This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Has anyone else been following the "Fakegate" shennanigans ?
http://joannenova.com.au/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/ have several interesting articles on it (Along with many entertaining comments from the peanut gallery )
Yes I was snowed under with Green blogs reporting the news story straight off the PR agency press release. Especially with the phrases lifted from the fake document.
- but now it's very quiet that climate scientist Peter Gleick has confessed. He claims he used deception to obtain the second set of documents to test the credibility of the one sent to him(the fake one).. but why didn't he just ask for another copy of that document in the same way ? and why does that document among other errors contain dating information to show it was scanned after he received the others just as if he'd made it up by "enhancing" info from the second set ?
- You can tell the credibility of a news sources by the speed with which they correct a story compared to the speed they published in the first place
Considering Peter Gleick is the chairman selected by the American Geophysical Union to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity , He seems to lacking in any of the requirements of His job description . But it is the age of post-normal science so I suppose they`ve got post-normal ethics and integrity to go with it .
- The central message of the aggressive press release constructed by DeSmogBlog & published immediately without checking on almost every greenleft blog on the internet was
"Anti-science agenda revealed" "groups seeks to undermine school science agenda"
which would make it seem like the exposers were the people saving school science
- but now the first guy who admits he was behind the supposed exposee has just resigned from The National Center for Science Education
NCSE accepts Gleick’s resignation
- is that a victory for people who deny there is NO debate about the climate being in crisis ?
The thing that perplexes/frustrates Me the most about the whole affair is warmists who justify their support of Gliek`s actions by continued quoting of the fake document/s even after said warmists have acknowledged that it`s a fake !
Their position is that even though the memo is a fake , with some of the statements in it being diametrically opposed to Heartland`s stated position on many issues , They would like the memo to be true , therefore it is .
In concurrence with Our host ,I`m of the opinion CAGW seems to be a composite of the worst parts of religion with all it`s trappings of blind faith ,indulgences,high priests and "higher" realities with none of the philanthropy .
now resources are officially correlated here
"In this upside down world, Heartland are the ones trying to start a science debate on a shoestring budget, while the establishment scientists, with - "10,000 times the funding, debate whether they should steal things instead.
- The so-called “hero” scientists hurl names and unscientific ad-homs in lieu of evidence and reason."
- yes SPIN is the backstory; a green public relations agency created the whole lying narrative then wrapped it up in emotion with loaded words "denier" & the new one "Anti-science agenda" and served it up to people of a dogma group, who love it as it confirms what they already believe.
- It worked very well press release & the green blogosphere cut & pasted it everywhere. And the useful idiot press like Guardian & BBC Environment pages compliantly posted it as well.
- A proper skeptical-science blog pasted it & when I suggested delicately that they should apply some critical thinking. The Scientific blogger replied with a bizarre volley of aggression saying "denier" "propaganda" "troll"
- I think maybe Climate Skeptics are the new black people ..ie that bloggers feelings are similar to my grandmothers knee-jerk racism. A real irrational fear "They are DENIERS you can't trust them, they are all evil, it's all big company propaganda" .. (My grandmother used the unPC word beginning with N, but note how "denier" is used in the same way)
- Those 1000s of green blogs who don't even question that PR, They've just gone straight on to arguments about whether it's OK to use fraud to expose the truth ... but the point is the story is NOT true ..Heartland are opening up the debate; the greens are the ones closing down.
- outside the green bubble ..people say "A Climate scientist published something deceptive ...what's new ?" but still BBC & Guardian et have clout
- back to Fakegate.org
they don't mince their words there is a very recent WSJ video where the Heartland director just says outright "we know he actually faked the incriminanitng document after he purloined the genuine ones"
a correction later slightly backtracks "I mistakenly stated The Heartland Institute has concluded Peter Gleick forged the climate strategy memo he released to DeSmog Blog, Think Progress, and other bloggers and Web sites. That is not the case. The document indeed is fake" ..but we are still investigating
Gleick (& assistants ?) uses a key phrase in the document which only he commonly uses ..
In summary it's made by cutting and pasting parts of some genuine phrases from the stolen documents & putting new words around them to make incriminating sentences ..this allows the Green blogs to say "see those words are used in the genuine documents" & not question the narrative.
My take :
- Team A say "look we have proof Team B they are cheat & lie, have a massive PR machine, have massive funding from big oil & they want to stop proper science in schools". They then wrap this up in emotion with loaded words "denier" & the new one "Anti-science agenda" serve it to people of a dogma group, who love it as it confirms what they already believe.
- Meanwhile actually Team A have a massive PR, machine, have massive funding from big oil ... etc. & are deny anyone a debate & prefer dogma over science & have proved Team B have minimal funding from big oil while they themselves cheat & lie
I've noticed a disturbing tendency around this story to use the term "stolen" about memos and such. In normal usage "stolen" implies (and is so defined in the British Theft Acts) the intent permanently to deprive the owner of the benefit of the stolen item. While it's arguable that, say, taking a copy of a recording which is for sale is depriving the copyright-holder of the sale he would otherwise have made I'd say that was pushing the definition to the absolute limit. Certainly the abstraction of data, whether from the Heartland Institute or the CRU, cannot reasonably be defined as such since the owner still has full use of it.
In Greek (and probably other) museums they ask people not to take photographs because the objects concerned are the subject of unpublished research. Given the "publish or perish" academic ethos, deeply unscientific though it is, this is a reasonable request with which I am happy to abide, but the same reasoning cannot apply to data collected at taxpayers' expense or internal memos, however embarrassing their contents may be.
focusing on the word stolen is a distraction from the main issues of this story. but I'll explain it anyway
- If the Saturday Daily Mirror obtained a copy of the Sun on Sunday's front page story & published it ..would you say the Sun on Sunday still have the original document so haven't had anything stolen ?
I discussed the technique of using weasel words to spin, frame & prejudice a debate earlier
In the case of Climategate the word hacked or stolen were used to spin & frame the debate in a negative way, by the impressive green PR machine.
- The BBC should never have used that word as there was & still is after millions of pounds of police spending no evidence to say whether it was the negative of a fraud, hack or theft or the neutral/positive of a leak by an insider.
Note how the same Green websites don't "Wikileaks has stolen" they say "Wikileaks has published"
- In the case of MPs expenses we don't talk of the information being stolen either as there was a strong case of 1. it being in the public interest & 2. the information been owned by the public anyway.
- Similarly in Climategate CRU is a public body & there was a strong "public interest" as some emails disclosed possibly illegal activity like evading FOI requests. And that many of the emails covered material which FOI requests had not be complied with. In all the publication was a positive thing for the public. (I am not aware of any private issues being discussed)
- The Heartland case is different
- stolen, purloined, hacked, fraudantly obtained they are all negative and illegal & Gleick has admitted breaking the law.
- Neither can there be a public interest defense, as once Heartland had started making the science education materials it would hardly be secret anymore. And it can't have been a very big plan given the alledged budget. Furthermore the information does not belong to public as Heartland is private. It's annual budget has always been published on it's website & it did used to publish the info about donors until they started to get harassed)
- Even if they did find something in the documents the public interest like a bribe or tax fraud it still would be an illegal act otherwise anybody could hack into anybody and say "I know they have done something illegal, but I just haven't found it yet".
Possibly if incriminating evidence was obtained by illegal means that might provide Heartland with a legal getout.
- Indeed now the Green spin department is attempting to frame the debate by using the word "leak" ..what like the way the way the News Of The World "leaked" Milly Dowlers voicemails ?
The word leak would not stand up in court.
- I would say the word stolen is not being used maliciously in the Heartland event. Like the Mirror case if in Climategate a not yet published CRU report had been published then you could say it's been stolen.
Information does have a value eg. it's release might spoil Heartland's campaign launch the campaign party & fund raising etc. Indeed one reason behind the DeSmogBlogs first press release might have been to spur on the Green educationalists to get on with making what they would call "Anti-denier" educational materials, meaning Heartland has to spend a hell of a lot more to get it's message over than it would have otherwise.
So are the ones fundraising to put their "Climate Change" classes into schools ?
even more upside down
Peter Gleick - "I've got these secret documents that show Heartland a right wing think tank the evil deniers have a secret agenda to flood US schools with “climate denier” material. Here have a press release"
- "and what do you do ?"
PG - "ah well 5 weeks ago I started a job writing "climate change" education material" on Jan13th for NCSE left wing think tank , so we are fund raising for it .. you can see the Jan13th website...it repeats most of the phrases in the press release I just gave you"
PG- "oh dear, I've just resigned from that job. Apparently the fact I'm involved in stolen & faked documents might effect the fund-raising. Thank god my green blog mates are still piling on the NCSE fund-raising log posts slagging Heartland, but keeping my name out of it"
- "you won't get away with it"
PG - "Well actually it's not even a new idea. My mates have pulled exactly the same double flip scam in the past .."
- the short explanation
- more with duplicate case from the past
- NCSE exact quotes
- Example of green blog first post where she called me "DENIER" "shut-up"
- Her 3rd post fundraising omitting PG's name
Truly upside down world
BTW did you hear the one about "Climate scientists are getting death threats" ... well not with the verified police report you'd expect.