More on Fakegate!

[badhatharry]

It looks like Peter Gleick is the guilty party. But he did it for a good cause!

Wow! They sound really terrible people these climate deniers and bad scientists who dig their heels in and defend their faulty paradigm to the bitter end. Thank goodness there are men like Dr Peter Gleick out there, wielding their swords of truth, righting wrongs, and exhibiting moral standards the corrupt, evil, Koch-Industries-funded deniers of the lavishly paid and thoroughly evil denial industry could never hope to match!

[graz]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It looks like Peter Gleick is the guilty party. But he did it for a good cause!

Humanity is putting its foot on the accelerator even though the world’s top scientists and governments have repeatedly explained we are headed over a cliff. The people who will suffer the most are people who have not contributed to this *impending catastrophe — *future generations and the poorest among us.
This is such a colossally immoral and unethical act — *collectively and in many cases individually — that most people, including the overwhelming majority of the so-called intelligentsia, simply choose to ignore it on a daily basis. That won’t save a livable climate, however, nor it will stop future generations from cursing our names.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...ce=twitterfeed

[badhatharry]

Megan McArdle weighs in. Right on and spread the word! Too bad the last sentence isn't true, evidenced by people who hang around here.

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

[graz]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Too bad the last sentence isn't true, evidenced by people who hang around here.

There are no "people" hanging around here, wingnut. Just one propaganda spewing denialist and me. If you believe the last word rests with McMegan ... well of course you wood.

[badhatharry]

Andy Revkin can always be counted on for sanity.

The only people I see out there in the climate fight who – as far as I can tell — never admit to an error are people with agendas from which they can never stray. They’re perfect.

The warmists must be so upset about this disruption in their efforts to save the planet. Such a distraction for these tireless warriors. I really think Rupert Murdoch must have had something to do with all this.

[badhatharry]

Godwin lives at the LA Times:

According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, among other things, that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy."

That is a lie so big that, to quote from "Mein Kampf," it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

[graz]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Andy Revkin can always be counted on for sanity.

From the previous link that you failed to comprehend, natch:

Again, Revkin has zero credibility in his statements about Gleick and he should retract them.
Revkin writes, “I won’t speculate on how the legal aspects of this story might play out.” Gosh, he’s happy to say there’s no crime in Climategate until the police weigh in.
He writes, Gleick’s “admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.” *Why? Does Revkin have any evidence to back up this “suspicion.” Is he no longer a journalist but just a guy who passes on suspicions from the blogosphere and from an organization known for*“spreading misinformation” and “personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals”?

[badhatharry]

Gleick was slotted to head the effort to educate the children in unambiguous terms about the dangers of global warming. Maybe he could add a section on scientific ethics and integrity.

“The cavalry has arrived. NCSE, with its passion and experience defending science in our schools, will ensure that teachers can educate students about climate change without fear of reprisal.”
"Dr. Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute, has joined NCSE’s board of directors. Gleick, a world-renowned water expert, will advise NCSE on its new climate change education initiative."

I understand Heartland is working on some curriculum. Maybe the NCSE can use that while Gleick recovers.

[graz]

Wingnut welfare queen Joseph Bast who heads up the Heartland Institute For Making Shit Up And Cashing Big Checks received an email from retired US Air Force Colonel Gary Wamsley that read, as follows:

From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:16 PM
To: Joseph Bast
Subject: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign

You should be ashamed of yourself. The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet.

You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you.

Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF, Retired

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/02...f-a-big-pussy/

[badhatharry]

This movie should finally clear things up for everyone.

"We're really upset about global warming. We just don't know why."

[badhatharry]

Here's the mission statement from the AGU. The head of this task force (until last week) was none other than Peter Gleick.

“AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ 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."

This kind of reminds me of that journalistic organization headed by Froma Harrop (can't forget that name) that wanted to uphold respect as a value when speaking about any side of a story. I think they used to call that journalism. How quaint.

You gotta love these mission statements. If you say you want to uphold something, people presume that you do. Then you can get away with pretty much anything...until you go crazy as Mr. Gleick did.

[graz]

5 Tactics for Mis-Educating Kids About Climate Change:
1. Create Controversy Where There is None
2. Exploit the “Radical Media’s” Inherent Reasonableness
3. Demonize the Nation’s Hardworking Educators
4. Play the Worried Parent Card
5. Paint with the Government Conspiracy Brush

From the Heartland: An Inside Look at the Extreme Right’s War on K-12 Climate and Environmental Education

[badhatharry]

I don't know, maybe he's crazy!

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position--so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn't have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment

Those skeptics can drive some people to the brink!

[graz]

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/02...-to-enumerate/

Megan McArdle says:
Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:49

Brummagen Joe: Define “downplay”. Is that a technical term?

So, along with that MBA, I guess we can discount that degree in English Literature from Penn.

Since the brain trust at the Heartland Institute are too busy emailing out internal documents to anyone who asks when they’re not advancing money to Dr. Mbongo of Nigeria in return for a 20% cut of embargoed government funds, I guess we will have to depend on McMegan to solve this great memo mystery.

Hopefully that food processor has a kerning setting…

[badhatharry]

I don't know for sure but this could be true. Sounds like something people might have a look at...despite the consensus.

People with sound science on their side do not need to forge documents to validate their arguments or make the other side look bad. Also, people who are so desperate as to forge documents in an attempt to frame their rivals are clearly not above forging scientific data, studies and facts to similarly further their cause

[badhatharry]

Missing! $468,000 dollars of EPA grant money. I wonder if I should start a new thread. I could call it epagrantgate.

Decisions! decisions!

[badhatharry]

I like Ike!

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I like Ike!

Yeah, it fits your narrative so well!

[badhatharry]

Thank you! I thought so, also. All those government funded scientists with billion $$$ budgets complaining about a private organization with a comparatively miniscule budget. "They're screwing with our agenda to save the world!"

Ike had it going on! No comb-over, either!

And predictably, none of this gives you pause.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Thank you! I thought so, also. All those government funded scientists with billion $$$ budgets complaining about a private organization with a comparatively miniscule budget. "They're screwing with our agenda to save the world!"

Ike had it going on! No comb-over, either!

And predictably, none of this gives you pause.

There's something called climate change, with an anthropogenic component that may create great havoc for the entire planet, that draws my attention a little bit more than this petty stuff that you seem to find so important. So, true these quarrels don't give me pause, but I would encourage you to stop and think after putting some perspective in the topic. Although you've been clinging to anything that could possibly blemish the idea of AGW with such desperation, that perhaps we should just let you go on with it until it gets warm enough for you up in those beautiful mountains.

There will be more fights among peripheral groups. The oil industry won't let this alone, there's much profit at risk. So, you have it made if this is the battle you decided to pick.

It feels lonely over here, I admit.

[badhatharry]

I'm so sorry to have been remiss in my updates about Fakegate. I know all of you are reading with rapt interest. I must confess my other life (on the stage) has consumed me this weekend as family members came great distances to attend the last weekend performances of our play.

But as my sister is showering, I thought I'd select something new to chew on. Judith Curry wonders "Why Heartland?"

With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered. Okay, maybe the HI are actually the baddest guys in town from the perspective of the alarmists. The irony of Gleick committing professional seppuku over getting information about stuff that is either generally known or suspected or regarded as no big deal. When all he had to do was ask Joseph Bast some questions, and he would have told him all sorts of things (just not the names of the donors, which aren’t all that interesting anyways.)

[badhatharry]

PS: to Ocean, I don't have time to read your post now...but I will.

[badhatharry]

OK, my sister is still getting ready for her flight home so while I'm at it, I'll include a nice perspective from John Horgan. Lots of 'ifs'.

But another philosopher my students and I are reading, the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, said that judging acts according to intentions is not enough. We also have to look at consequences. And if Gleick’s deception has any consequences, they will probably be harmful. His exposure of the Heartland Institute’s plans, far from convincing skeptics to reconsider their position, will probably just confirm their suspicions about environmentalists. Even if Gleick’s lie was morally right, it was strategically wrong.

I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

There's something called climate change, with an anthropogenic component that may create great havoc for the entire planet, that draws my attention a little bit more than this petty stuff that you seem to find so important. So, true these quarrels don't give me pause, but I would encourage you to stop and think after putting some perspective in the topic. Although you've been clinging to anything that could possibly blemish the idea of AGW with such desperation, that perhaps we should just let you go on with it until it gets warm enough for you up in those beautiful mountains.

There will be more fights among peripheral groups. The oil industry won't let this alone, there's much profit at risk. So, you have it made if this is the battle you decided to pick.

It feels lonely over here, I admit.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Stop and think after putting some perspective in the topic? What can this mean?

You seem to have the opinion that the character of the people who are on your side of the issue isn't important and yet you cling to the meme of your 97% and want to trust them and the people who conducted the study... because? And, how can it feel lonely amongst such an overwhelming majority?

This whole thing has been handled incredibly badly ever since Gore burst upon the scene with his apocalyptic visions and predictions... none of which have come true or were set so far in the future that it was impossible to test their veracity or accuracy. He thought he could scare the crap out of people and that would be that. It is not the oil companies who have influenced the majority of skeptics who are still in possession of their common sense.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Stop and think after putting some perspective in the topic? What can this mean?

It means that with this kind of topic which involves: A) considering a major natural disaster, with the possibility of affecting billions of lives, even if projected into future decades, and B) it also involves looking for possible solutions or palliative measures, energy sources, and huge amounts of capital, looking at fights between people on one side or the other isn't really important. It's plainly distracting.

You seem to have the opinion that the character of the people who are on your side of the issue isn't important and yet you cling to the meme of your 97% and want to trust them and the people who conducted the study... because? And, how can it feel lonely amongst such an overwhelming majority?

If you think about it, "the people who are on my side" are thousands of scientists and many thousands more of people of all kinds of background and millions (or billions) more who are really concerned about what's going on with climate. So, the character (or the mistakes) of a few, isn't all that relevant to the total.

If you've ever been in the middle of a situation where the stakes are really high, a life or death situation, you will probably know that people get overly excitable and passionate about their views. But none of that passion and excitability affects the objective data that's being collected. Computer models don't get easily annoyed. Statistical analysis doesn't get biased one way or the other. And every time there's a review of the data and the way it's been analyzed, the resulting opinion seems to be quite consistent in the general direction, although there margin of error is such that the degree or the time frame in which the most alarming events may occur varies.

This whole thing has been handled incredibly badly ever since Gore burst upon the scene with his apocalyptic visions and predictions... none of which have come true or were set so far in the future that it was impossible to test their veracity or accuracy. He thought he could scare the crap out of people and that would be that. It is not the oil companies who have influenced the majority of skeptics who are still in possession of their common sense.

You should move on and forget about Gore. He served a role to communicate the problem, perhaps in an exaggerated way. But even if exaggerated, it doesn't invalidate the problem. Just take him out of your equation and look at the data as it is.

Of course, if you prefer to believe that tiny minority of skeptics, who are not the most recognized authority in the field, then you can continue your campaign here.

But every time you use the argument "scientists are saying this to get more money for themselves" or similar claims, think about why it would be that this particular kind of scientist would be so unethical. Or are you implying that all scientists are equally unethical? Biologists? Physicists? Chemists? How come we're enjoying all kinds of scientific discoveries and advances if these people are so corrupt? Don't you find some incongruity in that kind of assessment?

Anyway, many people have tried to debate this issue with you and you don't seem to be receptive, so I'll leave it there. Sometimes it is what it is.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Anyway, many people have tried to debate this issue with you and you don't seem to be receptive, so I'll leave it there.

Actually, there's been no debate at all. The only thing I have ever been able to get out of this crowd is disdain for my supposed disregard for the planet. Mention skepticism about climate change science and the self righteous knives come out. Not even one ounce of curiosity. By my estimation, none of you , except Starwatcher has any notion about the science or even the controversy. All you know is that if we don't do some unspecified something we're doomed! Sheep in sheeps's clothing!

"Forget Gore, tiny group of unqualified skeptics, continue your campaign here"...

Some campaign! This is your usual dismissive style which I guess in some circles is effective. I find it funny and illustrative of your personality.

Sometimes it is what it is

pretty much always.

[badhatharry]

Denier websites win the lot!!!!

Could this be some kind of consensus? Those big bad oil companies have done it again with this tiny group of unqualified skeptics!

Best Science or Technology weblog: Watts Up with That
Best Australian or New Zealand weblog: JoNova
Best European weblog: Tallbloke Talkshop
Best Canadian weblog: Climate Audit
Lifetime Achievement Award: Watts Up with That

[badhatharry]

So when last we met, Ocean expressed her opinion of Fakegate:

There's something called climate change, with an anthropogenic component that may create great havoc for the entire planet, that draws my attention a little bit more than this petty stuff that you seem to find so important.

So there is something which may cause havoc (pretty technical stuff, I'm impressed!) and this draws her attention. But one of the people who is one of her experts and is saying the things which are drawing her attention has stolen and falsified documents. She doesn't seem to see a connection and calls pointing this out petty. This guy doesn't. This guy used to be Gleick's boss:

During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity

These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.

Good for this guy.

[badhatharry]

Lindzen explains it all:

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

[graz]

Bait and switch.

[graz]

Does Al Gore have as many vehicles as Romney?

[badhatharry]

I realize that Michael Kelly is only the Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering at Cambridge University and has no business weighing in on a subject with a 97% consensus, but nevertheless, the dummy had something to say:

Sir, Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group. The interpretation of the observational science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm. All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts — if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?

Silly, silly man. I guess he hasn't looked in the ocean. That's where the warming is hiding.

[badhatharry]

Such a wise and sensible woman...that Judith Curry.

The most recent IPCC assessment report states: “Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.

[graz]

I must be those "green" lightbulbs and fixtures that CA mandated you install in your "business" that have made the difference. Nice work, and thanks for your contribution.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So when last we met, Ocean expressed her opinion of Fakegate:

We've got to admit that your determination and stubbornness sometimes seem to outweigh your ignorance and lack of reasoning skills.

Trying to discuss this topic with you is like talking to a rock, it doesn't hear, it doesn't understand, it doesn't see and of course, it doesn't reason. It keeps showing the same surface dirt that was thrown at it (your imaginary internet awards, for example).

Read a short article and see if you can open up your mind a bit.

Yes, bitter Alice, you're tiring too!

[graz]

So you think shaming is the way to go? A steady diet of Limbaugh, Steyn and Hannity has left her with one goal. Try everyday and in every way to piss off a liberal. I don't think she has the imagination required to fathom that you might actually pity her. Am I right, or what?

[badhatharry]

The climate change causes everything and is the reason things are the way they are. Hell, it even explains graz's personality.

[badhatharry]

So nice of you to stop by. I thought you were done with all of this. You are such a silly woman with your silly insults.

I actually read this article earlier this morning.

The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe

So here we have an opening sentence which warns us about a threat. That's the kind of stuff that really speaks to you, eh? And the threat is increasingly important not only to this guy and you too, probably but to the globe. He makes a definitive statement thinking that absolutely everyone will agree with him. I'm guessing everyone he knows is just like you. Bad start.

Then the fellow tells us that he has trouble accessing skeptics' views because they are scattered over the internet. Geez! If I knew he was having trouble I would have suggested a Google search. Not only that, but in the sidebar of every skeptic site is a list of all kinds of climate sites of all stripes.

This guy is not interested in addressing skeptics' arguments or even learning what they are. Someone told him he could make fast work of those silly guys who wrote that silly letter to the WSJ. His effort was pretty pathetic and what the heck are you doing offering an economist's view? I thought only real live certified climate scientists were allowed to weigh in.

Here are his questions:

• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

1) Yes and the 16 scientist article doesn't say that the planet (climate?) isn't warming. It says that the climate hasn't warmed in 15 years. And do you know how much it has warmed in the last 150 years? 1 degree C.

Since that didn't seem alarming enough, Mann, et al postulated climate sensitivity which says that once CO2 reaches a tipping point the climate will warm exponentially. Since the emission of CO2 is growing larger and significant warming hasn't occured, they now say the warming is hiding in the ocean.

2) It depends on what you call important. Some, maybe even most, skeptics say that there are human influences on the climate. But those influences are not always in the form of CO2. They come in the form of aerosols and land use, to name two.

3) Here's the definition of a pollutant...

“any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”

So pretty much everything, including your perfume, is a pollutant.

4) What is a regime of fear? This is what the 16 said:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse….

This guy is being hyberbolic for effect. This is not a serious effort to critique the article by the 16.

5) Who the heck knows?...probably. Billions of dollars are quite enticing. The Eisenhower video speaks to that. And Dr. Gleick's latest escapade is telling.

6) Maybe, if it happens. The climate has changed many times before without the influence of evil human beings. What makes us think we can stop it? Pure foolishness.

[badhatharry]

Charles Koch takes the NY Times to the woodshed. Be careful! the link takes you to the Charles Koch Foundation website. You might get cooties!

One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You are such a silly woman with your silly insults.

Meh.