to this effect are a classic example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Gleick's commentary on the urgency of climate change and the obfuscation of the denial industry should rest or fall on the validity of the science, and not on whether he fooled the Heartland Institute into handing over their internal documents.
This does not solve Heartland's problem, by the way. They still appear to have an insider who sent Gleick the original material - material that appears to include 'faked" memo which would appear to be not quite so fake now. Heartland still has to deal with the matters of trying to corrupt the process of science education in the USA, and of avoiding tax.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Heartland will stand to lose enormously if they persist in following their threats. The scrutiny of their activities will be intense, not just by the scientific community but by the sections of the media that will see public interest in Heartland's own deceptive behaviour. There are stories here of far greater import than Gleick's phishing expedition.
Peter Gleick may well have shot himself in the foot with his actions (although how Heartland can claim the moral high ground is unfathomable), but history will judge him favourably, and I too would be happy to put a few hundred in his defense fund. He's blown the whistle on a disinformation campaign that is morally repugnant and that threatens the well-being of the future of his country and of the world, and for that he deserves to be lauded.
Just as there was with the abolition of slavery, there are many voices stridently opposing the simple fact that curtailing emissions is the appropriate path to take, and just as many abolitionists were pilloried for their stances, Gleick will be hammered for standing his ground. I just hope that in Gleick's case the judiciary and the media take the broad, scientifically-objective view and understand who the real miscreants in the matter are, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the Denialati will throw everything in their power to distract from the underlying fact that they are trying to enact the most destructive lack of action, in modern times, to a problem greater than perhaps just about any other that humans and the rest of the biosphere will face.
I support Gleick's stance and the reasons for his frustration, and Heartland deserve whatever $hit they get. OTOH IMO Gleick getting inside info by using false pretences is just stupid (ameliorated only somewhat by coming clean about it) - he's a seasoned campaigner who really did not need to stoop to that kind of deception. Doubtless the usual suspects are already crowing about how "alarmists" are evil, unethical swine, fuelled by the likes of ethical dilettantes like Revkin pontificating about morals. Heartless will use Gleick's acts as a smokescreen in the hope of covering up their own misdeeds.
Whatever $hit gets dumped on Peter Gleick, the main focus needs to be kept on the lying Heartless bar stewards and their campaign to discredit the science by whatever foul means money can buy. I really hope the IRS takes John Mashey's work, substantiates the data and links for itself and then really goes to town on Heartland and (with luck) that'll finish them.
Revkin is a dickhead - what kind of ârational public debateâ does he propose could be had while the likes of Heartland, SEPP, CEI, IPA, Plimer, Carter are witlessly parroted day-in day-out by every News International outlet?
The more I think about it, the more Revkin's supposition seems to have concocted a story than was warranted. If Revkin hadn't put the idea out there, I suspect that the tone of discourse would have been quite different - except in the denialosphere, of course.
It seems that Heartland's favourable appraisal of Revkin as detailed in the "fake" memo has some merit, after all...
> I really hope the IRS takes John Mashey's work, substantiates the data and links for itself and then really goes to town on Heartland and (with luck) that'll finish them.
John Mashey pointed out above that much was being made of the docs that were obtained and much less about the IRS problems. I tend to think of the latter as Frodo and Bilbo slowly making their way into the heart of Mordor while most eyes are focused on the ragtag army outside the gates.
> ...what kind of ârational public debateâ does he propose could be had while the likes of Heartland, SEPP, CEI, IPA, Plimer, Carter are witlessly parroted day-in day-out by every News International outlet?
I hereby invite Revkin to assess the rationality of the public debate held between Angliss and repeat WSJ Op-Ed signatory Rutan (and various commenters, self included) at Scholars & Rogues. (If anyone here has an account at Revkin's site, feel free to crosspost/reference.)
**Rational public debate requires a shared commitment to acknowledging reality**. That does not exist with these guys.
(By way of trivial example, Rutan and two other commenters have *still* not even acknowledged the falsehood of their claim that "the IPCC removed the hockey stick from AR4" despite having been given a link to the graph that contains it.)
Olaus, though I don't agree with Gleick's way of doing it. He did shine light on the darkness that is the anonymous nature that is Heartland and other groups using taxpayer money to engage and support anti-science. He at least has the gonads to admit he was the person, and will under law be held accountable. Olaus, that is one thing different from the hacker(s) that stole documents and hide behind some pseudo-name, that are/were hailed as heroes by the denialists. Let them step forward as well. LMAO You probably support that don't you? What a moron. (sorry not speaking just about this, but most of your comments) Anyway I'm hopeful this case is in a state like Florida where all discovery is made public. Yes, that will be a silver bullet to Denialland and their undead (debunked for years and years) arguments against real science. (no violent intent, just a pun.)
Apparently Heartland's legal threats include [claims about their staff that may not be accurate](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/19/heartland-pr-director-legal…), and were sent from the PR director's e-mail account - rather than an e-mail account of the lawyer allegedly signing them.
(No wonder Greg Laden said he couldn't tell if the e-mail was genuine or not.)
Funny thing is that everything said in the "supposedly fake" document has been verified by those named. They all admit to getting money. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Who knows at this point maybe some of those mentioned as being outreach have been shown the money as well. Sadly if charges are filed the case will not be about the science. It'll be about what law(s) was/were broken under our system of law, and not the laws of physics which the denialists would lose every time. So Gleick will have to face the consequences for his actions as we all will when the science proves reality. But the IRS will not be looking at some conspiracy by the whole of climate science when it looks at Heartland's abuse of taxpayer money. Again it will be the laws that were broken. So on that note, it won't be a good day for the denial machine.
What's *really* interesting about this is the sequence of events.
If true, the "strategy" document looks more and more like a setup. Had Gleick gone public with just the doc, *all* of the (true) claims in it would have been discredited. Given that he sourced corroborating material, we know it contains a "sexed-up" version of the truth.
Gleick going public with the strategy doc alone would have been a total coup for Heartland. The other documents (and Mashey's coincidental detailed investigation) create a storm of genuine questions around Heartland, and it looks like things are getting uncomfortable for the anonymous donor...
@636 Dave H.....Would be nice if Gleick saved the envelope. Something like that I would, but that is just me. At the very least one can see the area (city) where it was mailed from by the ink stamp from the post office regardless of the return address that someone prints on the envelope if any return address was on it.
It's funny how of all the possible culprits, Gleick was fingered based on, largely, the contents of the Strategy document; and then we find it was Gleick but he denies creating that document. Like, what were the odds?
Also, the contents of that document were the most damaging to Heartland and if fake would place the creator in a whole different world of legal trouble due to the deception. But Gleick assures us an anonymous source snail mailed that to him, prompting him to go after more.
And one might ask - thought not usually here - why the particularly damaging fake document was created when the real documents were there in full exposing the reality of Heartland's funding and strategy.
It was as if the truth wasn't evil enough so someone (not Gleick, he assures us it was mailed to him) had to beef up the anti-climatism (to use a Gleickism).
> It's funny how of all the possible culprits, Gleick was fingered based on, largely, the contents of the Strategy document; and then we find it was Gleick but he denies creating that document. Like, what were the odds?
Yeah, it's almost like Heartland already *knew* who the strategy doc recipient was rather than read Gleick's mind, right? What were the odds indeed?
@640 Derrick...no he was probably found through other means than word analysis of the "strategy doc" Get real. As far as hypocrisy, let's look at this quote from Heartland. LOL "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." So again, it appears the docs other than the "faked one" are real. That's leaves Heartland with a lot of explaining to do. Anyway....Hmmmmmmmmm, Heartland even before verifying anything named him the main suspect where his info is available to the public. You crack me up. I think this quote fits the denialists..."Hypocrisy is not generally a social sin, but a virtue." by Judith Martin.
Yeah, but a 'setup' hypothesis doesn't really explain why it would be triumph to have Gleick rush to announce a 'fake' scheme to 'teach the controversy' in schools or fund yet another Wattsian tilt at Surface Stations (I mean, if fanatacism is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!...) knowing full-well that both would later turn out to actually be in the works!
No, that really doesn't make sense.
Also, Derrick, and Gleick puts his own name in there because he's been reading far too much Agatha Christie, or what?
@Lotharsson, no not Heartland, they never identified possible suspects. The blogosphere has been alive with speculation and one well known individual in particular came up with Gleick. Also others too in parallel. Go have a read at rankexploits if you're really interested, reasons are given. The thread was a few days back.
Well the plot thickens. High profile CSCSIs (Climate Scare Crime Scene Investigators. Hey a new blockbuster: The CSCSI?) at Deltoid are scrutinizing the forensics. What about DNA and fingerprints on the envelope? What kind of paper was it made of? When did it end up in the mailbox and in what angle was the envelope posted in the mailbox? And don't forget the Second mailer...
As you can see fellas, there are still tons of possibilities and facts strongly indicating a massive Big Oil-conspiracy trying to maneuvers the planet into Armageddon .
Not a good day for you believers and your end justifies the means morality.
How many times have I heard the words "Scientists of the Highest Integrity" from you. Even when all laid bare, your posts still look for ways to make it "Ok" and to blaim others.
Wow Olaus, so you don't believe is any kind of science? Or you just mocking science when it's inconvenient? Yeah, that's probably it. Seems that the DICKS unit were doing that for some time...you know the Denial Investigative Crime Komputer Science unit was anal(yzing) all the pdfs. ROFLMAO Moron.
GSW....actually it's a sad day for Gleick, and he should pay a price. If it weren't political, he'd probably face probation. I doubt he'll get as much as the Sarah Palin "hacker", but this is so much more political so who knows. As far as Heartland and the denial machine, it definitely isn't a good day. So I agree with you on that one.
"Also, the contents of that document were the most damaging to Heartland and if fake would place the creator in a whole different world of legal trouble due to the deception.
And one might ask - thought not usually here - why the particularly damaging fake document was created when the real documents were there in full exposing the reality of Heartland's funding and strategy."
It's funny how, of all the possibly damaging files that have turned up, you chose to focus on that one. By your own admission much of the matter that the "fake" document summarised is already in the public domain, thus whether that contended document was true, false or a mix of both is largely neither here nor there.
What is of interest and potentially damaging is Heartland's activities and funding streams as a tax-exempt "charitable foundation", and its professed aims of (inter alia) disseminating false propaganda on the links between smoking and cancer, which you seem curiously reluctant to address. It's as if you hoped your post would obscure the substantive issues...
Thanks JRC. I take some comfort from the fact that you at least (despite an earlier post in support of Gleick?) have some notion of right and wrong. Others here are obviously blinded by their faith and not for the first time either.
Way way way too predictable. Predictably so. Just for once in your lives, think and say something original. Just once pull the ring out of your noses and stop being led around the show ring by those who've done your thinking for you. It won't kill you.
Consider the setup hypothesis. An individual has sent a document to Gleick which hints to the existence of further associated documents at Heartland. This document appears amateur: poor grammar, unsigned, untitled, reads like a Dr Evil manifesto. They snail mail this to Gleick rather than emailing it, in the year 2012.
Then they sit back and let Gleick do the rest.
They anticipate, correctly, that Gleick will resort to illegal means to obtain the other documents. They anticipate also that Heartland will fall for the as yet unknown deception.
Reads like that movie Deception.
Or alternatively, Gleick phished the first lot of documents without any prompting and then faked the other to amplify the damage inflicted.
Have you no consistency of standards at all? Was your wholesale, gleeful adoption of the illegal hacking of the UEA email files that led to the "Climategate" meme not once interrupted by these high-minded scruples you now affect? Or have you only just realised what ethical behaviour is and have decided to try it on to see if it fits?
@SteveC, the most damaging allegation which [b]others[/b] have focussed on, not surprisingly, was the Strategy document's inclusion of attempts to discourage the teaching of climate science by creating doubt.
GSW....I do support Gleick, but he will have to face the consequences of his actions. He had the balls to come forward unlike the CRU hacker(s). You know, just like you and I, and our children and grandchildren will when reality and nature proves the science. There are consequences for putting all of this CO2 that was sequestered for millions and millions of years into the system in less than 200 years. Anyway thanks for saying that my opinion is a comfort for you. Unless there is some kind of jury nullification, he'll face the consequences. He is at least man enough to face them unlike the CRU hacker(s).
#654, Hehehe...While at it, any insights regarding JFK you would like to share? I'm sure the CSCSI-team (Bernie, chek, wow, stu, Jeffie, Stevie, bill, ianam etc) is longing for more...
BTW...I don't consider him a Saint or any other kind of religious icon or symbol. If I would compare him to anything, it would be the Rosa Parks of Climate Science. I know you guys are all into the religious symbolism of everything, but we all aren't like you.
Probably not the best example to put forth by me because this was more than just civil disobedience, but far less than canonizing someone.....but I know how you play your games with religion.
that describes you and your ilk so much better. God isn't going to let the world as we know it change. Facts and science be damned. That is blind faith right there and reflects your attitude.
This document appears amateur: poor grammar, unsigned, untitled, reads like a Dr Evil manifesto.
which would be absolutely pointless to publicize on its own. Heartland would then easily be able to say it was a fake full of fake information and see how unethical the warmists are for producing such an appalling fake. If only the information in that fake document could be corroborated......
The contortions you lot go thru to keep your 'faith' alive are quite staggering, as are the proclamations that we are dealing with "Scientists of the Highest Integrity". Think about it.
I'll go out on a limb here and take a guess that we'll not hear a peep of moral outrage from The Faith Brigade (GSW, Oluas/Olaus et al) about Heartless stealing tax dollars from the mouths of the underprivileged, the poor, the needy and the unfortunate by posing as a phoney 'charity' in order to lobby for global corporations interests just like any other K-Street corporate whore.
Given the extent of the activities now being dragged into the glaring daylight of public scrutiny in the mainstream media, Bast and his cohorts may welll be looking at jail time, thanks to John Mashey's serendipitously timed investigation.
Heartland's president Joseph Bast said the unauthorised release of confidential documents â and a two-page memo it has condemned as a fake â had caused permanent damage to its reputation.
If damage to reputation is the issue then Bast is claiming defamation. I'm not a lawyer but AFAIK, damaging someone's reputation with the truth is not defamation, i.e. truth is always a defence against a defamation suit. I wish I was a lawyer. This looks interesting.
No surprise -- a prominent climate activist stoops to deception to steal documents which he thinks may damage "the other side" and then tries to claim partial justification.
Lying, amorality and rank hypocrisy -- the hallmarks of the Left/Green personality.
Chek, I don't like tax fraud. If Heartland is guilty of it so be it, I'm sure there are legal ways to settle the score. However non of them will have any impact whatsoever on the poor, the needy etc. For gleick's sake, we are talking pea nut money here. On the other hand, that's your forte in lack of more substantial numbers.
What could have made a difference for the poor, the needy etc, is all the money so far wasted on symbolic but very costly postures in politics, not to mention negative side effects of planet-saving-actions.
But hey, as long as you climate scientologists can fantasize yourself up to higher moral grounds pointing fingers at imaginary enemies, you are happy. Then you always have "a deed of today" to marvel about making you feel better than "the others".
The contortions you lot go thru to keep your 'faith' alive are quite staggering
As I said before, is this high-minded morality pose you're wearing some new fad you've adopted? If not, what was it that prevented you from exercising all this ethical disapproval when it came to the hacking of the CRU/UEA server and the illegal release of others' confidential communications?
Answers on a postcard to Peter Gleick, c/o Forbes magazine.
You and Olout (and all the other woodlice like Bradford) display all the symptoms of a pathological lack of integrity which I'd describe in more detail were it not that your condition precluded its acceptance.
> ... as are the proclamations that we are dealing with "Scientists of the Highest Integrity".
I've never said that.
Nor does science require it to get at the truth. You're tilting pretty hard at a strawman wearing a red herring. (One wonders why that is, given recent events...)
How about: Gleick got mailed a fake memo with correct info with the expectation of him just reporting on it, as with the W papers to Dan Rather. Correct info on a fake memo discredits the correct info. Then he went and did more than expected.
Heartland fingering Gleick for the strategy memo seemed really bizarre at the time. It might also exlain why they seem to be in such a fumbly panic -- they hadn't imagined it winding up like this.
Well, at least the AGU's ethics are in good hands:
> AGUâs new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work
> Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA
> Randy Townsend, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA
> In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Unionâs policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members.
> As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, âAGU can only realize its vision of âcollaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable futureâ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. **That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do.**
@afeman that is possible, but is it probable? What's most probable?
Gleick has proven himself to be dishonest. I don't find it any stretch of the imagination to believe that he would have created the Strategy doc. I find other explanations to be drawing a long bow.
The document Gleick received (he says) contains hints that he created it. The conspiracy theory starts to become quite intricate when efforts are made to account for that.
Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartlandâs âAnonymous Donorâ, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the instituteâs funding.
That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do.
At least in my book having 'integrity' would include terminating known criminal activity - such as phoney 'charities' falsely acting as respectable fronts for lobby groups.
Heartless now a toxic brand - only a couple of dozen more similar outfits to go....
Wrt honesty, there's a bit of a mote/beam problem vs. Heartland. And it's hard to see what Gleick would gain by risking mixing in a weird fake document with a bunch of meaty real ones.
Then there's Kaminsky calling Gleick an "obvious" culprit, when it wasn't obvious at all. Narrowing it down that fast with "textual analysis" of a two-page document is more plausible when you know where to point.
It could be a real leak of a draft, but the premature scrutiny of Gleick is curious.
In what way, Derrick? This is a typical contrarian smear. Gleick is acknowledged as one of the world's authorities on water quality. If you want dishoest, then cite the name of just about anybody who works for one of the hundreds of corporate funded think tanks. These people have no integrity.
These days its something touching about you doomsayers. When reading your apologetic lines chek, I see before me "The French lieutenant's women" out there on the pier â longing. :-)
What I see are endless rows of denier puppets having their strings pulled and told to get out there and deny by their corporate overlords. In short a desperately pathetic enterprise by the desperately pathetic.
Heartless are now toxic - a state of affairs brought on far more quickly by their own actions and specifically those of their chief buffoon, Joe Bast.
Olaus, presumably you will now provide evidence that Peter Gleick was the "captain of the intergalactic task force"? If you have none then aren't you guilty of an untruth, which puts you exactly where in the moral debate of which you are insisting we hold?
I am still waiting for you to address my earlier challenge by the way. I wonder why you are ignoring that?
Dear GWB, Fakegate is a perfect illustration that my analysis is/was spot on. Sectarian behavior is the only thing keeping CAGW together, not science. Please stay in the shaking tent. Why bother with reality?
By the way, you have a close to autistic understanding of words. ;-)
What will be the next defense line from you guys? That Gleick's unethical behavior was an effort of his to highlight how things should not be done? :-)
Olaus, if you were one of my students you would score a U. My challenge is about the scientific underpinning of climate change - please do read the question. We are still waiting for your answer. You may refer back to my oroiginal post if you need a reminder.
And thanks for your insult - it was very instructive in terms of getting a measure of you.
Google zev2go and Anthony Watts and you will come across a couple of bloggers who have investigated this oddity before, but I thought given the money he was getting for webdesign Id offer a sample of what to expect.
So true GSW. By the way, did you chek (sic) out Jeffie H's syllogism of truth in #684? :-)
Gleick is Senior officer of the impeccable intergalactic Task force guarding scientific ethics in climate science, Gleick spread faked stuff in order to FINALLY prove the existence of the Protocols of the Elders of Right Wing Fossilfuelers, Gleick got busted and is relieved from his duties, Jeffie H says Gleick knows a lot about water quality and accordingly he is a stand up guy only being smeared by the Elders that somehow exists anyway.
Well, one can't fake true sectarianism, that's for sure. :-)
Dorlomin @ 693, that should put paid to any doubts about what the money to Watts was *really* for, even to the knuckle-draggers trying their best but failing miserably to derail.
In all honesty I've seen 12 year olds create better 'site coming soon' notices.
Olaus, I see that you cannot answer my challenges, and once again have resorted to a stream of nonsense. In case it has passed you by, I am actually trying to engage with you, and to find out where you are coming from.
I apologise if I am failing to communicate with you at your level - I spend most of my time with graduate students and professional scientists. I have very little experience of communicating with primary school children, so our exchange of messages is quite educational.
Re #693 & Watts expertise in web design: WUWT itself is a WordPress blog using the TwentyTen theme.
That's the most popular - and modular and hence user-friendly - blogging platform in the world combined with its most commonly-used theme.
Sure, more power to him for mastering a few of the widgets, he now has his own [ugly] .ico file up there next to the address bar, and he's even finally made the change from one of the theme's standard banners on the masthead.
But if this is expertise - let alone 'deep' expertise - well, there's a lot of it about!...
For the moment, I'm convinced that Gleick's story makes much more sense than the alternative. The strategy doc he claims to have received initially explicitly names two other documents, which would have given Gleick just the excuse and precise terminology he needed to make a convincing blagging email to Heartland. He may even have just been trying to confirm that documents with those names existed, and ended up with the documents themselves almost without trying.
The alternative is that he crafted a fishing email that netted him those specific documents based on no information at all, and prompted to risk his career to do so by nothing in particular. Not impossible, but it just seems less likely.
Its starting to look worse and worse for Heartland. I hope he will publish the full email exchange at some point (although I suppose he risks incriminating himself further). If Gleick's initial email to Heartland contains the document names referred to in the strategy doc it totally corroborates his story.
Forgive my ignorance, but I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me what law Peter Gleick may have broken. There seems to be a lot of talk about him breaking some law or other, but which one? Ideas?
The strategy document was produced by someone with access to the real Heartland docs. If it is confirmed that Gleick went fishing *after* receiving the strategy doc (ie, there is an email from him to Heartland that specifically names the two documents he received, before he received them) then it looks really, *really* bad for Heartland.
Peter Gleick's phishing expedition demonstrates that he is not a scientist who is 'in it for the gold'.
If Gleick, who is a prominent and successful scientist, was trying to milk the climate change gravy train, he would not have endangered his career as he has done, and he would most certainly not have volunteered publication of his involvement. Gleick's actions to warn the public about global warming stems from his understanding of the profound seriousness of the problem, and not from a profit motive.
Scientists genuinely believe the physics of global warming.
Again, Gleick would not endanger his career if he did not believe the science. Denialists will argue that such belief is 'faith', but they are wrong. Faith is the acceptance of something in the absence of evidence (or, in the case of climate change denialism, in the face of counter-evidence) whilst acceptance of scientific paradigms is based on objective and parsimonious analysis of data. By any measure it is the 'consensus' on climate science that has adhered to objectivity and parsimony, and I challenge any Denialatus to point to specific examples that demonstrate otherwise.
Gleick's involvement in trying to warn the public about global warming stems from his scientific understanding of the profound seriousness of the problem, and not from an ideological motive.
Gleick's involvement in tricking Heartland into giving him incriminating material does not invalidate the science that he promotes. If anyone is unable to understand why, they are suffering from a failure of logical discernment. Moreover, Gleick's actions do not invalidate the science produced by the tens of thousands of the rest of the world's scientists, and they do not invalidate the integrity of the same people.
It's worth noting that none of the science that Gleick supports has been in any way invalidated at any point in the proceedings. Contrast this to what passes as science as promoted by Heartland - their claims have been widely and thoroughly debunked over the last decade, and some of the star performers for their cause, such as Monckton, have been shown to have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the real science on so many occasions that it would not be humanly feasible to count them.
Heartland is still in deep trouble.
Heartland's financial and scientific malfeasance has been laid bare, and the damage will not go away. If a legal case demonstrates that Heartland does in fact hold to the 'defamatory' policies outlined in the released documents, and if they are found culpable of tax fraud, then it will the institute and its directors and employees, and not Gleick, who will suffer most from the scrutiny.
The Denialati can hoot and screech and beat the ground with their knuckles as much as they are able to, but it won't change the science, and it won't make any illegal behaviour by the institute disappear. The attention of many scientific, educational, and even media organisations has been well and truly focussed on Heartland, and the IRS doens't let itself be distracted by mere propagandistic distractions foot-soldier rabble such as the Scandinavian Troll Collective here.
Gleick is paying a high price for his actions, but it could well be that he (and his supporters) will look back on the incident and be glad that he did.
Gleick is a paragon of virtue compared with many of those in the denial camp who see nothing wrong in distorting and mangling science in the name of eviscerating public constraints in the short-term pursuit of private profit. There is not a shred of integrity in any of the many right wing think tanks that routinely lie and smear in order to bolster their agendas, and damn the science.
You have also claimed that your allegedly 'educated' colleagues are mostly climate change skeptics. What field would these people be in? Basket weaving or snorkeling perhaps? Because in the Earth and life sciences, the opinions lean very heavily the other way. I have met less than a handful of scientists in my 20+ year career in science who would take your comic comments seriously. Clearly you have not a shred of scientific background. You rely on pseudos like GSW and egotists like JN to spread your gospel of doubt. None of you exist in the real world, but in an intellectual vacuum.
Is it just me, or has the quality of denialists posting here gone to hell? Olout is clearly an arts grad who enjoys verbal jousting but has scant understanding of the issues, and some of the other deniers can barely spell (e.g. "blaim" for blame, etc). I suspect the intelligent deniers (oxymoron?) have already surrendered to the force of evidence and slunk away into the shadows, leaving us with the one-eyed microcephalics and one-track monomaniacs who now parade their wares for us.
As for Joe Bast (Bastard? Beast?) of Heartless, his goose would appear to be cooked. You heard it hear first: Heartland will be History by 2015.
> There's a major brawl going on about some documents that Desmogblog got its mitts on, allegedly out of the Heartland Institute, an industry-backed talking-points mill dedicated to spreading manure about global climate change widely enough so that a thousand doubters will bloom and the people who finance the Heartland Institute will continue to get rich. One of the docs seems to be a fake. Others, though, many of them concerning how the Institute plans to raise and spend the money in order to spread the ordure around the national dialogue are not in dispute.
I'd guess obtaining information under false pretenses.
But is that a crime? I know nothing much about law in the US, but it seems unlikely that there's a specific crime by that name. Most jurisdictions make it a crime to obtain money or financial advantage by deception, and make it illegal to obtain certain types personal information, especially from financial businesses, but I've not heard of any specific crime Dr Gleick may have committed. Maybe there is such a crime - I just don't know.
There's also the issue of intent. How hard would it be to prove someone had intended to access information that the holder of that information had denied existed in the first place?
Perhaps bill is right and it really is "The Vibe".
If "obtaining information under false pretences" is a crime then some Limited News journalists must be pretty scared at the moment. And it looks like blagging is a crime under UK law, but there is a public interest defence available.
> You canât have aârational public debateâ with people whose whole reason for existence is to obfuscate the truth by paying big bucks to scientist/whores for whom âscientific inquiryâ means first posing the question âHow much does it pay?â to be followed (after a brief period of haggling) with âWhat do you want it to say?â.
> "We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."
Merchants of Doubt and the exemplary (doubt merchant) Heartland Institute rate a mention. The dodgy US Supreme Court decision that has effectively allowed corporations unlimited spending on political campaigns is identified as a factor too. And anti-science efforts in the UK are briefly alluded too (whilst commenters point out the heavy anti-science efforts currently going on in Canada).
Back to Real Stuff.
People were surprised at Heartland's plans to mess with K-2 education. I wasn't because they've been trying for years, using inept stuff like Jo Nova's ... and Wojick's proposal must have seemed like a big step up.
"William Connolley, arguably the worldâs most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frawds, Wikipedia barred him â again unanimously â from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
Since the docs in question constitute "property", the shoe fits.
In addition, the crime was committed across state lines which, in the US, means it becomes a Federal issue. Not good, if proven, for Dr. Gleick. And since he's admitted it publicly, it doesn't seem hard to prove.
Do note that the penalties are worst case, and likely would not be anywhere near what someone like Gleick would see. Slap on the wrist at most. Really bad call on his part, but not something likely to land him in the pen. A stiff fine perhaps, and some sort of probation, but nothing more.
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
BPW, would the electronic copies of the documents be defined as "money or property" as the law requires?
Even if so, he already had the hard copies, after all. Could Gleick be convicted of defrauding the Heartland Institute out of something he already had in the first place?
Pity the prosectuor who has to argue that one.
It might actually be a rather difficult case to prosecute, especially as his actions gave him no material benefit whatsoever, and couldn't conceivably have been expected to.
It will be interesting to see how keen the so-called think tank is to encourage Gleick's prosecution. Do they really want the contents of their hard drives paraded around in open court?
I guess they could argue Gleick's actions caused them economic harm, which would seem to be necessary (in the absence of benefit to Gleick) if it's to be defined as fraud. But to do that they'd have to admit that being exposed as amoral propagandists had caused the cash flowing from their equally amoral donors to dry up.
I guess they could argue Gleick's actions caused them economic harm, which would seem to be necessary (in the absence of benefit to Gleick) if it's to be defined as fraud.
The interesting thing, of course, is that in a defamation case such harm is of no consequence if it is based on the truth. Are the police working on it yet? If not, why are they taking so long? Assuming they should be interested of course.
"Gleick âimpersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memoâ
New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows âno significant trend in the 1979â2010 ice sheetâ
Hereâs the money quote:
[15] We found no significant trend in the 1979â2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006]. The estimated SMB
trend, integrated over the ice sheet, equals 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2
Gleickâs âintegrityâ seems to have nothing to do with scientific integrity, but rather loyalty to and consistency with what I have called the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology.
As I suggested at Curry's site, this is at best a tenuous assertion with almost nil supporting evidence.
The end result of Gleickâs actions are to cede the high ground to Heartland, especially in light of the fact that Heartland had invited Gleick to a debate shortly before the theft of the documents occurred.
As I asked Curry, where is the evidence Gleick stole from Heartland?
When âHeartlandgateâ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a âcauseâ.
On the one hand, Climategate involved a large number of people that were involved in the IPCC. Apart from the FOI avoidance that was arguably criminal, everyone seems to have been âclearedâ by the various investigations.
"Climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a âcauseâ"?? Evidence, Dr Curry? Care to name names Dr Curry? Or is this yet another of your smears with no substantive facts behind it? And despite numerous inquiries into "climategate" (a meme Curry has not been exactly shy about promulgating), Curry deliberately puts the word cleared in inverted commas.
I don't entirely agree with his views on Gleick's behaviour, but Chris Colose in his response to Curry is entirely right when he says:
However, your blinded parallels to climategate and the spurious connection to climate science are at the very least irresponsible.
There is no connection whatsoever to the IPCC or to your made-up âideology.â It was the actions of one man, not even one that some would call a âclimate scientist.â There will certainly be people that label him a âhero,â and indeed some of what was in the (authentic) documents are interesting (though not very surprising), and surprising little discussion has generated about Heartland intent to interfere with science in the classroom. However, many people who accept the mainstream science have publicly expressed disapproval of Gleickâs methods. You should not give the impression that âDeSmogBlogâ is representative of everyoneâs ideas, or even represent the early stages of how people will inevitably feel.
Even more indefensible was the countless posts you spent on climategate, which turned out to be an equally irresponsible and unethical hack into the personal lives of many scientists. This got to the point where people received death threats, and their families received countless personal attacks. Heartland was a leading effort in spreading this disinformation. Your double standards for âethicsâ and proper scientific protocol speaks to your objectivity on the issue, as well as confirmation of your hatred toward climate science and sympathy for irrational skepticism.
Maybe I'm being naive, but IMO it's one thing for bloggers who aren't directly involved in climate-related reasearch to opine on this, and quite another for those who are. In my view those who do have some claim to professional expertise in the subject need to tread much more carefully, and be much less willing to take a political stance, than Curry has.
That said, I fully expect Curry, in the face of trenchant criticism from the likes of Chris Colose and Nick Stokes, to adopt her typical "stand back and let the cheer squad take the flak" approach.
> New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica
You do realise this paper uses ... drumroll ... modeling? The word even appears in the title! It's impressive how rapidly the "skeptics" have developed a blind spot to that infernal practice.
Fellas, take a lookie at Jeffie's latest words of wisdom. Hard to top, indeed. :-)
"Gleick is a paragon of virtue compared with many of those in the denial camp who see nothing wrong in distorting and mangling science in the name of eviscerating public constraints in the short-term pursuit of private profit. There is not a shred of integrity in any of the many right wing think tanks that routinely lie and smear in order to bolster their agendas, and damn the science."
Its all there â the conspiracy, the Elders, the Protocol, the heretics, the agendas, the right-wingers â in Jeffie's narcissistic head. And all this when the head of the Task force of Scientific ethics tried his best to work outside these ethical parameters.
It can't be easy living in such an advanced state of paranoia.
Yep, that fakeducational package trailer is a classic.
Beginning with 'I'm not a scientist but I have worked for one'(!?!) (Coffman, it turns out) - we then get:
The earth stopped warming in 1998 and there has been no statistical increase in the earth's temperature since then. Instead of warming the earth's temperature dropped by half a degree Celsius since 2007.
This over a chart that ends in 2008.
Then we get: Tim Ball / Vincent Gray ("The IPCC is a political organization") / Pat Michaels ("People have to understand that the entire Global Climate Change hysteria is driven by computer models") / 'the climate fingerprint is not present' / 'climate always changes' / 'it's a natural cycle' / 'fewer hurricanes' / Coffman ('The British High court found that The Inconvenient Truth [sic] contained so many exaggerations and scientific errors that it ruled that the video could not be shown in British public schools without a disclaimer that it's a political film.") / 'Greenland is only melting on the edges and there's only a "slight decline for the entire continent" / 'It's the Sun' with a chart that tracks solar irradiance against Greenland's [purported] temperature* / "although scientists don't know yet exactly how it works" / 'did we mention it's the sun?' / "is CO2 even a pollutant?" / no "it's a very important nutrient; perhaps the most important one" / Pat Michaels loves it, too! / 'we humans are too puny to change the mighty climate' / And we wrap up with Willie Soon telling us that it's a "complete false picture that carbon dioxide is going to drive the Climate System"
Phew! I don't know about you, but my Bingo card is full!
Actually, I think this will make a fine educational product in the future; a neat encapsulation of the entire strategy of the charming people who baked your planet, kids! Learn to switch your BS detectors on!
*check it out! Seriously, it's labelled 'a Sun-Greenland Coincidence?' and it's tracking temps at friggin' Ammasalik! Monckton would be proud! Even then the focus tails off the chart suspiciously early as the turn of the Century approaches...
Defending Gleick's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share his viewpoint.
Gleick obviously believes that his "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt he has brought that same attitude to his frequently published scientific endeavors as well.
Rock Bradford (#740) wibbled: "No doubt he has brought that same attitude to his frequently published scientific endeavors as well."
No doubt? What, none at all? Come on then, provide an example of where he has brought "deceit and dishonesty" to his "frequently published scientific endeavors".
Sorry, guys, I know you're hoping we're going to be rattled and all, but 'fakegate' ain't really quite working out outside the Bubble of Epistemic Closure, is it?
(But, hey, I can use Rick's 'logic' to prove all Deniers are just as bonkers as Monckers! Might be something in it yet...)
So, anyway, Rick, GSW, Karen (see, I can be 'ironic', too!), and your monkey, all I can say is: [*Yawns loudly*] "Struth, is that the time? Sorry, guys, there's been some mistake; you appear to have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think."
"Defending Heartland's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share their viewpoint.
Heartland obviously believes that their "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt they have brought that same attitude to their frequently published pseudo-scientific garbage - funded in part by US taxpayers - as well."
Bradford et al pretend to be living in a very sheltered world, where everybody wears white or black hats.
But it's been well understood and accepted by Justice departments and citizens across the world that low-lifes do not play fair, and that it's sometimes required to get dirty hands in order to convict wrongdoers.
No doubt Heartless and their supporters don't see themselves in that role, but there it is. What your beloved Institute has been doing is wrong both morally in terms of corrupting the work of scientists in order to lend false bias to modify public policy and legally wrong in posing as a charity while investing in international lobbying also to modify public policy.
We'll see how this plays out with the IRS, but whatever happens Bast has shown himself to be incompetent as an administrator and Heartless will likely fire him before sinking themselves as former supporters distance themselves from a now toxic brand.
It's not as if HI bring anything special to the same old formula of what is essentially corruption of whatever degree and who knows, with the current Occupy movements in full swing the era of taken-for-granted corporate control of government may be about to end.
> But it's been well understood and accepted by Justice departments and citizens across the world that low-lifes do not play fair, and that it's sometimes required to get dirty hands in order to convict wrongdoers.
Defending the CRU hacker's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share their viewpoint.
The hacker obviously believes that his "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt deniers bring that same attitude to their frequently unpublishable scientific endeavors as well.
I'd personally like to thank Gleick for sacrificing his position to help expose the criminal tax evasion and other dishonest activities of Heartland. If Gleick was a member of the police force he would have just been doing his job.
No, Bradford. What CG1&2 demonstrated was the dishonesty of those who claimed to be uncovering nefarious activity, but which didn't actually withstand scrutiny. The deniers once again, with Heartless playing a full role, were shown to be the liars there, as anybody following the science already knew. Climategate impacted the meaning of the data, and those who collect and study it, not one single, solitary whit.
Heartless, unfortunately for your beliefs, are an entirely different case with clear, well documented, across-international-boundaries wrongdoing. Which of course you are blind to. For now.
I see John Mashey posts here, if you don't mind sir:
Mr Mashey, did you have knowledge of the Heartland documents leaked by Peter Gleick prior to their public release?
And, is it really just co-incidence that your own Heartland tax complaint - reported to have been 3 months in the making - was filed within hours of the Heartland document release? Did that complaint draw from the Heartland documents? (obviously requiring a 'yes' to above)
*It can't be easy living in such an advanced state of paranoia*
There's nothing paranoid whatsoever about it, Olaus, if you bothered to take your head out of your rather large butt. There's piles of information out there supporting everything I said. Your problem, like that of many deniers, is that you choose to ignore it. In other words, you are playing the old 'ignorance' hand: if I don't know anything about it, it simply cannot be true. I've presented enough lectures on the subject of the anti-environmental lobby - including two in Denmark in 2002 (Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities) that attracted quite large audiences. Nothing I presented there or elsewhere was conspiratorial or paranoid, but based on hard facts. Its too bad that dolts like Olaus who sadly popped up on Deltoid to support a megalomaniac on another thread, revel in their ignorance.
Really? I thought it was just another in his serious of deconstructionist pieces illustrating the painful lack of humour in partisan political cartoons. Quite the artist.
Jeffie, please go a head and show me (us) some facts then about these Elders of Right Wing Fossilfuelers Against Climate Science. Where are the Protocols? So far you are only blabbering about some evil master-plan that you have discovered and lectured about before some likeminded intolerant self-obsessed conspiracy freaks.
I'm sure there are piles of unsubstantial crap out there confirming your dichotomous fantasies of thousands of Blofeldts obstructing climate science. But please, try to convince me that I'm wrong and you are right (not left). So far you have performed poorly in that department.
I suggest you lie down on the divan and read up on Freud's Schreber case. Maybe you find some comfort from it. But try to forgive your father. ;-)
Why would anyone waste their time on a supercilious waghead like Petri who inserts his worthless, uninformed, unimaginative comments here, and who wouldn't be missed if an asteroid struck him tonight?
Christ, can anyone else here imagine recommending a Josh cartoon? Unless perhaps in extreme circumstances where you might really need to convince the insurance adjuster that traffic bump had genuinely caused brain damage.
Dave H:
> I thought it was just another in his serious of deconstructionist pieces illustrating the painful lack of humour in partisan political cartoons. Quite the artist.
Indeed, it's well known that Josh is a postmodern ironist (a.k.a. troll) whose mission is to expose the idiots who laud his cartoons.
Chek # 760. Why would anyone waste their time on me? Come on Chek, you waste your time on me â always. You are in fact absorbed with "denialists" and Puppet masters of right wing Evil.
To reiterate, your strategy, like that of Jonas, is to defend your patent ignorance by saying that 'knowing nothing means nothing is happening'. I am sure that you are probably proud of this salient little fact.
There's an abundance of literature out there showing how polluting industries, using think tanks, public relations companies and astroturf organizations they have set up, are spending huge sums of money to mislead the public and policymakers over the causes and effects of climate change, as well as other areas that fall under the umbrella of environmental quality. They aren't doing it because they actually care about 'facts', or 'truth', but because they see any efforts to regulate their activities as a threat to the way that they do business and thus profit margins. Dave Helvarg and Andrew Rowell wrote quite excellent books on this back in the mid 1990s, but by now the anti-environmental movement, which is exceedingly well funded and organized, is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Of course, given your patent ignorance and refusal to do any cursory checks yourself, this means that you claim that its all a big conspiracy theory. You are one sad idiot.
Well, what did I tell ya? Blah, blah, blah and more pompous blah about Puppet master, Elders, Protocols, conspiracies, multi-billion industry and profound calculated evil.
You haters are something extra for sure.
I'm fully aware of companies polluting our environment, using legal and illegal ways. Don't like it a bit. Who would have thunk? But what has that got to do with climate science and the uncertainties surrounding the CO2-hypothesis?
Only paranoid haters with gigantic egos know, it seems.
Aww shucks, Petri 'feels hated' by 'paranoid haters'. And so it must seem, if you choose to have your head buried in the self-filling buckets ofshit the denier blogs serve up.
*Well, what did I tell ya? Blah, blah, blah and more pompous blah about Puppet master, Elders, Protocols, conspiracies, multi-billion industry and profound calculated evil*
Exactly the sort of vacuous rant I would expect from Olaus and his brand of 'degree' level education. What exactly is your degree in dingbat? Is my emphasis on basket-weaving inaccurate? What Olaus is saying is that he doesn't have a clue about the fields of propaganda, public relations and political advocacy, that he hasn't read a thing about attempts by polluting industries to mislead the public and policymakers, and therefore that it can't be true. Ignorance is bliss. When caught out, he resorts to infantile cracks and witless jibes that are a futile aim to shore up his credibility. It may work with denialist blogs but it does not work here.
As I said, Olaus has his head stuck very far up his butt. And he's happy to keep it there. The unfortunate thing is that Jonas brought his band of ignorant puppets along with him to Deltoid some months ago, and now they are contaminating other threads with their profound ignorance.
Yes, electronic copies of the documents he requested when he impersonated a member of the Heartland board were their property and meet that definition. He apparently, according to his statement, only received one document prior to getting the rest via email. Judging from his own accounting of the story, he committed a crime. Wire fraud, in the US, can have very serious implications. And once it becomes a federal issue, it may not matter whether Heartland wants to press charges. Charges might be brought regardless. Of course, they may not as the value of the theft is not particularly high depending on who you ask. But it's the act that matters.
@Chris O'Neill,
You're joking, right? A man who has worked for 30+ years to establish a successful career, and a life, potentially risks it all to show the world that Heartland is pretty much exactly what anyone who pays attention already knew they were? That is a world class lapse in judgment for an 18 year old, much less a 50-something scientist with his credentials. The man has already resigned from two groups, one as chair of the AGU Integrity Task Force, and now is essentially an admitted felon. Yes, wire fraud is a felony. So, "bad call" is a gigantic understatement, especially if the feds do come calling. Shit creek would be a vacation land compared to where he will be if that happens.
I sincerely doubt Dr. Gleick feels as good about this as you do. Given his admission statement, I think he has very deep regrets.
And if you had actually read his forensically-researched report, you'd have known that it's drawn from a range of publicly-available documents entirely separate from the Heartland leak. Seriously, read it. You might actually learn something of the highly dubiously practices of these large-industry lobby groups.
Your comment demonstrates that you are merely trying to spread shit on the walls, as a baby does in its own cot. And you did so with about as much comprehension of the social (or in your case, ethical) repugnance involved...
The history is over @ Deep Climate, posted a few days ago.
My report was capped the day before and I'd written the IRS complaint, finishing about 10:30. Everything in mine was from public information. I regen'd the PDF to fix the date on the afternoon of the 14th, and wrote the blog post sitting in the jury-selection room. [Thanks goodness San Mateo provides WiFi and power strips.]
If I had any idea that Peter was going to release this material, I would have begged him not to do it, or at the least, send it to the IRS as a whistleblower complaint indicating the specific alleged violations. That info and mine inter-corroborate rather well, and I'd created a framework for categorizing the issues.
Everybody made a big deal of the strategy doc and the education angle. As I noted in Fakeducation, trying to do this was nothing new, so I ignored the strategy doc for the real meat in the Funding and Budget. [I used to be an Officer at MIPS, and am a 10-year Trustee at a nonprofit. So, I've been in a fair number of Board meetings and am used to looking at Board packages.
The strategy document sure "feels" like something Bast could dash off, as its style is quite consistent with the voluminous materials I'd been looking at. ... but then anyone familiar with that style could easily fake it, IF they had the Board package in hand. Anyway, I spent 60 seconds on it and then forget about it.
See this @ DSB and see what you think. I've really never cared, because the Board package has the good stuff.
Yes, electronic copies of the documents he requested when he impersonated a member of the Heartland board were their property and meet that definition
What definition? Does an email (plus attachments) fit a legal definition of "property"?
I've also looked at the statutes regarding wire fraud and while not professing any legal expertise it would seem there has to be more than just trickery involved.
I think Dr Gleick could have thought a bit more carefully about how he proceeded, but equally I think we should all think carefully before we conclude he really could be convicted of a crime over this. I certainly wouldn't want to be a DA betting my reputation on getting a conviction.
Lotharsson, that's a great link. I note the absence of the triumphalist hordes. How would you say Heartland are faring in the court of public opinion outside of your sad little hall of mirrors, guys?
Jeffie, more unsubstantial shoutings from the Harvey pi(l)ehole. And Yes, you believe, you sure hate and you construct you own reality where you are Sir Galahad. But there is nothing behind your big mouth besides severe delusions, massive intolerance and gigantic self idolatry.
Which I siad all along. Sorry fellas, there are no Elders or illuminati. Deal with it.
You know you've had it when even RealClimate throws you under the bus....
> "Gleick's actions were completely irresponsible, and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test." - Gavin Schmidt
Dear Lothar, when someone, in a very vibrating high pitched voice, claims that there is tons of stuff confirming evil and mighty anti-science ring-wing agendas against climate science AND is not capable of backing it up...then it must me some kind of illuminati, Elders or Satan. Don't you think?
Perhaps you have better name for theses invisible forces pulling the strings? ;-)
Oh, what a knocker Dave. I suspect the content of your post also is one of these rock solid proofs of the well funded (multi billion) right wing conspiracy against climate science?
Olaus, I'm curious as to why you initially admitted you disliked the kind of politicised science Heartland is dishing out, but now ridicule the idea that they are funding the very anti-science that they have been caught funding.
>Which I siad all along. Sorry fellas, there are no Elders or illuminati.
No, just a shadowy anonymous man funding an anti-science, anti-enviromental regulation and pro-tobacco political body to help spread his free market beliefs through the use of paid "experts".
I'm sure there are piles of unsubstantial crap out there confirming your dichotomous fantasies of thousands of Blofeldts obstructing climate science. But please, try to convince me that I'm wrong and you are right (not left). So far you have performed poorly in that department. I suggest you lie down on the divan and read up on Freud's Schreber case.
You don't need thousands of Blovelds out there to lay an effective smokescreen, Olout. A small handful will do. Let's say the Koch brothers who own Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion. Add just one other, let's say Richard Mellon Scaife, newspaper publisher and billionaire, and a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune. These are only a few people, yet their money has supported numerous disinformation campaigns worldwide. Why, even your own presence here could well be funded by one of them!
And I have not even started to mention the Exxons, Gina Rinehart, and all the many, many other vested interests intent on trashing Science for their own nefarious purposes.
If you need to know how the whole dirty scheme works, read some of these books:
John, I don't like when science is being kidnapped from either end of the politic spectra. Regarding Heartland:
1. It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
2. There is little of no. 1 going on. I'm sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative â which â so far appears to be fantasy.
3. 6.4 million isn't a multi billion denial industry. It's peanuts and most of isn't even concerned with climate issues.
4. Heartland hasn't an Evil agenda.
In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
GSW @791 - it's your associate Petri that comes here making a total arse of himself with his religious fervour. Nobody forces him, and I'll wager that respect for his second-hand opinions (such as they are) among the vast majority of readers here hovers at or below zero.
My analogy holds - and anyway, Petri is a creepy and damaged individual, as has been previously remarked.
My absolutely sincere congratulations to our distinguished host, Mr. Tim Lambert, for a display, or to be precise, I suppose, a non-display, of anything whatsoever to do with the Gleik affair. I have been watching this site like a hawk - well, a hawk with bifocal specs - to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves. Well done, Mr. Lambert, alas, your cause is slowly sinking beneath the waves (and it's not because the waves are rising) but at least you had the intelligence to avoid this particular mess of potage!
Now, if only you could sort out your Labour party . . .
stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism
Reclassifying fascism and national socialism as far left ideologies may make you feel better about your own far right views Olaus but all you do is confirm Jeff Harvey's view that you are an ignoramus.
Name calling and link-spamming is all you have.
My neighbour's cat dragged a dead rat that it found into his house. Like you the cat was pleased with itself but the rat was as dead and smelly as your links.
No it is not. It is a *charity*. If they want to be a private lobbyist, fine - but they have to pay tax. Benefiting from tax-exempt status whilst also being a lobby organisation can result in fines and loss of charity status.
Of course, being a lobby means that they are subject to even more stringent rules and disclosure, such that they would be unable to get away with having a huge percentage of their funding derived from an anonymous source.
1.It (Heartland) is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
Petri acknowledges Heartland's business is political lobbying and not science. We now know Heartland has a number of scientists on a 'retainer'. Therefore, that same political lobbying organisation must be attempting to distort climate science.
Chek, so you claim that anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society are footed in Right wing ideology? :-)
For your knowledge Mussolini was a communist before he evolved his fascism. He was also inspired by syndicalism and he even worked at the same news paper as Gramsci. Röhm of the SA never let go of his dream of a second revolution. And why? Because socialism is socialism regardless prefix.
Sorry chek, historically, National Socialism and Fascism off springs of Socialism â on the very far left. You can picture it like the tongue of a snake. A split at the end where one part stays international and the other becomes national (goes right, but still left), all of them with respectively branches.
No one in the 1930s recognized fascism and nazism as "right wing". The right wing "narrative" of nazism and fascism is an innovation from the 1960s. Originally I believe this modern confusion comes from the classic behavior among quarreling political extremists on the left: calling each other traitors and lackeys of the bourgeoisie.
Hmmm..sounds familiar. ;-)
It sad though, because this anachronistic label of Nazism and Fascism often make us look the wrong way (right) when trying to identify the ugly political and ideological tendencies of today.
> Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled âThe Skepticâs Handbook,â by Joanne Nova, which Heartland mailed to the presidents of every public school board in the U.S. This was one of a series of mailings we did and continue to do to educators and school board members in the U.S. as well as in Canada.
>I have been watching this site like a hawk - well, a hawk with bifocal specs - to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves.
Like a hawk with macular degeneration and/or glaucoma, I'd say.
It seems to have escaped your attention that Tim Lambert has been involved with non-Deltoid matters for months, to the almost full exclusion of posting anything on the blog. Even posts in moderation have been days in the waiting, simply because Tim has real and currently very full life.
If this plain fact has escaped detection by your radar, then it's no surprise that the whole enterprise of real scientific endeavour has also escaped your notice and comprehension.
Duff. You are, by your own display of ineptitude, a fool.
>It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
You mean the real climate science in the AR4 you haven't read or the fake sceptics made-up mish-mash of cherry-picked facts that you believe because it supports your pre-determined poltical notions?
>There is little of no. 1 going on. I'm sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative â which â so far appears to be fantasy.
And you believe that the document is faked because...Heartland say so and Josh made a pretty cartoon?
>6.4 million isn't a multi billion denial industry. It's peanuts and most of isn't even concerned with climate issues.
Strawman. I never claimed a "multi billion denial industry". I never claimed it was mostly concerned with climate issues. I simply noted the "charity" pushes a free-market, anti-envriomental regulation, *political* agenda and is funded by vested interests. This is not an organisation that can claim to be free of political bias and therefore a trusted source.
Do you deny any of this?
>Heartland hasn't an Evil agenda.
Their agenda is to protect the interests of their funders through the use of fake "experts" sympathetic to their political cause by distorting science.
We're talking about an organisation that dispute the link between tobacco and lung cancer and just happen to be funded by tobacco companies. Nothing shady going on there.
>In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
And you claim not to believe these conspiracy theories. Weird! Why do you keep lying?
Dear Mike, I see that you too have problems with reality when it comes to analyzing ideology. Let me and Socrates help you guys out with a modern example:
Cornerstones of Fascism are anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, hatred of the bourgeoisie society and nationalism. Its text book stuff.
Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini's hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).
So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?
One of Hitler's first acts when he gained power was to ban trade unionism and imprison trade union leaders. Similarly, he rounded up communist party and "socialist" leaders. They weren't simply sent to prison like the unionists. They were sent straight to concentration camps.
He hated and despised other races, especially negros, thinking they were naturally inferior to whites or "aryans". He allowed wealthy industrialists to continue to run German industry (under Nazi party direction of course).
So I dunno.....let me just throw this one out there......"right" wing tendencies, or "left" wing tendencies?
I think your comments have surprised even a few regulars here who are used to seeing stuff straight from an alternate reality.
You're living in a fantasy world Petri, where just like your friend Jonarse and Humpty Dumpty, you invent your own meanings for words. And as this is a climate blog, I'm certainly not arguing political definitions here with a fake Euro-libertarian beanbag like you. I'll leave that to someone who knew first hand what they were talking about.
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism â ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power". â Franklin D. Roosevelt
Hence why trash like Heartland need to be taken out.
By the way, I don't believe that companies or individuals donate to influence Heartland's political aims.
I do believe Heartland've found a cynical way to make money under the guise of protecting the "freedoms" of the elite few over the livelihoods of millions.
>With regards to Gleick, my impression of him changed substantially over the past 18 months, when he went activist with blog posts and op-eds. Before that, I thought he was an honest broker for the scientific integrity issue.
Dear Lord, Yes Hitler hated communists. What has that do to do with anything? In the radical 70s extreme lefties of different obscure acronyms also hated each other. An from history we know that lefties, when getting into power, often go into killing mode trying to defend and purify true way towards utopia. Those favoring alternative socialistic routes "disappears".
Or do you really mean that Stalin's massive extermination of his fellow not so like minded communists (Troskij is perhaps the best example) is a proof that he was Right wing?
I don't think so Lord. But please give it another shot. I'm afraid though that your best arguments, like always, will be that I'm a mean rapist or an idiot, etc.
No, Stalin was just a power-hungry, evil, nut. You get those on the right and the left.
This pitting left against right is just a bullshit distraction. What matters is what the science and the data says, when analysed objectively over a reasonable time frame. This is where the "Petri" arguments consistently fall flat on their face.
The core of the Nazi ideology was a worship of strength and force, and a contempt for weakness in any form. The Nazis viewed the world as a place where various races competed with eachother, and some races would dominate while others would perish.
Mikem, why shouldn't he incarcerate his opponents? Many of the unions were international socialists. Mussolini did the same.
And I can assure you that Stalin didn't allow unions diverging from "his" communism. Heard of Gulag? Many, many socialists had to go there. Does that mean that Stalin was right wing?
Stalin's pogroms are infamous, didn't you know? He hated jews.
Just face it, racism hasn't a political color but becomes extremely dangerous in the hands of a totalitarian government.
Socialists problems with jews/anti-semitism isn't hard to explain. They/jews are an incarnation of what the socialistic doctrines claims are rotten in society â the blood sucking superstructure of capitalism â that has to be eliminated via direct action.
And history â again â tell us that we humans have big, big problems with making difference between structural analyzes including clearly identified "enemies" AND individuals.
Lars, the core of Stalinism was also strength and force. So was Stalin Right wing? Jeezzus.
And Lars, please stop making out with straw-men. No one claims that nazism and communism are identical. Get it? like I mentioned above, racism hasn't political color. History shows that's not the case. That didn't stop Hitler from embracing it though, and making it part of his national socialism.
Lothar, I'm so surprised. No arguments left (not right) I see.
Petri - anti-communism was central to Nazism (interestingly, so was extreme social conservatism), Stalin killed his fellow communists because he was a paranoid nutcase and not for ideological reasons. Fascism/Nazism borrowed some elements from other ideologies and added ideas that were their own.
Basically, you are contorting reality simply so you can use the term 'Fascist' as an epithet. Are you familiar with Godwinâs Law?
Olaus ignores corrections on his false assertion that Heartland is a lobby org and descends rapidly into Godwin territory. Nothing more to see here folks. plonk.
Petri's recent detour into another aspect of his unreality is revealing. He truly believes climate science is a socialist/marxist/communist conspiracy.
> Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled âThe Skepticâs Handbook,â by Joanne Nova, ...
Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science.
Dr. David Wojick, it goes without saying, has no background or expertise in any climate related sciences. But it seems he's exactly the right man to design the teaching of the subject in the libertarian right-wing-nut-o-sphere.
Yes, and I pointed out her error about the "hotspot", which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.
I personally think that Jo Nova is intentionally peddling lies, and that the Heartland Institute is doing the same when they send our her book of lies to 14000 school board officials.
Dear Lord, anti-maoism was central for stalinism as well. And do I really have to remind you of Trotskij? Your point is? Hitler did a lot of killing within his own party. The murder and Röhm is perhaps the best illustration. This was also about power. According to your own logic this makes Hitler left, but I reckoned that's not what you had in mind? Sorry chaps, you still have nothing but blind faith.
And please stop making out with the strawman saying that I call nazism and communism identical twins. Sister's or cousins are more spot on. What's alike is anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society.
In the 1920s Sweden's leading communist â Nils Flyg (pres. of the Swedish Communist Party, in the parliament) was the man of Comintern. During a period of 20 years his party went through seven split ups. In the end Flyg's party ended up in the lap of Hitler. Interestingly enough Flyg was still fully convinced that his socialism was the right (but still left)) one. The party manifesto was then almost identical to the ones wrote in his early days.
How come?
If reading the contemporary political debates surrounding Flyg's transformation (from international to national socialist) no one viewed him or his fellas as "right wing". His former communist fellows, of course, called him a traitor and a lackey of the bourgeoisie. But Guess what, Flyg accused them of the same thing.
What can we learn from all this? That the way to the socialistic utopia is a narrow one, and any little slip could turn you into an enemy.
> Yes, and I pointed out her error about the "hotspot", which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.
Yep, I nearly posted at Rabett Run that I'd personally pointed it out to her on a thread at The Drum, along with a number of other fallacious claims (including pointing out that (a) what she was calling ad hom was not in fact an ad hom fallacy, despite her coaching her acolytes to say it was, and (b) some of them were engaging in actual ad hom fallacies without her calling them on it...)
...but the old posts still contain the errors, etc.
But it seemed like it was already being covered by people who knew what they were talking about :-)
Dear all, now that we all know that national socialism and fascism are left wing and not right wing, I would like to comment on the earth shattering news that Heartland isn't a lobby organization. In my view it is even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.
If that's a felony, I'm sure the legal system will deal with it.
A man who has worked for 30+ years to establish a successful career, and a life, potentially risks it all to show the world that Heartland is pretty much exactly what anyone who pays attention already knew they were?
So no-one thought this made any difference to Heartland and it was just going to disappear into history until Gleick made his announcement? Sure, if you say so.
I just want to say THANK YOU to Dr Gleick. He's got balls. Thank you for explicitly unmasking the cunts at Heartland. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." â Edmund Burke
Petri's recent detour into another aspect of his unreality is revealing. He truly believes climate science is a socialist/marxist/communist conspiracy.
I guess we could update that to socialist/marxist/communist/nazi/fascist conspiracy.
Dear Chris, here I am giving you all a well informed history lesson (for free, no tobacco/fossil money involved), where I corrected some of your delusions, and somehow I get the feeling it wasn't appreciated.
Surely a detour, even if initiated by the monchekie, was called for?
Knowledge isn't a heavy burden. Carry your new wisdom with pride, ergo that nazism and fascism are left wing.
Speaking of knowledge, I would very much like to be enlightened about the evil multi billion denial industry obstructing for climate scientists. I believe I'm wide enough over the shoulders to deal with the weight.
Can't say I've followed Petri's claims about fascism very closely, but I got the impression he was arguing that it was exclusively a "far left wing" thing - certainly not "right wing" in any shape or form. This view is interesting because it is a quite common article of faith amongst American (right-wing) wingnuts, and was subsequently championed in a book entitled "Liberal Fascism" ("Liberal" denoting a range of left-wing-ness in the US) by Jonah Goldberg. He argued that:
> "fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left."
I don't know whether Olaus is peddling precisely the same claims or not or drawing inferences on the same basis as or even from Goldberg - and I don't much care - but others may find interesting reading at that link.
> Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism... And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously - no, viciously - anti-liberal.
> ... After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.
I am enjoying Olaus' paranoid conspiracy theories. What next? The leader of the religious/marxist/socialist/facsist/stalinistglobal warming conspiracy is well known Reptilian shapeshifter Al Gore in conjunction with the reverse vampires?
*How far does it go*? All the way to the *middle*?
Let this thread be a reminder of the next time Olaus claims he is driven to scepticism by science, not his loony fringe political beliefs.
Damn, no killfile on my phone browser, so I'm still subjected to Petri's blithering. However, nice to see him own up that the leak brought to light tax wrongdoing by Heartland. I shall endeavour to quote his admission that
>In my view it is [lobbying] even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.
Dear Lothar, why are you giving me links? Can't you speak for yourself?
So far you guys, and of course monckeekie most of all, have come up with a lot of arm waiving and name calling, which I have riposted upon without breaking sweat. In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing. And why should they? When an old commie like Mussolini evolves into a fascist he STILL hates liberalism, bourgeoisie and capitalism.
As I said, it was their property, and he did deceive to get it, and it did cross state lines, so it fits the bill. Now, some level of value would have to be placed on the info, and a judge could always fine him, say, a dollar for the offense, but he would still be guilty of the crime. That said, the feds could just not bother because they could deem that there was no harm. In that case, Gleick would have dodged a very serious bullet.
@ Chris O'Neill,
Spare me the ignorance. It isn't melodramatic to state that the man just jacked up his entire life by doing something incredibly stupid. Two weeks ago, Gleick was well respected scientist/activist who's opinion carried weight. Today he is living with his having to resign in shame from two organizations, and his reputation is being dragged through the mud in papers, magazines and blogs everywhere. Like it or not, he made himself the poster boy for people who think that alarmists will do anything for "the cause".
But you're right, it was all worth it to out those baddies at Heartland. The people we knew were funding anti climate change information all along primarily because that is exactly what they say they do. The only real question is the one Inspector Mashey is looking at. Do they hide under the cloak of being a charity? At least Dr. Mashey has the common sense to not break the law to find out. I find the good doctor's work to be obsessive and difficult to digest, but I give him credit for being careful to get his information in the proper manner. And if the IRS investigates, and deems they have broken the law, I have zero sympathy for them. I do think any such investigation could open the door for similar looks at groups on the other "side" as well, including Gleick's own organization. Time will tell.
Browsed you link Lothar, and I can't say anything about Goldberg's book since I haven't read it (but it appears to take on America, which is not my field of expertise and â I'll give you that â it also seems to be written with a tendency), but the reviewer is doing the same mistake you guys do. He says nazism can't be socialistic because its socialism is based on ethnicity.
Sorry, he isn't the judge in that matter.
Again no one contemporary viewed nazism and fascism as right wing. In Sweden the term "right wing extremism" came about in the 1960s as some kind of diffuse generic term for fascism, nazism, colonialism, liberalism, conservatism and nationalism. A disfigured bastardization in other words.
For chist sake, today we even call the creep Pinochet a fascist even though he loved Milton Friedman of all people. A man carrying Friedman's gospel would have been shot point blank if he had sat is foot in Italy, Germany (and Sovjet naturally) during the 1930s.
Links to learned individuals and pesky stuff like scientific evidence. Pah!
Petri - let's re-wind. You said:
In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
That's conspiracy theory, and you've done a Godwin.
Do you really expect anyone to take your drivel seriously?
Dear Lord #850, prove otherwise then. No Godwin, but a good win by me. ;-) Heard of Lysenkoism? And what ideology infested the most what then was reckoned scientific â racial biology/phrenology?
I'm still waiting for the forensics confirming your illuminati theories. Until then your blabbering is an expression for ideology/religion. And since your blabbering centers around evil right-wing Elders I assume you must be leaning left? ;-)
Olaus, then I guess the skin heads and white aryans in the U.S. have been doped into believing in a political left wing idea. I guess that is the conspiracy. Wow, that is just incredible. I guess when they figure it out they will all commit suicide. You are such a moron dude.
Dear JRC, European skinheads sure hate commies and they represents a working class movement. But what's your point? Hating commies isn't something defining a right winger, which I already have told you guys. During the first half of the 20th century social-democrats hated commies as well. Que?
And don't forget how much different groups of commies hated each other â and what Stalin did with these "dissidents". He wasn't right wing was he?
And what about my modern example with Chavez in #811?
"Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini's hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).
So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?"
Care to comment instead of making infantile remarks?
Olaus, the problem is that you are trying to fit a philosophy that doesn't necessarily fit one ideology. Yes there are some leftist ideas in fascism, but there are also rightist ideas in fascism. Against unions more of a rightwing idea...corporate directed government (maybe a leftwing idea, but not necessarily), government control of social issues (mostly rightwing), equality for only those that fit a certain definition of who should be equal (definitely a rightwing idea). Anyway as far as Stalin, Mussolini, and Chavez, they are not good examples in my opinion. Stalin suffered from paranoid behavior for one. And you know that famous quote that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not a left or right thing, but a human nature thing. Question for you. I'm a libertarian myself, but I follow the facts and data. So the question is, if the facts and data present itself that you felt that global warming was real (which it is) how would you propose we dealt with it? Do you fell private interests would like the civil rights movement in the U.S.? Oh wait they didn't. Anyway I had another question, but I'm running late. Going to go donate a little money to the local casino. :) Anyway I look forward to your response. Sorry I've been calling you a moron, but dude it's almost deserved with all of your ramblings and avoiding of straightforward questions.
Sorry, not leaving just yet. Nationalism at least in the U.S. is a weapon of the rightwing in this country. If you don't support unnecessary wars you are a liberal. That would be anti-liberal. As you have said, fascism was both anti-liberal and anti-conservative. So where would you put it? In the middle? Hardly, it is mostly right wing. And Mussolini even said it was right wing, but they were okay with some of the leftist ideas. You think that ideology changes have to be in baby steps. That is totally in error of logic. (PERIOD) Many a leader of the people have taken absolute power when opportunity arouse. Not all...but the majority.
I found this quote from the Prospect piece quite apropos:
Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its "palingenesis" -- that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously -- no, viciously -- anti-liberal.
This certainly describes the roots of Nazism as well as providing a broad outline of Nazi ideology.
I dunno guys. I just believe that artifically adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is causing the average mean temperature of the planet to slowly rise.
Apparently this makes me religious and a Nazi.
Isn't it interesting that Olaus can only discuss science through the prisms of either religion or politics but can't discuss the science itself.
It's almost like his political views govern what scienctific information he will/won't accept.
Care to comment instead of making infantile remarks?
Fro the fellow who gave us
Jeffie, more unsubstantial shoutings from the Harvey pi(l)ehole
and
CO2-doomsayers are not in high fashion anymore. Reality is closing on you guys, and soon everybody will understand that you are worshiping and polishing a turd
and so much more. The appropriate response to someone like Olaus is to point out the thousands of instances of his intellectual dishonesty, not to give him a sheen of legitimacy by engaging in a debate with him about the fine points of political labeling ... an area fraught with fallacies of guilt by association and affirmation of the consequent, where none of the terms are well-defined but rather are laden with connotations that derive from decades of ideologically driven propaganda.
More relevant is his extraordinary hypocrisy ... I count 21 links that he has posted ion this thread alone. You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.
It's almost like his political views govern what scientific information he will/won't accept
This is truer than you might think. Once again, listen to the research into this topic in this podcast (second half, after James Hansen). Turns out conservatives are a little slow on the uptake, very defensive, and less likely to accept new data. Explains a lot, for me.
Hey, Tim, can re just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own, or something? This apparently ADD-afflicted garrulous little prat just clutters the place up!
Back to reality: Those interested in issues of tone and substance could do worse than beaver away over at Joe Bast's own posts at Heartland itself.
E.g.:
Itâs also the sort of thing you might hear in an elementary or high school classroom, where teachers either simply repeat what they hear on television or consciously advance the agenda of the political party they feel most loyal to.
From the eloquent Is John Hunstman Stupid? Now, can you guess why Mr Bast might think former Republican presidential candidate John Huntsman could be 'stupid', boys and girls?
I would just point out a simple fact that the capacity to store heat in the oceans is 1,000 times greater than the capacity to store heat in the atmosphere. (The oceans have 250 times more mass than the atmosphere and water has 4 times the specific heat as air.)
Day to day weather for the earth's surface may be more dependant on air currents, but the long term trend is driven by oceans.
An analogy is the rhinocerous and the bird perched on his back. The climate deniers think the bird is steering.
> You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.
I agree it was grossly dishonest and your point about hypocrisy was both explicit and excellent. However, I disagree that I was playing his game or even offering a defense. I was subtly ridiculing and laughing at the embedded fallacy in his attempted attack along with his lack of reading comprehension, and subtly raising the implications for his own many and varied claims. If that constitutes a defense in your view, so be it.
@ Bill just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own
I think Tim L must be away or something, STC (Scandinavian Troll Collective) "members" (and I use the term in all its senses) have usually been put back in their cage or given their cards by now.
Thanks John Mashey for your reply. Other than co-incidence there's no reason to speculate that you knew and co-incidences do happen. I think desmogblog are clutching at straws claiming that 'strategy' could be authentic (they say "is"), and it doesn't do their reputation any favours. The similarities only prove that the author of strategy had access to the other documents and nothing else.
Yup, we know how those lefties are just itching to achieve power so they can privatize everything. In fact they [invented the term.](http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
if you don't want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don't do it. It was chek who got it all started. I'm perfectly satisfied getting informed about the evil right-wing illuminati fantasies of yours.
@JRC # 855. No, I believe the problem is that you (and many others) argues from a postulate that says real socialism is a monolith. Nothing is. It is for sure affected by societal trends. And that goes both for commies and nazis (and of course right wings, liberals etc). Do you, for instance, believe that the term "national boljevism" was an invention of Marx?
Your point on nationalism becomes valid only from an anachronistic perspective. Historically the roots of nazism is socialistic â socialism evolved if you like. "isms" aren't static.
@Rattus, are you telling me that communism isn't about populism, anti-intellectualism, a carefully groomed culture of violence, identifying dissedents? from your citation:
"populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason"
Besides the nationalism (which is present but less outspoken in stalinism) there is nothing there defining fascism only.
@ianam, you sure have nothing to share but feelings. Hoe about arguments?
>if you don't want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don't do it. It was chek who got it all started
always the liar, Olaus. The first instance of fascism on this thread comes from you:
>In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
I said that but it was chek who challenged it. And as usual the only thing he could muster were insults and feelings. Then I felt it necessary to enlighten him.
Anyways, as I have told you guys numerous of times, I'm totally satisfied getting non-doctored proofs of the multi-billion right wing conspiracy against climate science you all are nursing like a little baby.
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Il Duce begs to differ with you:
>âFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ
So does Leon Trotsky:
>"If you place a ball on top of a pyramid, the slightest impact can cause it to roll down either to the left or to the right. That is the situation approaching with every hour in Germany today. There are forces which would like the ball to roll down towards the right and break the back of the working class... The Communists want the ball to roll down toward the left and break the back of capitalism....The rapid growth of the fascists signifies the danger that the ball may roll down toward the right." For a Workersâ United Front Against Fascism (December 1931)
Mind you Trotsky also said in a later pamphlet, "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left..." It's almost like he foresaw the existence of Olaus.
But fascism was like Stalinism in its authorianism and intolerence:
>Mikem, why shouldn't he incarcerate his opponents?
Yep, Olaus should fit right in, then...
In 1944, then-Vice President Henry A Wallace wrote:
>âStill another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. "The Danger of American Fascism", New York Times
Rather as fascists have to spend all their time denying holocausts, so do right wing nuts have to deny being fascists, even if definitions have to be stood on their heads along with the whole world.
The bottom line is that far from being libertarians, our currently resident fake Euro brand here spend all their time being corporate apologists and denying science. I'm not sure there is a political definition for that, and shills and whores don't normally operate for free.
Who do Petri & Co. they think they're kidding, or indeed influencing?
Apart from their being stout warnings on the dangers of idiocy?
FrankD, you keep up doing own-goals instead of showing me data supporting your multi-billion dollar denying machine.
Trotskij says nothing about fascism being right wing (in our modern anachronistic sense), he says, which is the common denominator for all quarreling sects/acronyms within the "extreme left", that fascism is helping the bourgeoisie/capitalism. In other words its the wrong way/path towards utopia. If we for instance get back to the former leader of the Swedish Communist Party, he also accused his former "buddies" (still faithful with Comintern) of ruining the way to utopia and hence the Bourgeoisie.
That said fascism also declares the bourgeoisie society and capitalism as evil. Why don't take Mussolini's words for it? And he sure liked to talk on the behalf the workers (who doesn't?).
Correct is though that fascism, thanks to its ultra-nationalism, is the right part of the double tongue. And that's not disputed by me.
But seriously Frank, do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL representatives of the bourgeoisie with his: "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left...". :-)
Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn't have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn't add up, does it? ;-)
However, what add up, is that Trotskij is being confused by the fact that those wanting to end capitalism and the bourgeoisie society had a hard time taking correct (sic) measures.
Can we please go on with the proofs of the right wing conspiracy?
This is fairly interesting. Sean Lawrence Otto uses some software to perform stylometry and textometry on the Climate Strategy memo that Heartland say is fake to see who it points to as the most likely author from a range of suspects (including Gleick). The conclusion:
In keeping with that analysis lord_s, I'm inclined to believe a proposed hypothesis that Gliek was 'Dan Rathered' in this affair.
That is, a fake memo with some genuine info designed to discredit whoever blew the whistle on it. What likely wasn't expected was that Gliek would verify the information before acting, hence the focus on the memo itself rather than the damning, subversive information contained therein.
Which is why our Eurofake-libertarian interloper is jumping up and down so vigourously to derail with anything but the whole underhanded way a flagship organisation behaves.
This is Trotsky in 1933 in his pamphlet "What is National Socialism" describing its philosophy and growth among the ruined German middle class.
Personality and class â liberalism and Marxism â are evil. The nation â is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.
and
The leaders of the movement are liquidating âintellectualismâ because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion.
Update the language and he could be describing the right-wing libertarianism of the Tea Party.
Understandable that Olaus is trying to cast off the association of "fascism" with his own politics.
Greg Laden linked to Otto, but also did a separate analysis. Again it did not support the assertion that Gleick authored the scanned doc. Hardly proof either way, but interesting data points.
I don't know how much of the scanned doc was very similar to content from the e-mailed docs, and one might expect that a high cut-and-paste ratio would bias the comparison away from Gleick, but Otto also took out a sentence that was identified as identical to one of the Heartland docs and re-did the analysis with similarish results.
A larger data set would probably also be helpful.
I pondered the idea that Gleick was "Rathered" a few days ago, and still can't rule it out. That could explain why he was suspected so quickly - and the author of the paper doc may even have attempted to copy aspects of his writing style. However there's not enough info either way.
Gosh, even more from the mouth of Trotskij. He's a very neutral bystander. C'mon!
I repeat what I said above:
Do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL advocates of the bourgeoisie with his: "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left...". :-)
Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn't have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn't add up, does it?
How naive can one be?
What's true though, is that many members of the bourgeoisie started to favor fascism before communism and accordingly became fascist/left.
And before you tell me this proves that fascism is right wing, remember the class markers carried by Marx and Engels.
Olaus is too busy scrambling about trying to cover his bare arse to see that he has utterly missed the point. :^D
Was Trotsky accurate or fair in describing Fascism as a ideology of the right? Guess what - it doesn't matter. All that matters is that he characterised it as such. Mussolini could hardly have been clearer. Many others described it as an ideology of the right.
But Olaus said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Wrong. Demonstrated several times. By me and others. Yet Olaus sadly wanks on about whether Trotsky was addressing the "real bourgeoisie" as if that had anything to do with anything.
Now, if Olaus had any intellectual honesty, he would simply admit he made a mistake, overreached himself as it were, and get back to the essential point of debating the whole Heartland Memo situation, which is far more important than his stupid mistake.
But having read most of the shit he has poured into this blog over several months, my bet is that he will be incapable of simply admitting he was wrong, and will go on arguing the toss, desperately dragging goalposts to new locations in some sort of psychotic rework of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to prove he was right. Even when his claim is clearly, demonstrably, verging-on-laughably wrong.
Actually Dave R, I believe there was the Koch Bros. $25K to med research changed to $200K for climate research howler in the memo, but not in the gen docs.
Sorry, posting quotes from Trotkij when he is accusing his anti-capitalistic, anti-liberal and anti-bourgeouise opponents for not knowing right from left doesn't make them right, which I have said from the beginning. It's classic civil war lingo on the left flank and, accordingly, is he not aiming towards those in favor of capitalism and the bourgeoisie society.
Can you please do better?
Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine? If you don't step up to the task soon I will assume you have nothing to show for it (like when you try to pin point fascism as "right") ;-)
It appears that Gleick got an honest chance convincing Heartland's donors about the seriousness of the climate threat. Heartland invited him to speak before the donors at a fundraising event. Very brave I think.
But Gleick declined. Some trooper. He could have pulled the rug from under the evil 6.4 million dollars right wing denial machine controlling climate science.
I get it - it's OK for Heartland to publish e-mail from Gleick without his permission while simultaneously threatening to sue those who publish e-mail from Heartland without their permission.
I wouldn't even bother to address any issue raised by that dismal, attention-seeking ninny, but, since it's come up in discussion, nothing shows the new libtard Right's disconnection from reality quite the 'the Nazis were Leftists' meme.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
This is the standard version of Niemöller's letter. Other versions - because he made the recitation many times over several years - add 'Socialists' and 'Social Democrats' to the list.
Because they came for them all, you sad, sad, little man.
As usual, and like I said why you almost, and now thinking you do deserve the title "Lord Moron" you skipped over my question. If Global Warming is real (which it is) what would you propose to offset it? If you avoiding of the question is the answer then so be it. You have no ability to critically think, and by your past record I won't be surprised. You do seem to be lacking in critical thinking and analysis of data.
dhogaza, the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn't interested in real debate. They wanted someone there with some credibility so they could either take out of context their statements, or the old Monckton I won the debate because I threw 100 lies at them and they couldn't refute them all with citation. Everyone knew before Gleick released these Heartland documents that Heartland wasn't worried about real debate and release of an invite to "a debate" doesn't prove that it was a real debate.
Bill, thanks for sharing your feelings with us, but isn't there anything you would like to add besides a story totally irrelevant. It's an ugly Godwin though.
I'll help you out explaining what you really meant with the quote, even though I'm repelled by the way you are making use of it:
"First Olaus came with some historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was very angry. Then Olaus came with more historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was a hater. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was ignorant. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts and then I had to admit to myself that he started to make sense but I cursed him anyway."
I'd also suggest in support JRC, that a scientist of Gleik's calibre would choose only to appear at a conference of his own peers, rather than attempt to make a presentation to a hall full of KKK or Watts webfans, or their equivalents.
Why would he (or anyone else), based on their record, expect that the latter two or a herd of H.I's ideological goons would even comprehend what he was talking about?
You know you're kicking the shit out of them Bill when they can only respond with some pathetic emo crap they just made up plagiarised like the scum-sucking, unoriginal, tedious repeaters they are.
Best comment so far on the 'oh noes Gleick faked the strategy memo' meme comes from Greg Laden:
> Brad [18] You are telling us that Peter Gleick traveled forward in time to see the documents he obtained from Heartland, then went back in time to fabricate a memo based on them. You are also telling us that he resigned from the NCSE yet he does not work there and there was no resignation.
Sorry JRC, I didn't notice your Q. Contrafactual crystal balling isn't my cup of tea. What ifs of that kind needs more space than a blog can offer (to be answered in a meaningful way).
Chek, I see that you are working yourself up to ecstasy mode so you can tell us about what Jeffie is doing tonight? :-)
God, you are an angry little hater aren't you. So far your only contribution to this discussion is abusive words and insults, while hiding behind other's backs. Very typical of you.
Straighten up, take a deep breath, release your hands from your groin, and try to articulate some consistent sentences about the topic at hand. After all it was you who started it. And if you do, please refrain from bad language.
I'm not the one wanting to talk about the thick socialistic roots of fascism and and nazism. I'm more interested about stuff I'm not aware of, for instance signs of a mulit-billion right wing denial machine obstructing climate science.
You must understand that it is psychologically crucial for the Green/Left to portray themselves as the heroic little guys standing bravely up to protect Gaia from the rapacious capitalists.
Hence the oft-repeated nonsense about "well-funded denialist machines" when we all know that the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland's. That's even before we talk about the billions of taxpayer dollars poured in on top.
The Green/Left will never accept this; psychologically, they cannot.
> ...the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn't interested in real debate.
As in "it would look better on our resume than on yours", the same motivation for Creation Scientists to "debate" evolutionary biologists.
Just like Creation Scientists, they desperately desperately want anything they can use to suggest the **appearance** of being taken seriously, which they can lever into PR claims of having serious science on their side (at least to uninformed audiences).
They don't have a better scientific explanation for observations, and their scientific claims are not taken seriously because they are either already known to be false, or they don't explain the observations better than mainstream climate science, or they fall apart at the first examination by their peers.
Any **real** scientific debate - that denialists like to argue (ironically via their highly visible media and PR platforms, no less!) is being "suppressed" - takes place in the scientific literature. If they've got something of value, that's where it will appear and it will ultimately have an impact on scientific thinking. Nobel Prizes and solid gold fame await anyone who can *actually* demonstrate we've got nothing to worry about from GHG emissions.
But so far everything they've tried in the literature has proved to have far less impact than they claim it does (to uninformed audiences) outside of the literature. So they try to focus (uninformed) attention on faux-scientific "debates" to keep their audiences from twigging that they've got nada, zip, nowt, zero, nothing.
>Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine?
While Olaus's posting style reminds me of nothing so much as an explosive splatter-shart, I prefer to concentrate on thing at a time. I might decide to tackle that question, or others, once we've finished with this:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Once Olaus concedes he was wrong, I'll happily move on to other topics. Or just revert to my more common read-only mode. But until then, here's what Il Duce himself had to say:
>Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions", 1935.
Olaus's pair of twos is not the worst starting hand, but one would have to be terminally stupid to double down on that opening. Man I wish this really was a blackjack game. Olaus would already be trying to trade his jewelry for more chips. ;)
But perhaps he will surprise me, for once. Can Olaus admit he was wrong and allow things to move on? It's rivetting stuff!
> There are 5 different systems for estimating global temperatures, with a 6th in development. The problem is that these systems contradict one another. While all show some warming it occurs in different amounts and most importantly at very different times. Science needs something specific to explain but we just do not have that with warming. For example, HadCRU, UAH and RSS show no warming for the last 10-15 years, while GISS and BEST show steady warming,â he said, referring to the systems.
Any "skeptic" want to apply some skepticism to that argument? How many errors of science and logic can you find? Anyone "skeptical"?
> "So has it warmed or not, we do not know".
"Skeptics" who claim "no-one denies it has been warming" immediately rushed to corr...oh, wait:
And Gavin Schmidt's response is right on the money:
> "You have to be specially trained to be so blind,"
>Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion [sic] machine?
Erm, inflation has not yet reached the point where denial propaganda requires financing to the order of magnitude of billions of dollars (as your inept wording implies), so your question is another of those straw men for which you have such a penchant.
However, if you want proof of a denial machine that makes billions of dollars profit for its clients, then the answer to your sly question is an emphatic "[yes](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)".
Hence the oft-repeated nonsense about "well-funded denialist machines" when we all know that the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland's
Bradford suffers his usual logic fail.
If Heartland like WWF actually employed or supported working scientists engaged in research who publish in the scientific literature then they would be regarded differently. Of course that is not what they are funded to do - they are funded to do climate science denial.
Just within our central Conservation Science Program, based in the U.S., there are 20 practicing scientists, 10 with PhDs, who produce an average of 20 peer-reviewed papers each year in journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Bioscience, PLoS Biology, Ecology Letters, Conservation Biology. On average, our research is cited by other scientists more than 600 times per year.
1) See Fakery, p.3 and p.12.
In ~2009, Heartland+SEPP+CSCDGC got ~$8M.
The other 9 on p.3 got ~$39M.The additional 36 501(c)(3) on p.12 added another $283M.
Now, only some of that is for climate disinformation, but some of it is for tobacco advocacy and other science disinformation, such as on environmental issues. In addition, these entities cross-support each other in various ways. One often finds them cross-quoting, cross-writing articles, signing petitions, together.
It is far cheaper to create confusion than to actually do science and improve understanding. Still, there's a $330M in 2009 for these folks.
2) Wegman.
In addition to the prime site where this all started over 2 years ago Deep Climate, where there have been recent updates, and USA Today, where story broke, but as gotten updates, there is:
I can assure you that this story ... is only starting again.
It only took 709 days to reach this conclusion, and people might ponder this passage from Strange Inquiries at GMU (SIGMU), p.21, from GMU's policy:
'In conducting the investigation, the committee â
(a) Uses diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations;
(b) Interviews each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent; and
(c) Pursues diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continues the investigation to completion.'
Now, inquiring minds might want to know:
1) Was there any other information that a diligent committee might of found? Like Strange Scholarship?
Wegman certainly knew about it. Maybe the diligent commiteee somehow didn't notice it?
2) Did the committee ever check Deep Climate to see if anything else came up? Guess not.
Once again I have to compliment you (and DC) on your incredible investigations. As tiresome as it must sometimes grow, you are conducting an important service for greater public understanding of scientific truth.
With respect to GMU, it's as though the administration peered into the hole Wegman and his group dug for themselves and said "whoa, that's not deep enough!"
(And the Monckton "debate" is a great illustration of why it's foolish for real scientists to "debate" at Heartland Institute events - "debate" is a terrible format for uninformed onlookers to try to get at the truth.)
Thanks to all for kind words, we all help as we can.
Some, like senior members of Houses of Representatives, can do more. H/T Martin Vermeer, see Markey wants Heartland documents.
Frank, still clutching for straas are we. Thanks though for writing in a civil manner.
But sorry again, Mussolini isn't labeling his fascism as right wing. And why should he? For obvoius reasons his fascisms is an off spring of his socialistic radical views, regarding anti-capitalism, anit-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society. And of course he hated socialism in terms of internationalism.
And democracy too. But hey, anti-parlaimentism is nothing alien to fascism's older sibling communism.
Mussolini was a extrem communism very prone to violance and direct action before he added nationalism to his new, but still socialism-soaked, ideology. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Sects on the far left always fight one another. They even hate "dissendents" more than they hate the bourgeoisie. Deal with it.
Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about...
Again with the creepy sexual references, Olaus. What the hell is wrong with you?
I second that Stu. OP's output is summed up in one word, 'puerile'. I would add with 'juvenile and sinister' undertones, to be read and quickly passed on without further comment. Coventry calls for those of his ilk.
In addition to Mik H's evidence and the questions he asks (which Bradford, being the outright bigoted coward he is, won't answer)...
Please provide evidence and cite sources that show beyond reasonable doubt that
the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland's.
and evidence (citing sources) of:
the billions of taxpayer dollars poured in on top.
I am about at the point where, as a self-identified "left/green" I'm wondering whether all my efforts to slow or stop the increasingly incessant rape and plunder of what's left of our natural environment for the principal benefit of a select few very rich entities (and the subsequent squalid waste of those resources) don't simply help support parasites like you.
Olaus, allow me to quote from "La dottrina del fascismo", the official doctrine of the Italian fascists, and supposedly co-written by Mussolini himself:
"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."
Oops..seems Mussolini IS calling fascism right-wing.
The trouble is Marco, and an Il Duce reference has been pointed out already, that Petri belongs to that unique band of blithering idiots like Monckton who think their own interpretations - no matter how steeped in stupidity and ignorance they may be - outweigh those of the actual authors.
Petri's abiding rationale is that all evil must be a leftist phenomenon, ergo fascism must be left wing.
But then we already know that deniers cannot handle facts, especially those from the pens or mouths of the very authors of those facts, if they don't agree with their worldview.
Not my argument and I'm not an expert. From memory, Mussolini said many things at many times, not all of which were consistent. It's part of the problem the third Reich had with him, what was he thinking today? a loose canon at best.
His somewhat confused state is amply demonstrated by the fact the document you cite "La dottrina del fascismo" was subsequently removed from publication (all available copies being destroyed) by Mussolini as, on reflection, he decided he didn't actually agree with it.
Anyway, the whole totalitarian "managing the populace for the greater good" is your sides ideology. What is labeled "right wing" these days are libertarian "little government" views. You chide them for being so.
To quote Ronald Reagan (from memory)
"The most frightening words in the English language are - I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"
When you strip away the labels, politica is the haves versus the have nots.
The right wing is now defined as the haves hanging on to their private gains and socialising their losses - just as with climate change and the banking collapse. Such a system is unsustainable not least because of its unfairness.
Any inclusive, progressive egalitarian politics now happen on the left.
What can I say chek. I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy, you, I suspect, exist in a permanent state of misery at the injustice of yours being "half empty".
Funny how so many of your (*phtttt!*) 'libertarians' also want an all-powerful state with a mighty military. Ain't it?
And a welfare state for the rich (said military-industrial complex purchasing over-priced useless junk from heavy-industry; union-busting regulations - and mercenaries if necessary - because only the mighty captains of industry can be allowed to collectively throw their weight around; bail-outs, more bail-outs, and more bail-outs, as required; massive tax relief; oh, and, let's not forget, publicly-subsidised corporate donations to political lobbyists and professional spin-merchants masquerading as 'educational' think tanks!)
That's Socialism for the Rich, and nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw for the rest. Not you, of course, you're a 'good boy'; 'Oh, please Mr. Millionaire, won't you let me shine your shoes and ride your coat-tails?'
Your paranoiac fantasies regarding those people brighter and more capable than you (a very large set, admittedly, so let's narrow it down to, say, actual climate scientists and add the remainder of the evidence-based community) are classic hallmarks of an Authoritarian personality. You, Sunshine, and your little pals, don't need to be looking elsewhere to be asking, to paraphrase Mark E Smith: 'What makes the Nazis?'
Now, you can rabbit on about 'Godwinning' all you like (as that other sad little fellow did, despite the small detail of his repeatedly insisting that Leftists are Nazis and we're all Leftists, so... !) but the fact remains: you who spend so much time shouting 'Nazi Nazi' should instead be looking to the distinct brown tinge of your own shirts...
you, I suspect, exist in a permanent state of misery
... and you, as illustrated here and in the Jonas thread exist in a permanent state of foisting your own externalised fantasies onto other people. How is your laughable little analysis of Peter Gleik's typically Green 'anger' going, idiot?
The fact you tie yourself up into contradictory knots when discussing "your ideology" is hardly our fault.
That description applies perfectly to your moronic friend Petri and his monumental ignorance with regard to fascism as documented on this very thread, not the rational posters here.
And despite the hyperbole, regulating an industry is not a totalitarian act, no matter what rhetoric your over-excited little mind has had inserted into it.
Olaus said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Repeated quotes from different people of the 1930's referring to fascism as a right-wing doctrine proves this claim to be wrong. When Olaus acknowledges that that is the case, I might be more inclined to indulge him by discussing:
>Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about...
But for now, I await a simple acknowledgement that his claim was wrong. That medicine could take as little as three words, and yet we are still waiting...
In the meantime, lets have another Trotsky example: "As a result, power slipped from its hands, shifted from left to right, and fell prey to fascism." The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy, from Whither France?, 1934.
It's easy for honest people to say they are wrong when they make a mistake. See my post 921, for example. So for home viewers, why does Olaus find that so difficult? And what credibility can Olaus possibly retain here when he is so embarrassingly incapable of acknowledging that he made a relatively trivial overreach in the heat of an argument?
GSW gives a thumbs-up to a spambot echo-comment, which is about par for GSW's course, really. Of course, he's still playing the pitch-and-putt course, intellectually speaking, but he gets an elephant stamp for trying, the special little guy.
Marco, you are doing the same mistake as Frank and others before him. Fascism is Right compared to Communism, which I have said all along. But it still Right far out on the left flank and not on the Right flank. How many times do I need to tell you guys this?
Your way to label fascism Right is an anachronism, and so far you haven't presented anything that contradict this. Mussolini was fighting against the bourgeoisie, capitalism and liberalism â and internationalism. Him being nationalist doesn't change a thing. Haven't you read anything I have written in the previous post? Using arguments from antagonistic lefties trying to define/defend themselves are not the way to go, Capisce?
In the 1920/30s there was Right socialism and Left dito and it was nothing controversial about it. Fascism came about in the radical milieu of communism and syndicalism where Mussolini was a major player. When Mussolini coined Fascism he was still a member of the revolutionary socialistic movement. During the big strikes in the factories (1920) he tried hard to force the socialistic leaders to join him (while shouting their language).
When the strikes ebbed out M's nationalism became really prominent. Until then it had been rather low key. A right turn -Yes â but on the left hand side of the fence.
Besides the political and historical evidence that F is a left hand side product, we have a psychological one. I'm sure you are aware of Adornos' study on authoritarian personality? He constructed the F-scale and you know what? Both fascist and commies scored almost the same extreme results. Who would have thunk?
Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what's really interesting, ergo the proofs of the right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?
Olaus, you don't have to write a detailed explanation. Could you give a summary, or at least a basic explanation? Or is it as complex, as say, Climate Science, and to really understand it, it can't be summarized in a short one sentence proof?
The chart also explains why Communist and Fascist scored relatively closely in your example since they are both Authoritarian minded. And of course you said it was a test of Authoritarian personalities. Who would of thunk???? lol
I have never said that it is a Q of only left and right when analyzing politics. I guess what I'm really saying is that we cannot understand and guard ourself from the development of fascism if we use an anachronistic way of understanding politics and ideology.
How can we otherwise properly understand Chavez recent nationalistic vocabulary? Has he suddenly become right wing?
Your scheme is interesting and I have of course seen many times it before. Not surprisingly I believe it needs some modifications. There is also a weakness with schemes of that kind since they lack dynamics and can't help you understand change (over time).
Regarding you contrafactual Q, I don't fancy it because the answers will be so shallow and open to criticism. That said , the number one action would be to reinforce research on nuclear energy, thorium, cold fusion, etc that has a fair chance â in short period of time â to come up with a substitute for fossil fuel.
JRC #958, please don't reduce this discussion to singularities. The F-scale becomes interesting only if you combine it with the historical facts I have presented.
You also need to stop viewing "socialism" (and all ideologies) as something static. It isn't.
Like Mr Watts I think this quote is right (not Left) on the money. It also illustrate how futile the cryings of a multi-billion right wing denial industry really are:
"Finally, âcoordinatedâ? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism."
As far as understanding a Chavez type. He is an authoritarian, and in the process wants even more control, so he moved to the right but no less an authoritarian. As far as your idea of more research, I have no problem with that, and I'm sure many don't, but I would include solar, wind, and hydro as part of the solution. As far as claiming it's a contrafactual question, it's not because the facts and evidence support that it is real. But I guess in your bizarro world it's contrafactual. I see you doing your little dance though. Quick question, is the Iranian government leftist or rightist? This is an elementary question, that I feel you probably will get wrong.
Olaus, if the skeptics are winning, it has nothing to do with the weakness of the evidence. (Winning will only last so long, because reality and nature doesn't care about what you or I think) It has to do with most people not understanding science for one. Spinning science into bite size bits that seem reasonable, but are in fact false number two. I'll list more later because I'm going to visit my grandmother here shortly.....but just an example I recently got an e-mail about the danger of margarine and how it was just one molecule (even if they meant atom) away from being plastic. Well don't drink water because it's just one atom away from being hydrogen peroxide. That's how they are winning. Take something and make it sound correct. But it isn't. There is much more to chemistry than just the atoms and molecules as we know with CO2. But if you don't know that geometry of a molecule is important then the whole atom away from something else seems reasonable as unreasonable as it really is.
In politics, Left = Labor and Right = Capital. This isnât a new thing. It has been this way for a couple of hundred years. You don't get to change definitions of well-established terms whenever you feel like it.
Tim
I think that Olaus has infested so much in this thread, that you should just name it in his honor
(and here I was thinking that bad spelling was a handicap).
JRC #963, That wasn't fair. It sure is contrafactual since you explicitly told me "If" CAGW was true, yet you came up with "bizarro". So much for me giving in.
Your, as it turned out, very stupid Q was based on URGENY, and from that perspective my suggested research focus was rational since possible break-throughs in nuclear power etc appear (to me) to be within reach.
Do I really have to spell out that I don't mind research on solar, wind etc? Amazing!
Chavez sure is becoming more and more authoritarian but the most interesting part is that he's becoming more and more nationalist. Still he is the golden boy of the extreme left.
Can the stupidity that seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?
Of course it can. Just see Petri's next comment.
Tim, one of the things that I like about this blog are the varying views and comments from intelligent, clued-up people.
One of the things I now detest about this blog is the Scandinavian Troll Collective running wild disrupting any and every thread.
Please contain them or ban them - either action works for me. Essentially they add nothing except depths of ignorance that would embarrass Watts.
Oh dear, chek resurfaces and even deltoids reach for the kidney dishes.
And Chek, your latest ether pile was a bit rich, even for you. Olaus:
"seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?!
On the contrary my friend, I hunger for more information concerning this so called multi-billion right wing denial machine. Heartland is about tiny 6.4 million and only bread crumbs of that sum deals with climate related subjects.
And ckek, You hate diversity of opinions. It annoys you to the length that you loose it. Your presence here brings no substance but plenty of hate and scary longings towards Jeff and Tim.
Keep your projections of what *you* think is happening Petri.
Your 'diversity of opinions' are ten a penny on any rubbish denialist blog which I mainly choose to avoid apart from occasional rare recce visits. It's time consuming enough keeping abreast of even a good cross-section of the wortwhile, intelligent ones.
Take your 'diversity' back to your own climateidiots blog, and suffer the lack of attention your loonytoon views naturally attract and stop piggybacking this venue in the vain hope for whatever validation you so desperately crave.
Olaus, still doesn't understand that this thread has long since ceased to be about whether Fascism is of the right or left (if it ever was about that). This thread has become a case study in denial - the refusal to concede the most trivial error, despite being presented with copious evidence. It is a metaphor for all denial.
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
But: "The National Socialists, as the strongest party of the right, have shown...that they have a firm, positive relationship to Christianity", Otto Dibelius, Lutheran Superintendant General of the Kurmark, 1930
> Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what's really interesting
Any time you are ready, Olaus. You know what you need to do - stop making this thread about you, man up, admit you made a mistake, and then we can talk about the:
>"right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?".
Will Olaus' pathology force him defend his hopeless point, even though it means he himself is sabotaging the discussion he would like to have? Or can he concede the point to get what he wants? It's like the kid who grabbed too many cookies and got his hand caught in the cookie jar - if he can let go of one cookie, he'll get several cookies. But can he?
Climate science deniers like Evans are masters of the zombie* argument. It does not matter how many times it is debunked, it keeps rising from the grave.
There's certain types of links I never bother with.
Why?:
POST [n1]:
I have no dog in this fight, but the Warmists are clearly wrong, in a way that I am somewhat reluctant to pin down. Here's a chart with several numbers and some lines; hence science.
I also see little difficulty with even the most outrageous 'Skeptic' claims, but will discover something shiny if you call me out to defend them.
COMMENT [xN]:
I also have no dog in this fight, but the Warmists are clearly wrong, in a way that I, too, am somewhat reluctant to pin down. I admire your chart, that is clearly science, as it is.
And I, too, see little difficulty with even the most outrageous 'Skeptic' claims, but will also discover something shiny if you call me out to defend them.
COMMENT ['<'xN]:
Look what I found at the Weatherman's or the Sticky Bishop's. Aren't the Warmists stupid, and probably also corrupt?
COMMENT [xN]:
I am inclined to be offended by the forthrightness of your opinion, but I'm also inclined to agree with you.
COMMENT ['<<'xN]
But surely this position you are all putting forward is barely supported by the actual evidence? Surely, also, given what's at stake, we must also act decisively and in a timely manner on the balance of probabilities?
COMMENT [xN + n1]:
We are offended by your opinion.
COMMENT ['<'xN]:
I squeal with delight. You Warmists are indeed stupid, and corrupt.
COMMENT [xN]:
I am perhaps slightly more inclined to be offended by the forthrightness of your opinion, but am now perhaps more strongly inclined to see even fewer difficulties with the outrageousness of your position, so I'm also perhaps somewhat more inclined to agree with you.
I disagree that I was playing his game or even offering a defense
It's an objective fact that you defended your use of links against his "Can't you speak for yourself?" attack. The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it's not warming. You can point to your comment about informed opinion, but that falls squarely into the territory of begging the question. As I said, to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection ... the use of links wasn't the issue and isn't an issue, as we all use them. What is the issue is that OP is a dishonest sack of feces and engaging with him is stepping in it.
Olaus is in a place where logic and science cannot reach.
That would need some non-genuine info in it too, and there doesn't appear to be any.
There wasn't any non-genuine info in the Rather memos, either. Molly Ivins had exposed Bush back when he was the "compassionate conservative" governor of Texas, and Lt. Col. Killian's secretary said that, while she didn't type those memos, their content was consistent with Killian's opinions.
> The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it's not warming.
The problem with your specific critique is that practically **anything** one does can be used to justify denialist behaviour, precisely because most of that behaviour and justifications for it **are not rational**.
Life's too short to go to that level of granularity of analysis on every comment, wondering whether there's a way a denialist can twist it. (At least for me - yours may differ.)
*Especially* since the answer almost always is "yes". It's far more fruitful to attack the twist and the misinformation, regardless of source.
In this specific case it matters not one whit whether denialists use links and claim that "others do it too so it must be legitimate"; what matters is whether the information (whether typed in, or referenced via a link) stands up to informed scrutiny. I think we agree on that point. However, on:
> ...to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection.
Perhaps you missed the "you're demonstrating you're full of shit if you need to stoop to that fallacy" undertones in my response to Petri? Too subtle, perhaps?
I don't know about the laws. In general, whether or not one went public, one certainly might well bring it to the relevant authorities. I think it depends on what it is, and whether or not you think the government will grind on it fast enough to be useful.
...and then the little turkey accused me of Godwinning him! Goog grief; you know, this from the charming little bloke who - along with his equally contemptible (and equally ignorant) cohort - is busily attempting to prove that because we're all Left (!) we're all Nazis (!!).
Of course, irony is completely lost on such - well, I was going to say 'minds', but let's just say 'states of neural electrical activity*', shall we? ;-)
Olaus, if you look at how little money thinktanks received from tobacco companies compared to the hundreds of millions that went into cancer research, it shows exactly how stupid Watts is. FUD is easy, really easy. It does not require much money to lie, distort and deceive, especially when the general public does not have the required knowledge to see through those lies, distortions and deceipt.
You do the same mistake again, using un-contextualized quotes, this time from a christianity leader justifying his support for nazism in the fighting against internationalism. The indeed national-conservative Dibelius had to make this rational, not the least thanks to Hitlerisms of this kind:
âThe heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianityâs illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.â
Siding with such a movement needed advanced rhetorics, don't you agree? On top of that was Hitlers progressivism (or revolutionary) something alien to conservatives:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Even though I don't like to compare ideological standpoints with real politics (ideology usually don't match its practice) it's rather stunning that Hitler's reforms were very advanced for his times. And please don't tell me again that Hitlers's socialism was based on ethnicity and race and hence wasn't real socialism. There is no real socialism, but socialisms. Some uglier than others.
Many people and organizations became faithful to nazism, but that only meant that they became nazis, not that they remained Right (definition-wise). How could they? The war on the bourgeoisie society was, roughly described, a two front one, and the victorious part became the nationalistic branch, not the international.
Any comments on Mussolini?
And it's only in you brain that I side left leaning people with nazis, so no Godwin on my part.
What about the multi-billion right-wing conspiracy?
Amongst others the Op-Ed contains a SCANDALOUS distortion of the facts by leaving out the confidence interval. Judith Curry likes to hype the uncertainty so much, and then comes out and supports an Op-Ed that deliberately leaves out the confidence interval!
Equally 'hilarious', if it weren't so funny, the discussion on Spencer & Braswell. A paper that contains basic flaws, ranging from statistics (confidence intervals? Why add those, Mark I eyeball works best!) to leaving out inconvenient data. If Judith Curry cannot see the basic flaws, she does not belong in science.
And if you click through to Bickmore's brief critique (and the excellent first comment), Curry appears to reveal that she is unable to detect basic pseudo-scientific deception - nor does she appreciate risk mitigation in the face of uncertainty, even though it has been clearly pointed out to her.
Goodness me, after having it repeatedly explained, Olaus still doesn't get it, or else is assuming that nobody else does. Extraordinary!
Well, as Einstein (I think) said it, the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Olaus has shown he would not be convinced by an encyclopedia of quotes showing that he was wrong when he said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
I never expected to do so, and having proved that point, most likely wont be posting further for now.
I'm sure I annoyed some by cluttering up the thread, but I hope it served a purpose; I've had many discussions where people were asked "what would it take for you to change your mind about climate change?" Generally, "warmists" (sic) are able to answer that question with some precision; X years with an temperature anomaly below Y is the usual formulation. In my experience, "deniers" (sic) do not, but waft a lot of high-tone bafflegab about "definitive proof" and such like.
And here is the thing (well-known, but still worth reminding from time to time): There is NO level of proof, however definitive, that can convince somone who is in denial to shift their position. They are simply incapable of incorporating new evidence into their mind-map. Olaus, of course, compounds this problem with a narcissism and authoritarianism that speaks of an actual pathology.
No troll can ever be persuaded of anything. Though they can be smacked down from time to time. GSW's brief return here reminded me of [the funniest thing I've ever read on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…). GSW perfectly illustrated the resistence to new information when he ignored six people trying to warn / explain how badly he was being forked and at the end, still didn't get it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I prefer to contextualize historical quotes. You don't apparently. But that's not my fault. None of your quotes were made as attempts to analyze fascism and national socialism, but to make political stunts. Can't you see the difference?
Until you are ready again to debate why anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society isn't very lefty, I wish you all the besty. You might think otherwise, but I found our little differences interesting.
Hopefully someone got a bit wiser, not the least regarding how to place Hugo Chaves on then political map based on his nationalistic lingo.
Lets focus on the Right Wing multi-billion conspiracy then.
SteveC
Apologies, I was to quick to speak.
;)
Dear GWB, the temple of Deltoid is a perfect illustration of the sectarian non-scientific off spring of real climate science. What more do you need? (C)AGW is a hype based on a manhandled scientific hypothesis. Peel off the thick ideological and political layers from it and you will find a core of science, of course. But we are not there yet, but we are getting there.
The backlash(s) you guys have been suffering lately will continue until all the anthropogen methane has escaped from the climate scare bubble. And then we will be able to see all the great uncertainties that's been there all the time â in the real science underpinning the CO2-hypothesis.
Not to self: uncertainties of great magnitude are best handled in a lab â by real scientists â not by politicians and ideologists talking on their behalf in unscientific milieus.
However, like members of a sectarian church you are not able to take such an objective stance nor are you willing to question your convictions. And when called upon you usually get very angry and agitated, which of course is very understandable. Somebody is questioning your belief system (which adds meaning to your very existence):
1. Sola scripture/dogma
2. Doomsday
3. Sinners
4. Angels and demons
Yesterday I drafted a comment stating that the trolls were waiting for Josh to tell them what to think before they responded. Then I replaced it with something else because I thought that was too facetious - for even me.
Well, what do you know.
Of course, it must be fake. Look at how Heartland are responding - by threatening the internet to vanquish the documents that are apparently so irrelevant. *That's the behaviour of an innocent party.
MikeH is right. They are hypocrites. Not that the usual trolls will care - look! A cartoon to reassure our delusions!
>Not to self: uncertainties of great magnitude are best handled in a lab â by real scientists â not by politicians and ideologists talking on their behalf in unscientific milieus.
I agree!
Now remind us - who is doing the actual science? Lab bound climate scientists or Hearland affiliated shills like Carter and Watts?
@494 "Somebody is questioning your belief system".Certainly not you,dimwit narcissus,as your questions have long been answered.
GWB, I forgot no. 5. Ban/ostracize those in opposition.
Many of you deltoids nurse the idea that criticism of climate scientology should be labeled blasphemy and hence be forbidden. I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
I guess Regan..sorry Tim couldn't stand Jonas' well intended and well needed scientific exorcism: "The power of science compels you". ;-)
Olaus, that is even more comical than I expected. Do you really think your diatribe addresses my challenge? So I'll re-issue it:
The scientific underpinning of climate change has been developed through research undertaken in multiple institutions in multiple countries; published through peer reviewed literature, in journals that encourage debate and discourse; discussed at single discipline and multi-disciplinary conferences, many of which have an open submission policy for abstracts (e.g. EGU General Assembly and the AGU Fall Meeting, at which I have personally seen Steve McIntyre present, by the way); and then supported by unequivocal statements by all of the major National Science Academies around the world, each of which has examined the evidence underpinning the science and come to the same conclusion.
So I challenge you to explain clearly and succinctly in what way this resembles either religion or scientology.
Note clearly and succinctly, and the challenge is to derscribe how the scientific underpinning, not Deltoid, resembles either religion or scientology. Please stop side-stepping the issue with incoherent rants.
>You mean you prefer describing it in non-scientific, religious terms to avoid actually talking about the science.
Alas Petri is becoming positively apoplectic. He is becoming even less coherent than usual. So much for "Cash for Denial" being irrelevant.
Here is another [god-damn awfully stupid cartoon](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ipcc_graphic_bazinga…) from Josh.
> Many of you deltoids nurse the idea that criticism of climate scientology should be labeled blasphemy and hence be forbidden.
Citation needed. Or is this another of your own private interpretations of the data?
> I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
Your implication via juxtaposition that this was due to Jonas criticising climate science is false (if indeed he has been banned). He was warned that he would be banned if he left his own thread. He left his own thread. Occam's Razor eliminates your implication.
(Some might even speculate that Jonas would find it more convenient to get banned than to continue to try and defend some of his less defensible claims - but seriously, who gives a shit?)
As Petri amply demonstrates, when the urgent call for 'maximum effort, damage limitation' went out to the Rapid Response Teams (so urgently that even Jonarse undertook one final suicidal mission) it was 'all trolls to the pumps'.
A little more care on the part of the Hearland High Command might have found it worthwhile to add the rider 'without making deniers look even more stupid with clumsy, half-baked, home-made metaphors'.
But alas, for some it was too late. Petri was already beyond contact, as he had been for some time.
>I believe Tim has banned Jonas from his own thread now.
Hmmm, I haven't seen the post where Tim said that Jonas N had been banned from Deltoid (validly, given JN's breaking of the rule), so I can only assume that Jonas N received a private email from Tim, and that Jonas N told you via the Scandinavian Troll Collective.
Or have you been spear phishing, Olaus Petri?
Now, if only we could exterminate the rest of the STC cockroaches...
Chaps, you haven't missed the JoNovas' comment on proportions:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrat…
;-)
And your favorite columnist weighs in, the man who is right about everything:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100137840/fakegate/
Since when did being a hoop-jumping corporate shill become something to brag about?
Delingpole and JoNova make themselves look like utter idiots for comparing *funding for primary research* with *anonymous donations channelled specifically to authors to produce partisan "educational" material*. In other news, apples have an entirely different taste to oranges.
Olaus, are claiming that governments fund climate research for a particular outcome? Because that would be a conspiracy theory, the kind you claim you don't traffic in.
At least show some consistency.
Petri dish:
You're absolutely right. I haven't missed her comment and I never will.
Petri dish:
At least he gets irony sometimes.
Over at Scholars & Rogues, Rutan is still trying (assisted by the odd goalpost shift, and complete non-response to almost all demonstrations of outright falsehood). It's quite a remarkable performance.
I've started analysing his slide deck, slide by slide, as best as I can. It's not a good look for someone touting their professional skills as giving them some insight.
Yep, everything Josh does is thoroughly mediocre. He's as tedious and irrelevant as Jo Nova. Next.
Have we seen this - the open letter from climate scientists to Heartland in the Guardian?
Bradley, Karoly, Santer, Schmidt, Mann, Overpeck, Trenberth.
I would be overjoyed if Jonas is finally gone! He can believe he's Galileo all he likes, we know a goose when we see one. Who will his acolytes focus their neural-outsourcing on now? I know - Josh! See above.
@ John Mashey
Something that may or may not be of interest. Australian Senator Cory Bernardi is known for his right-wing views, is anti- same sex marriage and a climate science denier. On the 15th Feb (same day the Heartland Inst âleakâ occurred), the Adelaide Advertiser (News Limited) featured an article on Bernardiâs views on the CSIROâs âCarbon Kidsâ program (a national childrenâs scientific program part of which teaches kids the science behind climate change). The Adelaide Advertiser article is here:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/climate-debate-evolv…
Bernardiâs attack bears remarkable similarity to Heartlandâs angle on teaching climate science in schools.
As it turns out, The Age reported back in October last year on Bernardiâs anti-carbon price activities. That Age article also details his role in several âconservativeâ anti-climate change groups. Relevantly, it mentions his involvement with Heartland, including:
âBernardiâs Registrar of Senatorsâ Interests shows that last year he travelled to the United States as a guest of the Tea Party think tank, the Heartland Institute. He denied he had talked about Tea Party tactics or organising âgrassrootsâ groups on the web, but said he spoke at its conference in May. In October last year he also declared the institute paid for his accommodation in Sydney during another conferenceâ
I was just wondering if these donations/ expenses paid to Bernardi explained one or more of the amounts going to anonymous beneficiaries in Australia.
(Cross-posted at Deep Climate)
(Thanks to Liz A and joe2 at Crikey's Pure Poison weekend thread)
Hey Steve - I took up your message over at Hot Topic; John M's been 'round there a bit due to the Heartland / NZCSC [*cough*] connection.
Do you remember when Bernardi was running his anti-Earth Hour poster? The curious might ponder what the brightly lit country north and west of North Korea is! ;-)
Thanks Bill, I was wondering whether it was worth adding to DeSmog but John M is pretty much all over here, DC and at Hot Topic. Now you mention it there is a dim memory of "Human Achievement Hour" (as if deliberately using more non-renewable resources just to spite others somehow celebrates human achievement). It doesn't take much poking around to see who Bernardi is connected with and that SMH article you link to brings up CEI so it wouldn't surprise me if he was also linked with the IPA.
Watching the Deniers has an article on this very thing - had I spent 2 minutes on google I could've saved myself the bother of posting :-/
While we're on the Bernardi-Heartland theme, Watching the Deniers did a piece on this much earlier which is worth the read. The same old faces keep turning up together - the IPA, David Evans, Jo Nova. Bernardi seems to have swallowed (or is that "Bolt"ed) the Potty Peer's snake oil, and the whole nexus puts me in mind of that irresistably gruesome video that Graham Readfearn highlighted a week or two back, that linked all the foregoing with the Poet Laureate herself, Gina Rinehart.
I suppose the upshot of all this is the lie it gives to those who say how little funding Heartland has compared to the communo-fascist one-world collectivist dictators at Greenpeace, the WWF and so on. It ain't what you know, but who you know.
Some more on topic via your favorite Donna:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-…
Just in case you missed it fellas.
Again Olaus. You said you don't believe in these conspiracies. Why are you being so hypocritical?
Dear Johnnie, I/she served you some perspectives. Nothing more. And there is no need for conspiracy theories when explaining group thinking and sectarianism, which I have told you many times already.
Pay attention will ya.
@ Olaf
As usual, and in common with Wattsisface and Bishop Shill and all the rest, the Strawberry Tart misses the point (deliberately). It's not relevant how much Heartless splash about the place, it's what they do with it off their own bat - specifically, campaigning to turn teaching of science in schools into a political propaganda lecture. Also relevant (and thus glossed over by the Strawberry tart) is the Heartless is not, by any means, the only right-wing stink tank addicted to tea parties, climate science denial, anti-environmentalism, and right-wing propaganda, as several posts above (including mine and the links to Watching the Deniers posts) demonstrate. Lastly, the Strawberry Tart signally fails to mention Heartland's wholesale hypocrisy in complaining bitterly about its internal documents being leaked when it has spent years and untold $$$ relentlessly lying about the content of the UEA/ CRU hack and making personal attacks on climate science bods.
I've said it before and I will say it again - if you hitch your wagon to the circus that the Strawberry Tart is part of, don't come whinging when it drags you out into the desert and leaves you there.
Olaf @521
I/she served you some perspectives. Nothing more. And there is no need for conspiracy theories when explaining group thinking and sectarianism, which I have told you many times already. Pay attention will ya.
I have to concede one point, that there's no need for talk about conspiracy theories when most of the links between Bernardi, IPA, CEI, Heartland, Jo Nova, Watts, Monckton, etc etc ad nauseum are on the record. Anti-science, anti-environment and antithetical to the truth, they're all linked together in a giant tea party, and they all have their heads so far up each other's arses it's a wonder to science you can even mention words like "perspective" and "paying attention" without disappearing into a localised black hole created by you blanking out your own hypocrisy.
Steve, the news value in finding out that a tiny lobby-organization not in favor of the CO2-hypothesis is supporting research not in favor of the CO2-hypothesis, is rather limited. The fake-thang is interesting though, if there's any truth in it.
Olaus, good luck with those blinkers pal, hope you've got some that don't chafe.
SteveC: thanks, I missed that at DC somehow, but saw mention over at Hot Topic.
For the education angle, "fakey" almost had a section that pulled out themes from Heartland's glossy E&CN newsletters. One theme was going to be something like "Fakeducation from fakexperts" but it was already long enough. Do visit Hot Topic and see my quick comments, which end with a note on the proposed "Roosters of the Apocalypse" polybag.
Always remember: Heartland cares so much about children and their education that:
- Joseph Bast defended Joe Camel, the most successful campaign in US tobacco history to addict younger children to tobacco. See "Fakery", Appendices F and G.1. See p.46 on The "Smoker's Lounge",
'Welcome to the Smokerâs Lounge, the place to go for sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues'
- I cited clear tobacco funding 1993-2002, and likely through 2008. Somewhat to my surprise, I find Heartland was getting even higher funding in 2011: $50K From Altria, $110K from Reynolds American.
- Roy Marden of Philip Morris was on Heartland Board at least 1996-2008.
- The image at top right in "fakery" was from Heartland E&CN, showing a guy smoking right next to a child.
- Heartland's E&CN ran smoking-supportive articles and ads fairly often. E&CN = Environment and Climate News ...
well sure, that needs ads for Smoker's Lounge.
- As explained under Figure F.2, for most people, the only way to addict them to nicotine is to get them early while brains are developing. Since smokers tend to stick to first brands, there was a "race to the bottom" to get there first. In US that succeeded in moving the typical smoking-start age from 15-16 down to 13-14.
- So, Heartland has consistently tried to help tobacco companies, who survive by killing children slowly (of course, they prefer very slowly, since that yields profits longer.)
- So for Oz, it will be very interesting to see where the money went, "Fakery" H.3 and H.4. Who paid for Skeptics Handbook, for example? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
@Olaus, Steve,
For those of you with a sense of humour, Megan McArdle's article on the 'faked' strategy document is bouncing around the blogosphere, the best quote from which is
âBasically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.â
Anthony has picked up and run with it in his post
"Top Ten Things Heartland Institute Will Do With $6.4 Million in Funding"
My favourite is
"10. Build a secret -strike oil-powered nuclear-powered strike- coal-powered lair on a South Pacific Island."
If only it were that easy!
Of course, fantasy, misdirection and plain outright lying are things deniers are well practiced in, so why would they change now?
And let's not overlook the fact that the 'faked' accusation is so far only a suggestion, and a rather desperate one at that.
[The Heartland Institute smears Peter Gleick](http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of):
>One obvious suspect in the Heartland document theft -- and this is just my speculation -- is Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a true enemy of the Heartland Institute. Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter that he shares Forbes magazineâs pages with Heartlandâs James Taylor.
I think that part of the response from HI has been even worse than the contents of those documents (including the alleged fake one).
Ah olaus, still committed to dodging the hard questions and burying your head in the sand I see. So... who paid for the NIPCC shambles again?
Any more news about "the Protocols of the Elders of Heartland" fellas? It seems rather not good right now. Or?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/18/nz-science-media-centr…
Cheers!
> the Protocols of the Elders of Heartland
How classy of you, Olaus. And by classy I mean pathetic.
That says so much about the ideology and motivations of the denialati.
What a foul and trivializing metaphor. The ironic thing about OP is that, while he does nothing but spew propaganda, he is completely inept and artless about it.
@ Steve 522
Framboise is French for Raspberry, which strikes me as more appropriate.
re: #530
See "fakery"
section 0.6, the Recipient glossary.
Notice a line labeled American Spectator Foundation?
Notice it gets funded by some of the same folks, including tobacco? L&H Bradley has been a consistent funder.
Also, as a funny connection, see Weird Science.
Tom Bethell was very active in American Spectator. His wife Donna is a a lawyer who somehow on the Board of Sandia Labs and also on Fred Singer's Board at SEPP. In fact, her letter to Washington Post is what set me off on the recent trek through From 990s, including finding Singer's little fibs, like telling IRS Frederick Seitz was SEPP's Chairman, for 2+ years Seitz's demise. Maybe Fred had a good spirit medium? Seitz was claimed to work an hour a week.
Watts is trumpeting the "Protocols" metaphor as if it's some satirical masterstroke ([link](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/top-ten-things-heartland-institut…)). Of course it's continuing the deniers' long-standing attempts to smear the mainstream as simultaneously communists, Nazis, socialists, fascists, anarchists, ad nauseam.
Still connecting the dots are we John. :-)
"The Elders or Heartland" is right up the deltoid alley. Deltoid's faiblesse for illuminati fantasies is standard protocol.
The "Protocols of the Elders of Heartland" metaphor appears to come from that interpreter of interpretations [James Delingpole](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100137840/fakegate/). Directly from the horse's mouth, so to say.
And I don't mean "horse's mouth" in an idiomatic sense.
...but rarely do they all turn up together in one short phrase. These damage control goons are good.
Lars
Considering where 'I of Is' utterings come from do you mean 'donkey droppings'?
First they invent a conspiracy and when that bluff was called, a new true conspiracy surfaces, the conspiracy hiding the conspiracy.
You guys are too much! :-)
@ Turboblocke
Framboise is French for Raspberry, which strikes me as more appropriate.
I knew that, so why did I write strawberry? Sorry, either early onset senility or a bout of late developing stupid.
SteveC, I have a better explanation. Heartland (or the green spaghetti monster) is controlling your mind to say strawberry instead of raspberry.
Watching Epistemic Closure in action is a fascinating process, in a trainwreck sort of a way...
Understand that WUWT crowd / Bishop of The Stick / and/or the local Scandinavian Smokers' Lobby live in an alternative reality, where a question mark over a single document means they don't have to think about all that inconvenient, corroborative stuff in all the other docs.
Or the multiple independent corroboration from outside the docs, including Bast himself melting-down on his blog and inadvertently confirming much of both the key content and the language in a stunning piece of tactical ineptitude!
Yep; all magicked away, simply by routinely uttering the spell 'Protocols of Heartland' every time the dissonant topic comes up!
Note that they are forced to link to their own sealed, self-referential blogosphere, because in the real world they're getting a pasting.
Bill, you sure talk like there is some kind of Elders controlling stuff...;-)
Anyways, I found this post and following discussion interesting:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/17/what-if-they-are-wrong/#more-7152
I'm sure you will too.
Cheers!
Hey, nutter, here's a challenge for you - find something from outside the closed loop. (N.B. Delingpole doesn't count!)
Of course you did - another Republican Rutan v2.0 given a platform, at this time, by your one and only true scientist messiah and her circus.
And Al Gore only mentioned 8 times. Wow.
While El Ninny-o is out scouring the far reaches of the Murdoch Empire, the rest of us can enjoy -
Monckton v. Scientists
WARNING: Scandinavians - contains factual information of a distressing nature which may not confirm deeply held prejudices. Not recommended for Deniers.
Ben Cubby (Fairfax/ SMH) joins a few more dots in the Heartland stink tank debacle. Not especially in-depth but at least one Australian journo is giving it a go. Also a wrap-up by Amber Jamison at Crikey's Rooted blog.
Clearly any criticism of anybody, anywhere is just silly conspiracy talk, right Olaus? It is very funny watching you on the back foot :)
@ Lars Karlsson, despite my better judgement I went and spent wasted 30 seconds of my life reading Mr Interpreter of Interpretations' article.
Quote: "My favourite giveaway clue that Watts-y has spotted..."
'Watts-y'?!?? I feel ill. Who needs laxatives when there's Delingpile?
From the SMH [article](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…) SteveC [linked:](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/web-leak-shows-trail-o…)
"In 2009, the US arm kicked in $60,699 in funds - virtually all the Australian organisation's entire budget of $62,910 - the ASIC documents show. Donations from the public, at a time when debate over the federal government's proposed emissions trading scheme was at a peak, were just $138.
In 2010, the Australian group had an income of $50,920, and $46,343 of that came from the American Climate Science Coalition, an offshoot of the International Climate Science Coalition, the ASIC documents show. The amount of public donations received was nil.
The public support figures are pretty damning. Not at all what denier claims would've led one to believe.
A bit more added to Ben Cubby's piece by Liz A at Pure Poison's weekend open thread.
re chek, sounds like our Scandinavian friends can add the Australian Climate Science Coalition to Bjorn Lomborg's recently demised foundation as a focus for charity funding from their forthcoming 'Just Say No to Climate Scientology' Cake Stall.
While I don't think many in the real world will be all that willing to swallow your guff, guys, I do think you might improve on $0 - say if your mums came over - and perhaps even beat $138 if you pick your venue... say the next Heartland Conference?
If there is one, of course.
Curry is now a full fledged denier.
She is a sad, sad person. Doesn't even know the history of her own discipline and buys Stopa's piece of crap. Doesn't say much for her intellectual rigor (or is that "say much about her intellectual rigor mortis?").
ianam, I agree with your verdict on JC, although I'd go even stronger and say JC has gone rejectionist, to use Eli Rabett's term.
Anyway, one answer to the asinine question "What if they're^fn1 wrong" link is really simple---"What if you're^fn2 wrong about the climate scientists being wrong?" The obvious infinite regress should be sufficient to illustrate the lunacy of this line of thinking, but in the Alternate Reality pervading JC's blog, I'd guess they haven't noticed.
Of course, the "What if they're wrong?" question is simplistic, for it ignores the fact that the most credible source of scientific knowledge about climate science is the community of climate scientists. It is highly unlikely that some outsider is going to overturn well examined and/or tested theories of climate science, especially where empirical data requires skill to analyse.
And if the climate scientists are proven wrong, down the track, one thing is almost certain: it will be the climate scientists themselves who discover that, not some amateur outsiders. That's the way science usually progresses. Hoping that this time is different, that this time the scientists are all wrong, is a belief system, not a credible viewpoint.
Fn1: they = climate scientists
Fn2: you = JC and her physicist chum
PS: for better or worse, I've said much the same thing over at John Quiggin's blog post on just this topic of bone-headed stupidity.
> http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/17/what-if-they-are-wrong/
What if I can shoot laser beams with my eyes?
> Curry is now a full fledged denier.
Yep. The blog post she cites links to the Daily Mail's "...it's cycle 25 we need to worry about..." stupidity and the claim that "it hasn't warmed for 15 years". Not a word from Curry on that. And the article relies to a large degree on postulating no water vapour feedback mechanism.
It also pulls a "Climate Friedman" arguing that "the truth of the matter should be apparent in about 15 years".
Never mind that the blog poster accuses some scientists of outright deception, and argues the tired "the rest are just going with the flow to get grant money" without any evidence or demonstrating any understanding of how science works - and that appears to be near the core of what impresses Curry. (Rutan is making similar arguments at Scholars & Rogues, or was before the Admin told him to engage with the arguments presented rather than repetitively pontificating...)
>Yep; all magicked away, simply by routinely uttering the spell 'Protocols of Heartland' every time the dissonant topic comes up!
Who needs evidence when you have a snappy catchphrase?
This is interesting. From SkS: "Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'"
>Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent studies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted.
Let's all guess what the deniers will cherry-pick out of this report.
Hey Bill, to save you feeling like you're blowing your own trumpet, I recommend anyone interested in the Bernardi/ Fartland connection go read your follow-up posts (all of them ) at Hot Topic.
Even if John Mashey can't find much use for the info you've collated, at least the Bernardi/ Heartless nexus has been documented.
Re Curry's What if they are wrong post, I read it earlier but because I haven't the chops myself I thought I'd missed something.
Turns out not.
Where do you stop with that kind of lunacy?
Good morning Vie...Deltoid. Apparently there is a new e-mail in the protocols we can talk about:
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/andrew-revkin-finds-journalism-religi…
Hmm...
I am touched that Heartland are so beleaguered they are resorting to *leaking* private emails.
Its hilarious isn't it? Someone got payed
I'm sure you are right John. I'll bet professor Curry is on the pay roll too. ;-)
Take care!
A new Josh coming your way. Funny isn't it?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/18/not-fake-no-not-really…
I confess the links to Josh are getting harder and harder to resist due to the all-too-human rubbernecking response. It has been observed in many forums that political conservatives so rarely manage genuine humour - even when they think they do.
Yep, there really is something second-rate - stunted, in fact - about the whole Denier enterprise...
@568
See Spooner in The Age. Another Climate Change denier. His drawings are magnificent but he has to include huge amounts of text so that you know what you are supposed to be laughing at. They are usually cringe inducing rather than funny.
Compare that to Bruce Petty. I still have his cartoon on the last Victorian state election on my notice board. He has the three main parties on a winner's dais. The Green rep is holding a placard reading "Save the world", Labor's is "Save Victoria" and the Liberal Baileu's is "Save yourself".
Brilliant. Absolutely nailed it in one scribbled drawing.
Olaus,
If you've been following the story further, the 'scientists' letter doesn't seem to have been authored by any of them. The author was a press secretary from the union of concerned scientists, an NGO lobby group.
So the letter has the full weight of the NGO behind it. The names at the bottom? just the usual crowd, happy to have their names used in whatever way to promote the cause.
Makes you think doesn't it? some of their peer reviewed papers read a bit like that too.
Olaus, do you believe that climate scientists being paid by governments to study science is the same as retired or out-of-field scientists being paid to "undermine" that same science by poltical bodies funded by vested interests?
You also claim you don't like politicised science - so how can you have taken the side of Heartland in this sordid tale of sceptical failure?
It couldn't be a) you are lying, b) you're a hyprocite or c) all of the above?
And that means what, GSW? That Heartland aren't accepting vested interest money and giving it to deniers to "undermine" science for political reasons?
Or are you claiming the UCS is a political group that should be ignored? Are they equal to Heartland? Do they have political motivations? Are the scientists' words now wrong because, shock, they signed a form letter, not unlike the denier one you were all championing a few weeks ago?
In other words, why are you a hypocrite?
"Or are you claiming the UCS is a political group that should be ignored?"
Well, I can't think of reason for taking them seriously. Their distinguished membership includes, amongst other visionaries of our time, Athony Watts dog Kenjii. He's a fully paid up member, whether the letter actually represents Kenjii's views, is at this stage 'Unknown'.
Ho hum - a PR person wrote it? Woohoo! Oh, the Humanity! Next.
Any luck finding any evidence of your 'fakegate' drivel outside your hermetically-sealed blogosphere yet? You know, we have the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Age, WA Today, the NYT, the BBC, AAP, et al; you have Watts, Josh and Delingpole.
PS: Boys, if you ever want to see people who can actually draw, caricature, and are bona-fide satirists (with a knowledge of Art History as well) the best in the world are Messrs. Rowson and Bell and they both happen to work for The Guardian. (Boo! Hiss!)
Now, you most likely wouldn't be able to work out what the joke is most of the time - your soul-mates who comment on the threads below the drawings certainly never can - but never mind; you wouldn't like it if you could figure it out anyway!
If not otherwise occupied at WUWT or over at The Sticky Bishop's your mate Josh would be illustrating community-service leaflets on the perils of gum disease and the benefits of keeping your colon healthy.
@Olaus
Thanks for drawing to our attention that Craig Idso is not to be trusted. Always good to be reminded, cheers.
Figured out who paid for the NIPCC report yet?
>Their distinguished membership includes, amongst other visionaries of our time, Athony Watts dog Kenjii.
That must have been really difficult and taken all of the man's rat-like cunning to achieve.
It's not like he just visited the website and filled out the donation page under the name of his dog or anything.
I hope he at least got a free mousepad out of it.
The silence of GSW about his own hypocrisy is telling. A political organisation caught paying money from vested interests to irrelevent and out-of-field to promote their political cause? Not a peep!
Why are you such a hypocrite, GSW?
*irrelevent and out-of-field scientists...
There are reports going around that Legal Notices have been issued to DeSmogBlog and Laden's blog. Still looking for the originating source.
chek
Thanks!
Hah!
As Greg Laden ironically points out "I have no way of telling if it is authentic."
On the assumption that it is:
The Heartland Legal Notice claims that the allegedly faked document "...does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics." That's a very interesting claim to make, given that several of the goals in that document appear to be at least partially corroborated by publicly available information (e.g. see John Mashey's report) and 3rd parties. Heartland shading the truth in a legal communication, perhaps?
It's clear they apply totally different rules to confidential documents from others that they obtain as compared to their confidential documents when obtained by others. Gross hypocrisy by PR warriors for big business is nothing new though.
And the legal threats - if genuine - go a long way to validating the other documents. If they weren't largely accurate there would be a very loud PR message pointing out that they were all non-genuine. (You don't seriously believe they haven't had enough time or motivation to check the other docs yet, do you? If so I have this bridge for sale, low mileage, one genuine owner...)
Greg Laden in comments:
> The lawyer who "signed" the "email" is ironically one of those right wing "law suits are evil and must be stopped" persons, as far as I can tell, who works for Heartland...
That'd be right - lawsuits for me, but not for thee!
As someone else points out if they had genuine grounds for legal action they would have expressed them correctly, rather than this mish-mash of assertions (most of which I suspect do not hold legal water). For example, noting that it's from a non-lawyer:
> You do not owe Heartland a duty of confidentiality. You don't work for them do you? DO YOU?
> You did not leak the documents, and in the US, it's the leaker that's liable, not any media agent that then distributes the documents. ...
> Heartland could DMCA you, but then would have to authenticate the documents and claim copyright. They cannot have copyright over fraudulent documents.
Note that they apparently haven't invoked the DMCA - and you can be damn sure they know about that option. Any guesses why?
>Still looking for the originating source.
It seems that even the simplest of fact-checking actions is beyond your ken, GSW.
If you can't figure out how to corroborate such a trivial statement, what in the world permits you to imagine that you know how assess the credibility of the science?
Back to kindergarten with you, little boy.
>Heartland could DMCA you, but then would have to authenticate the documents and claim copyright. They cannot have copyright over fraudulent documents.
I've just had a delicious thought - what if Heartland faked the "fake memo"?
Of course, that raises the serious point that Heartland actually needs to prove that it's a fake if they want any traction on that front, and frankly I can't see how they could (although I am not a lawyer). It doesn't matter if that document wasn't obtained with the other emailed files, as it may quite plausibly have been found by the Insider and have been the catalyst for the phishing request for the other documents.
Even if there is no evidence of the memo on any Heartland computer there is still nothing to say that it wasn't composed "unofficially" elswhere for the purpose of discretion at an inner-circle meeting.
Proving fabrication would seem to be a fraught exercise indeed, especially without airing for all to see Heartland's dirty laundry. And without such proof the case against Laden falls largely to the releasing of confidential documents, which is:
And on the matter of stolen versus phished, I would have thought that in law the former act is substantively more serious than the latter. After all, one has a minimum duty of care to ensure that one is observing security in correspondence (especially with confidential correspondence) - one has the choice to send material to new contacts, after all - whereas one is not so freely able to choose to avoid being the victim of a sophisticated institutional hack.
Perosnally, if I were Bast I'd shut my mouth. Dragging this into the light of day will only demonstrate to the public how much Heartland has spun science around 180 degrees for the benefit of corporate profit, and at the expense of Joe Public. With such scrutiny Heartland's utility could be irreparably compromised. Donors are likely not going to want to be found standing so close to the institute any more, and other institutes such as George C. Marshall and Cato may similarly be inclined to shuffle away lest the machinations of their own activities suffer excessive attention.
I am puzzled. Why is MicroSoft funding the Heartless Institute?
Says the "lawyer":
>Heartland has not authenticated these documents
Yes, they have:
>The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to âre-sendâ board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.
Heartland's current position seems to be "some bugger stole the fake documents that we gave to them!"
It will be fascinating to see how this holds up in court, especially in light of their promotion of *actual* stolen materials.
> It will be fascinating to see how this holds up in court...
...especially if they're clueless enough to litigate and open themselves up to discovery. I suspect they won't - but you never know. They apparently haven't even heard of The Streisand Effect, which indicates that they're not a particularly savvy PR firm either. If I were a donor seeking to advance certain interests I'd be looking for a new vehicle by now.
Thats an entertaining summation, John!
Does anyone seriously doubt the veracity of the non-scanned PDFs? As observed above, if there was real material there for Heartland to go on the attack over, wouldn't we have heard, and heard, and heard, by now?
(Also, you're clever enough to alter PDFs and apparently leave them with their original author, creation and modification dates, but then type out and scan a doc to PDF without attibuting any authorship and leaving an asynchronous creation date for good measure? You think?)
So; the 'strategy' doc. We've had to forego using the discouraging teachers from teaching science stuff, but we've got plenty of confirmation of the funding, the programs themselves, and the ideas behind them, and these stories are now running solidly without any need of the leaked docs themselves.
And if we were looking for examples of outlandish and strident language, Joe Bast's own efforts on Heartland's own blog in response to the NYT's article made it all too easy!...
Bernard, I agree. It's very possible that the "Climate Stratergy" doc may just be an unoffical summation by a low level staffer of their various activities, but not one that passed the computer screen of Bast or received any kind of offical rubber stamp, thus allowing them to use it to cast doubt on the others and to reassue the gullible fake sceptics who were really quite rattled for a couple of days.
or even "strategy"
[Quote from the fundraising e-mail](http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/02/heartland-institute-document…) sent out by Heartland on the back of the leaks:
> Dave Padden, Heartland's founder and long-time chairman, used to say that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings. Of course he was right. We're witnessing that right now.
My irony meter just exploded.
Crikey have published an article about Heartland's legal threats, with one interesting addtion:
>Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartlandâs âAnonymous Donorâ, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the instituteâs funding.
At least Heartland are consistent in their belief that opposing views should be silenced.
More legal intimidation attempts from Joe Bast [here](http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threaten…).
That Crikey article is worth a read. The legal intimidation letters are getting short shrift for not appearing to be particularly competent.
DeSmogBlog responds, threat by threat, to Heartland.
>DeSmogBlog: Heartland has never identified the alleged "obvious and gross misstatements" in the "climate strategy" document. We have not identified any. Neither does Heartland specify anything "unlawful" about publication of the "climate strategy" document.
Lotharsson, re your irony meter; plus what sort of a closed system would you have to be living to attribute that old saw - usually assigned to Mark Twain anyway (but apparently more correctly to the credit of evangelist Charles Haddon Spurgeon) - to 'my dear old mentor at Heartland'? Sheesh!
Yep, bill - amazing chutzpah or ignorance just in the attribution, let alone the gross hypocrisy re: their own behaviour.
But apparently you *can* fool many a donor all the time!
I think the irony mostly is that Heartland is threatening desmogblog because it published and commented on supposedly unlawfully obtained documents, while they also claim that they have not authenticated those documents yet. Quite funny.
"Remove our documents which we have not yet authenticated as ours!"
People are focused on the circus over the leak, which is certainly embarrassing and not likely to endear Heartland to its donors.
But, in Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax. I alleged all sorts of misuses of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. I don't think people have quite understood the implications.
One of the more delicious possibilities is that this turns into a conspiracy to commit tax evasion case, in which case HeartlandInsider, rather than stealing documents, was whistleblowing crime ... and if those documents mattered to the case, and they filed the right forms, might well get a reward... Heartland might not have any money left, but Mr Big would, and he's been funding some naughty stuff that I'd allege breaks the rules. Actually, the whole funding chain could be in trouble.
Also, for here, the AU/NZ connection is especially amusing. US charities *cannot* just send checks to random people in foreign countries.
Take a quick look at Fakery, p.20. Any of the red tags is potential trouble... This is not just embarrassment.
I think that 'the Heartland Consequence', where the party attempting suppression instead ends up severely damaging or even destroying themselves as a direct consequence of their attempts to impose cease-and-desist, should be recognised as a corollary to the Streisand Effect.
Surely Heartland was/is obliged to take all steps possible to minimise any damage to its own reputation, and its sponsors', as rapidly as it possibly can? You know; like identifying their own property to the offending party/s clearly and swiftly and demanding its removal, while simultaneously clearly identifying any 'fake' and giving detailed notice of any defamatory harms it contains? Particularly if it intends to claim redress? This would appear to be the line of DeSmog's responses. I know we have some lawyers about... any ideas?
Instead we have this apparent "Schrödinger's cat" status, where the documents are simultaneously both stolen property and fakes. This may play well to the peanut gallery, but, let's face it, they don't count.
Of course Dave Padden used to repeat that old quote about lies and truth. Why, its the very cornerstone of their communication strategy!
So much for the extended solar minimum. The sunspot count just went up by one... :-(
@John Mashey - regarding the possible whistleblower status, can you tell us how US law works with this? I would have expected that a whistleblower would normally be expected to pass the information confidentially to the relevant authorities, rather than spray it into the blogosphere. So if there have been tax abuses shouldn't this have been passed to the IRS, without divulging the contents to the public? (Not that I have a problem with it going public, just curious about the legal niceties).
>The last time I seen [sic] you waving your little arms around you were trying to blame the Queensland floods on CO2, fool ! [sic]
Except I wasn't trying to "blame the Queensland floods on CO2".
Read carefully what [I said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_vs_percentages.php#…):
>This ongoing summer rain is mostly derived from the oceans warmed during the current La Niña event. To the extent that the oceans are warmer than in the past, the resulting additional consistency of rain events, driven by La Niña, will have exacerbated the flooding beyond what it might otherwise have been.
>[My latter emboldened emphases]
If you still can't assimilate this, a year after the original flooding, and after numerous additional record-breaking floods later across eastern Australia, I'll frame it thus:
If you still don't understand it, I was (and still am) saying that CO2 contributed to the magnitude of the flooding; it did not cause the flooding.
It's interesting to see that the passage of twelve months have brought to you no additional comprehension/education. There's a definitely a fool here, but it's not me...
Back to the corner with you, Foulspot.
Depressing but accurate [xkcd comic](http://xkcd.com/1019/).
Course, the thing is, there's a small army of anti-AGW proponents out there that will just do this for free. Not that they're fanatically devoted to their cause or anything, oh no.
Letters to the editor, writ large and writ often...
Top-notch editorial in the LA Times:
....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." On one side of the "controversy" are credentialed climatologists around the globe who publish in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals and agree that the planet is warming and that humans are to blame; on the other are fossil-fuel-industry-funded "experts" who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truths.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-climate-20120220,0,…
Top-notch climate scientology paper from Uni. British Columbia:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/flanders-fearful-flooded-fields/#…
And yes I know: science is believing in "scenarios", not facts. ;-)
Shorter Petri: Look over there! A squirrel!
Scribe "I am puzzled. Why is MicroSoft funding the Heartless Institute?"
Tax deductions.
They supply just about anyone and everyone with the appropriate charity status for taxpurposes with their homemade goodies. The organisation gets its computer stuff for free. The company gets kudos for its charitable actions. The company also gets tax deductibiity for the retail value of the services supplied from its wholesale production.
You can bet your boots that if the charity tax exempt status disappears, so will the 'donations'.
It's not so much the "kudos", it's the fact that MS effectively gets a tax deduction for locking out any other vendor from those organisations it "donates" to.
Otherwise, charities would naturally gravitate towards open source products.
(But not Red Hat - seen their licensing fees lately? Crikey!)
Hey, Olaus, I notice you posted a link to the weather-man's blog-site.
Let me remind you what the LA Times has to say about that kind of thing:
fossil-fuel-industry-funded "experts" who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truth
So, instead of reading junk, read some science for a change.
We here sure are far too sceptical to take any notice of junk like Watts'. What's your excuse?
> What's your excuse?
Perhaps he's intellectually easy. All anyone has to do is cosy up to him a little and whisper sweet nothings that he wants to believe in his ear and he'll fall in love with the stories they spin.
And when he projects this on to other people who think those sweet nothings are unsupported bulldust, he rationalises that they *want* to believe the bad news as much as he wants to believe the sweet little stories, and from there it's a short step to priests and religions and sociological conspiracy theories and the whole shebang you can see on display here.
But of course, I may be wrong. Examine the evidence for yourself!
@561, John:
To a denialist of the quality we see trolling around here, that report can simply be re-posted as:
Oh sure, a couple of insignificant bits would be omitted in the name of brevity, but nothing that would change the context of course.
Great work Mikem. I also would have accepted "HIDE THE DECLINE!!!" and "THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN 15 YEARS!!!"
And the files were obtained by .... Peter Gleick.
>At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Instituteâs climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Instituteâs 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 elseâs 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.
Denialists already touting [WSJ Op-Ed reply](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702036460045772132440844295…) to climate scientists' reply to original mendacious WSJ Op-Ed.
The headline is "Concerned Scientists Respond...", the WSJ having still not corrected its false claim about the signatories on the previous Op-Ed.
They make much of IPCC *projections* from various past reports, but conflate them with *predictions* (despite Rutan having been called on it at Scholars & Rogues). And they characterise the trends in the graph for the reader without bothering to calculate them...and the projected trends after the 1988 report don't look too bad "by eyeball" despite their claims to the contrary.
They *still* make the claim that "many proxy indicators indicate that the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent", despite that not being accurate and adding weight to the case that climate sensitivity is higher than currently thought.
And so on with much the usual bullshit...I'm sure all sorts of analyses will pop up in the next couple of days.
(And according to the Op-Ed "aeronautics" and unspecified "forecasting" are some of the "key science and engineering disciplines ... on which climate science is based" - who knew?!)
And unsurprisingly Burt Rutan is a signatory - I suspect he has learnt very little from his time at Scholars & Rogues...
We all know that the more you disprove the notions of certain species of aging 'conservative', the more they believe them to be true. The world becomes a sort of surrealist OJ Simpson trial, writ large, where all that amassed evidence only proves the relentless persecution of my client, your honour!
The Rutans, Plimers, Carters etc. will go to their graves disbelievers, even if they live to see an ice-free Arctic, Greenland melting accelerate (again), the PNG and Kilimajaro glaciers disappear, a new global temp record, this decade warmer than the last (again) etc..
As will those that plague us.
Peter Gleick admits to obtaining and distributing the Heartland Inst leaked documents in an article at The Huffington Post
From the WSJ story:
I disagree that it has destroyed his credibility. Has his admission made him any less believable?
His use of subterfuge lays him open to charges of hypocrisy, sure, but he doesn't back down from that.
But does his admission cast any real doubt on his claim that the leaked documents are genuine?
I don't think so. After all, his trickery was employed specifically to ensure that the documents were genuine.
And his admission means that if he is charged with some criminal offense, the court case will confirm, one way or the other, whether all of the documents were real. He's hardly running away from the truth, or trying to hide it.
I'd also add that his decision to come clean was obviously not the act of someone comfortable with ethical aspects of his deception.
Can you imagine whoever hacked the CRU emails putting his hand up?
As if.
If someone sets up a Peter Gleick defense fund, I'll be donating to it.
Sorry, that was the NYT story (by Andy Revkin - say no more) I was referring to, not the WSJ.
@619 Gaz, I agree with your views on this matter.
I salute Gleick's act of civil disobedience,and disagree with Revkin's clueless editorialising that the act has set back '..any prospects of the country having "rational public debate" that [Gleick thinks] is so desperately needed.' The bizarre pathology of pseudo-skeptic self-delusion hinders discussion already.
Suzanne Goldenberg on the varied reactions so far:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-l…
Revkin writes re Gleick
Nonsense. Heartland, WUWT are their funders are not and never will be interested in "rational public debate".
I am with Gaz - where can I donate. Gleick may well pay a high price but there is no putting the documents back in the box.
It will only damage his credibility amongst the deniers, most of whom hated him anyway. Now they'll ramp up their campaign against him. He should expect to be the target of a rabid attcks, death threats and hilarious Josh cartoons over the coming year.
Yeah, this whole "damage rational debate" thing is an echo of "Obama shouldn't hurt Republicans' feelings by calling them out on their shit" thing because it will allegedly "damage bipartisan initiatives" - which is conveniently premised on the fallacy that Republicans actually want to allow non-Republican governments to govern.
I whole-heartedly agree with Gaz and JRC that Peter Gleick's stepping forward to identify himself as the phisher does not destroy his credibility.
Revkin's whining, hand-wringing comments to this effect are a classic example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Gleick's commentary on the urgency of climate change and the obfuscation of the denial industry should rest or fall on the validity of the science, and not on whether he fooled the Heartland Institute into handing over their internal documents.
This does not solve Heartland's problem, by the way. They still appear to have an insider who sent Gleick the original material - material that appears to include 'faked" memo which would appear to be not quite so fake now. Heartland still has to deal with the matters of trying to corrupt the process of science education in the USA, and of avoiding tax.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Heartland will stand to lose enormously if they persist in following their threats. The scrutiny of their activities will be intense, not just by the scientific community but by the sections of the media that will see public interest in Heartland's own deceptive behaviour. There are stories here of far greater import than Gleick's phishing expedition.
Peter Gleick may well have shot himself in the foot with his actions (although how Heartland can claim the moral high ground is unfathomable), but history will judge him favourably, and I too would be happy to put a few hundred in his defense fund. He's blown the whistle on a disinformation campaign that is morally repugnant and that threatens the well-being of the future of his country and of the world, and for that he deserves to be lauded.
Just as there was with the abolition of slavery, there are many voices stridently opposing the simple fact that curtailing emissions is the appropriate path to take, and just as many abolitionists were pilloried for their stances, Gleick will be hammered for standing his ground. I just hope that in Gleick's case the judiciary and the media take the broad, scientifically-objective view and understand who the real miscreants in the matter are, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the Denialati will throw everything in their power to distract from the underlying fact that they are trying to enact the most destructive lack of action, in modern times, to a problem greater than perhaps just about any other that humans and the rest of the biosphere will face.
I support Gleick's stance and the reasons for his frustration, and Heartland deserve whatever $hit they get. OTOH IMO Gleick getting inside info by using false pretences is just stupid (ameliorated only somewhat by coming clean about it) - he's a seasoned campaigner who really did not need to stoop to that kind of deception. Doubtless the usual suspects are already crowing about how "alarmists" are evil, unethical swine, fuelled by the likes of ethical dilettantes like Revkin pontificating about morals. Heartless will use Gleick's acts as a smokescreen in the hope of covering up their own misdeeds.
Whatever $hit gets dumped on Peter Gleick, the main focus needs to be kept on the lying Heartless bar stewards and their campaign to discredit the science by whatever foul means money can buy. I really hope the IRS takes John Mashey's work, substantiates the data and links for itself and then really goes to town on Heartland and (with luck) that'll finish them.
Revkin is a dickhead - what kind of ârational public debateâ does he propose could be had while the likes of Heartland, SEPP, CEI, IPA, Plimer, Carter are witlessly parroted day-in day-out by every News International outlet?
The more I think about it, the more Revkin's supposition seems to have concocted a story than was warranted. If Revkin hadn't put the idea out there, I suspect that the tone of discourse would have been quite different - except in the denialosphere, of course.
It seems that Heartland's favourable appraisal of Revkin as detailed in the "fake" memo has some merit, after all...
So any ideas on how the 'fake' document came to be? And why? Gleick says it was sent to him via snail mail.
> I really hope the IRS takes John Mashey's work, substantiates the data and links for itself and then really goes to town on Heartland and (with luck) that'll finish them.
John Mashey pointed out above that much was being made of the docs that were obtained and much less about the IRS problems. I tend to think of the latter as Frodo and Bilbo slowly making their way into the heart of Mordor while most eyes are focused on the ragtag army outside the gates.
> ...what kind of ârational public debateâ does he propose could be had while the likes of Heartland, SEPP, CEI, IPA, Plimer, Carter are witlessly parroted day-in day-out by every News International outlet?
I hereby invite Revkin to assess the rationality of the public debate held between Angliss and repeat WSJ Op-Ed signatory Rutan (and various commenters, self included) at Scholars & Rogues. (If anyone here has an account at Revkin's site, feel free to crosspost/reference.)
**Rational public debate requires a shared commitment to acknowledging reality**. That does not exist with these guys.
(By way of trivial example, Rutan and two other commenters have *still* not even acknowledged the falsehood of their claim that "the IPCC removed the hockey stick from AR4" despite having been given a link to the graph that contains it.)
Chek, glad that you agree with me that climate scientology is a squirrel â like you. :-)
Enjoy Gleick's confession fellas!
Olaus, though I don't agree with Gleick's way of doing it. He did shine light on the darkness that is the anonymous nature that is Heartland and other groups using taxpayer money to engage and support anti-science. He at least has the gonads to admit he was the person, and will under law be held accountable. Olaus, that is one thing different from the hacker(s) that stole documents and hide behind some pseudo-name, that are/were hailed as heroes by the denialists. Let them step forward as well. LMAO You probably support that don't you? What a moron. (sorry not speaking just about this, but most of your comments) Anyway I'm hopeful this case is in a state like Florida where all discovery is made public. Yes, that will be a silver bullet to Denialland and their undead (debunked for years and years) arguments against real science. (no violent intent, just a pun.)
Apparently Heartland's legal threats include [claims about their staff that may not be accurate](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/19/heartland-pr-director-legal…), and were sent from the PR director's e-mail account - rather than an e-mail account of the lawyer allegedly signing them.
(No wonder Greg Laden said he couldn't tell if the e-mail was genuine or not.)
Funny thing is that everything said in the "supposedly fake" document has been verified by those named. They all admit to getting money. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Who knows at this point maybe some of those mentioned as being outreach have been shown the money as well. Sadly if charges are filed the case will not be about the science. It'll be about what law(s) was/were broken under our system of law, and not the laws of physics which the denialists would lose every time. So Gleick will have to face the consequences for his actions as we all will when the science proves reality. But the IRS will not be looking at some conspiracy by the whole of climate science when it looks at Heartland's abuse of taxpayer money. Again it will be the laws that were broken. So on that note, it won't be a good day for the denial machine.
What's *really* interesting about this is the sequence of events.
If true, the "strategy" document looks more and more like a setup. Had Gleick gone public with just the doc, *all* of the (true) claims in it would have been discredited. Given that he sourced corroborating material, we know it contains a "sexed-up" version of the truth.
Gleick going public with the strategy doc alone would have been a total coup for Heartland. The other documents (and Mashey's coincidental detailed investigation) create a storm of genuine questions around Heartland, and it looks like things are getting uncomfortable for the anonymous donor...
So - who is the source of the strategy doc?
> If true, the "strategy" document looks more and more like a setup.
I've been considering that possibility myself, and it's entirely plausible. If so, the blowback seems not to have been anticipated!
@636 Dave H.....Would be nice if Gleick saved the envelope. Something like that I would, but that is just me. At the very least one can see the area (city) where it was mailed from by the ink stamp from the post office regardless of the return address that someone prints on the envelope if any return address was on it.
It's funny how of all the possible culprits, Gleick was fingered based on, largely, the contents of the Strategy document; and then we find it was Gleick but he denies creating that document. Like, what were the odds?
Also, the contents of that document were the most damaging to Heartland and if fake would place the creator in a whole different world of legal trouble due to the deception. But Gleick assures us an anonymous source snail mailed that to him, prompting him to go after more.
And one might ask - thought not usually here - why the particularly damaging fake document was created when the real documents were there in full exposing the reality of Heartland's funding and strategy.
It was as if the truth wasn't evil enough so someone (not Gleick, he assures us it was mailed to him) had to beef up the anti-climatism (to use a Gleickism).
> It's funny how of all the possible culprits, Gleick was fingered based on, largely, the contents of the Strategy document; and then we find it was Gleick but he denies creating that document. Like, what were the odds?
Yeah, it's almost like Heartland already *knew* who the strategy doc recipient was rather than read Gleick's mind, right? What were the odds indeed?
@640 Derrick...no he was probably found through other means than word analysis of the "strategy doc" Get real. As far as hypocrisy, let's look at this quote from Heartland. LOL "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." So again, it appears the docs other than the "faked one" are real. That's leaves Heartland with a lot of explaining to do. Anyway....Hmmmmmmmmm, Heartland even before verifying anything named him the main suspect where his info is available to the public. You crack me up. I think this quote fits the denialists..."Hypocrisy is not generally a social sin, but a virtue." by Judith Martin.
Yeah, but a 'setup' hypothesis doesn't really explain why it would be triumph to have Gleick rush to announce a 'fake' scheme to 'teach the controversy' in schools or fund yet another Wattsian tilt at Surface Stations (I mean, if fanatacism is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!...) knowing full-well that both would later turn out to actually be in the works!
No, that really doesn't make sense.
Also, Derrick, and Gleick puts his own name in there because he's been reading far too much Agatha Christie, or what?
And by the way, we did ask, thank you.
@Lotharsson, no not Heartland, they never identified possible suspects. The blogosphere has been alive with speculation and one well known individual in particular came up with Gleick. Also others too in parallel. Go have a read at rankexploits if you're really interested, reasons are given. The thread was a few days back.
Well the plot thickens. High profile CSCSIs (Climate Scare Crime Scene Investigators. Hey a new blockbuster: The CSCSI?) at Deltoid are scrutinizing the forensics. What about DNA and fingerprints on the envelope? What kind of paper was it made of? When did it end up in the mailbox and in what angle was the envelope posted in the mailbox? And don't forget the Second mailer...
As you can see fellas, there are still tons of possibilities and facts strongly indicating a massive Big Oil-conspiracy trying to maneuvers the planet into Armageddon .
:-)
Not a good day for you believers and your end justifies the means morality.
How many times have I heard the words "Scientists of the Highest Integrity" from you. Even when all laid bare, your posts still look for ways to make it "Ok" and to blaim others.
Not a good day.
Wow Olaus, so you don't believe is any kind of science? Or you just mocking science when it's inconvenient? Yeah, that's probably it. Seems that the DICKS unit were doing that for some time...you know the Denial Investigative Crime Komputer Science unit was anal(yzing) all the pdfs. ROFLMAO Moron.
GSW....actually it's a sad day for Gleick, and he should pay a price. If it weren't political, he'd probably face probation. I doubt he'll get as much as the Sarah Palin "hacker", but this is so much more political so who knows. As far as Heartland and the denial machine, it definitely isn't a good day. So I agree with you on that one.
@ Derrick
"Also, the contents of that document were the most damaging to Heartland and if fake would place the creator in a whole different world of legal trouble due to the deception.
And one might ask - thought not usually here - why the particularly damaging fake document was created when the real documents were there in full exposing the reality of Heartland's funding and strategy."
It's funny how, of all the possibly damaging files that have turned up, you chose to focus on that one. By your own admission much of the matter that the "fake" document summarised is already in the public domain, thus whether that contended document was true, false or a mix of both is largely neither here nor there.
What is of interest and potentially damaging is Heartland's activities and funding streams as a tax-exempt "charitable foundation", and its professed aims of (inter alia) disseminating false propaganda on the links between smoking and cancer, which you seem curiously reluctant to address. It's as if you hoped your post would obscure the substantive issues...
Having a bad hair day have we, sergeant JRC? But the truth is out there â in the Protocols.
Fight the Power!
:-)
JRC,
Thanks JRC. I take some comfort from the fact that you at least (despite an earlier post in support of Gleick?) have some notion of right and wrong. Others here are obviously blinded by their faith and not for the first time either.
@ GSW, Olout
Way way way too predictable. Predictably so. Just for once in your lives, think and say something original. Just once pull the ring out of your noses and stop being led around the show ring by those who've done your thinking for you. It won't kill you.
Derrick, Heartland DID point a finger at Gleick:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of
In which Ross Kaminsky also claims not to know Steven Mosher (the prime mover of the "it's Gleick!" hypothesis at Lucia's).
Consider the setup hypothesis. An individual has sent a document to Gleick which hints to the existence of further associated documents at Heartland. This document appears amateur: poor grammar, unsigned, untitled, reads like a Dr Evil manifesto. They snail mail this to Gleick rather than emailing it, in the year 2012.
Then they sit back and let Gleick do the rest.
They anticipate, correctly, that Gleick will resort to illegal means to obtain the other documents. They anticipate also that Heartland will fall for the as yet unknown deception.
Reads like that movie Deception.
Or alternatively, Gleick phished the first lot of documents without any prompting and then faked the other to amplify the damage inflicted.
@ GSW
your end justifies the means morality
Have you no consistency of standards at all? Was your wholesale, gleeful adoption of the illegal hacking of the UEA email files that led to the "Climategate" meme not once interrupted by these high-minded scruples you now affect? Or have you only just realised what ethical behaviour is and have decided to try it on to see if it fits?
Hypocrite.
I see Marco, and Mosher posted his guess around mid-day of the 16th (somewhere in the world).
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/…
@SteveC, the most damaging allegation which [b]others[/b] have focussed on, not surprisingly, was the Strategy document's inclusion of attempts to discourage the teaching of climate science by creating doubt.
GSW....I do support Gleick, but he will have to face the consequences of his actions. He had the balls to come forward unlike the CRU hacker(s). You know, just like you and I, and our children and grandchildren will when reality and nature proves the science. There are consequences for putting all of this CO2 that was sequestered for millions and millions of years into the system in less than 200 years. Anyway thanks for saying that my opinion is a comfort for you. Unless there is some kind of jury nullification, he'll face the consequences. He is at least man enough to face them unlike the CRU hacker(s).
#654, Hehehe...While at it, any insights regarding JFK you would like to share? I'm sure the CSCSI-team (Bernie, chek, wow, stu, Jeffie, Stevie, bill, ianam etc) is longing for more...
I guess you already knew, but Gleick is captain of the CSCSI-task force specialized in ethics:
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics…
What a travesty!
JRC,
I'd hold off on your canonization of St Peter of the Pacific Institute just yet. The man still has some questions to answer.
;)
GSW,
As does the Heartland Institute. ;)
BTW...I don't consider him a Saint or any other kind of religious icon or symbol. If I would compare him to anything, it would be the Rosa Parks of Climate Science. I know you guys are all into the religious symbolism of everything, but we all aren't like you.
No substitute for blind faith is there JRC? When all reason fails, you'll always have that.
;)
Probably not the best example to put forth by me because this was more than just civil disobedience, but far less than canonizing someone.....but I know how you play your games with religion.
GSW,
that describes you and your ilk so much better. God isn't going to let the world as we know it change. Facts and science be damned. That is blind faith right there and reflects your attitude.
which would be absolutely pointless to publicize on its own. Heartland would then easily be able to say it was a fake full of fake information and see how unethical the warmists are for producing such an appalling fake. If only the information in that fake document could be corroborated......
Hardly JRC #665.
The contortions you lot go thru to keep your 'faith' alive are quite staggering, as are the proclamations that we are dealing with "Scientists of the Highest Integrity". Think about it.
I'll go out on a limb here and take a guess that we'll not hear a peep of moral outrage from The Faith Brigade (GSW, Oluas/Olaus et al) about Heartless stealing tax dollars from the mouths of the underprivileged, the poor, the needy and the unfortunate by posing as a phoney 'charity' in order to lobby for global corporations interests just like any other K-Street corporate whore.
Given the extent of the activities now being dragged into the glaring daylight of public scrutiny in the mainstream media, Bast and his cohorts may welll be looking at jail time, thanks to John Mashey's serendipitously timed investigation.
Interesting that that Guardian article says:
If damage to reputation is the issue then Bast is claiming defamation. I'm not a lawyer but AFAIK, damaging someone's reputation with the truth is not defamation, i.e. truth is always a defence against a defamation suit. I wish I was a lawyer. This looks interesting.
Well, now we know who did it.
No surprise -- a prominent climate activist stoops to deception to steal documents which he thinks may damage "the other side" and then tries to claim partial justification.
Lying, amorality and rank hypocrisy -- the hallmarks of the Left/Green personality.
Chek, I don't like tax fraud. If Heartland is guilty of it so be it, I'm sure there are legal ways to settle the score. However non of them will have any impact whatsoever on the poor, the needy etc. For gleick's sake, we are talking pea nut money here. On the other hand, that's your forte in lack of more substantial numbers.
What could have made a difference for the poor, the needy etc, is all the money so far wasted on symbolic but very costly postures in politics, not to mention negative side effects of planet-saving-actions.
But hey, as long as you climate scientologists can fantasize yourself up to higher moral grounds pointing fingers at imaginary enemies, you are happy. Then you always have "a deed of today" to marvel about making you feel better than "the others".
You know, GSW, the adults are trying to have a conversation, and you're just cluttering the place up.
The Goddhard institute of your liking is comparing Gleick notes:
http://www.Real-Science.com/gleick-coined-phrase-debate#comments
Indeed this is a bad hair day for the CSCSI's. :-)
@ GSW 667
The contortions you lot go thru to keep your 'faith' alive are quite staggering
As I said before, is this high-minded morality pose you're wearing some new fad you've adopted? If not, what was it that prevented you from exercising all this ethical disapproval when it came to the hacking of the CRU/UEA server and the illegal release of others' confidential communications?
Answers on a postcard to Peter Gleick, c/o Forbes magazine.
You and Olout (and all the other woodlice like Bradford) display all the symptoms of a pathological lack of integrity which I'd describe in more detail were it not that your condition precluded its acceptance.
> ... as are the proclamations that we are dealing with "Scientists of the Highest Integrity".
I've never said that.
Nor does science require it to get at the truth. You're tilting pretty hard at a strawman wearing a red herring. (One wonders why that is, given recent events...)
Marco & Derrick,
How about: Gleick got mailed a fake memo with correct info with the expectation of him just reporting on it, as with the W papers to Dan Rather. Correct info on a fake memo discredits the correct info. Then he went and did more than expected.
Heartland fingering Gleick for the strategy memo seemed really bizarre at the time. It might also exlain why they seem to be in such a fumbly panic -- they hadn't imagined it winding up like this.
Well, at least the AGU's ethics are in good hands:
> AGUâs new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work
> Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA
> Randy Townsend, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA
> In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Unionâs policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members.
> As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, âAGU can only realize its vision of âcollaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable futureâ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. **That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do.**
What a joke.
@Rick
Oops!
;)
@afeman that is possible, but is it probable? What's most probable?
Gleick has proven himself to be dishonest. I don't find it any stretch of the imagination to believe that he would have created the Strategy doc. I find other explanations to be drawing a long bow.
The document Gleick received (he says) contains hints that he created it. The conspiracy theory starts to become quite intricate when efforts are made to account for that.
Has anyone yet suggested what Heartland might sue for that would normally be expected to succeed?
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/20/heartland-launches-legal-action-aga…
Deep Climate makes a preliminary stab at the culprit, and names Barre Seid, head of Chicago-based Trippe Manufacturing.
http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/20/heartlands-anonymous-donor/
At least in my book having 'integrity' would include terminating known criminal activity - such as phoney 'charities' falsely acting as respectable fronts for lobby groups.
Heartless now a toxic brand - only a couple of dozen more similar outfits to go....
Wrt honesty, there's a bit of a mote/beam problem vs. Heartland. And it's hard to see what Gleick would gain by risking mixing in a weird fake document with a bunch of meaty real ones.
Then there's Kaminsky calling Gleick an "obvious" culprit, when it wasn't obvious at all. Narrowing it down that fast with "textual analysis" of a two-page document is more plausible when you know where to point.
It could be a real leak of a draft, but the premature scrutiny of Gleick is curious.
*Gleick has proven himself to be dishonest*
In what way, Derrick? This is a typical contrarian smear. Gleick is acknowledged as one of the world's authorities on water quality. If you want dishoest, then cite the name of just about anybody who works for one of the hundreds of corporate funded think tanks. These people have no integrity.
These days its something touching about you doomsayers. When reading your apologetic lines chek, I see before me "The French lieutenant's women" out there on the pier â longing. :-)
That's just you Petri.
What I see are endless rows of denier puppets having their strings pulled and told to get out there and deny by their corporate overlords. In short a desperately pathetic enterprise by the desperately pathetic.
Heartless are now toxic - a state of affairs brought on far more quickly by their own actions and specifically those of their chief buffoon, Joe Bast.
Chek, the intergalactic Task force on scientific ethics has lost their beloved captain:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/gleick-removed-from-agu-task-forc…
What's going on?
Olaus, presumably you will now provide evidence that Peter Gleick was the "captain of the intergalactic task force"? If you have none then aren't you guilty of an untruth, which puts you exactly where in the moral debate of which you are insisting we hold?
I am still waiting for you to address my earlier challenge by the way. I wonder why you are ignoring that?
Dear GWB, Fakegate is a perfect illustration that my analysis is/was spot on. Sectarian behavior is the only thing keeping CAGW together, not science. Please stay in the shaking tent. Why bother with reality?
By the way, you have a close to autistic understanding of words. ;-)
What will be the next defense line from you guys? That Gleick's unethical behavior was an effort of his to highlight how things should not be done? :-)
Olaus, if you were one of my students you would score a U. My challenge is about the scientific underpinning of climate change - please do read the question. We are still waiting for your answer. You may refer back to my oroiginal post if you need a reminder.
And thanks for your insult - it was very instructive in terms of getting a measure of you.
GWB, here is something that captures the moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rkf9yhDx7RQ#!
And I can assure you that you wouldn't pass a class of mine given your ability to focus on your navel.
Sorry if was rude to you, but anyone wanting evidence for intergalactic stuff, must have some diffiCULTies. ;-) (Py attention to the smiley)
As you were Decepticons!
Anyone want to see an example of the web design skills Heartland was paying $88 000 a year for?
Anthony Watts has an electric car sales company. Here is the website....
http://www.zev2go.com/
Google zev2go and Anthony Watts and you will come across a couple of bloggers who have investigated this oddity before, but I thought given the money he was getting for webdesign Id offer a sample of what to expect.
Olaus #692,
Entertaining as usual! how do you find all this stuff? Wasted on this "amoral" bunch of course. That's "amoral" not "immoral".
Amoral. Adj. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong.
Not a good day for you believers.
;)
And a worse day with an even bleaker future for your immoral so-called libertarian 'charity'.
So true GSW. By the way, did you chek (sic) out Jeffie H's syllogism of truth in #684? :-)
Gleick is Senior officer of the impeccable intergalactic Task force guarding scientific ethics in climate science, Gleick spread faked stuff in order to FINALLY prove the existence of the Protocols of the Elders of Right Wing Fossilfuelers, Gleick got busted and is relieved from his duties, Jeffie H says Gleick knows a lot about water quality and accordingly he is a stand up guy only being smeared by the Elders that somehow exists anyway.
Well, one can't fake true sectarianism, that's for sure. :-)
Dorlomin @ 693, that should put paid to any doubts about what the money to Watts was *really* for, even to the knuckle-draggers trying their best but failing miserably to derail.
In all honesty I've seen 12 year olds create better 'site coming soon' notices.
Olaus, I see that you cannot answer my challenges, and once again have resorted to a stream of nonsense. In case it has passed you by, I am actually trying to engage with you, and to find out where you are coming from.
I apologise if I am failing to communicate with you at your level - I spend most of my time with graduate students and professional scientists. I have very little experience of communicating with primary school children, so our exchange of messages is quite educational.
I'm sorry if I'm a bit thick here, but what was fake?
Re #693 & Watts expertise in web design: WUWT itself is a WordPress blog using the TwentyTen theme.
That's the most popular - and modular and hence user-friendly - blogging platform in the world combined with its most commonly-used theme.
Sure, more power to him for mastering a few of the widgets, he now has his own [ugly] .ico file up there next to the address bar, and he's even finally made the change from one of the theme's standard banners on the masthead.
But if this is expertise - let alone 'deep' expertise - well, there's a lot of it about!...
Well, if nothing else, the Gleick thing shows once and for all that there's no 'conspiracy'.
Any halfway organised group of conspirators would never have let the two Mashey and Gleick sets of documents be released in the same week.
For the moment, I'm convinced that Gleick's story makes much more sense than the alternative. The strategy doc he claims to have received initially explicitly names two other documents, which would have given Gleick just the excuse and precise terminology he needed to make a convincing blagging email to Heartland. He may even have just been trying to confirm that documents with those names existed, and ended up with the documents themselves almost without trying.
The alternative is that he crafted a fishing email that netted him those specific documents based on no information at all, and prompted to risk his career to do so by nothing in particular. Not impossible, but it just seems less likely.
Its starting to look worse and worse for Heartland. I hope he will publish the full email exchange at some point (although I suppose he risks incriminating himself further). If Gleick's initial email to Heartland contains the document names referred to in the strategy doc it totally corroborates his story.
Forgive my ignorance, but I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me what law Peter Gleick may have broken. There seems to be a lot of talk about him breaking some law or other, but which one? Ideas?
The key thing:
The strategy document was produced by someone with access to the real Heartland docs. If it is confirmed that Gleick went fishing *after* receiving the strategy doc (ie, there is an email from him to Heartland that specifically names the two documents he received, before he received them) then it looks really, *really* bad for Heartland.
Dave H: that's the big 'if'!
Gaz: Heartland don't seem to be sure on specifics, either. "It's the Vibe!"?
Interesting times.
@Gaz
I'd guess obtaining information under false pretenses.
Angliss on Heartland's [blatant hypocrisy and dodgy claims](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/21/csldf-gleick-heartland-hypo…).
It seems that Deltoid has suffered its usual deluge of trolls with faux touchés, so it's probably a good time to draw a number of points to their attention.
Peter Gleick's phishing expedition demonstrates that he is not a scientist who is 'in it for the gold'.
If Gleick, who is a prominent and successful scientist, was trying to milk the climate change gravy train, he would not have endangered his career as he has done, and he would most certainly not have volunteered publication of his involvement. Gleick's actions to warn the public about global warming stems from his understanding of the profound seriousness of the problem, and not from a profit motive.
Scientists genuinely believe the physics of global warming.
Again, Gleick would not endanger his career if he did not believe the science. Denialists will argue that such belief is 'faith', but they are wrong. Faith is the acceptance of something in the absence of evidence (or, in the case of climate change denialism, in the face of counter-evidence) whilst acceptance of scientific paradigms is based on objective and parsimonious analysis of data. By any measure it is the 'consensus' on climate science that has adhered to objectivity and parsimony, and I challenge any Denialatus to point to specific examples that demonstrate otherwise.
Gleick's involvement in trying to warn the public about global warming stems from his scientific understanding of the profound seriousness of the problem, and not from an ideological motive.
The shrill noise coming from the Denialati, about Gleick's actions, is a classic example of the logical fallacy of '[poisoning the well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)'.
Gleick's involvement in tricking Heartland into giving him incriminating material does not invalidate the science that he promotes. If anyone is unable to understand why, they are suffering from a failure of logical discernment. Moreover, Gleick's actions do not invalidate the science produced by the tens of thousands of the rest of the world's scientists, and they do not invalidate the integrity of the same people.
It's worth noting that none of the science that Gleick supports has been in any way invalidated at any point in the proceedings. Contrast this to what passes as science as promoted by Heartland - their claims have been widely and thoroughly debunked over the last decade, and some of the star performers for their cause, such as Monckton, have been shown to have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the real science on so many occasions that it would not be humanly feasible to count them.
Heartland is still in deep trouble.
Heartland's financial and scientific malfeasance has been laid bare, and the damage will not go away. If a legal case demonstrates that Heartland does in fact hold to the 'defamatory' policies outlined in the released documents, and if they are found culpable of tax fraud, then it will the institute and its directors and employees, and not Gleick, who will suffer most from the scrutiny.
The Denialati can hoot and screech and beat the ground with their knuckles as much as they are able to, but it won't change the science, and it won't make any illegal behaviour by the institute disappear. The attention of many scientific, educational, and even media organisations has been well and truly focussed on Heartland, and the IRS doens't let itself be distracted by mere propagandistic distractions foot-soldier rabble such as the Scandinavian Troll Collective here.
Gleick is paying a high price for his actions, but it could well be that he (and his supporters) will look back on the incident and be glad that he did.
Olaus the ignorant,
Gleick is a paragon of virtue compared with many of those in the denial camp who see nothing wrong in distorting and mangling science in the name of eviscerating public constraints in the short-term pursuit of private profit. There is not a shred of integrity in any of the many right wing think tanks that routinely lie and smear in order to bolster their agendas, and damn the science.
You have also claimed that your allegedly 'educated' colleagues are mostly climate change skeptics. What field would these people be in? Basket weaving or snorkeling perhaps? Because in the Earth and life sciences, the opinions lean very heavily the other way. I have met less than a handful of scientists in my 20+ year career in science who would take your comic comments seriously. Clearly you have not a shred of scientific background. You rely on pseudos like GSW and egotists like JN to spread your gospel of doubt. None of you exist in the real world, but in an intellectual vacuum.
[Brian Angliss' page](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/21/csldf-gleick-heartland-hypo…), to which [Lotharsson linked](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…), has in turn a link to [the Climate Science Defense Fund](http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/). I presume that they will be supporting Gleick, so I was very happy to donate to the fund - I encourage others to do the same.
Is it just me, or has the quality of denialists posting here gone to hell? Olout is clearly an arts grad who enjoys verbal jousting but has scant understanding of the issues, and some of the other deniers can barely spell (e.g. "blaim" for blame, etc). I suspect the intelligent deniers (oxymoron?) have already surrendered to the force of evidence and slunk away into the shadows, leaving us with the one-eyed microcephalics and one-track monomaniacs who now parade their wares for us.
As for Joe Bast (Bastard? Beast?) of Heartless, his goose would appear to be cooked. You heard it hear first: Heartland will be History by 2015.
Charles Pierce [on Heartland's strategy echoing the ID movement](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/heartland-institute-climate-chang…).
> There's a major brawl going on about some documents that Desmogblog got its mitts on, allegedly out of the Heartland Institute, an industry-backed talking-points mill dedicated to spreading manure about global climate change widely enough so that a thousand doubters will bloom and the people who finance the Heartland Institute will continue to get rich. One of the docs seems to be a fake. Others, though, many of them concerning how the Institute plans to raise and spend the money in order to spread the ordure around the national dialogue are not in dispute.
Easter egg laid for opposition. Please show you are attentive by commenting.
@Dave H
But is that a crime? I know nothing much about law in the US, but it seems unlikely that there's a specific crime by that name. Most jurisdictions make it a crime to obtain money or financial advantage by deception, and make it illegal to obtain certain types personal information, especially from financial businesses, but I've not heard of any specific crime Dr Gleick may have committed. Maybe there is such a crime - I just don't know.
There's also the issue of intent. How hard would it be to prove someone had intended to access information that the holder of that information had denied existed in the first place?
Perhaps bill is right and it really is "The Vibe".
If "obtaining information under false pretences" is a crime then some Limited News journalists must be pretty scared at the moment. And it looks like blagging is a crime under UK law, but there is a public interest defence available.
TBogg is in fine form on [Revkin's pearl-clutching exercise](http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/02/20/already-going-to-hell-just-pump…).
> You canât have aârational public debateâ with people whose whole reason for existence is to obfuscate the truth by paying big bucks to scientist/whores for whom âscientific inquiryâ means first posing the question âHow much does it pay?â to be followed (after a brief period of haggling) with âWhat do you want it to say?â.
Read the whole thing.
Indeed deception is not generally a crime and I guess the effects on Gleick will come from outside any courtroom, not inside.
@afeman #683, see this post by Steve Mosher dated 16th.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/…
"Then there's Kaminsky calling Gleick an "obvious" culprit, when it wasn't obvious at all."
Not obvious to those with their hands over their ears.
President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is [deeply concerned](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdome…), although that is an understatement:
> "We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."
Merchants of Doubt and the exemplary (doubt merchant) Heartland Institute rate a mention. The dodgy US Supreme Court decision that has effectively allowed corporations unlimited spending on political campaigns is identified as a factor too. And anti-science efforts in the UK are briefly alluded too (whilst commenters point out the heavy anti-science efforts currently going on in Canada).
[Lotharsson says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…):
>Read the whole thing.
Yes, do. It's a delight of cantankerous straight-talking, and the commenters are just as ascerbic.
I haven't laughed as hard in ages. There's much that I won't copy holus-bolus, but this says it well:
>Oh blow it out your emo-ass, Revkin.
> It's a delight of cantankerous straight-talking, and the commenters are just as ascerbic.
Indeed :-) That goes for Charles Pierce too.
Back to Real Stuff.
People were surprised at Heartland's plans to mess with K-2 education. I wasn't because they've been trying for years, using inept stuff like Jo Nova's ... and Wojick's proposal must have seemed like a big step up.
See Fakeducation For Years From Heartland.
The 5-minute trailer is a must-see, and for more exampels see the 8-pager, a new appendix for Fakery.
Good news science lovers.
"William Connolley, arguably the worldâs most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frawds, Wikipedia barred him â again unanimously â from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
@Gaz,
Wire Fraud. From Wiki...
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
Since the docs in question constitute "property", the shoe fits.
In addition, the crime was committed across state lines which, in the US, means it becomes a Federal issue. Not good, if proven, for Dr. Gleick. And since he's admitted it publicly, it doesn't seem hard to prove.
Do note that the penalties are worst case, and likely would not be anywhere near what someone like Gleick would see. Slap on the wrist at most. Really bad call on his part, but not something likely to land him in the pen. A stiff fine perhaps, and some sort of probation, but nothing more.
Poorly linked...
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
from...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code
BPW, would the electronic copies of the documents be defined as "money or property" as the law requires?
Even if so, he already had the hard copies, after all. Could Gleick be convicted of defrauding the Heartland Institute out of something he already had in the first place?
Pity the prosectuor who has to argue that one.
It might actually be a rather difficult case to prosecute, especially as his actions gave him no material benefit whatsoever, and couldn't conceivably have been expected to.
It will be interesting to see how keen the so-called think tank is to encourage Gleick's prosecution. Do they really want the contents of their hard drives paraded around in open court?
I guess they could argue Gleick's actions caused them economic harm, which would seem to be necessary (in the absence of benefit to Gleick) if it's to be defined as fraud. But to do that they'd have to admit that being exposed as amoral propagandists had caused the cash flowing from their equally amoral donors to dry up.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Hang in there, Dr Gleick.
How does that make it a really bad call? Sounds more than worth it for the effect on Heartland.
The interesting thing, of course, is that in a defamation case such harm is of no consequence if it is based on the truth. Are the police working on it yet? If not, why are they taking so long? Assuming they should be interested of course.
"Gleick âimpersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memoâ
( http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9… )
desmogblog spreading fear and propaganda,
15 January 10
Antarctica is Losing Ice Quickly, Melting Away Another Climate Skeptic Myth
( http://desmogblog.com/antarctica-losing-ice-quickly-melting-away-anothe… )
The truth
Here is the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly chart -
( http://desmogblog.com/antarctica-losing-ice-quickly-melting-away-anothe… )
also
New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows âno significant trend in the 1979â2010 ice sheetâ
Hereâs the money quote:
[15] We found no significant trend in the 1979â2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006]. The estimated SMB
trend, integrated over the ice sheet, equals 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2
( http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050713.pdf )
Karen, are you related to Olaus?
Karen,the SMB trend figure was -3+/-2 Gt/y
Curry on Gleick:
As I suggested at Curry's site, this is at best a tenuous assertion with almost nil supporting evidence.
As I asked Curry, where is the evidence Gleick stole from Heartland?
"Climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a âcauseâ"?? Evidence, Dr Curry? Care to name names Dr Curry? Or is this yet another of your smears with no substantive facts behind it? And despite numerous inquiries into "climategate" (a meme Curry has not been exactly shy about promulgating), Curry deliberately puts the word cleared in inverted commas.
I don't entirely agree with his views on Gleick's behaviour, but Chris Colose in his response to Curry is entirely right when he says:
Maybe I'm being naive, but IMO it's one thing for bloggers who aren't directly involved in climate-related reasearch to opine on this, and quite another for those who are. In my view those who do have some claim to professional expertise in the subject need to tread much more carefully, and be much less willing to take a political stance, than Curry has.
That said, I fully expect Curry, in the face of trenchant criticism from the likes of Chris Colose and Nick Stokes, to adopt her typical "stand back and let the cheer squad take the flak" approach.
Karen is Pentaxz.
> desmogblog spreading fear and propaganda
says the individual mindlessly spamming links.
> New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica
You do realise this paper uses ... drumroll ... modeling? The word even appears in the title! It's impressive how rapidly the "skeptics" have developed a blind spot to that infernal practice.
Karen @ 729 - Channelling Joe Bast
+
Karen @ 723 - a cut 'n' paste from an 18 month old opinion piece by Laurence Solomon in The National Post
=
Troll.
Fellas, take a lookie at Jeffie's latest words of wisdom. Hard to top, indeed. :-)
"Gleick is a paragon of virtue compared with many of those in the denial camp who see nothing wrong in distorting and mangling science in the name of eviscerating public constraints in the short-term pursuit of private profit. There is not a shred of integrity in any of the many right wing think tanks that routinely lie and smear in order to bolster their agendas, and damn the science."
Its all there â the conspiracy, the Elders, the Protocol, the heretics, the agendas, the right-wingers â in Jeffie's narcissistic head. And all this when the head of the Task force of Scientific ethics tried his best to work outside these ethical parameters.
It can't be easy living in such an advanced state of paranoia.
John Mashey,
Yep, that fakeducational package trailer is a classic.
Beginning with 'I'm not a scientist but I have worked for one'(!?!) (Coffman, it turns out) - we then get:
This over a chart that ends in 2008.
Then we get: Tim Ball / Vincent Gray ("The IPCC is a political organization") / Pat Michaels ("People have to understand that the entire Global Climate Change hysteria is driven by computer models") / 'the climate fingerprint is not present' / 'climate always changes' / 'it's a natural cycle' / 'fewer hurricanes' / Coffman ('The British High court found that The Inconvenient Truth [sic] contained so many exaggerations and scientific errors that it ruled that the video could not be shown in British public schools without a disclaimer that it's a political film.") / 'Greenland is only melting on the edges and there's only a "slight decline for the entire continent" / 'It's the Sun' with a chart that tracks solar irradiance against Greenland's [purported] temperature* / "although scientists don't know yet exactly how it works" / 'did we mention it's the sun?' / "is CO2 even a pollutant?" / no "it's a very important nutrient; perhaps the most important one" / Pat Michaels loves it, too! / 'we humans are too puny to change the mighty climate' / And we wrap up with Willie Soon telling us that it's a "complete false picture that carbon dioxide is going to drive the Climate System"
Phew! I don't know about you, but my Bingo card is full!
Actually, I think this will make a fine educational product in the future; a neat encapsulation of the entire strategy of the charming people who baked your planet, kids! Learn to switch your BS detectors on!
*check it out! Seriously, it's labelled 'a Sun-Greenland Coincidence?' and it's tracking temps at friggin' Ammasalik! Monckton would be proud! Even then the focus tails off the chart suspiciously early as the turn of the Century approaches...
bill: did you read the 8-pager?
For insntance:
Coffman has taught Biblical prophesy and predicted 9-11. You might check Ms Pelletier's bio.
Defending Gleick's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share his viewpoint.
Gleick obviously believes that his "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt he has brought that same attitude to his frequently published scientific endeavors as well.
Rock Bradford (#740) wibbled: "No doubt he has brought that same attitude to his frequently published scientific endeavors as well."
No doubt? What, none at all? Come on then, provide an example of where he has brought "deceit and dishonesty" to his "frequently published scientific endeavors".
I bet you can't even start!
On cue Bradford demonstrates Bernard's point in #708 re 'poisoning the well' logical fallacy.
Sorry, guys, I know you're hoping we're going to be rattled and all, but 'fakegate' ain't really quite working out outside the Bubble of Epistemic Closure, is it?
(But, hey, I can use Rick's 'logic' to prove all Deniers are just as bonkers as Monckers! Might be something in it yet...)
So, anyway, Rick, GSW, Karen (see, I can be 'ironic', too!), and your monkey, all I can say is: [*Yawns loudly*] "Struth, is that the time? Sorry, guys, there's been some mistake; you appear to have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think."
John M - I intend to!
Bradford:
"Defending Heartland's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share their viewpoint.
Heartland obviously believes that their "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt they have brought that same attitude to their frequently published pseudo-scientific garbage - funded in part by US taxpayers - as well."
There, fixed that for you.
Why does:
> Hi! Iâm Kristie Pelletier. Like you, Iâm not a scientist, but I have worked for one...
...immediately bring to mind:
"Hi! I'm actor Troy McLure. You might remember me from..."?
Bradford et al pretend to be living in a very sheltered world, where everybody wears white or black hats.
But it's been well understood and accepted by Justice departments and citizens across the world that low-lifes do not play fair, and that it's sometimes required to get dirty hands in order to convict wrongdoers.
No doubt Heartless and their supporters don't see themselves in that role, but there it is. What your beloved Institute has been doing is wrong both morally in terms of corrupting the work of scientists in order to lend false bias to modify public policy and legally wrong in posing as a charity while investing in international lobbying also to modify public policy.
We'll see how this plays out with the IRS, but whatever happens Bast has shown himself to be incompetent as an administrator and Heartless will likely fire him before sinking themselves as former supporters distance themselves from a now toxic brand.
It's not as if HI bring anything special to the same old formula of what is essentially corruption of whatever degree and who knows, with the current Occupy movements in full swing the era of taken-for-granted corporate control of government may be about to end.
> But it's been well understood and accepted by Justice departments and citizens across the world that low-lifes do not play fair, and that it's sometimes required to get dirty hands in order to convict wrongdoers.
Indeed. Climategate 1 & 2 demonstrated that.
Defending the CRU hacker's actions is perfectly natural if you happen to share their viewpoint.
The hacker obviously believes that his "Cause" is more important than truth and integrity; that deceit and dishonesty are justified by their intended goal.
No doubt deniers bring that same attitude to their frequently unpublishable scientific endeavors as well.
Rick not only lives in a very sheltered world, he helpfully illustrates that it's not the real world.
I'd personally like to thank Gleick for sacrificing his position to help expose the criminal tax evasion and other dishonest activities of Heartland. If Gleick was a member of the police force he would have just been doing his job.
Miss-the-point Bradford:
Riight, so the convictions from Climategate 1 & 2 were ...... (crickets chirping).
No, Bradford. What CG1&2 demonstrated was the dishonesty of those who claimed to be uncovering nefarious activity, but which didn't actually withstand scrutiny. The deniers once again, with Heartless playing a full role, were shown to be the liars there, as anybody following the science already knew. Climategate impacted the meaning of the data, and those who collect and study it, not one single, solitary whit.
Heartless, unfortunately for your beliefs, are an entirely different case with clear, well documented, across-international-boundaries wrongdoing. Which of course you are blind to. For now.
I see John Mashey posts here, if you don't mind sir:
Mr Mashey, did you have knowledge of the Heartland documents leaked by Peter Gleick prior to their public release?
And, is it really just co-incidence that your own Heartland tax complaint - reported to have been 3 months in the making - was filed within hours of the Heartland document release? Did that complaint draw from the Heartland documents? (obviously requiring a 'yes' to above)
Thanks ;-)
*It can't be easy living in such an advanced state of paranoia*
There's nothing paranoid whatsoever about it, Olaus, if you bothered to take your head out of your rather large butt. There's piles of information out there supporting everything I said. Your problem, like that of many deniers, is that you choose to ignore it. In other words, you are playing the old 'ignorance' hand: if I don't know anything about it, it simply cannot be true. I've presented enough lectures on the subject of the anti-environmental lobby - including two in Denmark in 2002 (Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities) that attracted quite large audiences. Nothing I presented there or elsewhere was conspiratorial or paranoid, but based on hard facts. Its too bad that dolts like Olaus who sadly popped up on Deltoid to support a megalomaniac on another thread, revel in their ignorance.
Scribe writes: *Olout is clearly an arts grad who enjoys verbal jousting but has scant understanding of the issues*
Spot on. Ditto for the other deniers who spew their nonsense out here with little scientific underpinning.
Chek, looks like Josh's latest is about you. :-)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/22/naked-churnalism-josh-151.html
@Olaus
Really? I thought it was just another in his serious of deconstructionist pieces illustrating the painful lack of humour in partisan political cartoons. Quite the artist.
Jeffie, please go a head and show me (us) some facts then about these Elders of Right Wing Fossilfuelers Against Climate Science. Where are the Protocols? So far you are only blabbering about some evil master-plan that you have discovered and lectured about before some likeminded intolerant self-obsessed conspiracy freaks.
I'm sure there are piles of unsubstantial crap out there confirming your dichotomous fantasies of thousands of Blofeldts obstructing climate science. But please, try to convince me that I'm wrong and you are right (not left). So far you have performed poorly in that department.
I suggest you lie down on the divan and read up on Freud's Schreber case. Maybe you find some comfort from it. But try to forgive your father. ;-)
You have t' Olaf, or else you'd cry...
http://www.metrolyrics.com/tom-hark-lyrics-mango-groove.html
Why would anyone waste their time on a supercilious waghead like Petri who inserts his worthless, uninformed, unimaginative comments here, and who wouldn't be missed if an asteroid struck him tonight?
Christ, can anyone else here imagine recommending a Josh cartoon? Unless perhaps in extreme circumstances where you might really need to convince the insurance adjuster that traffic bump had genuinely caused brain damage.
Thanks wow, while at it why don't you hit me with the sledgehammer, e.g. Gleick-stuff? :-)
Dave H:
> I thought it was just another in his serious of deconstructionist pieces illustrating the painful lack of humour in partisan political cartoons. Quite the artist.
Indeed, it's well known that Josh is a postmodern ironist (a.k.a. troll) whose mission is to expose the idiots who laud his cartoons.
Chek # 760. Why would anyone waste their time on me? Come on Chek, you waste your time on me â always. You are in fact absorbed with "denialists" and Puppet masters of right wing Evil.
You couldn't even get that one right. :-)
Olaus,
To reiterate, your strategy, like that of Jonas, is to defend your patent ignorance by saying that 'knowing nothing means nothing is happening'. I am sure that you are probably proud of this salient little fact.
There's an abundance of literature out there showing how polluting industries, using think tanks, public relations companies and astroturf organizations they have set up, are spending huge sums of money to mislead the public and policymakers over the causes and effects of climate change, as well as other areas that fall under the umbrella of environmental quality. They aren't doing it because they actually care about 'facts', or 'truth', but because they see any efforts to regulate their activities as a threat to the way that they do business and thus profit margins. Dave Helvarg and Andrew Rowell wrote quite excellent books on this back in the mid 1990s, but by now the anti-environmental movement, which is exceedingly well funded and organized, is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Of course, given your patent ignorance and refusal to do any cursory checks yourself, this means that you claim that its all a big conspiracy theory. You are one sad idiot.
Ah - like battered woman syndrome, any attention is good attention, eh? As was also pointed out recently, you're one creepy, damaged individual Petri.
Well, what did I tell ya? Blah, blah, blah and more pompous blah about Puppet master, Elders, Protocols, conspiracies, multi-billion industry and profound calculated evil.
You haters are something extra for sure.
I'm fully aware of companies polluting our environment, using legal and illegal ways. Don't like it a bit. Who would have thunk? But what has that got to do with climate science and the uncertainties surrounding the CO2-hypothesis?
Only paranoid haters with gigantic egos know, it seems.
Aww shucks, Petri 'feels hated' by 'paranoid haters'. And so it must seem, if you choose to have your head buried in the self-filling buckets ofshit the denier blogs serve up.
Petri and his band of phoney Euro-'libertarians' might like to read [John Mashey's work here](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake_0.pdf) and ask themselves the same question.
And then they might like to read (rather than be told by Heartless-trained morons et el) what's in [IPCC AR4 WG1.](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html)
But of course they won't, because they don't dare to even let either of them meet their eyes, let alone try to understand them.
But...but...I only clicked 'preview' once and then 'post' once. Honest!
Sorry for duplicate post folks.
*Well, what did I tell ya? Blah, blah, blah and more pompous blah about Puppet master, Elders, Protocols, conspiracies, multi-billion industry and profound calculated evil*
Exactly the sort of vacuous rant I would expect from Olaus and his brand of 'degree' level education. What exactly is your degree in dingbat? Is my emphasis on basket-weaving inaccurate? What Olaus is saying is that he doesn't have a clue about the fields of propaganda, public relations and political advocacy, that he hasn't read a thing about attempts by polluting industries to mislead the public and policymakers, and therefore that it can't be true. Ignorance is bliss. When caught out, he resorts to infantile cracks and witless jibes that are a futile aim to shore up his credibility. It may work with denialist blogs but it does not work here.
As I said, Olaus has his head stuck very far up his butt. And he's happy to keep it there. The unfortunate thing is that Jonas brought his band of ignorant puppets along with him to Deltoid some months ago, and now they are contaminating other threads with their profound ignorance.
@Gaz,
Yes, electronic copies of the documents he requested when he impersonated a member of the Heartland board were their property and meet that definition. He apparently, according to his statement, only received one document prior to getting the rest via email. Judging from his own accounting of the story, he committed a crime. Wire fraud, in the US, can have very serious implications. And once it becomes a federal issue, it may not matter whether Heartland wants to press charges. Charges might be brought regardless. Of course, they may not as the value of the theft is not particularly high depending on who you ask. But it's the act that matters.
@Chris O'Neill,
You're joking, right? A man who has worked for 30+ years to establish a successful career, and a life, potentially risks it all to show the world that Heartland is pretty much exactly what anyone who pays attention already knew they were? That is a world class lapse in judgment for an 18 year old, much less a 50-something scientist with his credentials. The man has already resigned from two groups, one as chair of the AGU Integrity Task Force, and now is essentially an admitted felon. Yes, wire fraud is a felony. So, "bad call" is a gigantic understatement, especially if the feds do come calling. Shit creek would be a vacation land compared to where he will be if that happens.
I sincerely doubt Dr. Gleick feels as good about this as you do. Given his admission statement, I think he has very deep regrets.
[Derrick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…).
That would be Dr Mashey to you.
And if you had actually read his forensically-researched report, you'd have known that it's drawn from a range of publicly-available documents entirely separate from the Heartland leak. Seriously, read it. You might actually learn something of the highly dubiously practices of these large-industry lobby groups.
Your comment demonstrates that you are merely trying to spread shit on the walls, as a baby does in its own cot. And you did so with about as much comprehension of the social (or in your case, ethical) repugnance involved...
Idiot.
Further [reputational enhancement attempts](http://pathteacheroneword.blogspot.com/2012/02/heartland-institute-more…) by Heartland associates?
re: $753 Derrick
The history is over @ Deep Climate, posted a few days ago.
My report was capped the day before and I'd written the IRS complaint, finishing about 10:30. Everything in mine was from public information. I regen'd the PDF to fix the date on the afternoon of the 14th, and wrote the blog post sitting in the jury-selection room. [Thanks goodness San Mateo provides WiFi and power strips.]
If I had any idea that Peter was going to release this material, I would have begged him not to do it, or at the least, send it to the IRS as a whistleblower complaint indicating the specific alleged violations. That info and mine inter-corroborate rather well, and I'd created a framework for categorizing the issues.
Everybody made a big deal of the strategy doc and the education angle. As I noted in Fakeducation, trying to do this was nothing new, so I ignored the strategy doc for the real meat in the Funding and Budget. [I used to be an Officer at MIPS, and am a 10-year Trustee at a nonprofit. So, I've been in a fair number of Board meetings and am used to looking at Board packages.
The strategy document sure "feels" like something Bast could dash off, as its style is quite consistent with the voluminous materials I'd been looking at. ... but then anyone familiar with that style could easily fake it, IF they had the Board package in hand. Anyway, I spent 60 seconds on it and then forget about it.
See this @ DSB and see what you think. I've really never cared, because the Board package has the good stuff.
Further to John M, see the Centre for American Progress' General Counsel's response.
BPW,
What definition? Does an email (plus attachments) fit a legal definition of "property"?
I've also looked at the statutes regarding wire fraud and while not professing any legal expertise it would seem there has to be more than just trickery involved.
I think Dr Gleick could have thought a bit more carefully about how he proceeded, but equally I think we should all think carefully before we conclude he really could be convicted of a crime over this. I certainly wouldn't want to be a DA betting my reputation on getting a conviction.
Like I said, though, I'm not a lawyer...
Lotharsson, that's a great link. I note the absence of the triumphalist hordes. How would you say Heartland are faring in the court of public opinion outside of your sad little hall of mirrors, guys?
#709 No worries chek! That's way you do it.
Jeffie, more unsubstantial shoutings from the Harvey pi(l)ehole. And Yes, you believe, you sure hate and you construct you own reality where you are Sir Galahad. But there is nothing behind your big mouth besides severe delusions, massive intolerance and gigantic self idolatry.
Which I siad all along. Sorry fellas, there are no Elders or illuminati. Deal with it.
What you have though, is Peter Gleick's bravados.
> ...there are no Elders or illuminati.
How odd. You're the only one who ever mentions them. Why, it's almost like they're all in your head being projected out!
You know you've had it when even RealClimate throws you under the bus....
> "Gleick's actions were completely irresponsible, and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test." - Gavin Schmidt
Dear Lothar, when someone, in a very vibrating high pitched voice, claims that there is tons of stuff confirming evil and mighty anti-science ring-wing agendas against climate science AND is not capable of backing it up...then it must me some kind of illuminati, Elders or Satan. Don't you think?
Perhaps you have better name for theses invisible forces pulling the strings? ;-)
The worse the situation gets for Heartland, the more Petri froths at the mouth. Too funny.
Oh, what a knocker Dave. I suspect the content of your post also is one of these rock solid proofs of the well funded (multi billion) right wing conspiracy against climate science?
;-)
> ...in a very vibrating high pitched voice..."
Olaus, get help.
Hearing voices in your head isn't normal.
Lothar #784, thanks for another breathtaking evidence of the multi billion right wing industry undermining climate science. :-)
> The estimated SMB trend, integrated over the [Antarctic] ice sheet, equals 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2.
BTW, is that supposed to be good news? How about [looking at the total ice loss (including Antarctica)](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208.html) where possible: approximately 4,300 Gt over 7 years or about -615 Gt/y.
Not much to celebrate there...
> ...thanks for another breathtaking evidence of the multi billion right wing industry undermining climate science...
Get more help.
Your fantasies about my "obligations" are presumably part of the same syndrome.
Some [preliminary analysis](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/22/heartland-memo-origin-quest…) of another carefully crafted Heartland statement.
Sorry Lothar, wanting facts instead of fanatasies is my cup of tea. ;-)
@Rick #780
http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/heartland.html
The Pacific Institute may be on the verge of doing the same.
@chek #765
I saw your quip earlier,
"like battered woman syndrome, any attention is good attention, eh?"
You are one seriously sick guy.
Olaus, I'm curious as to why you initially admitted you disliked the kind of politicised science Heartland is dishing out, but now ridicule the idea that they are funding the very anti-science that they have been caught funding.
>Which I siad all along. Sorry fellas, there are no Elders or illuminati.
No, just a shadowy anonymous man funding an anti-science, anti-enviromental regulation and pro-tobacco political body to help spread his free market beliefs through the use of paid "experts".
Nothing shady going on there.
Hot Earth: Science & Anti-Science (podcast)
@ Olout
You don't need thousands of Blovelds out there to lay an effective smokescreen, Olout. A small handful will do. Let's say the Koch brothers who own Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion. Add just one other, let's say Richard Mellon Scaife, newspaper publisher and billionaire, and a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune. These are only a few people, yet their money has supported numerous disinformation campaigns worldwide. Why, even your own presence here could well be funded by one of them!
And I have not even started to mention the Exxons, Gina Rinehart, and all the many, many other vested interests intent on trashing Science for their own nefarious purposes.
If you need to know how the whole dirty scheme works, read some of these books:
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change
John, I don't like when science is being kidnapped from either end of the politic spectra. Regarding Heartland:
1. It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
2. There is little of no. 1 going on. I'm sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative â which â so far appears to be fantasy.
3. 6.4 million isn't a multi billion denial industry. It's peanuts and most of isn't even concerned with climate issues.
4. Heartland hasn't an Evil agenda.
In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
We can add politics to the list of things, like climate science, that Petri doesn't understand.
GSW @791 - it's your associate Petri that comes here making a total arse of himself with his religious fervour. Nobody forces him, and I'll wager that respect for his second-hand opinions (such as they are) among the vast majority of readers here hovers at or below zero.
My analogy holds - and anyway, Petri is a creepy and damaged individual, as has been previously remarked.
Mind you, the same applies to parrots like you.
My absolutely sincere congratulations to our distinguished host, Mr. Tim Lambert, for a display, or to be precise, I suppose, a non-display, of anything whatsoever to do with the Gleik affair. I have been watching this site like a hawk - well, a hawk with bifocal specs - to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves. Well done, Mr. Lambert, alas, your cause is slowly sinking beneath the waves (and it's not because the waves are rising) but at least you had the intelligence to avoid this particular mess of potage!
Now, if only you could sort out your Labour party . . .
Reclassifying fascism and national socialism as far left ideologies may make you feel better about your own far right views Olaus but all you do is confirm Jeff Harvey's view that you are an ignoramus.
Name calling and link-spamming is all you have.
My neighbour's cat dragged a dead rat that it found into his house. Like you the cat was pleased with itself but the rat was as dead and smelly as your links.
@795
> It is a lobby org.
No it is not. It is a *charity*. If they want to be a private lobbyist, fine - but they have to pay tax. Benefiting from tax-exempt status whilst also being a lobby organisation can result in fines and loss of charity status.
Of course, being a lobby means that they are subject to even more stringent rules and disclosure, such that they would be unable to get away with having a huge percentage of their funding derived from an anonymous source.
^broken record^
Duff is the broken record, I mean. Darn, you have to be fast posting on this site sometimes.
Petri acknowledges Heartland's business is political lobbying and not science. We now know Heartland has a number of scientists on a 'retainer'. Therefore, that same political lobbying organisation must be attempting to distort climate science.
Chek, so you claim that anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society are footed in Right wing ideology? :-)
For your knowledge Mussolini was a communist before he evolved his fascism. He was also inspired by syndicalism and he even worked at the same news paper as Gramsci. Röhm of the SA never let go of his dream of a second revolution. And why? Because socialism is socialism regardless prefix.
Sorry chek, historically, National Socialism and Fascism off springs of Socialism â on the very far left. You can picture it like the tongue of a snake. A split at the end where one part stays international and the other becomes national (goes right, but still left), all of them with respectively branches.
No one in the 1930s recognized fascism and nazism as "right wing". The right wing "narrative" of nazism and fascism is an innovation from the 1960s. Originally I believe this modern confusion comes from the classic behavior among quarreling political extremists on the left: calling each other traitors and lackeys of the bourgeoisie.
Hmmm..sounds familiar. ;-)
It sad though, because this anachronistic label of Nazism and Fascism often make us look the wrong way (right) when trying to identify the ugly political and ideological tendencies of today.
@798
It has taken Duff a week to work out how to comment on "Cash for Denial" without mentioning cash for denial.
Meanwhile
[Congressman Calls For Hearing Into Heartland Institute Payments to Federal Employee Indur Goklany](http://www.desmogblog.com/congressman-calls-hearing-heartland-institute…)
[This pretty much proves that Heartland doesn't give a s**t about scientific accuracy:](http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/08/10/heartland-replie…):
> Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled âThe Skepticâs Handbook,â by Joanne Nova, which Heartland mailed to the presidents of every public school board in the U.S. This was one of a series of mailings we did and continue to do to educators and school board members in the U.S. as well as in Canada.
Also see [here](http://desmogblog.com/fakeducation-years-heartland).
Hitler loved those communists so much he had had them all locked up and excuted.
When Petri tries to make a serious contribution he make a complete arse of himself.
@804
Olaus - you have been drinking from the same ideological well as Anders Breivik.
>I have been watching this site like a hawk - well, a hawk with bifocal specs - to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves.
Like a hawk with macular degeneration and/or glaucoma, I'd say.
It seems to have escaped your attention that Tim Lambert has been involved with non-Deltoid matters for months, to the almost full exclusion of posting anything on the blog. Even posts in moderation have been days in the waiting, simply because Tim has real and currently very full life.
If this plain fact has escaped detection by your radar, then it's no surprise that the whole enterprise of real scientific endeavour has also escaped your notice and comprehension.
Duff. You are, by your own display of ineptitude, a fool.
>It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
You mean the real climate science in the AR4 you haven't read or the fake sceptics made-up mish-mash of cherry-picked facts that you believe because it supports your pre-determined poltical notions?
>There is little of no. 1 going on. I'm sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative â which â so far appears to be fantasy.
And you believe that the document is faked because...Heartland say so and Josh made a pretty cartoon?
>6.4 million isn't a multi billion denial industry. It's peanuts and most of isn't even concerned with climate issues.
Strawman. I never claimed a "multi billion denial industry". I never claimed it was mostly concerned with climate issues. I simply noted the "charity" pushes a free-market, anti-envriomental regulation, *political* agenda and is funded by vested interests. This is not an organisation that can claim to be free of political bias and therefore a trusted source.
Do you deny any of this?
>Heartland hasn't an Evil agenda.
Their agenda is to protect the interests of their funders through the use of fake "experts" sympathetic to their political cause by distorting science.
We're talking about an organisation that dispute the link between tobacco and lung cancer and just happen to be funded by tobacco companies. Nothing shady going on there.
>In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
And you claim not to believe these conspiracy theories. Weird! Why do you keep lying?
Dear Mike, I see that you too have problems with reality when it comes to analyzing ideology. Let me and Socrates help you guys out with a modern example:
Cornerstones of Fascism are anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, hatred of the bourgeoisie society and nationalism. Its text book stuff.
Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini's hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).
So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?
Olaus Petri,
One of Hitler's first acts when he gained power was to ban trade unionism and imprison trade union leaders. Similarly, he rounded up communist party and "socialist" leaders. They weren't simply sent to prison like the unionists. They were sent straight to concentration camps.
He hated and despised other races, especially negros, thinking they were naturally inferior to whites or "aryans". He allowed wealthy industrialists to continue to run German industry (under Nazi party direction of course).
So I dunno.....let me just throw this one out there......"right" wing tendencies, or "left" wing tendencies?
I think your comments have surprised even a few regulars here who are used to seeing stuff straight from an alternate reality.
You're living in a fantasy world Petri, where just like your friend Jonarse and Humpty Dumpty, you invent your own meanings for words. And as this is a climate blog, I'm certainly not arguing political definitions here with a fake Euro-libertarian beanbag like you. I'll leave that to someone who knew first hand what they were talking about.
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism â ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power". â Franklin D. Roosevelt
Hence why trash like Heartland need to be taken out.
By the way, I don't believe that companies or individuals donate to influence Heartland's political aims.
I do believe Heartland've found a cynical way to make money under the guise of protecting the "freedoms" of the elite few over the livelihoods of millions.
Is this evil? Make your own mind up.
Cop [this](http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/#comment-173942) for unintended irony:
>With regards to Gleick, my impression of him changed substantially over the past 18 months, when he went activist with blog posts and op-eds. Before that, I thought he was an honest broker for the scientific integrity issue.
Dear Lord, Yes Hitler hated communists. What has that do to do with anything? In the radical 70s extreme lefties of different obscure acronyms also hated each other. An from history we know that lefties, when getting into power, often go into killing mode trying to defend and purify true way towards utopia. Those favoring alternative socialistic routes "disappears".
Or do you really mean that Stalin's massive extermination of his fellow not so like minded communists (Troskij is perhaps the best example) is a proof that he was Right wing?
I don't think so Lord. But please give it another shot. I'm afraid though that your best arguments, like always, will be that I'm a mean rapist or an idiot, etc.
[Heartland Institute sending a pack of lies to 14,000 US school board officials.](http://www.desmogblog.com/fakeducation-years-heartland)
That is what I call a big scandal!
@816
No, Stalin was just a power-hungry, evil, nut. You get those on the right and the left.
This pitting left against right is just a bullshit distraction. What matters is what the science and the data says, when analysed objectively over a reasonable time frame. This is where the "Petri" arguments consistently fall flat on their face.
The core of the Nazi ideology was a worship of strength and force, and a contempt for weakness in any form. The Nazis viewed the world as a place where various races competed with eachother, and some races would dominate while others would perish.
Ah, Olaus, you've missed your true calling:
> ...wanting facts instead of fanatasies is my cup of tea.
> Fine by me as long as it doesn't try to distort climate science.
I actually laughed out loud at these - which makes you far funnier than that Josh fellow you like to tout!
Mikem, why shouldn't he incarcerate his opponents? Many of the unions were international socialists. Mussolini did the same.
And I can assure you that Stalin didn't allow unions diverging from "his" communism. Heard of Gulag? Many, many socialists had to go there. Does that mean that Stalin was right wing?
Stalin's pogroms are infamous, didn't you know? He hated jews.
Just face it, racism hasn't a political color but becomes extremely dangerous in the hands of a totalitarian government.
Socialists problems with jews/anti-semitism isn't hard to explain. They/jews are an incarnation of what the socialistic doctrines claims are rotten in society â the blood sucking superstructure of capitalism â that has to be eliminated via direct action.
And history â again â tell us that we humans have big, big problems with making difference between structural analyzes including clearly identified "enemies" AND individuals.
Opps sorry, forgot that I was at Deltoid.
Lars, the core of Stalinism was also strength and force. So was Stalin Right wing? Jeezzus.
And Lars, please stop making out with straw-men. No one claims that nazism and communism are identical. Get it? like I mentioned above, racism hasn't political color. History shows that's not the case. That didn't stop Hitler from embracing it though, and making it part of his national socialism.
Lothar, I'm so surprised. No arguments left (not right) I see.
Petri - anti-communism was central to Nazism (interestingly, so was extreme social conservatism), Stalin killed his fellow communists because he was a paranoid nutcase and not for ideological reasons. Fascism/Nazism borrowed some elements from other ideologies and added ideas that were their own.
Basically, you are contorting reality simply so you can use the term 'Fascist' as an epithet. Are you familiar with Godwinâs Law?
Olaus ignores corrections on his false assertion that Heartland is a lobby org and descends rapidly into Godwin territory. Nothing more to see here folks. plonk.
Petri's recent detour into another aspect of his unreality is revealing. He truly believes climate science is a socialist/marxist/communist conspiracy.
> Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled âThe Skepticâs Handbook,â by Joanne Nova, ...
After a recent comment at [Rabett Run](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/02/in-other-news.html?showComment=13298…), Ms Nova turned up to exclaim that she would correct any significant errors:
> If you explain a significant error in The Skeptics Handbook I'll fix it.
I think she went to the same comedy school as Olaus.
Time to ignore Petri and his lame, own ignorance based distractions.
From [over at DSB](http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-stra…) on page 18 of the Heartless fundraising plan:
"We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 a quarter, starting in the second quarter of 2012 for this work.
Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science.
Dr. David Wojick, it goes without saying, has no background or expertise in any climate related sciences. But it seems he's exactly the right man to design the teaching of the subject in the libertarian right-wing-nut-o-sphere.
> No arguments left (not right) I see.
Again with the fantasies about my obligations. How long have you been suffering from these?
Lotharson @ 826,
Yes, and I pointed out her error about the "hotspot", which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.
I personally think that Jo Nova is intentionally peddling lies, and that the Heartland Institute is doing the same when they send our her book of lies to 14000 school board officials.
Dear Lord, anti-maoism was central for stalinism as well. And do I really have to remind you of Trotskij? Your point is? Hitler did a lot of killing within his own party. The murder and Röhm is perhaps the best illustration. This was also about power. According to your own logic this makes Hitler left, but I reckoned that's not what you had in mind? Sorry chaps, you still have nothing but blind faith.
And please stop making out with the strawman saying that I call nazism and communism identical twins. Sister's or cousins are more spot on. What's alike is anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society.
In the 1920s Sweden's leading communist â Nils Flyg (pres. of the Swedish Communist Party, in the parliament) was the man of Comintern. During a period of 20 years his party went through seven split ups. In the end Flyg's party ended up in the lap of Hitler. Interestingly enough Flyg was still fully convinced that his socialism was the right (but still left)) one. The party manifesto was then almost identical to the ones wrote in his early days.
How come?
If reading the contemporary political debates surrounding Flyg's transformation (from international to national socialist) no one viewed him or his fellas as "right wing". His former communist fellows, of course, called him a traitor and a lackey of the bourgeoisie. But Guess what, Flyg accused them of the same thing.
What can we learn from all this? That the way to the socialistic utopia is a narrow one, and any little slip could turn you into an enemy.
Sounds awfully familiar doesn't it? ;-)
Comment from [Ray Ladbury at RC](http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=10829#comment-228511) about the Heartland Institute and denialists:
> You quit lying about the scientists and the science, and weâll quit telling the truth about you. Deal?
> Yes, and I pointed out her error about the "hotspot", which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.
Yep, I nearly posted at Rabett Run that I'd personally pointed it out to her on a thread at The Drum, along with a number of other fallacious claims (including pointing out that (a) what she was calling ad hom was not in fact an ad hom fallacy, despite her coaching her acolytes to say it was, and (b) some of them were engaging in actual ad hom fallacies without her calling them on it...)
...but the old posts still contain the errors, etc.
But it seemed like it was already being covered by people who knew what they were talking about :-)
You know Olaus is winning the argument when he starts comparing his opponents to Nazis.
Dear all, now that we all know that national socialism and fascism are left wing and not right wing, I would like to comment on the earth shattering news that Heartland isn't a lobby organization. In my view it is even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.
If that's a felony, I'm sure the legal system will deal with it.
Anyone against?
BPW:
So no-one thought this made any difference to Heartland and it was just going to disappear into history until Gleick made his announcement? Sure, if you say so.
Spare us the melodrama.
I just want to say THANK YOU to Dr Gleick. He's got balls. Thank you for explicitly unmasking the cunts at Heartland. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." â Edmund Burke
I guess we could update that to socialist/marxist/communist/nazi/fascist conspiracy.
Dear Chris, here I am giving you all a well informed history lesson (for free, no tobacco/fossil money involved), where I corrected some of your delusions, and somehow I get the feeling it wasn't appreciated.
Surely a detour, even if initiated by the monchekie, was called for?
Knowledge isn't a heavy burden. Carry your new wisdom with pride, ergo that nazism and fascism are left wing.
Speaking of knowledge, I would very much like to be enlightened about the evil multi billion denial industry obstructing for climate scientists. I believe I'm wide enough over the shoulders to deal with the weight.
And let's not forget it's a religious/socialist/marxist/communist/nazi/fascist conspiracy.
I think it is time Petri got his own thread. His idiocy is just getting in the way.
Way to go chek. When silenced by someone that knows what he talks about, you run away.
You are such a cry baby.
What's wrong with a "thank you master Olaus"?
Can't say I've followed Petri's claims about fascism very closely, but I got the impression he was arguing that it was exclusively a "far left wing" thing - certainly not "right wing" in any shape or form. This view is interesting because it is a quite common article of faith amongst American (right-wing) wingnuts, and was subsequently championed in a book entitled "Liberal Fascism" ("Liberal" denoting a range of left-wing-ness in the US) by Jonah Goldberg. He argued that:
> "fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left."
and IIRC [his entire thesis didn't stand up to scrutiny very well](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html).
I don't know whether Olaus is peddling precisely the same claims or not or drawing inferences on the same basis as or even from Goldberg - and I don't much care - but others may find interesting reading at that link.
> When silenced by someone that knows what he talks about...
How long have you been having these delusions?
(And these cognitive defects?)
And if you haven't got time to read the many links at that earlier website, perhaps start by [pondering this article](http://prospect.org/article/jonah-goldbergs-bizarro-history-0) which includes [my emphasis]:
> Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism... And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously - no, viciously - anti-liberal.
> ... After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.
Go read the whole thing.
I am enjoying Olaus' paranoid conspiracy theories. What next? The leader of the religious/marxist/socialist/facsist/stalinistglobal warming conspiracy is well known Reptilian shapeshifter Al Gore in conjunction with the reverse vampires?
*How far does it go*? All the way to the *middle*?
Let this thread be a reminder of the next time Olaus claims he is driven to scepticism by science, not his loony fringe political beliefs.
Damn, no killfile on my phone browser, so I'm still subjected to Petri's blithering. However, nice to see him own up that the leak brought to light tax wrongdoing by Heartland. I shall endeavour to quote his admission that
>In my view it is [lobbying] even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.
Far and wide.
Dear Lothar, why are you giving me links? Can't you speak for yourself?
So far you guys, and of course monckeekie most of all, have come up with a lot of arm waiving and name calling, which I have riposted upon without breaking sweat. In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing. And why should they? When an old commie like Mussolini evolves into a fascist he STILL hates liberalism, bourgeoisie and capitalism.
Try to argue that instead of giving me links.
@ Gaz,
As I said, it was their property, and he did deceive to get it, and it did cross state lines, so it fits the bill. Now, some level of value would have to be placed on the info, and a judge could always fine him, say, a dollar for the offense, but he would still be guilty of the crime. That said, the feds could just not bother because they could deem that there was no harm. In that case, Gleick would have dodged a very serious bullet.
@ Chris O'Neill,
Spare me the ignorance. It isn't melodramatic to state that the man just jacked up his entire life by doing something incredibly stupid. Two weeks ago, Gleick was well respected scientist/activist who's opinion carried weight. Today he is living with his having to resign in shame from two organizations, and his reputation is being dragged through the mud in papers, magazines and blogs everywhere. Like it or not, he made himself the poster boy for people who think that alarmists will do anything for "the cause".
But you're right, it was all worth it to out those baddies at Heartland. The people we knew were funding anti climate change information all along primarily because that is exactly what they say they do. The only real question is the one Inspector Mashey is looking at. Do they hide under the cloak of being a charity? At least Dr. Mashey has the common sense to not break the law to find out. I find the good doctor's work to be obsessive and difficult to digest, but I give him credit for being careful to get his information in the proper manner. And if the IRS investigates, and deems they have broken the law, I have zero sympathy for them. I do think any such investigation could open the door for similar looks at groups on the other "side" as well, including Gleick's own organization. Time will tell.
Browsed you link Lothar, and I can't say anything about Goldberg's book since I haven't read it (but it appears to take on America, which is not my field of expertise and â I'll give you that â it also seems to be written with a tendency), but the reviewer is doing the same mistake you guys do. He says nazism can't be socialistic because its socialism is based on ethnicity.
Sorry, he isn't the judge in that matter.
Again no one contemporary viewed nazism and fascism as right wing. In Sweden the term "right wing extremism" came about in the 1960s as some kind of diffuse generic term for fascism, nazism, colonialism, liberalism, conservatism and nationalism. A disfigured bastardization in other words.
For chist sake, today we even call the creep Pinochet a fascist even though he loved Milton Friedman of all people. A man carrying Friedman's gospel would have been shot point blank if he had sat is foot in Italy, Germany (and Sovjet naturally) during the 1930s.
Links to learned individuals and pesky stuff like scientific evidence. Pah!
Petri - let's re-wind. You said:
That's conspiracy theory, and you've done a Godwin.
Do you really expect anyone to take your drivel seriously?
Dear Lord #850, prove otherwise then. No Godwin, but a good win by me. ;-) Heard of Lysenkoism? And what ideology infested the most what then was reckoned scientific â racial biology/phrenology?
I'm still waiting for the forensics confirming your illuminati theories. Until then your blabbering is an expression for ideology/religion. And since your blabbering centers around evil right-wing Elders I assume you must be leaning left? ;-)
Take care!
Olaus, then I guess the skin heads and white aryans in the U.S. have been doped into believing in a political left wing idea. I guess that is the conspiracy. Wow, that is just incredible. I guess when they figure it out they will all commit suicide. You are such a moron dude.
doped=duped.....sorry for the typo was reading Olaus and his right=left left=left ramblings and I was thinking this guy is doped up or something.
Dear JRC, European skinheads sure hate commies and they represents a working class movement. But what's your point? Hating commies isn't something defining a right winger, which I already have told you guys. During the first half of the 20th century social-democrats hated commies as well. Que?
And don't forget how much different groups of commies hated each other â and what Stalin did with these "dissidents". He wasn't right wing was he?
And what about my modern example with Chavez in #811?
"Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini's hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).
So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?"
Care to comment instead of making infantile remarks?
Olaus, the problem is that you are trying to fit a philosophy that doesn't necessarily fit one ideology. Yes there are some leftist ideas in fascism, but there are also rightist ideas in fascism. Against unions more of a rightwing idea...corporate directed government (maybe a leftwing idea, but not necessarily), government control of social issues (mostly rightwing), equality for only those that fit a certain definition of who should be equal (definitely a rightwing idea). Anyway as far as Stalin, Mussolini, and Chavez, they are not good examples in my opinion. Stalin suffered from paranoid behavior for one. And you know that famous quote that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not a left or right thing, but a human nature thing. Question for you. I'm a libertarian myself, but I follow the facts and data. So the question is, if the facts and data present itself that you felt that global warming was real (which it is) how would you propose we dealt with it? Do you fell private interests would like the civil rights movement in the U.S.? Oh wait they didn't. Anyway I had another question, but I'm running late. Going to go donate a little money to the local casino. :) Anyway I look forward to your response. Sorry I've been calling you a moron, but dude it's almost deserved with all of your ramblings and avoiding of straightforward questions.
Sorry, not leaving just yet. Nationalism at least in the U.S. is a weapon of the rightwing in this country. If you don't support unnecessary wars you are a liberal. That would be anti-liberal. As you have said, fascism was both anti-liberal and anti-conservative. So where would you put it? In the middle? Hardly, it is mostly right wing. And Mussolini even said it was right wing, but they were okay with some of the leftist ideas. You think that ideology changes have to be in baby steps. That is totally in error of logic. (PERIOD) Many a leader of the people have taken absolute power when opportunity arouse. Not all...but the majority.
I found this quote from the Prospect piece quite apropos:
This certainly describes the roots of Nazism as well as providing a broad outline of Nazi ideology.
I dunno guys. I just believe that artifically adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is causing the average mean temperature of the planet to slowly rise.
Apparently this makes me religious and a Nazi.
Isn't it interesting that Olaus can only discuss science through the prisms of either religion or politics but can't discuss the science itself.
It's almost like his political views govern what scienctific information he will/won't accept.
News on the fake Heartland memo, Joe Bast done it.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/is_the_heartland_strategy_mem…
Put URLs containing underscores between backquotes: `http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/is_the_heartland_strategy_mem…`
Ianam, thanks
Fro the fellow who gave us
and
and so much more. The appropriate response to someone like Olaus is to point out the thousands of instances of his intellectual dishonesty, not to give him a sheen of legitimacy by engaging in a debate with him about the fine points of political labeling ... an area fraught with fallacies of guilt by association and affirmation of the consequent, where none of the terms are well-defined but rather are laden with connotations that derive from decades of ideologically driven propaganda.
> ...why are you giving me links?
Your delusions are strong. They were **not for you**.
> Can't you speak for yourself?
Me, I value informed opinion and data over the sound of my own voice.
More relevant is his extraordinary hypocrisy ... I count 21 links that he has posted ion this thread alone. You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.
@ John 858
This is truer than you might think. Once again, listen to the research into this topic in this podcast (second half, after James Hansen). Turns out conservatives are a little slow on the uptake, very defensive, and less likely to accept new data. Explains a lot, for me.
Hey, Tim, can re just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own, or something? This apparently ADD-afflicted garrulous little prat just clutters the place up!
Back to reality: Those interested in issues of tone and substance could do worse than beaver away over at Joe Bast's own posts at Heartland itself.
E.g.:
From the eloquent Is John Hunstman Stupid? Now, can you guess why Mr Bast might think former Republican presidential candidate John Huntsman could be 'stupid', boys and girls?
I would just point out a simple fact that the capacity to store heat in the oceans is 1,000 times greater than the capacity to store heat in the atmosphere. (The oceans have 250 times more mass than the atmosphere and water has 4 times the specific heat as air.)
Day to day weather for the earth's surface may be more dependant on air currents, but the long term trend is driven by oceans.
An analogy is the rhinocerous and the bird perched on his back. The climate deniers think the bird is steering.
> You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.
I agree it was grossly dishonest and your point about hypocrisy was both explicit and excellent. However, I disagree that I was playing his game or even offering a defense. I was subtly ridiculing and laughing at the embedded fallacy in his attempted attack along with his lack of reading comprehension, and subtly raising the implications for his own many and varied claims. If that constitutes a defense in your view, so be it.
BPW:
So all those comments and links beginning at #367 were written only by people who don't pay attention. OK. If you say so.
Do you read what you write before you send it off?
@ Bill
just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own
I think Tim L must be away or something, STC (Scandinavian Troll Collective) "members" (and I use the term in all its senses) have usually been put back in their cage or given their cards by now.
DNFTT as they say.
Thanks John Mashey for your reply. Other than co-incidence there's no reason to speculate that you knew and co-incidences do happen. I think desmogblog are clutching at straws claiming that 'strategy' could be authentic (they say "is"), and it doesn't do their reputation any favours. The similarities only prove that the author of strategy had access to the other documents and nothing else.
Yup, we know how those lefties are just itching to achieve power so they can privatize everything. In fact they [invented the term.](http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
Dear all,
if you don't want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don't do it. It was chek who got it all started. I'm perfectly satisfied getting informed about the evil right-wing illuminati fantasies of yours.
@JRC # 855. No, I believe the problem is that you (and many others) argues from a postulate that says real socialism is a monolith. Nothing is. It is for sure affected by societal trends. And that goes both for commies and nazis (and of course right wings, liberals etc). Do you, for instance, believe that the term "national boljevism" was an invention of Marx?
Your point on nationalism becomes valid only from an anachronistic perspective. Historically the roots of nazism is socialistic â socialism evolved if you like. "isms" aren't static.
@Rattus, are you telling me that communism isn't about populism, anti-intellectualism, a carefully groomed culture of violence, identifying dissedents? from your citation:
"populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason"
Besides the nationalism (which is present but less outspoken in stalinism) there is nothing there defining fascism only.
@ianam, you sure have nothing to share but feelings. Hoe about arguments?
>if you don't want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don't do it. It was chek who got it all started
always the liar, Olaus. The first instance of fascism on this thread comes from you:
>In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.
in a reply to John, not Chek
chek@796:
and:
chek @813:
Petri aka Mr. Elders/Protocols/Illuminati/various other religiously-themed drivel @873:
Dear tmcm.
I said that but it was chek who challenged it. And as usual the only thing he could muster were insults and feelings. Then I felt it necessary to enlighten him.
Anyways, as I have told you guys numerous of times, I'm totally satisfied getting non-doctored proofs of the multi-billion right wing conspiracy against climate science you all are nursing like a little baby.
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Il Duce begs to differ with you:
>âFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ
So does Leon Trotsky:
>"If you place a ball on top of a pyramid, the slightest impact can cause it to roll down either to the left or to the right. That is the situation approaching with every hour in Germany today. There are forces which would like the ball to roll down towards the right and break the back of the working class... The Communists want the ball to roll down toward the left and break the back of capitalism....The rapid growth of the fascists signifies the danger that the ball may roll down toward the right."
For a Workersâ United Front Against Fascism (December 1931)
Mind you Trotsky also said in a later pamphlet, "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left..." It's almost like he foresaw the existence of Olaus.
But fascism was like Stalinism in its authorianism and intolerence:
>Mikem, why shouldn't he incarcerate his opponents?
Yep, Olaus should fit right in, then...
In 1944, then-Vice President Henry A Wallace wrote:
>âStill another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. "The Danger of American Fascism", New York Times
Sound familiar, much?
> DNFTT as they say.
However, Kick The S*t Out Of The Troll (KTSOOTT, pronounced "kit-suit") is fine if you need a workout. A good bit of cardio work does wonders.
Indeed, FrankD.
Rather as fascists have to spend all their time denying holocausts, so do right wing nuts have to deny being fascists, even if definitions have to be stood on their heads along with the whole world.
The bottom line is that far from being libertarians, our currently resident fake Euro brand here spend all their time being corporate apologists and denying science. I'm not sure there is a political definition for that, and shills and whores don't normally operate for free.
Who do Petri & Co. they think they're kidding, or indeed influencing?
Apart from their being stout warnings on the dangers of idiocy?
Olaus said in 849 "no one contemporary viewed nazism and fascism as right wing". Absolute nonsense. Try reading either of these two books on Italian Fascism in the 1930s:
Sternhell and Ashéri 1994 The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution
Cristogianni and Caso. 2007. Fascist Italy: A Concise Historical Narrative.
Both demonstrate that by the mid to late 1930's Italian fascism was widely agreed to be a strongly right wing ideology.
Similarly in the UK fascism developed from the "True Conservatism" response to the development of Bolshevism.
As usual, an even superficial examination of your claims demonstrates that you are plain wrong.
FrankD, you keep up doing own-goals instead of showing me data supporting your multi-billion dollar denying machine.
Trotskij says nothing about fascism being right wing (in our modern anachronistic sense), he says, which is the common denominator for all quarreling sects/acronyms within the "extreme left", that fascism is helping the bourgeoisie/capitalism. In other words its the wrong way/path towards utopia. If we for instance get back to the former leader of the Swedish Communist Party, he also accused his former "buddies" (still faithful with Comintern) of ruining the way to utopia and hence the Bourgeoisie.
That said fascism also declares the bourgeoisie society and capitalism as evil. Why don't take Mussolini's words for it? And he sure liked to talk on the behalf the workers (who doesn't?).
Correct is though that fascism, thanks to its ultra-nationalism, is the right part of the double tongue. And that's not disputed by me.
But seriously Frank, do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL representatives of the bourgeoisie with his: "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left...". :-)
Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn't have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn't add up, does it? ;-)
However, what add up, is that Trotskij is being confused by the fact that those wanting to end capitalism and the bourgeoisie society had a hard time taking correct (sic) measures.
Can we please go on with the proofs of the right wing conspiracy?
This is fairly interesting. Sean Lawrence Otto uses some software to perform stylometry and textometry on the Climate Strategy memo that Heartland say is fake to see who it points to as the most likely author from a range of suspects (including Gleick). The conclusion:
[According to the above six analyses, which as I caution above may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-documen…)
The least likely suspect seems to be Peter Gleick.
In keeping with that analysis lord_s, I'm inclined to believe a proposed hypothesis that Gliek was 'Dan Rathered' in this affair.
That is, a fake memo with some genuine info designed to discredit whoever blew the whistle on it. What likely wasn't expected was that Gliek would verify the information before acting, hence the focus on the memo itself rather than the damning, subversive information contained therein.
Which is why our Eurofake-libertarian interloper is jumping up and down so vigourously to derail with anything but the whole underhanded way a flagship organisation behaves.
Whoops, I see someone above has already linked to the Sean Lawrence Otto's article indirectly via Greg Laden.
Too much troll wreckage on this thread to pick out the interesting stuff.
FrankD @ 877
This is Trotsky in 1933 in his pamphlet "What is National Socialism" describing its philosophy and growth among the ruined German middle class.
and
Update the language and he could be describing the right-wing libertarianism of the Tea Party.
Understandable that Olaus is trying to cast off the association of "fascism" with his own politics.
Greg Laden linked to Otto, but also did a separate analysis. Again it did not support the assertion that Gleick authored the scanned doc. Hardly proof either way, but interesting data points.
I don't know how much of the scanned doc was very similar to content from the e-mailed docs, and one might expect that a high cut-and-paste ratio would bias the comparison away from Gleick, but Otto also took out a sentence that was identified as identical to one of the Heartland docs and re-did the analysis with similarish results.
A larger data set would probably also be helpful.
I pondered the idea that Gleick was "Rathered" a few days ago, and still can't rule it out. That could explain why he was suspected so quickly - and the author of the paper doc may even have attempted to copy aspects of his writing style. However there's not enough info either way.
Sherlock Holmes said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
It's actually very interesting watching the chooks running around in here :)
Analytical skills are severely lacking, no wonder you are all so off track about climate change.
Oh um..... chek your head is over there and Lotharsson your small one is about 90 cm to the left.
Columnist Christopher Brooker admits receiving $1000 and lavish hospitality from Heartland:
[Anything to declare, Mr Booker?](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/24/christo…)
Presumably, the interpreter of interpretations has been similarly rewarded.
lord_sidcup,
are you from the famous Lord Monkton clan ?
Maybe one of his illegitimate little sproggers?
Gosh, even more from the mouth of Trotskij. He's a very neutral bystander. C'mon!
I repeat what I said above:
Do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL advocates of the bourgeoisie with his: "These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left...". :-)
Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn't have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn't add up, does it?
How naive can one be?
What's true though, is that many members of the bourgeoisie started to favor fascism before communism and accordingly became fascist/left.
And before you tell me this proves that fascism is right wing, remember the class markers carried by Marx and Engels.
ISTR he was an invited speaker at some heartless deniapalooza in NYC, possibly a year or three ago. Expenses paid, natch.
chek:
>That is, a fake memo with some genuine info designed to discredit whoever blew the whistle on it.
That would need some non-genuine info in it too, and there doesn't appear to be any.
Karen, you do realise that the method that has been used to analyse the text was originally suggested by Watts don't you?
on, petard, own, his, hoist
But you don't see that do you, you just see chickens
How ... transparent!
Olaus is too busy scrambling about trying to cover his bare arse to see that he has utterly missed the point. :^D
Was Trotsky accurate or fair in describing Fascism as a ideology of the right? Guess what - it doesn't matter. All that matters is that he characterised it as such. Mussolini could hardly have been clearer. Many others described it as an ideology of the right.
But Olaus said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Wrong. Demonstrated several times. By me and others. Yet Olaus sadly wanks on about whether Trotsky was addressing the "real bourgeoisie" as if that had anything to do with anything.
Now, if Olaus had any intellectual honesty, he would simply admit he made a mistake, overreached himself as it were, and get back to the essential point of debating the whole Heartland Memo situation, which is far more important than his stupid mistake.
But having read most of the shit he has poured into this blog over several months, my bet is that he will be incapable of simply admitting he was wrong, and will go on arguing the toss, desperately dragging goalposts to new locations in some sort of psychotic rework of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to prove he was right. Even when his claim is clearly, demonstrably, verging-on-laughably wrong.
Can he man up? I'm excited to find out :-)
Actually Dave R, I believe there was the Koch Bros. $25K to med research changed to $200K for climate research howler in the memo, but not in the gen docs.
Dear Frank,
Sorry, posting quotes from Trotkij when he is accusing his anti-capitalistic, anti-liberal and anti-bourgeouise opponents for not knowing right from left doesn't make them right, which I have said from the beginning. It's classic civil war lingo on the left flank and, accordingly, is he not aiming towards those in favor of capitalism and the bourgeoisie society.
Can you please do better?
Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine? If you don't step up to the task soon I will assume you have nothing to show for it (like when you try to pin point fascism as "right") ;-)
Take care!
Yep Frank, you called it.
On topic again fellas. I guess you havn't missed this one:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warmin…
Is this another one of your rock solid proofs of a multi-billion right wing evil denying machine?
Anyone for tennis?
And please don't bring up Trotskij again. ;-)
chek, the 25k vs 200k could plausibly just be a mix up over the year, since the fundraising document confirms they expected 200k in 2012.
re 899, it doesn't explicitly link the 200k to the Kochs, but that explanation seems much more likely than the conspiracy angle.
It appears that Gleick got an honest chance convincing Heartland's donors about the seriousness of the climate threat. Heartland invited him to speak before the donors at a fundraising event. Very brave I think.
But Gleick declined. Some trooper. He could have pulled the rug from under the evil 6.4 million dollars right wing denial machine controlling climate science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/peter-gleick-debate-invitation-em…
I get it - it's OK for Heartland to publish e-mail from Gleick without his permission while simultaneously threatening to sue those who publish e-mail from Heartland without their permission.
Pretty much sums it up, eh?
Update on the Wegman affair:
[University reprimands climate science critic for plagiarism](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george…)
The split decision seems a pretty bizarre. I don't think we have heard the last of this.
"I don't think we have heard the last of this."
Next step is to see what the Office of Research Integrity makes of this, since the paper in question was partially funded by federal grants.
See the thread over at Deep Climate .
I wouldn't even bother to address any issue raised by that dismal, attention-seeking ninny, but, since it's come up in discussion, nothing shows the new libtard Right's disconnection from reality quite the 'the Nazis were Leftists' meme.
This is the standard version of Niemöller's letter. Other versions - because he made the recitation many times over several years - add 'Socialists' and 'Social Democrats' to the list.
Because they came for them all, you sad, sad, little man.
As usual, and like I said why you almost, and now thinking you do deserve the title "Lord Moron" you skipped over my question. If Global Warming is real (which it is) what would you propose to offset it? If you avoiding of the question is the answer then so be it. You have no ability to critically think, and by your past record I won't be surprised. You do seem to be lacking in critical thinking and analysis of data.
Sorry @907 THAT WAS INTENDED FOR OLAUS. :) My bad.
Back in reality rather than the Breivik ideological hinterlands: have we seen this?
dhogaza, the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn't interested in real debate. They wanted someone there with some credibility so they could either take out of context their statements, or the old Monckton I won the debate because I threw 100 lies at them and they couldn't refute them all with citation. Everyone knew before Gleick released these Heartland documents that Heartland wasn't worried about real debate and release of an invite to "a debate" doesn't prove that it was a real debate.
Bill, thanks for sharing your feelings with us, but isn't there anything you would like to add besides a story totally irrelevant. It's an ugly Godwin though.
I'll help you out explaining what you really meant with the quote, even though I'm repelled by the way you are making use of it:
"First Olaus came with some historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was very angry. Then Olaus came with more historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was a hater. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts, and I didn't have anything relevant to say because I was ignorant. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts and then I had to admit to myself that he started to make sense but I cursed him anyway."
I'd also suggest in support JRC, that a scientist of Gleik's calibre would choose only to appear at a conference of his own peers, rather than attempt to make a presentation to a hall full of KKK or Watts webfans, or their equivalents.
Why would he (or anyone else), based on their record, expect that the latter two or a herd of H.I's ideological goons would even comprehend what he was talking about?
You know you're kicking the shit out of them Bill when they can only respond with some pathetic emo crap they just made up plagiarised like the scum-sucking, unoriginal, tedious repeaters they are.
Best comment so far on the 'oh noes Gleick faked the strategy memo' meme comes from Greg Laden:
> Brad [18] You are telling us that Peter Gleick traveled forward in time to see the documents he obtained from Heartland, then went back in time to fabricate a memo based on them. You are also telling us that he resigned from the NCSE yet he does not work there and there was no resignation.
> Please stop with the random misinformation.
Sorry JRC, I didn't notice your Q. Contrafactual crystal balling isn't my cup of tea. What ifs of that kind needs more space than a blog can offer (to be answered in a meaningful way).
Chek, I see that you are working yourself up to ecstasy mode so you can tell us about what Jeffie is doing tonight? :-)
God, you are an angry little hater aren't you. So far your only contribution to this discussion is abusive words and insults, while hiding behind other's backs. Very typical of you.
Straighten up, take a deep breath, release your hands from your groin, and try to articulate some consistent sentences about the topic at hand. After all it was you who started it. And if you do, please refrain from bad language.
I'm not the one wanting to talk about the thick socialistic roots of fascism and and nazism. I'm more interested about stuff I'm not aware of, for instance signs of a mulit-billion right wing denial machine obstructing climate science.
Can you help me out with that please?
Again with the creepy sexual references, Olaus. What the hell is wrong with you?
@916 Olaus
You must understand that it is psychologically crucial for the Green/Left to portray themselves as the heroic little guys standing bravely up to protect Gaia from the rapacious capitalists.
Hence the oft-repeated nonsense about "well-funded denialist machines" when we all know that the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland's. That's even before we talk about the billions of taxpayer dollars poured in on top.
The Green/Left will never accept this; psychologically, they cannot.
> ...the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn't interested in real debate.
As in "it would look better on our resume than on yours", the same motivation for Creation Scientists to "debate" evolutionary biologists.
Just like Creation Scientists, they desperately desperately want anything they can use to suggest the **appearance** of being taken seriously, which they can lever into PR claims of having serious science on their side (at least to uninformed audiences).
They don't have a better scientific explanation for observations, and their scientific claims are not taken seriously because they are either already known to be false, or they don't explain the observations better than mainstream climate science, or they fall apart at the first examination by their peers.
Any **real** scientific debate - that denialists like to argue (ironically via their highly visible media and PR platforms, no less!) is being "suppressed" - takes place in the scientific literature. If they've got something of value, that's where it will appear and it will ultimately have an impact on scientific thinking. Nobel Prizes and solid gold fame await anyone who can *actually* demonstrate we've got nothing to worry about from GHG emissions.
But so far everything they've tried in the literature has proved to have far less impact than they claim it does (to uninformed audiences) outside of the literature. So they try to focus (uninformed) attention on faux-scientific "debates" to keep their audiences from twigging that they've got nada, zip, nowt, zero, nothing.
>Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine?
While Olaus's posting style reminds me of nothing so much as an explosive splatter-shart, I prefer to concentrate on thing at a time. I might decide to tackle that question, or others, once we've finished with this:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Once Olaus concedes he was wrong, I'll happily move on to other topics. Or just revert to my more common read-only mode. But until then, here's what Il Duce himself had to say:
>Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions", 1935.
Olaus's pair of twos is not the worst starting hand, but one would have to be terminally stupid to double down on that opening. Man I wish this really was a blackjack game. Olaus would already be trying to trade his jewelry for more chips. ;)
But perhaps he will surprise me, for once. Can Olaus admit he was wrong and allow things to move on? It's rivetting stuff!
"concentrate on thing" s/b "concentrate on one thing"
The guy expected to write the specially ordered "climate science" curriculum for Heartland [doesn't understand even the basics](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/behind-the-controversy-an-eff…):
> There are 5 different systems for estimating global temperatures, with a 6th in development. The problem is that these systems contradict one another. While all show some warming it occurs in different amounts and most importantly at very different times. Science needs something specific to explain but we just do not have that with warming. For example, HadCRU, UAH and RSS show no warming for the last 10-15 years, while GISS and BEST show steady warming,â he said, referring to the systems.
Any "skeptic" want to apply some skepticism to that argument? How many errors of science and logic can you find? Anyone "skeptical"?
> "So has it warmed or not, we do not know".
"Skeptics" who claim "no-one denies it has been warming" immediately rushed to corr...oh, wait:
And Gavin Schmidt's response is right on the money:
> "You have to be specially trained to be so blind,"
Er, preview is your friend.
"oh, wait:" => "oh, wait: [crickets]".
Meanwhile, Barry Bickmore [has some thoughts](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-w…) on Rutan and company's response to the scientists' response to their original Op-Ed in the WSJ.
He concludes:
> The level of deception by the WSJ authors and others like them is absolutely astonishing to me.
>Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion [sic] machine?
Erm, inflation has not yet reached the point where denial propaganda requires financing to the order of magnitude of billions of dollars (as your inept wording implies), so your question is another of those straw men for which you have such a penchant.
However, if you want proof of a denial machine that makes billions of dollars profit for its clients, then the answer to your sly question is an emphatic "[yes](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)".
Less stupid trolls, please.
Bradford suffers his usual logic fail.
If Heartland like WWF actually employed or supported working scientists engaged in research who publish in the scientific literature then they would be regarded differently. Of course that is not what they are funded to do - they are funded to do climate science denial.
From the [WWF statemtent on the IPCC](http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2010/WWFPresitem15346.html)
Here is a list of WWF scientist [publications](https://secure.worldwildlife.org/science/pubs/).
Here is a list of Heartland [publications](http://www.gifbin.com/985265).
That is why WWF publish their [financial information online](http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/index.html) unlike Heartland who are too embarrassed to.
It has been a busy week or so, with more to come.
1) See Fakery, p.3 and p.12.
In ~2009, Heartland+SEPP+CSCDGC got ~$8M.
The other 9 on p.3 got ~$39M.The additional 36 501(c)(3) on p.12 added another $283M.
Now, only some of that is for climate disinformation, but some of it is for tobacco advocacy and other science disinformation, such as on environmental issues. In addition, these entities cross-support each other in various ways. One often finds them cross-quoting, cross-writing articles, signing petitions, together.
It is far cheaper to create confusion than to actually do science and improve understanding. Still, there's a $330M in 2009 for these folks.
2) Wegman.
In addition to the prime site where this all started over 2 years ago Deep Climate, where there have been recent updates, and USA Today, where story broke, but as gotten updates, there is:
Retraction Watch,
Chronicle of Higher Education
Rabett
Stoat.
I can assure you that this story ... is only starting again.
It only took 709 days to reach this conclusion, and people might ponder this passage from Strange Inquiries at GMU (SIGMU), p.21, from GMU's policy:
'In conducting the investigation, the committee â
(a) Uses diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations;
(b) Interviews each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent; and
(c) Pursues diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continues the investigation to completion.'
Now, inquiring minds might want to know:
1) Was there any other information that a diligent committee might of found? Like Strange Scholarship?
Wegman certainly knew about it. Maybe the diligent commiteee somehow didn't notice it?
2) Did the committee ever check Deep Climate to see if anything else came up? Guess not.
3) Did the committee ever get anything like this graph of the various alleged plagiarisms with Wegman and students?
4) Are Roger Stough (VP Research), Peter Stearns (provost) and Alan Merton (GMU PResident) involved?
Anyway, main conversation is at Deep Climate for the latest news, but others should know.
Here's a theme.
John Mashey.
Once again I have to compliment you (and DC) on your incredible investigations. As tiresome as it must sometimes grow, you are conducting an important service for greater public understanding of scientific truth.
With respect to GMU, it's as though the administration peered into the hole Wegman and his group dug for themselves and said "whoa, that's not deep enough!"
Skeptical Science has another series on Monckton and his July 2011 debate with Aussie Richard Denniss. This series addresses Monckton's responses to Skeptical Science's critique of Monckton's claims in that debate ([part 1](http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-scientists-own-w…) and [part 2](http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-specific-situati…); part 3 doesn't seem to be up yet).
(And the Monckton "debate" is a great illustration of why it's foolish for real scientists to "debate" at Heartland Institute events - "debate" is a terrible format for uninformed onlookers to try to get at the truth.)
+1 for what Bernard said about John Mashey's investigations (and the same for Deep Climate).
Thanks to all for kind words, we all help as we can.
Some, like senior members of Houses of Representatives, can do more. H/T Martin Vermeer, see Markey wants Heartland documents.
I'd like to join the others in thanking John for his painstaking work in exposing the funding of the doubt machine.
[John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…).
Good news about Markey.
The sting in the tail was the high degree of Stupid evidenced in the comments section of your link...
Frank, still clutching for straas are we. Thanks though for writing in a civil manner.
But sorry again, Mussolini isn't labeling his fascism as right wing. And why should he? For obvoius reasons his fascisms is an off spring of his socialistic radical views, regarding anti-capitalism, anit-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society. And of course he hated socialism in terms of internationalism.
And democracy too. But hey, anti-parlaimentism is nothing alien to fascism's older sibling communism.
Mussolini was a extrem communism very prone to violance and direct action before he added nationalism to his new, but still socialism-soaked, ideology. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Sects on the far left always fight one another. They even hate "dissendents" more than they hate the bourgeoisie. Deal with it.
Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about...
Full marks to Ed Markey!
Popcorn?
I second that Stu. OP's output is summed up in one word, 'puerile'. I would add with 'juvenile and sinister' undertones, to be read and quickly passed on without further comment. Coventry calls for those of his ilk.
@ Bradford #918 - standard drive-by troll.
In addition to Mik H's evidence and the questions he asks (which Bradford, being the outright bigoted coward he is, won't answer)...
Please provide evidence and cite sources that show beyond reasonable doubt that
and evidence (citing sources) of:
I am about at the point where, as a self-identified "left/green" I'm wondering whether all my efforts to slow or stop the increasingly incessant rape and plunder of what's left of our natural environment for the principal benefit of a select few very rich entities (and the subsequent squalid waste of those resources) don't simply help support parasites like you.
Olaus, allow me to quote from "La dottrina del fascismo", the official doctrine of the Italian fascists, and supposedly co-written by Mussolini himself:
"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."
Oops..seems Mussolini IS calling fascism right-wing.
The trouble is Marco, and an Il Duce reference has been pointed out already, that Petri belongs to that unique band of blithering idiots like Monckton who think their own interpretations - no matter how steeped in stupidity and ignorance they may be - outweigh those of the actual authors.
Petri's abiding rationale is that all evil must be a leftist phenomenon, ergo fascism must be left wing.
But then we already know that deniers cannot handle facts, especially those from the pens or mouths of the very authors of those facts, if they don't agree with their worldview.
It could be called pathological dishonesty.
Apologies Marco,
Not my argument and I'm not an expert. From memory, Mussolini said many things at many times, not all of which were consistent. It's part of the problem the third Reich had with him, what was he thinking today? a loose canon at best.
His somewhat confused state is amply demonstrated by the fact the document you cite "La dottrina del fascismo" was subsequently removed from publication (all available copies being destroyed) by Mussolini as, on reflection, he decided he didn't actually agree with it.
Anyway, the whole totalitarian "managing the populace for the greater good" is your sides ideology. What is labeled "right wing" these days are libertarian "little government" views. You chide them for being so.
To quote Ronald Reagan (from memory)
"The most frightening words in the English language are - I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"
When you strip away the labels, politica is the haves versus the have nots.
The right wing is now defined as the haves hanging on to their private gains and socialising their losses - just as with climate change and the banking collapse. Such a system is unsustainable not least because of its unfairness.
Any inclusive, progressive egalitarian politics now happen on the left.
chek,
From your last post chek, I'm guessing you see yourself as one of the have nots.
Your ability to infer is just as poor as your understanding of the climate issue GSW.
However, I am on the side of the have nots. The right's neo-feudalism is a dead end leading to a calcified (in every sense) world.
chek,
What can I say chek. I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy, you, I suspect, exist in a permanent state of misery at the injustice of yours being "half empty".
;)
'I am not an expert'
Never were truer words spoken.
Funny how so many of your (*phtttt!*) 'libertarians' also want an all-powerful state with a mighty military. Ain't it?
And a welfare state for the rich (said military-industrial complex purchasing over-priced useless junk from heavy-industry; union-busting regulations - and mercenaries if necessary - because only the mighty captains of industry can be allowed to collectively throw their weight around; bail-outs, more bail-outs, and more bail-outs, as required; massive tax relief; oh, and, let's not forget, publicly-subsidised corporate donations to political lobbyists and professional spin-merchants masquerading as 'educational' think tanks!)
That's Socialism for the Rich, and nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw for the rest. Not you, of course, you're a 'good boy'; 'Oh, please Mr. Millionaire, won't you let me shine your shoes and ride your coat-tails?'
Your paranoiac fantasies regarding those people brighter and more capable than you (a very large set, admittedly, so let's narrow it down to, say, actual climate scientists and add the remainder of the evidence-based community) are classic hallmarks of an Authoritarian personality. You, Sunshine, and your little pals, don't need to be looking elsewhere to be asking, to paraphrase Mark E Smith: 'What makes the Nazis?'
Now, you can rabbit on about 'Godwinning' all you like (as that other sad little fellow did, despite the small detail of his repeatedly insisting that Leftists are Nazis and we're all Leftists, so... !) but the fact remains: you who spend so much time shouting 'Nazi Nazi' should instead be looking to the distinct brown tinge of your own shirts...
bill,
I'm afraid, it's you lot that are arguing for a totalitarian (for the greater good) regime (of what ever colour), not us.
The fact you tie yourself up into contradictory knots when discussing "your ideology" is hardly our fault.
... and you, as illustrated here and in the Jonas thread exist in a permanent state of foisting your own externalised fantasies onto other people. How is your laughable little analysis of Peter Gleik's typically Green 'anger' going, idiot?
chek,
You bothered to go and read it chek. I am pleased.
;)
That description applies perfectly to your moronic friend Petri and his monumental ignorance with regard to fascism as documented on this very thread, not the rational posters here.
And despite the hyperbole, regulating an industry is not a totalitarian act, no matter what rhetoric your over-excited little mind has had inserted into it.
Olaus said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
Repeated quotes from different people of the 1930's referring to fascism as a right-wing doctrine proves this claim to be wrong. When Olaus acknowledges that that is the case, I might be more inclined to indulge him by discussing:
>Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about...
But for now, I await a simple acknowledgement that his claim was wrong. That medicine could take as little as three words, and yet we are still waiting...
In the meantime, lets have another Trotsky example: "As a result, power slipped from its hands, shifted from left to right, and fell prey to fascism." The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy, from Whither France?, 1934.
It's easy for honest people to say they are wrong when they make a mistake. See my post 921, for example. So for home viewers, why does Olaus find that so difficult? And what credibility can Olaus possibly retain here when he is so embarrassingly incapable of acknowledging that he made a relatively trivial overreach in the heat of an argument?
It is fascinating to watch, if I say so myself.
>Sesli
>
>;)
GSW gives a thumbs-up to a spambot echo-comment, which is about par for GSW's course, really. Of course, he's still playing the pitch-and-putt course, intellectually speaking, but he gets an elephant stamp for trying, the special little guy.
;)
Marco, you are doing the same mistake as Frank and others before him. Fascism is Right compared to Communism, which I have said all along. But it still Right far out on the left flank and not on the Right flank. How many times do I need to tell you guys this?
Your way to label fascism Right is an anachronism, and so far you haven't presented anything that contradict this. Mussolini was fighting against the bourgeoisie, capitalism and liberalism â and internationalism. Him being nationalist doesn't change a thing. Haven't you read anything I have written in the previous post? Using arguments from antagonistic lefties trying to define/defend themselves are not the way to go, Capisce?
In the 1920/30s there was Right socialism and Left dito and it was nothing controversial about it. Fascism came about in the radical milieu of communism and syndicalism where Mussolini was a major player. When Mussolini coined Fascism he was still a member of the revolutionary socialistic movement. During the big strikes in the factories (1920) he tried hard to force the socialistic leaders to join him (while shouting their language).
When the strikes ebbed out M's nationalism became really prominent. Until then it had been rather low key. A right turn -Yes â but on the left hand side of the fence.
Besides the political and historical evidence that F is a left hand side product, we have a psychological one. I'm sure you are aware of Adornos' study on authoritarian personality? He constructed the F-scale and you know what? Both fascist and commies scored almost the same extreme results. Who would have thunk?
Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what's really interesting, ergo the proofs of the right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?
Olaus, you don't have to write a detailed explanation. Could you give a summary, or at least a basic explanation? Or is it as complex, as say, Climate Science, and to really understand it, it can't be summarized in a short one sentence proof?
This chart might help you better understand.....the political spectrum is not linear. It's not just a scale from left to right, as you can see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European-political-spectrum.png
Olaus my comment @955 is a reply to your comment @915 just to clarify.
The chart also explains why Communist and Fascist scored relatively closely in your example since they are both Authoritarian minded. And of course you said it was a test of Authoritarian personalities. Who would of thunk???? lol
JRC # 956
I have never said that it is a Q of only left and right when analyzing politics. I guess what I'm really saying is that we cannot understand and guard ourself from the development of fascism if we use an anachronistic way of understanding politics and ideology.
How can we otherwise properly understand Chavez recent nationalistic vocabulary? Has he suddenly become right wing?
Your scheme is interesting and I have of course seen many times it before. Not surprisingly I believe it needs some modifications. There is also a weakness with schemes of that kind since they lack dynamics and can't help you understand change (over time).
Regarding you contrafactual Q, I don't fancy it because the answers will be so shallow and open to criticism. That said , the number one action would be to reinforce research on nuclear energy, thorium, cold fusion, etc that has a fair chance â in short period of time â to come up with a substitute for fossil fuel.
JRC #958, please don't reduce this discussion to singularities. The F-scale becomes interesting only if you combine it with the historical facts I have presented.
You also need to stop viewing "socialism" (and all ideologies) as something static. It isn't.
Hit a nerve doesn't it?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning…
Like Mr Watts I think this quote is right (not Left) on the money. It also illustrate how futile the cryings of a multi-billion right wing denial industry really are:
"Finally, âcoordinatedâ? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism."
As far as understanding a Chavez type. He is an authoritarian, and in the process wants even more control, so he moved to the right but no less an authoritarian. As far as your idea of more research, I have no problem with that, and I'm sure many don't, but I would include solar, wind, and hydro as part of the solution. As far as claiming it's a contrafactual question, it's not because the facts and evidence support that it is real. But I guess in your bizarro world it's contrafactual. I see you doing your little dance though. Quick question, is the Iranian government leftist or rightist? This is an elementary question, that I feel you probably will get wrong.
Food for thought even for some of you deltoids? Professor Curry comments Gleick's Heartland strategy:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/
Olaus, if the skeptics are winning, it has nothing to do with the weakness of the evidence. (Winning will only last so long, because reality and nature doesn't care about what you or I think) It has to do with most people not understanding science for one. Spinning science into bite size bits that seem reasonable, but are in fact false number two. I'll list more later because I'm going to visit my grandmother here shortly.....but just an example I recently got an e-mail about the danger of margarine and how it was just one molecule (even if they meant atom) away from being plastic. Well don't drink water because it's just one atom away from being hydrogen peroxide. That's how they are winning. Take something and make it sound correct. But it isn't. There is much more to chemistry than just the atoms and molecules as we know with CO2. But if you don't know that geometry of a molecule is important then the whole atom away from something else seems reasonable as unreasonable as it really is.
Olaus
In politics, Left = Labor and Right = Capital. This isnât a new thing. It has been this way for a couple of hundred years. You don't get to change definitions of well-established terms whenever you feel like it.
Tim
I think that Olaus has infested so much in this thread, that you should just name it in his honor
(and here I was thinking that bad spelling was a handicap).
JRC #963, That wasn't fair. It sure is contrafactual since you explicitly told me "If" CAGW was true, yet you came up with "bizarro". So much for me giving in.
Your, as it turned out, very stupid Q was based on URGENY, and from that perspective my suggested research focus was rational since possible break-throughs in nuclear power etc appear (to me) to be within reach.
Do I really have to spell out that I don't mind research on solar, wind etc? Amazing!
Chavez sure is becoming more and more authoritarian but the most interesting part is that he's becoming more and more nationalist. Still he is the golden boy of the extreme left.
Comments?
Elpsi, then you agree with me? Both nazism and fascism is about the wellbeing of the working class. Please read what has been said before you comment.
But like I said to JCR, it is not about singularities. Get it?
Can you please bring something to the table that carries a bit more thought?
Or, more preferably, give me some facts about the right-wing multi-billion denial machine?
Can the stupidity that seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?
Of course it can. Just see Petri's next comment.
Tim, one of the things that I like about this blog are the varying views and comments from intelligent, clued-up people.
One of the things I now detest about this blog is the Scandinavian Troll Collective running wild disrupting any and every thread.
Please contain them or ban them - either action works for me. Essentially they add nothing except depths of ignorance that would embarrass Watts.
Oh dear, chek resurfaces and even deltoids reach for the kidney dishes.
And Chek, your latest ether pile was a bit rich, even for you. Olaus:
"seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?!
On the contrary my friend, I hunger for more information concerning this so called multi-billion right wing denial machine. Heartland is about tiny 6.4 million and only bread crumbs of that sum deals with climate related subjects.
And ckek, You hate diversity of opinions. It annoys you to the length that you loose it. Your presence here brings no substance but plenty of hate and scary longings towards Jeff and Tim.
Keep your projections of what *you* think is happening Petri.
Your 'diversity of opinions' are ten a penny on any rubbish denialist blog which I mainly choose to avoid apart from occasional rare recce visits. It's time consuming enough keeping abreast of even a good cross-section of the wortwhile, intelligent ones.
Take your 'diversity' back to your own climateidiots blog, and suffer the lack of attention your loonytoon views naturally attract and stop piggybacking this venue in the vain hope for whatever validation you so desperately crave.
[Heartland payola to certain journalist(s)](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/24/christo…)?
I think this (from David Evans)needs a proper debunking.
http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case
Olaus, still doesn't understand that this thread has long since ceased to be about whether Fascism is of the right or left (if it ever was about that). This thread has become a case study in denial - the refusal to concede the most trivial error, despite being presented with copious evidence. It is a metaphor for all denial.
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
But: "The National Socialists, as the strongest party of the right, have shown...that they have a firm, positive relationship to Christianity", Otto Dibelius, Lutheran Superintendant General of the Kurmark, 1930
> Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what's really interesting
Any time you are ready, Olaus. You know what you need to do - stop making this thread about you, man up, admit you made a mistake, and then we can talk about the:
>"right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?".
Will Olaus' pathology force him defend his hopeless point, even though it means he himself is sabotaging the discussion he would like to have? Or can he concede the point to get what he wants? It's like the kid who grabbed too many cookies and got his hand caught in the cookie jar - if he can let go of one cookie, he'll get several cookies. But can he?
I can't wait for our next installment...
Until then, here's a little [musical interlude](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybxR7uiDGM).
freemike @ 973
Climate science deniers like Evans are masters of the zombie* argument. It does not matter how many times it is debunked, it keeps rising from the grave.
His zombie arguments are debunked here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
* zombie - a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means.
There's certain types of links I never bother with.
Why?:
POST [n1]:
COMMENT [xN]:
COMMENT ['<'xN]:
COMMENT [xN]:
COMMENT ['<<'xN]
COMMENT [xN + n1]:
COMMENT ['<'xN]:
COMMENT [xN]:
ALL [â '<<'xN]:
FrankD,
On that musical interlude I was expecting The Horst Wessel Song.
Olaus is in a place where logic and science cannot reach.
Bill above mentioned the "Breivik ideological hinterlands"
If it is not there it is close by.
It's an objective fact that you defended your use of links against his "Can't you speak for yourself?" attack. The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it's not warming. You can point to your comment about informed opinion, but that falls squarely into the territory of begging the question. As I said, to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection ... the use of links wasn't the issue and isn't an issue, as we all use them. What is the issue is that OP is a dishonest sack of feces and engaging with him is stepping in it.
Nor, most importantly, ethics.
There wasn't any non-genuine info in the Rather memos, either. Molly Ivins had exposed Bush back when he was the "compassionate conservative" governor of Texas, and Lt. Col. Killian's secretary said that, while she didn't type those memos, their content was consistent with Killian's opinions.
> The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it's not warming.
The problem with your specific critique is that practically **anything** one does can be used to justify denialist behaviour, precisely because most of that behaviour and justifications for it **are not rational**.
Life's too short to go to that level of granularity of analysis on every comment, wondering whether there's a way a denialist can twist it. (At least for me - yours may differ.)
*Especially* since the answer almost always is "yes". It's far more fruitful to attack the twist and the misinformation, regardless of source.
In this specific case it matters not one whit whether denialists use links and claim that "others do it too so it must be legitimate"; what matters is whether the information (whether typed in, or referenced via a link) stands up to informed scrutiny. I think we agree on that point. However, on:
> ...to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection.
Perhaps you missed the "you're demonstrating you're full of shit if you need to stoop to that fallacy" undertones in my response to Petri? Too subtle, perhaps?
You disappoint me, L, but I will not go further with you on this because I have too much respect and appreciation for what you most of the time.
On the Bush affair, here's a piece that gives the details I alluded to above (the original Dallas News link is dead):
http://simbaud.blogspot.com/2004/09/phony-memos-accurate-info.html
Make that "what you do".
re: 603 FrankD
Sorry, life has been very busy.
I don't know about the laws. In general, whether or not one went public, one certainly might well bring it to the relevant authorities. I think it depends on what it is, and whether or not you think the government will grind on it fast enough to be useful.
re #977 Mike H
...and then the little turkey accused me of Godwinning him! Goog grief; you know, this from the charming little bloke who - along with his equally contemptible (and equally ignorant) cohort - is busily attempting to prove that because we're all Left (!) we're all Nazis (!!).
Of course, irony is completely lost on such - well, I was going to say 'minds', but let's just say 'states of neural electrical activity*', shall we? ;-)
*the problem being that they lead to typing...
Olaus, if you look at how little money thinktanks received from tobacco companies compared to the hundreds of millions that went into cancer research, it shows exactly how stupid Watts is. FUD is easy, really easy. It does not require much money to lie, distort and deceive, especially when the general public does not have the required knowledge to see through those lies, distortions and deceipt.
Sorry Frank,
You do the same mistake again, using un-contextualized quotes, this time from a christianity leader justifying his support for nazism in the fighting against internationalism. The indeed national-conservative Dibelius had to make this rational, not the least thanks to Hitlerisms of this kind:
âThe heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianityâs illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.â
Siding with such a movement needed advanced rhetorics, don't you agree? On top of that was Hitlers progressivism (or revolutionary) something alien to conservatives:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Even though I don't like to compare ideological standpoints with real politics (ideology usually don't match its practice) it's rather stunning that Hitler's reforms were very advanced for his times. And please don't tell me again that Hitlers's socialism was based on ethnicity and race and hence wasn't real socialism. There is no real socialism, but socialisms. Some uglier than others.
Many people and organizations became faithful to nazism, but that only meant that they became nazis, not that they remained Right (definition-wise). How could they? The war on the bourgeoisie society was, roughly described, a two front one, and the victorious part became the nationalistic branch, not the international.
Any comments on Mussolini?
And it's only in you brain that I side left leaning people with nazis, so no Godwin on my part.
What about the multi-billion right-wing conspiracy?
Any thoughts on this peace?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702036460045772132440844295…
Professor Judith Curry: "this time they hit the nail on the head".
Olaus, my thoughts are quite aptly summarised by Barry Bickmore:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-w…
Amongst others the Op-Ed contains a SCANDALOUS distortion of the facts by leaving out the confidence interval. Judith Curry likes to hype the uncertainty so much, and then comes out and supports an Op-Ed that deliberately leaves out the confidence interval!
Equally 'hilarious', if it weren't so funny, the discussion on Spencer & Braswell. A paper that contains basic flaws, ranging from statistics (confidence intervals? Why add those, Mark I eyeball works best!) to leaving out inconvenient data. If Judith Curry cannot see the basic flaws, she does not belong in science.
> Any thoughts on this peace?
Yes - that you're [quite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…) distinctly [slow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…) on the [uptake](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#c…), Petri.
And if you click through to Bickmore's brief critique (and the excellent first comment), Curry appears to reveal that she is unable to detect basic pseudo-scientific deception - nor does she appreciate risk mitigation in the face of uncertainty, even though it has been clearly pointed out to her.
Goodness me, after having it repeatedly explained, Olaus still doesn't get it, or else is assuming that nobody else does. Extraordinary!
Well, as Einstein (I think) said it, the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Olaus has shown he would not be convinced by an encyclopedia of quotes showing that he was wrong when he said:
>In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.
I never expected to do so, and having proved that point, most likely wont be posting further for now.
I'm sure I annoyed some by cluttering up the thread, but I hope it served a purpose; I've had many discussions where people were asked "what would it take for you to change your mind about climate change?" Generally, "warmists" (sic) are able to answer that question with some precision; X years with an temperature anomaly below Y is the usual formulation. In my experience, "deniers" (sic) do not, but waft a lot of high-tone bafflegab about "definitive proof" and such like.
And here is the thing (well-known, but still worth reminding from time to time): There is NO level of proof, however definitive, that can convince somone who is in denial to shift their position. They are simply incapable of incorporating new evidence into their mind-map. Olaus, of course, compounds this problem with a narcissism and authoritarianism that speaks of an actual pathology.
No troll can ever be persuaded of anything. Though they can be smacked down from time to time. GSW's brief return here reminded me of [the funniest thing I've ever read on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…). GSW perfectly illustrated the resistence to new information when he ignored six people trying to warn / explain how badly he was being forked and at the end, still didn't get it.
> GSW's brief return here reminded me of the funniest thing I've ever read on Deltoid.
Seconded.
I could not believe how long it went on without him twigging to it.
I think that she has figured that out and is looking for another day job. Is it true that they are opening a 'Curry Wing' at 'The Heartland Club'?
PS Desmog doesn't seem to be accessible at present, has been like this for the last three hours to my knowledge.
Dear Frank,
Sorry to disappoint you, but I prefer to contextualize historical quotes. You don't apparently. But that's not my fault. None of your quotes were made as attempts to analyze fascism and national socialism, but to make political stunts. Can't you see the difference?
Until you are ready again to debate why anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society isn't very lefty, I wish you all the besty. You might think otherwise, but I found our little differences interesting.
Hopefully someone got a bit wiser, not the least regarding how to place Hugo Chaves on then political map based on his nationalistic lingo.
Lets focus on the Right Wing multi-billion conspiracy then.
Take care!
Olaus
Labor opposed the Fascists/Nazis.
Capital (Henry Ford and many others in Germany and Italy) bankrolled the Fascists/Nazis.
The Fascists/Nazis opposed Labor and supported Capital.
Hitler sent the Labor organizers to Auschwitz first.
QED