Climate Wars Reach New Lows
Last week, the Los Angeles Times wrote that the Heartland Institute “found itself duped out of several confidential fundraising documents that were then distributed widely over the Internet, offering a glimpse of its priorities.”
This was true.
The LA Times, noting that the Heartland Institute “pilloried climate scientists whose stolen emails were released in 2009 as part of the so-called Climategate flap,” also said:
Once in a while, there comes along a reason to believe in karma.
Well, as news of Peter Gleick’s confession suggests, karma is going around fast and furious these days. Gleick, a prominent climate and water scientist, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, has admitted to being the person who duped Heartland.
It’s the latest and most astonishing twist to the climate wars.
As Andy Revkin observes at Dot Earth, the fallout is likely to be extensive:
Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).
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 “rational public debate” that he wrote “” correctly “” is so desperately needed.
In a similar vein, American University’s Matthew Nisbet writes:
The incident is the latest in an escalating spiral of polarizing warfare between self-described “Climate Hawks” and so-called Climate Deniers. Caught in the cross-fire are the great majority of scientists and members of the public who yearn to work together in their communities, regions, and nationally to find common ground.
Such common ground will now be even harder to achieve. Gleick’s action will only reinforce the negative spiral of the public’s climate discourse. The reaction from climate scientists and the climate activist community will be closely watched and either further cement the partisanship or help repair it.
Early indications are not positive. Desmogblog, which has played a primary role in disseminating the Heartland documents, is hailing Gleick as a hero.
Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.
This rationalization (not to mention the incorrect use of whistleblower) boggles the mind. If climate activists follow Desmogblog’s lead, the climate debate will sink to even lower depths, which I had previously thought was impossible.
One last thought, for the moment. Peter Gleick’s statement in the Huffington Post raises as many questions as it answers. I suspect that this story will have a few more twists and turns in the coming days and weeks.
That blogs look bad is not so surprising. That the Guardian, New York Times (as noted here) and the BBC went ahead with the worst interpretations is the most revealing thing to come out of this. Some will breathe a sigh of relief for holding back and not getting involved and some can be congratulated for tracking it with caution and reason – including this site IMHO.
To say that Gleick did this “in pursuit of his cause” is to mischaracterize it slightly,in my opinion. According to his HuffPo piece he engaged in the deception in order to confirm the validity of a document he had already received anonymously from someone else, not as part of some fishing expedition.
We’ll never know if Heartland would’ve confirmed the validity of the document if Gleick (or anyone else) had just asked them if it was genuine. But I don’t think it’s an massively partisan assumption to suspect they probably may well have just lied about it instead, judging by their past behaviour.
The main questions in my mind is who originally obtained the files sent to Gleick.
No, this is the latest example of AGW believers behaving badly.
This is not some dynamic relationship. Climategate, the over the top claims of AIT, Trenberth’s reversal of the null hypothesis, the whitewashing of the implications of climategate, the UVa resistance to the FOIA requests, AGW insiders interfering with not only the publication of papers but the running of journals are all part of the spectrum of actions that Gleick has confessed to.
I’ve posted on this at Climate Etc
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/
I think this will drag on for months since there is definitely grounds for litigation.
I think Heartland won’t have to worry about their budget any more, coffers will be overflowing with donations.
I don’t care about the blogosphere but what will the scientific institutions, whose member he is, do about all this? Most of them have some sort of ethical codes.
If Morano & Co are halfway as competent as they appear, climate scientist will become a term synonymous with “left-wing nut activist”. An incompetetnt activist at that.
Jarmo,
Have you considered that perhaps Morano will succeed because he is being proven right? Dr. Curry’s reaction is the only way forward that involves building credibility. So far, that reaction seems to be in the minority. To the extent that the aGW movement, and science in general does not cut out Gleick and anyone else who was involved in this, they will lose credibility and come across as rent seeking hypocrites of the lowest order.
Yeah. I can understand Gleick’s frustration–it is crazy-making the place we find ourselves in on many polarized fronts.
But this is just going to polarize more. It doesn’t really matter what I think of the issues personally. It’s just going super-pole now.
I just googled “Hero Peter Gleick” and got 240 000 hits.
If climate scientists and activists don’t condemn Gleick very soon – like in 24 hours – man, it’s going to be like watching a train-wreck in slo-mo.
Don’t these guys realize where “the ends justify the means” argument is taking them?
The uproar in response to the use of an alias for a bit of investigative reporting is more than a little overstated. The scientific community must develop some back bone and defend scientific research with more vigor – rather than retreating when issues come to a head into an ivory tower with pristine ethical standards.
The scale of the ethical misconduct between Heartland and Gleick is in no way comparable. Your response only demonstrates how poorly scientists do ethics. You should be defending your colleague and arguing for science and education not squabbling over the use of an alias to discover information that should be public knowledge anyway.
Desmogblog, which has played a primary role in disseminating the Heartland documents, is hailing Gleick as a hero.
Denial…it’s whats for dinner. It’s simply astounding how far the human mind will bend in order to avoid modifying a core belief.
I guess we can all expect an extreme case of Joshua verbal diarrhea today, given his previous comments on this subject.
It will be interesting to see how the NYT handles this, after jumping on this story immediately (after ignoring Climategate for weeks , and then refusing to publish any e-mails because they were “stolen”). It is noted that Revkin reported it immediately on his blog.
Only an “ends justify the means” belief can give this guy a pass.
Instead of the glee many would expect a skeptic to have in a case like this, I really just think the entire event is simply sad. Self destructive behavior in the chase of a perceived noble cause is futile.
I really get the impression that he wrote the (still allegedly) faked memo after having a few too many drinks and hit the send button only to regret it 5 seconds later.
Jarmo,
The only way this will unwind well for the believers is if they do some introspection and think about how far away from civilization their adherence to AGW has taken them.
My bet at this point is that climategate 3 will make Gleick look like a boy scout.
@10
indeed. your responses on the previous thread are ample proof of that.
pot meet kettle.
arlowe,
You are being hoist on your own petard, my friend.
Pure Aristotelian tragedy: A good man commits hubris (attempting to shame those he opposes) and makes a tragic mistake (hamartia), which produces catastrophe and pathos.
There’s no defending what Gleick did. And worse, his actions will hurt all of us on his political side who have always tried to conduct ourselves honorably.
I’ve stayed out of the debates over the Heartland documents because I believe they’re as utterly irrelevant as the UEA emails. But everyone who tried to use those documents to shame Heartland and its fellow travelers shares in Gleick’s hubris and should take this, as Aristotle advised all of us to take tragedy, as a cautionary tale.
#12
This “it’s ok to break the law for a worthy cause” mentality may not be something that Obama or any other politician will willingly embrace, election year or not.
A major line was crossed by Gleick…. if the AGW movement wants to be seen applauding the deed, fine. It’s their funeral.
#12
This “it’s ok to break the law for a worthy cause” mentality may not be something that Obama or any other politician will willingly embrace, election year or not.
A major line was crossed by Gleick…. if the AGW movement wants to be seen applauding the deed, well… have fun.
Sorry about double posting… first one gave me internal error message
Jonathan (15),
Well said.
Hunter (6),
The boomerang of all this will remain in play, so the excesses and distortions of the two extremes will continue to whack each other over the head. The “climate hoax” and “climate science is a fraud” drumbeat meme would go on, regardless of this, and it is no less absurd today than it was two weeks ago. One person’s actions don’t invalidate the science behind global warming. Sure, it will do it harm (by association), and it will reinforce the existing antipathy towards climate science from the Morano’s.
What I think will do it greater harm is if scientists and other high profile representatives of the climate science community somehow justify or downplay Gleick’s action.
I think – rather obviously – that this has plenty of life left in it. Perhaps most importantly, Gleick hasn’t actually denied forging the strategy memo. As some very astute observers have pointed out at Lucia’s, his ghost-written apology tries to give the impression that he denies it, but he doesn’t.
I agree with others that some of the reaction – particularly Desmogblog’s – almost defies belief.
Who said it was about the science?
#20
I got the same feeling.
I assume Gleick will try explain the forging of the memo as “rephrasing” since it includes many points from the actual documents.
Don’t think it will fly at court, though.
He denies it. What are you guys reading?
In 1990 Phil Jones publishes a 4-page paper on UHI that claims weather stations of stable history. When he discovers the stations have been misrepresented he works to conceal this.
Michael Mann repeatedly misrepresents the analysis of his papers on tree rings.
Rajendra Pachauri labels an IPCC scientist a voodoo practitioner for calling his attention to errors in predictions that Himalayan glacers will disappear by 2035. His consultanct is bidding on a study of ice loss at the time.
They have form.
Where are the leading lights of climate science to defend the integrity of science? Is James Hansen really going to remain silent?
FabriGate is just the latest episode.
#22
He says he first received the strategy paper – the one suspected as forgery – from anonymous source. The paper obliged him to assume false identity and to go phishing for more documents.
Gleick emphasizes that Heartland can confirm the authenticity of the documents he phished:
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
Now, he is careful not to make that claim about the anonymous source document.
I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
Is he lying if he or his friend wrote the “anonymous” memo and did not make any alterations of changes afterwards? He does not explicitly deny writing it.
@22:
He doesn’t say that the “original anonymous communication” is the same document as the fake confidential memo.
Are you guys serious? How could he be more clear in his denial!
Keith,
From what is being published at dot earth, published AGW prmoters are making gleick a hero. As to invalidating science, I would suggest that in business, if an audit shows up corruption on a consistent basis, then workers are going to be very careful before they conclude the bulk of the business is not in fact corrupted. ever since 2009 the argument has been to the effect that while this was done badly (fill-in-blank) does not reflect on the bulk of climate science. That list of things that were done badkly keeps on growing.
Additionally, those of who have to either do due diligence or unwind messed up operations have learned to detect patterns of behavior that indicate something is badly amiss. The AGW enterprise stinks of those indicators.
Pretending that a tiny think tank deciding to spend some of its money to teach that a controversial part of science is in fact controversial is some sort of crime against democracy could be considered one of those signs of somethign wrong with those who claim outrage.
@6- grypo, Peter’s denial is sort of worthless at this time. Think about it.
At some point he will have to explicitly deny or confirm he wrote the fake memo. Seems like the fabrication may have worse legal jeopardy than the leak (?).
HI can overplay their hand here pretty easily by going after Gleick too aggressively. They have won politically, no need to squander it. Not to say that they won’t file a lawsuit, or support the filing of any potential criminal charges. My guess is HI will overplay their hand, I never have liked them very much.
I think the knee jerk defensiveness of the AGW advocates is pretty much a given, It’s too political to admit anything negative. I’m sure it is frustrating to those who believe the other side to be evil. They see it as different standards being applied. However it is the advocates that promote the meme of themselves as pure, so when one of their own crosses the line, it is bound to hurt “the cause”.
Tom Scharf
I think the knee jerk defensiveness of the AGW advocates is pretty much a given, It’s too political to admit anything negative. I’m sure it is frustrating to those who believe the other side to be evil. They see it as different standards being applied.
The Chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Ethics just confessed to engaging in fraudulent acts.
The Heartland Institute is ‘widely perceived’ to be a ‘Right Wing’ advocacy organization. Just as the Center for American Progress is ‘widely perceived’ to be a ‘Left Wing’ advocacy group.
Only people on the Right believe Heartland is ‘fair and balanced’ and only people on the Left believe the Center for American Progress is ‘fair and balanced’.
The American Geophysical Union is expected to be ‘fair and balanced’ by both sides of the political spectrum. The Chairman of their ‘Task Force on Ethics’ is surely ‘held to a higher standard’ as is their organization if they expect to continue to enjoy a high degree of trust among the public on both sides of the political spectrum.
Gavin from Real Climate in response to a comment there:
” Schadenfreude is a cheap thrill: fun but ephemeral. 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. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished.”
I often find Gavin to be condescending and I disagree with him on much but that’s exactly how I would frame this fiasco if I were a climate scientist. Well said on his part.
@29 Harrywr2
+1. The irony is immense.
“One last thought, for the moment. Peter Gleick’s statement in the Huffington Post raises as many questions as it answers. I suspect that this story will have a few more twists and turns in the coming days and weeks.”
Translation: Gleick is still not telling the truth.
Look, Gleick’s story makes no sense. Don’t force me to explain what is obvious.
Whoever ( Gleick, cough cough) wrote the memo ( Gleick cough cough) had access to documents that were very specific about the sums of money earned by Singer and others. Gleick expects us to believe that this person choose to mail him the worst piece of evidence: an undated, unsigned, memo. When they also had access to the supporting documentation. Why not mail all of it to him?
You have these possibilities:
Memo: real or fake:
Memo writer: insider or outsider.
Memo real & insider: makes no sense.
Memo real & outsider: he would come forward and clear Gleick
memo fake & insider: makes no sense
memo fake & outsider: bingo
Just be logical. There are four possibilities. each is logically possible, but its also logically possible that monkeys could fly out of michael mann’s butt. It comes down to probabilities.
The memo is more likely to be fake than real. The internal evidence is strong that it is a fake. Down that logical branch an insider hypothesis is highly improbable: an insider would have sent gleick more better evidence. Evidence they would have access to in order to pen the fake.
Fake and written by an outsider. Comes the question, which outsider? well, one who knows how to butcher prose like Gleick. That takes some doing. One that knows Gleick’s pet terms. That takes some super sleuthing. One that knows that Gleick doesnt like Curry and questions Revkin.
Please people, get a grip. He copped to the crime because he doesnt want to face a civil trial for defamation with malice.
He can say ” I got a memo” I took bad actions to confirm it.
It looked real. It looked true. I wasnt spreading things that I knew to be false.
For his crime he will at worst get community service, IF you can find a prosecutor to push the case. Civil stuff, thats another matter.
If heartland is smart they will go get the guardian.
This is a lot like how the CRU hacker must have been an “insider”, right? How’d that turn out?
The fake memo fits the information received “later” from HI a little too perfectly. All the most important negative info is there. Nothing missing, everything is confirmed and even some apparent copy / paste.
The evasively worded theory it was received first lacks credibility and smells like a legal maneuver to me. My guess is there is a strategy to get HI to drop eventual civil lawsuits in exchange for Gleick admitting to the forgery.
As for Gleick:
“What you do speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you are saying.” – Henry Adams
the question that comes to mind is how many other team climate mebers were in on this?
After’s Gleick’s admissions, I lean more towards the idea the document is authentic.
It’s been all but confirmed the other documents are authentic. HI (or at least one of their donors) admits there were multiple leaks.
It’s possibly written by the same individual who wrote the fundraising document, but only based on the weak style comparisons put forth by Mosher originally.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2012/02/16/tales-from-the-heartland/comment-page-7/#comment-99496
The format is slightly more informal, but that would make sense of a document that is a rough draft of a strategy proposal. Someone else might have phished for this at an earlier time, or an insider got their hands on it. Given PG is mentioned in it as a target, he would be a logical recipient.
However, those making hard conclusions one way or the other are merely being partisan, as evidence is circumstantial at this point.
HI has been hurt by this incident, as their inner strategy and funding flows have been exposed, their nonprofit status has some legitimate questions, and the fallout should carry on for awhile. PG I believe will be hurt as well, as climate scientists have a high standard of conduct that others spitting at them don’t share. While there’s some merit to the argument that it’s in the public interest to know the funding of this nonprofit that pretends to do science, the end doesn’t justify the means. PG is one of thousands of climate scientists, though. Heartland is considerably bigger than him. Gleick will be seen as a hero by many, more so long-term.
I think it interesting that commenters here are so willing to defame Heartland. What ethical misconduct? What past behavior indicates that Heartland would lie?
Keith’s opening is too cute. Heartland docs were revealed. The ones that were real show that Heartland wants to influence the public. Nothing wrong with what they want to do or how they wish to do it. But then Keith equates these docs with Climategate e-mails which demonstrate serious scientific misconduct involving a large number of scientists in a variety of contexts over an extended period of time. Karma? No, more like unrelated bullcrap.
As dishonest warmists beat the equivalence horse to death and beyond, they offer a revealing look into their darkness within. Lying for the cause. Defaming Heartland for the cause. Picking up Gleick’s baton and running with it.
Not by Annan, Gavin or Connelly. so far.
As someone who admires hactivism, I must be critical of it. I have to be critical because it is, in itself, a controversial issue. When it is okay to lie, to steal, to hack, to do what is considered unethical when naked, etc to get to the truth? For the present, much like the CRU hack, the ethical claims from criminality to heroic deeds are all determined by viewpoint. As an admirer of muckrakers and alt journalism I say that these feats are neither heroic or unethical. But they are what they are. And history is the only judge as to whether the unethical acts were justified at the time. I find it amazing that all the focus has been on whether or not the rest of the scientific field would bury Gleick and his actions. We can’t know how bad or good it is yet. I think it’s fair to say that the leaders of the NAS aren’t going to praise the work of Anonymous, so I doubt they will praise Gleick. Journalists are investigators. There are more important questions that will lead to further truth, otherwise history can’t judge.
When did Gleick get the letter?
Is there proof of this letter?
What does the postmark say?
Was there anything else in this letter?
Who did Gleick pose as?
What information did he use to get the other docs?
Was that information in the original letter?
Why did HI point the finger at Gleick with such obviousness?
What proof did they have? Who did they share that with?
Gleick started something here, he can’t just bow out now. He needs to justify all the questions he has raised with his admission.
Please don’t let this get buried.
new York J,
You are delusional.
HI is getting new members and new donations. AGW promoters are earning a scrutiny they will not like at all.
Good luck with your sad apologia.
Keith, can you please follow up this idea from Nisbet:
“…great majority of scientists and members of the public who yearn to work together in their communities, regions, and nationally to find common ground.”
who are these “middle-of-the-roaders” and what is the goal of this “working together” ?
Tom
what part of “Peter Gleick, you are a complete and utter twat of the highest order.” are you having trouble understanding?
On a related note that no one seems to have brought up so far, does anyone in his or her right mind now believe that Peter Glieck’s science is on the up and up? Any hint that maybe a guy like this would fudge data given the chance? Just wondering
Now we see the “climate-concerned communicators” spinning like tops. Too late. Just another episode in the inevitable collapse of the AGW Project. Since it was built on lies and deception, it seems rather appropriate.
In the meantime, other rats are jumping ship. Canadian IPCC hack Andrew weaver has just announced the obvious. The Evil Canadian Oil Sands, which McKibben and Hansen and the usual hysterians claims will send the climate off to the planetary fever, are irrelvant and almost neglible compared to coal consumption. Duh.
Must say though. I never would have guessed that Gleick could be this stupid.
grypo:
The best evidence points to an CRU insider. since day one. I’ve left plenty of clues for you to figure out what I suspected on day one.
what most of you have missed is the true motive. most of you focused on the climate science aspect. climate science and fioa were not the motive.
In that case as in this case case the real motive is something different. It looks like Gleicks motive is defending the science. Its not. It looks like the CRU hackers motive was defending FIOA or attacking the science. It wasnt.
you dont get how people really think. what they say the motive is is vaguely related to the real motive
steven mosher
Given what is actually at stake in this debate, in terms of incredible amounts of money and power, I would have thought that the big picture would be rather evident to most.
The so called ‘science’ that Climategate ostensibly ‘attacked’ – a phrase which does not accurately describe what happened – was just the just the legs of this table. This was never about science. It was always a political project pretending to be based on science. What Climategate revealed was how politics had corrupted the ‘scientific’ process… and in doing so it revealed to anyone who didn’t already know it that people trained in some field of science do not turn into apolitical altruistic saints. Instead, Mann = Richard Nixon.
The collapse of Copenhagen was the first sign of what it was really about, and the whole AGW project has been collapsing ever since then.
Yes, thanks for the lesson in mind reading. What the hell
grypo
“Please don’t let this get buried.”
Oh, I don’t think that will be happening, no matter how hard the AGW Project apologists try.
Just like how they could not bury Climategate. And this is much, much worse on the level that everyone can fully understand.
In a way it is perfect the way Desmogblog is hailing Gleick as an AGW hero. Since the whole thing is built on fakery and deception, he is indeed an appropriate symbol of their cause.
It is now all over but the quivering nerves.
The reaction of many of the believers is sad to watch. Even hard core Catholics, when faced with corrupt child abusing priests, were outraged at the crimes and the efforts to coverup those crimes.
Yet AGW believers are hailig a confessed theif and fraudster as a hero. And they are condmening his victim- HI. And notice that no one- not BBD here, and certainly not the sad enizens of Kos or dot Earth, have made anything like a case that shows HI behaving in any sort of illegal way. The only crime offerend is the crime of not believeing in AGW.
NCSE accepts Gleick’s resignation:
http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/source-heartland-leak-steps-forward-007220
AGU removed Gleick from the ethics committee list… more will follow
51 hunter
Just realized wht this reminds me of. When that ‘captain’ of that cruise ship ran that cruise ship into the ground in Italy, due to his own hubris and carelessness, his girlfriend appeared on TV and claimed that he really was a hero.
We’ll never know if Heartland would’ve confirmed the validity of the document if Gleick (or anyone else) had just asked them if it was genuine. But I don’t think it’s an massively partisan assumption to suspect they probably may well have just lied about it instead, judging by their past behaviour.
Of course we know what they’d said about the memo they’ve said is fake. They’d have said the exact same thing they said when DeSmogBlog posted it in the internet: it’s fake.
If climate scientists and activists don’t condemn Gleick very soon ““ like in 24 hours ““ man, it’s going to be like watching a train-wreck in slo-mo.
To be fair, Annan has said not good things about him in a blog post. In comments at RC, Gavin wrote “…. 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…..”
This is a lot like how the CRU hacker must have been an “insider”, right? How’d that turn out?
I don’t know. How did it turn out?
The question that comes to mind is how many other team climate mebers were in on this?
I bet 10 quatloos the number is <2.
Given PG is mentioned in it as a target, he would be a logical recipient.
Maybe “a”. But someone wants to leak, it doesn’t make sense to send to only one person. They send to several. Still, I’m not entirely sure we can assume that everyone’s actions are dictated by logic.
HI has been hurt by this incident, as their inner strategy and funding flows have been exposed, their nonprofit status has some legitimate questions, and the fallout should carry on for awhile.
I don’t see how they’ve been hurt. A week ago it looked like they might end up being hurt.
But it doesn’t seem to have worked out that way. They the fake document. The fake document does look like a fake; people immediately suspected Gleick of writing it (which he denies) but Gleick did turn out to be involved. This seems to help their reputation.
I don’t see anything in the not-fake leaked documents that has raised any questions about their nonprofit status. I gave reading Mashey’s thing a go and tried to follow his breadcrumbs on “lobbying” and could only conclude Mashey hadn’t read the definition of lobbying. When I read him suggesting they violated the “spirit” of the tax code I decided someone else is just going to have to do a Mashey-to-human translation. When the IRS says Heartland has a tax problem I’ll believe Heartland has a tax problem. I also don’t see any great secrets about their “inner strategy” been exposed. Was it a secret they were going to have fund raisers? Be involved in writing documents– which they have always put their logo on?
Gleick will be seen as a hero by many, more so long-term.
Heartland will use Gleick’s name and examples to persuade many to give funds; the effect may last for some time. Finding quotes that call him a hero will make a great fundraising strategy.
EdG #45 Andrew Weaver really says that coal is a bigger problem than the tar sands, but that the tar sands is also a problem. Get it right, if you don’t want to be as dishonest as the Heartland Institute is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/the-alberta-tar-sands-and_b_1288264.html
@55 Holly,
For AGW prmooters to get as dishonest as Heartland, the promoters would have to first become ethical, honest, compliant with law, and open in their publications and communications. As Peter Gleick and his defenders demonstrate, they hav e along raod ahead.
You are in a bizarre-o world disconnected from reality even more than usual for you, Holly.
Lucia, I will take your bet and raise you 20 quatloos it is more like ~3 who ‘helped’ Peter.
Ed G,
lol. rotf&lmfao that is a funny one. Yo ushould send it to josh- it is worthy of one of his escellent cartoons.
HI had an open invitation to prominent warmist scientists to speak at the many conferences they sponsored. If Gleick wanted to refute HI’s position he was free to go and make a presentation. That he did something as crazy as this instead suggests that down deep he knows his side of the argument is wrong. Such an intuition may have caused him to lose it and act out in this desperate and self-defeating fashion. This is but another episode in the “end-game” of the AGW hoax. More will follow. Interesting stuff.
Lucia: I don’t see how they’ve been hurt….This seems to help their reputation.
So HI is lying.
It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.
That wouldn’t be the first time.
New York J @ 60:
Lucia says HI’s reputation has been helped but HI says their reputation has been hurt.
“So HI is lying.”
I don’t believe Lucia speaks for HI, unless I am misunderstanding your post.
“That wouldn’t be the first time.”
Would you mind telling me about some of the other times?
55 Holly Stick
If you wanted to be honest you wouldn’t post Huffpo spin.
Here’s a summary of the Weaver paper on the co-author’s website:
http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_oil_sands_2C_warming.html
All they did was recognize the glaringly obvious, something any unbrainwashed third grader already knew.
The obvious question is why they suddenly decided to ‘discover’ the obvious now. Rats. Sinking ship.
Not that it matters. These ‘scientists’ are still hard core fanatics, as revealed by this quote from that same link:
“In fact, to ultimately stabilize the climate will require near zero emissions, and to limit warming within 2° or so degrees, there will have to be an immediate, rapid decrease in emissions from today’s levels towards zero, or even below. What should these emissions reductions look like nationally?”
Yes. NEAR OR BELOW ZERO EMISSIONS. LOL. And then, as so many AGW-promoting ‘scientists’ seem to do, they plunge into politics. That does make sense, as this is a political project wrapped in pseudoscience and these ‘scientists’ are just activists masquerading as ‘scientists.’
New York J,
Confusing opinion with truth seems to be a common believer problem. Lucia offered an opinion about damages. I would point out that the intent of Peter Gleick’s confession so far is that he was setting out to do damage to HI, or should have reasonably known his actions would do so. Additinoally he committed what is called wire fraud to do it. What he stole from heartlans was not enough to damage them, since nothing of any significance was in the memos. So “someone” fabricated a new document. and then he arranged to dump it all, even the private personnel parts, on the blogoshere and the rest is history.
But you decide Lucia’s opinion is some sort of offiical position. Let’s say that Moreno phished out some nice WWF internal docs that basically showed the WWF planning on where to get some money, who was on retainer to offer advice and ideas, and he just coudn’t find a smoking gun. But then a miracle! occurs and suddenly a smoking gun, written in Moreno’s vernacular appears out of nowhere. Ya think you might be a wee bit ticked off?
Fred: Lucia says HI’s reputation has been helped but HI says their reputation has been hurt.
So who’s correct? Are HI fans that deluded? And if Lucia and the HI fans are correct and HI is coming out ahead, how can HI’s opinion on the matter be so wildly off-base, given they are most close to the situation? Keep in mind that the quote even confines the alleged “major and permanent” damage to the document many believe is fake, not the real ones, a document that I believe at this point is probably the least likely to cause “major and permanent damage” unless somehow HI is implicated in writing it. The documents more likely to continue to cause such damage are the ones deniers are doing their best to distract from.
I contend that HI will have modest to moderate and long-term damage stemming first and foremost from their own lack of transparency and shady activities that were recently exposed, a conclusion that falls in between the two extremes I’m seeing.
So HI is lying.
huh? Except for the fake-strategy document nothing in the other documents shows or suggests HI is lying.
Lucia says HI’s reputation has been helped but HI says their reputation has been hurt.
To clarify:
1) I think HI’s reputation would be harmed if people can to believe the information in the fake memo were true.
2) I think that given the balance of the evidence including both Heartlands saying that document is fake, people identifying Gleicks connection before his confession, and his confession that many people will believe the fake-memo is fake. This is true even though Gleick’s confession contains no admission that he wrote the fake memo.
3) In the end I think Heartland comes out looking pretty good. But, by the same token, at least until early this morning, even though people had been pointing to Gleick as a suspect since at least the 16th (and some hints as early as the 15th) Heartland’s reputation was in serious danger. Moreover, as the some media outlets are spending a lot of time trying to insinuate there is something malignant in the other documents, Heartland has reason to worry about damage if the continuuing stories that they did something wrong are not countered.
Just popped over to Real Climate to see how they are covering this and, shocking news, nothing.
Just more signs of desperation and fakery:
“In a recent interview for a Norwegian magazine (Teknisk Ukeblad, 0412), the IPCC chair Rajendra Kumar Pachauri told the journalist that he had received death threats in connection with his role as a head for the IPCC.”
Were these alleged convenient ‘death threats’ emails from the West Coast?
This whole thing is becoming increasingly laughable and ridiculous, and far more entertaining than I was expecting.
The documents more likely to continue to cause such damage are the ones deniers are doing their best to distract from.
huh? Do you mean the documents in the leak that have not been decreed absolutely fake. Those seem to contain absolutely nothing that could possibly cause damage. I suspect that is why no one in the initial wave discussing the leak discussed their contents and now some (like you) merely try to insunuate there is something damaging in them without mentioning anything specific.
If there was something damaging in those documents, you could name what it is and explain why it is damaging. So, go ahead and do it. I have no problems discussing the stuff in those– I did in comments at my blog. My diagnosis was: nothing there. Boring.
New York J @64:
“I contend that HI will have modest to moderate and long-term damage…” The big-time damage will be to the American Geophysical Union and science in a broader sense. Gleick was the chairman of their Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Like with ClimateGate, this is another example of the AGW crowd hurting the reputation of science.
Do you really think this as a new low? Because the climate wars are filled for far worse deeds.
EdG, too bad you were too lazy to check the Huffpost link I referred you to, which was to an article written by Andrew Weaver. So stop misrepresenting what Weaver says or thinks and go read his own words.
See also this article by a reporter who knows what he is talking aoubt:
http://www.canada.com/business/fossil+fuels+must+avoid+global+warming+scientists/6186765/story.html
A quote from it, for the lazy:
“Two Canadian climate change scientists from the University of Victoria say the public reaction to their recently published commentary has missed their key message: that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming…”
Another quote from that article:
“…Governments from around the world have agreed that scientific evidence shows that humans are causing global warming through land-use changes and the burning of fossil fuels, but that it is possible to avoid dangerous impacts of climate change by dramatically cutting levels of greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat in the atmosphere…”
New York J,
Lucia could be wrong. Certainly it is possible to say that the NYT was wrong in the way they reported the story. And Andy Revkin said that he authenticated Gleick’s stolen and forged docs. Are Lucia, the NYT and Andy liars because they might be or have been proven wrong?
Do you know what the definition of ‘lie’ is?
Is HI lying when they say they have been damaged by this? All you have is Lucia’s opinion that they in the long run they might come out of this stronger. Does that mean they have not been damaged by the impact having some of their staff hoodwinked by Gleick’s wire fraud?
Do you think workers at HI today feel a bit unsettled or more? Your argument is silly. the point is Gleick induced HI, by way of admitted fraud, to give him things he was not otherwise entitled to. His intent in stealing those papers was to harm HI. As to the counterfeit document, it may not be his, but his fingerprints are all over it. And whoever forged that doc certainly did intend grievous harm to HI by reducing their motives to a cheap caricature bad guy. And what about the favorite demon of AGW, Mr. Koch? He was injured in this as well.
The best thing reasonable AGW believers can do is to condemn Gleick categorically without caveats or condemnations of the victims: HI, David Wolnick, and Koch.
holly,
Governments around the world are frequently wrong.
The paper you quote is deceptive, using extreme scenarios of oil use and dubious projections of impact.
That is called controversy. And just because you agree with it that does make it so.
Just when you think you can’t wring any more from the climate rout, er… wars. We learn the PG was head of, what was it, AGU ethics committee. I mean, holy crap, is this true?
And then we have the CaS lefties arguing for suppression of opposing views, limits on speech, truth squads. Topped off by Marlowe suggestion that democracy is only possible if everyone has the exact same amount of money (no secret where that one is going).
Of course our host (who is to be commended for many things) suggests the argument is between extremists and is preventing those who want to seek common groug from working together. Really? Common ground? Please.
But the entertainment value is fantastic. It’s like being a yankees fan, and knowing that the opposing team will comment 5 erros, the opposing pitchers will walk 6, and you already have 6 of the 9 best players in the league. The only downside is it can get boring after a while.
It is at this point that I almost start cheering for the other team, because I hate to see it all come to an end so soon. But then again, end it must.
Shale gas anyone?
Gleick is a MacArthur genius, Gore is a Nobel Prize winner”¦ sheesh! All along these guys are saying: “Trust us, we are the experts and this climate stuff is complicated.” Yet they are clearly willing to ignore reams of scientific evidence, lie, cheat, steal, and make stuff up to further their own AGW political agenda. How high can this steer manure pile go?
Gleick has been on the forefront of calling a spade a spade. Now his personal actions have raised a common moral question and legal questions about when or if deception is justified for a greater good. For journalists struggling with undercover or ethical situations, for example, if the information involves something of importance to the public interest, it may be worth it — especially if there is already evidence of wrongdoing.
Accountability and transparency are important. Gleick has explained what he did and why.
Or he may simply have had a breakdown.
But contrary to Revkin’s assertions (and yours, Keith) it is not at all clear who wins and who loses, in the longterm. Heartland faces potentially serious consequences because the facts already known and now on the table don’t look good. Anyone who more fully understands the truth of the situation realizes that Heartland does not wish to go to court, where its activities will be further exposed and far more thoroughly covered in the media and scrutinized by the general public. Instead they are more likely to make use of other legal mechanisms e.g removal of the documents from the public domain. Even though Gleick claims a lapse in judgment that he recognizes could have negative short-term consequences, I suggest he probably also sees the fuller picture.
You see, it is very bad public policy that permits the activities of Heartland. It needs changing. And some activities could possibly successfully be argued as not only intentionally fraudulent, but actual crimes against public welfare.
At some point the idea that this is some Disneyesque confrontation between good and evil has to be replaced by something more meaningful. I believe it’s something on these lines that led Gleick down the path he has taken. But those still supporting Gleick’s action don’t want to let that particular idea go away just yet.
Honestly I think the first steps down that road were made when it was announced that the science debate was over and concensus science prevailed. It’s left IPCC critics and those that doubt the certainty of the science with no where to go. In the minds of the convinced it leave just nefarious motives for the doubters.
Finally I think this is still only going to drag on and get worse while the ‘faker’ remains unknown.
Kieth Kloor.
I’m curious to know if you were one of the 15 friends that received the email from Gleick?
Thanks
Steven,
For someone so obsessed with the memo, you miss an obvious, very possible scenario.
Good leaders encourage responsibility-taking and action within their organizations. At the same time, they will sometimes take personal responsibility for their organizations and the people who make it up.
By now I really, really shouldn’t be surprised by the frequently unbelievable opinions found on climate blogs, but the postings I see defending Gleick (especially on Dot Earth) are just amazing in their contortionality.
It reminds me of the scene near the end of the movie Quiz Show, where Charles Van Doren admits to the congressional committee that he got the answers in advance on “Twenty One” and lied about it:
I lied about what I knew….and then I lied about what I didn’t know.
In a sense I was like a child who refuses to admit a fact in the hope that it will go away.
Of course it did not go away……….
And Van Doren’s admission was then followed by the politicians complimenting him on the “fortitude” it took to make his “soul-searching” confession…….
Holly – just watched Dr. Weaver on the CBC. Said 1 tenth of 1 degree rise in temp if all oilsands were burned. A bit different from Dr. Hansen’s conclusions that burning of the oilsands would lead to uncontrollable heating. “game over” is how I remember it.
So can we not get on with building both pipelines please?
@Matt B 82
I just came here after perusing the comments at dot earth. Astonishing. People not only heralding Gleick as a hero but actually lambasting Andy for having the temerity to criticize him.
The best thing that can come out of this is for the nuttiest “hawks” to marginalize themselves further from the grown ups table. So far so good.
Joe Bast accuses Gleick directly of forging the memo in an interview to WSJ:
Gleick “impersonated 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 memo”
Megan McArdle comments on the case and why it looks like Gleick forged the memo:
While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.
But not a full understanding of those documents, because the memo made curious errors. Most notably, it claimed that the Koch foundation had given $200,000 in 2011, when the actual number was $25,000 ($200,000 is what Heartland’s fundraising document indicates they hoped to get in 2012)–and since that money was donated for Health Care News, Heartland’s health care newsletter, it’s hard to see why it would show up in the climate strategy document, rather than, say, a document about their health care strategy. Given other anomalies surrounding the document, it seemed to me very likely that whoever had phished the authenticated board package had been disappointed by the lack of sizeable contributions from Big Oil and the Kochs, and so had written the memo to make sure that the documents told a nice, neat story about corruption and secrecy, rather than a boring, equivocal story about an issue advocacy organization with a spot of budget trouble.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
Finally, she makes a very good point that climate scientists and the IPCC really should pay heed to:
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.
The faithful seem to push the message that Gleick is a hero who took to desperate measures to reveal a dangerous conspiracy. They play down Gleick’s crime and elevate him into a Christ-like figure who made a knowing sacrifice to save the world. Sorry about the long quote but this one seems to capture it perfectly:
Last night, he took one for us all when he put his career in jeopardy by revealing that it was he who acquired and leaked documents to DeSmogBlog and others showing how the Heartland Institute ““ one of the loudest voices in the climate-change-denial choir ““ gets and spends its money.
In so doing, he delivered a massive body blow to the denialsphere and moved the world closer to finding a solution to the climate-change challenge. That’s because his find exposes yet another piece of the denial machine that has been assembled over the past two decades to discredit legitimate climate science. It renders their utterances irrelevant, and provides yet more evidence that Heartland’s activities aren’t those of a charity, but of a PR agency acting on behalf of a few deep-pocketed paymasters who stand to lose if the world acts to mitigate climate change.
HeartlandGate
Gleick says he received the questionable document in the mail, and then requested information from Heartland using an assumed name. He received that information. Then, he went public with it.
Heartland only disputes the veracity of one memo ““ the one that came in the mail, and therefore can’t be traced through e-mail. All the other mails, however, support the most damaging evidence from the memos.
By coming clean, Gleick has once again shown that he puts truth above self-interest, and he even seems embarrassed by the fact that he resorted to using a fake name to get the docs. (If he were a journalist, he’d have just posted the docs on his own site and bragged about how he got them.)
Bottom line: A good man, frustrated by years of obfuscation and distortion, tricked a secretive organization into sending him documents that were circulating widely within the group, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Heartland is part of a global PR campaign to discredit climate science and delay action that could help 99.9% of the people on the planet, albeit at the expense of Heartland’s paymasters. A court will decide what price he has to pay, but Heartland may also find itself forded to divulge more than it expects.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/2/
“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.”
Shouldn’t that also apply to Heartland?
DeNihilist, you’re having trouble with reading comprehension. Read the links again and pay attention this time. Weaver succinctly esplains why Canadians will never allow the Northern Gateway pipeline to be built; Keystone XL will have to satisfy the landowners along whatever route it ends up wanting. Good luck with that!
I believe Hansen called the tar sands the fuse to a bomb which is accurate enough, since we have to stop building infrastructure that depends on the burning of more fossil fuels.
Martha: “Even though Gleick claims a lapse in judgment that he recognizes could have negative short-term consequences, I suggest he probably also sees the fuller picture.”
I think the wiser course would be to assume that Gleick can’t see past his nose. His ego and myopia have placed climate scientists in an incredibly difficult position. He has handed sceptics a loaded gun, and they will use it.
Gleick may be sparking a whole train of events that may not go well for the warming side. Above all, through this foolish and childish act, he has placed his colleagues in jeopardy.
It’s astonishing that people cannot see that this is a grave ethical lapse. It is also astonishing that they are too blind to understand that their defence of Gleick may have to become more and more convoluted.
The defenders of Gleick really need to get some perspective and clarity on this.
“And some activities could possibly successfully be argued as not only intentionally fraudulent, but actual crimes against public welfare. ”
Yes, but whose activities, and who gets to decide what is fraudulent? These sorts of statements make me very uncomfortable, especially given that they come from someone who is otherwise on “my side” of the climate issue.
#88
Of course it does. But I think most people know Heartland is a right-wing think tank. People don’t yet think that climate scientists are first left wing activists and then scientists but this Gleick affair may change that.
#90
Supermandia, Naomi Klein, the Guardian etc. are pushing the story that Gleick sacrificed himself and broke the law to save the planet. He is a hero who committed a teeny-weeny crime to reveal a massive crime. However, they deny that he forged the strategy memo.
It looks more and more that Gleick invented the story about anonymous leaker who gave him that memo just to cover up that he forged it.
It’s one thing to put authentic documents on public display and quite another to forge them and claim they are authentic. It’s going to look really bad if Gleick has to own up to forging.
@Steven Mosher #30
I don’t think there is any reason to exclude Gleick’s account, and it makes sense in some ways if you stop and think about it rather than oversimplifying.
The strategy memo explicitly names two other documents. This would give Gleick both the prompting *and the means* to email Heartland specifically request those documents and any minutes pertaining to them. Blagging is much easier if you can ask for what you want with specifity.
All we need at this point is a copy of Gleick’s email to Heartland. If that references those documents by name in this way – well, that corroborates his story. If it doesn’t, well, Gleick looks more culpable. That is I think the missing piece of the puzzle.
If it *does* stack up then I think we’re in very interesting territory for Heartland. You say an insider sending a fake memo with real info makes no sense. I say your memory is too short and to look back to Rathergate. If Gleick had had no corroborating evidence he would have lost all credibility, and the entire issue of Heartland’s financial, educational and lobbying status would have become a massive joke. No-one would have been able to make serious comment on it. Poisoning the well is a plausible explanation.
It is too early to discount this. All the “textual evidence” for Gleick being the actual author of the doc is derived by working backward from the fact that he is the most likely candidate who happens to be named in the doc itself, and subsequently looking for possible connections. I find that approach wholly unconvincing.
Martha @ 78
Heartland faces potentially serious consequences because the facts already known and now on the table don’t look good. Anyone who more fully understands the truth of the situation realizes that Heartland does not wish to go to court, where its activities will be further exposed and far more thoroughly covered in the media and scrutinized by the general public. Instead they are more likely to make use of other legal mechanisms e.g removal of the documents from the public domain.
Spot-on and needs repeating da coda, hence this response. Anyone in doubt that you are correct can read John Mashey’s recent analysis* and examine the detail. The facts. The clue is in the title: Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.
You see, it is very bad public policy that permits the activities of Heartland. It needs changing. And some activities could possibly successfully be argued as not only intentionally fraudulent, but actual crimes against public welfare.
Yes. I spent (wasted?) considerable time arguing exactly this on an earlier thread. To sustained derision from certain quarters. Which was culminatively disturbing. As it should be.
Transparency. Money. Democracy. Facts. These are the key issues. This is what matters about PG and HI and all the rest of it. This is what HI and its surprisingly numerous apologists apparently do not want discussed in detail. Let’s hope it does eventually end up in court. Best thing that could happen.
*Full report (5MB pdf).
So, aside from being a right wing think tank and lobbying group, exactly what are Heartland guilty of?
Since they are only doing the same thing that left wing think tanks and lobby groups do I can only assume that their crimes are;
1/ Being right wing and not left wing.
2/ Disagreeing with some left wing people.
The fact that some people view these as crimes so heinous that anything is acceptable to counter them says volumes about the American left.
I suspect that the real problem is jealousy.
@JohnB
To take a simple example, do you have any evidence of (in your words) “left-wing” charities sending money to overseas non-charities?
And for those defending what Gleick did on the basis that it was what a good journalist would do, here is what Andy Revkin, journalist for the NYT says:
” Andrew Revkin
Dot Earth blogger
Impersonation involving lying (as opposed to dressing a certain way, or the like) is forbidden by the rules of most reputable journalism outfits, as noted by Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine today.
In reply to Phil
Feb. 21, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.”
And, by the way, what is the Pacific Institute?
Why, it is an advocacy think tank!
His group develops policy ideas and advocates them in the public square.
Funded by anonymous donors. And pushes these ideas into public policy (politics) wherever possible.
http://www.pacinst.org/
Here is a list of their publications:
http://www.pacinst.org/publications/
They are all policy analysis.
Peter Gleick is not only a fraudster, a thief and a forger.
He is a hypocrite of the worst order.
He attacked HI because he could not stand competition.
Dave H,
Your implication that Rathergate was run by the Bush campaign puts you on the level of a 911 truther.
BBD/Martha,
See my above post. HI did nothing wrong except to disagree with your politics. Your position in this is execrable. Your extremism has compromised your ethics.
@Hunter
Bit touchy there, aren’t you? Maybe when you’ve stopped frothing at the mouth you can stop putting words in my mine.
@Hunter:
> HI did nothing wrong except […]
Quite possibly several things that would void their tax-beneficial charity status, possibly even warranting fines, and that are worthy of serious investigation rather than sweeping under the rug or obfuscating wit ha smokescreen about a claimed fake document nobody is relying on to make this case.
Jarmo,
Steve Zwik is one sick puppy.
Martha,
In America, Organizations like Heartland Institute and Pacific Institute are not ‘permitted’. Their founders are free to form them, free to choose their missions, and free to pursue them.
And you are free to not give them money and to disagree with them. But both have the right to exist and need no permit that involves the content of their mission or message.
You happen to disagree with HI.
So what?
Get over yourself already.
Dave H,
Please list those crimes.
I look forward to it.
Oh, by the way- was Rathergate run by the Bush campaign?
Transparency. Money. Democracy. Facts. These are the key issues. This is what matters about PG and HI and all the rest of it. This is what HI and its surprisingly numerous apologists apparently do not want discussed in detail.
Apologists. Please. How about out and out defenders. BBD, your theory that we need to limit speech to only those who agree with you, and money can only be spent by “good” people, who speak your “truth”, and anyone who dares comment needs to go on a list is… Well, let’s just say that it reveals once and for all your true motives.
But, please, keep it up. I find it beyond fascinating, sublime even.
@hunter
> Oh, by the way- was Rathergate run by the Bush campaign?
I have no idea, and it is not about whether the docs were actually manufactured and leaked by Rove, or even whether Rove was just involved in the subsequent spinning. The point being that it worked very favourably for the Bush administration to take an embarassing a true story and make it vanish by publicly discrediting the veracity of the source. Steven Mosher said that leaking such a true document to Gleick made no sense. I think that’s an overstatement when plausible scenarios exist where it could be an intentional effort to produce this effect. Indeed, this is very similar to Rathergate in that *we still don’t know* if the documents are fake, but everyone is already assuming they aren’t, largely thanks to the input of partisan bloggers and an unsubstantiated statement from Heartland.
I find that no more of a stretch than the idea that Gleick would not only risk his career, integrity and reputation by one day deciding to go fishing for docs from Heartland, then subsequently manufacture a new one *adding nothing of substance*, and then continue to deny doing so after owning up to the more serious crime.
I have no more knowledge about what is or is not true than you do. Given that, I think there is a ridiculous amount of certainty amongst many here that Gleick also forged the doc. I also think that a prime way of verifying Gleick’s story would be to see the text of his email to Heartland.
What is very clear is that *if* the document is a forgery, whoever did it had access to internal Heartland documents. If Gleick’s account is true, interesting questions will be asked.
I also haven’t seen a decent alternative theory as to why Gleick suddenly decided to throw everything away on blagging docs out of Heartland – anybody able to offer a plausible trigger other than his own version of events?
RE: Heartland’s wrongdoing, please just read Mashey’s report. Pretending things haven’t been documented elsewhere or demanding that they be relisted in every comment exchange is disingenuous.
Bast from HI interviewed via webcam by WSJ. He directly accuses Gleick of the forgery:
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html?mod=opinion_video_newsreel
He speaks rather well, and stakes the typical skeptical position on global warming almost perfectly, which is in fact a supportable argument. I thought the WSJ showing clips of winter scenes during the interview was a bit over the top , though.
As I have stated, I see the HI as nothing more than one of many propaganda outlets on both sides of the aisle.
I doubt seriously that anyone has changed their view of the HI due to this affair, Gleick though may have damaged his credibility permanently with the less devout and neutral AGW supporters. Lionizing him does not help the cause.
The numerous posts supporting PG only goes to show how many people in the green movement have lost their moral compass. This is one paranoid group of people who see a nefarious big oil agent lurking behind every corner.
Critical typo:
> everyone is already assuming they aren’t,
Should be:
> everyone is already assuming they are,
kdk33,
Oddly I keep asking BBD to discuss it in detail, and offer in detail my points, and all he can do is repeat his conclusion while ignoring my questions about his views.
BBD is in effect asking us to defend someone whose house is robbed because he does not lie the dinner discussion they have.
And now the loony tune truther types are showing up, with grand conspiracies and elaborate rationalizations for why Gleick’s admission to a crime is not really a bad thing.
kdk33
The HI promotes pseudo-science and disinformation. Your beliefs are served by this output, so you defend it unthinkingly. Much worse, you accuse those who object to the distortions of attempted censorship.
All they are doing is insisting that disinformation be exposed as such and the funders of disinformation be made known to the general public. The latter so that their motives can be assessed objectively.
Insisting on factual (scientific) accuracy is not censorship – it is the opposite. Insisting on transparency of funding is not anti-democratic – it is the opposite.
By persistently arguing as you do, you (and others) have set up in opposition to the facts, open democracy and reasoned debate.
But please, keep it up.
😉
@106 Dave H,
It matters completely if the fakes were made by the Bush campaign or not. If it turns that Gleick finally actually told the truth and the faked memo he distributed with the stolen memos was truly an HI doc, it makes a lot of difference.
That you cannot see that difference speaks to your moral perceptions. As to Gleick, perhaps you over looked that he has been working up to big tricks for awhile. His phony review of Donna Laframboise’s book was so bad it was clear he did not actually read the book. And the paranoia that AGW true believers hold dear justifies many things. But the forged doc is in fact key, because it is the only one that shows anything remotely improper regarding HI. The rest is junk. And since the forged doc is based on info in the stolen docs, and it is written in Gleick’s style, it is pretty damning.
As to your list of HI crimes, I am not surprised you have nothing, by the way.
BBD,
You are now acting insincerely. HI promotes ideas you do not like. You have yet to defend your ideas for regulating free speech, and you have no comment on the fact that Pacific Institute is also a think tank.
You have been repeatedly asked to be specific about your ideas on “money transparency and democracy” and you do not seem able to.
As to your ideas of ‘democracy” they are more fitting for someplace that uses “peoples” and “republic” with “democratic” in their national name.
The question is freedom. And you come across as someone who despises it, if you are not on the winning side.
And your defense of Gleick indicates that you, along with so many AGW true believers, have lost your moral compass.
I hope you find it, but perhaps you found it too burdensome.
BBD- I have tried reading and comprehending Mashey’s “expose” more than once. Unfortunately, his attempts at being super-meticulous make the thing nearly incomprehensible. He really should have someone with the ability to put together a coherent argument help him with redrafting it. Though I often disagree with your comments and position, you are a capable writer and perhaps could help there.
The few things I was able take away from it were: Singer made an error on one or two Form 990s by listing Seitz as a board member of SEPP after he died. Not sure that this would cause much anxiety at the IRS. Also, there is some sort of Donors Trust that allows other people to make anonymous donations to Heartland. I have no idea whether this is legal or not, but since it has occurred for several years without any action from the IRS, I assume that it is. Finally, Mashey seems to think that because what Heartland does is what he terms “anti-science”, it can’t be educational and is therefore lobbying. If you can elucidate some concise, cogent points from his opus that clearly show that Heartland doesn’t meet the definition of a 501(c) organization, I am willing to listen.
Martha and BBD – Your statement that it is “very bad public policy that permits the activities of Heartland” as written indicates that you do not believe in the First Amendment. Not a good position to take. If you really mean that it is bad public policy that permits Heartland to operate tax free, I might agree with that, but would then say all similar organizations on both the left and right should not be able to operate tax-free.
@113,
You say what I have been trying to say very well.
@hunter
Repeating that there are no serious charges and that the strategy doc shows more that is improper than the documents it culls information from is untrue. But you just keep repeating it, if that makes you feel better. I will continue to find it amusing that you are determined to be so absolute and closed minded based on so little evidence. Next time, try and respond to my points.
hunter
You are now acting insincerely. HI promotes ideas you do not like. You have yet to defend your ideas for regulating free speech, and you have no comment on the fact that Pacific Institute is also a think tank.
What ‘regulation of free speech’ would that be? Please see #110. What ‘insincerity’?
Who cares about the Pacific Institute? We are talking about the HI. Remember? The organisation that funds the NIPCC and is attempting to distort the science curriculum in US schools. And much more besides.
Will you please go back and read # 110 and previous comments and then explain to me why I am a communist who ‘despises freedom’ and has no moral compass?
If you cannot do that, with specifics and in a sane manner, then stop the insulting, loopy nonsense. It does not help your case. And it got boring a couple of days ago.
What “˜regulation of free speech’ would that be?
Oh, BBD, you are priceless. That would be the part where you object to anonymous donors.
Dave H,
Show. Us. The. HI. Crimes. YOU made the claim that the docs show actions and policiess of HI that violate the law. I ask you to show us.
BBD,
No, we are talking about, to quote you, “money, transsparency and democracy”. If this war against HI is not simply political bigotry on your part, it must include all think tanks. Pacific Institute is a think tank. Or else it is not democratic, is it?
When did I use the word “communist”? Never. Any ideology, sufficently abused, can destroy one’s moral compass. But you clearly depsise freedom because you want to shut down groups that disagree with your opinion.
As to loopy and boring, when you actually present a case to support your calls for imposed transparency on private groups and judging if they should exist or not, you will take a big step away from being jsut that. You might not have noticed, but every responsible journalist is condemning Gleick. The AGU has fired him. The NCSE has fired him. My bet is Pacific Institute will soon ask him to resign as well. You are making a case that fewer and fewer people find credible, and more and more people find creepy.
Your views on this are flat out wrong. But I am not going to work to have you censored or silenced in any way. Unlike you.
kdk33
Oh, BBD, you are priceless. That would be the part where you object to anonymous donors.
And that would be a regulation of free speech how, exactly?
kdk3,
also the part where he wants the content of the think tank regulated.
And the greatest part is where he seems to ignore the idea that think tanks on his side of the issue should be held tot he standard that he demands for HI.
hunter
When did I use the word “communist”? Never.
You are being slippery and it looks dreadful:
As to your ideas of “˜democracy” they are more fitting for someplace that uses “peoples” and “republic” with “democratic” in their national name.
(# 112)
But you clearly depsise freedom because you want to shut down groups that disagree with your opinion.
No, I want groups that peddle disinformation and pseudo-science to be clearly identified as such so the public can evaluate their output objectively. I want organisations that fund disinformation and pseudo-science to be clearly identified so the public can assess their motivation objectively.
As to loopy and boring, when you actually present a case to support your calls for imposed transparency on private groups and judging if they should exist or not, you will take a big step away from being jsut that.
In both cases this will aid the functioning of democracy by reducing the ability of money to distort policy to its own ends and improving the ability of the public to vote for politicians and policies that are transparently based on the greatest public good.
All this is or should be obvious. I have explained it over and over again yet you continue to misrepresent away like there was no tomorrow.
Your views on this are flat out wrong. But I am not going to work to have you censored or silenced in any way. Unlike you.
Endlessly repeating misrepresentations is a tactic for drowning out voices you do not wish to hear. I think you are being hypocritical as well as tedious.
And that would be a regulation of free speech how, exactly
Ahhh, the fun never stops…
Let’s say that I like HI. I support what they have to say. I, by myself, can’t afford to buy commercial time, issue white papers, etc. but I can pool my resources with like-minded folks – like the guys that fund HI. So, I donate to HI. Like like HI a lot, so I give them a lot.
But you want my name to go on a list. Maybe my employer doesn’t like HI. My neighbors. The people who teach or coach my kids. My names on the list. What are the implications. What if the government decides they need to shutdown HI. Will I be hearing from the IRS soon.
Requiring me to put my name on a list restricts free speach.
Put anther way, if putting my name on a list has no ramifications, then why do you need the list?
BBD,
So I did not call you a communist.
But it is like I did, in your opinioin, so you can claim I called you one and somehow that is OK.
It is interesting that your standards have descended to ‘false but accurate’ as test for truth. HI does not peddle disinformation or pseudo science. They peddle opinions different from yours. And one of your fellow true believers defrauded them by way of the internet and stole documents from them, combined them with a blatnat forgery,a nd dumped it all on the internet and the NYT in order to hurt them.
Having people like you judge in a legal sense what is ‘disinformation’ or pseudoscience’ is one of the worst ideas available. And it is profoundly anti-democratic. Let’s let the people in the public square make up their own minds about what is ‘disinformation’ and what is ‘pseudoscience’. we don’t need partisan censors deciding this. Let democracy rule,a nd let the people make their own judgements. As to the ‘money buying for its own ends’ crap, then let’s shut down the massive fossil fuel industry support of groups like the Pacific Institute or Greenpeace, or WWF. And when my side gains tthe majority, since it would be ‘democratic’, I am certain you would have no problem with that? not. Skeptics want debate. True beleivers want control.
And fake but accurate is their low standard, and theft and fraud is just another tool for your extremists.
kdk33,
Maybe he just can’t understand it? maybe he is so far removed from reality, or so poorly educated and historically illiterate that he has no way to comprehend the issue? I wonder if Gleick got to this point before he started what is now being described by people who know him as a descent into destruction?
Hunter,
Noble cause corruption, I guess. He’s saving the planet after all.
And, yes, I realize arguing with BBD is… shall we say, of dubious value. But it’s mildly amusing.
You do have to wonder where/how these people were educated.
kdk33,
Check my post on the new thread that quotes the Pacific Institue mission statment. They are literally authorizing themselves to do anything in order to save the planet. It is beyond parody.
kdk33
Like like HI a lot, so I give them a lot. But you want my name to go on a list. Maybe my employer doesn’t like HI. My neighbors. The people who teach or coach my kids. My names on the list. What are the implications. What if the government decides they need to shutdown HI.
If you want to make large (ie operationally significant) donations to an organisation that disseminates pseudo-science and disinformation, you should be held publicly accountable. That’s how democracy works: you want to expand your influence beyond the realm of one man, one vote, you go on record as doing so.
That way, the rest of us know which self-interested individuals or organisations are trying to warp public policy by throwing vast sums of money at organisations that deceive other people.
Don’t want to go on the record – then don’t use your imaginary personal or corporate wealth to influence public policy. One man, one vote.
The way to stop people cheating is to ensure transparency and accountability. It is what gives concepts like free speech and democracy some meaning in a world of overt and covert corporate influence. Or rather it would, if it were rigorously applied.
It’s curious that this self-evident state of affairs should prove so difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps if you were a little less enamoured of the HI’s disinformation, things would seem different.
BBD,
You really don’t get it, or you are just disengenuous.
You have reduced science to religion, and are applying a religious litmus test to people.
You are ignoring the opoprtunities for abuse. Is that becuase you seek to be the one to impose your opinion as law?
in the USSR during Stalin, the theory of evolution was pseudo science and if you did not agree withthe science of the day- Lysenko’s theory, you were publicly at risk. You are historically illiterate, or you are a supporter of the same sort of oppression.
You keep claiming that your bizarre and anti-freedom assertions are not debatable, and you just repaet the same idiocratic crap over and over. You offer nothign but conclusions. No examples, no mechanisms of enforcement, just repeats of the same garbage.
I think as kdk33 and I discussed above, you are too poorly educated to even comprehend the implications of what you dron on about.
HI’s opinion is their sincere opinion. Your attribution of motive is disgusting.
The main problem with the AGW mob is the inability to follow the scientific method in reaching conclusions. Perhaps they should read Feynman on the subject to refresh on how to do it. Making large-impact decisions based on a religion, which is what AGW is, is insanity, unless your goal is global social control via the UN. Demonizing CO2 is downright stupidity in the light that CO2 is required for life, unless your goal is global social control via the UN…
hunter
You are historically illiterate, or you are a supporter of the same sort of oppression.
I am neither. Instead of all this invective, why not just read my comments properly? Think of the time we could save.
I think this thread is dead, so don’t feel compelled to reply. Just read.
# 71. Holly Stick Says:
February 21st, 2012 at 8:56 pm
“EdG, too bad you were too lazy to check the Huffpost link I referred you to, which was to an article written by Andrew Weaver. So stop misrepresenting what Weaver says or thinks and go read his own words.”
I provided a link to their original paper. And you suggest that Weaver’s spin in Huffpo is more relevant.
No wonder AGW Believers are so easy to fool.
If you want to make large (ie operationally significant) donations to an organisation that disseminates pseudo-science and disinformation, you should be held publicly accountable.
Bullshit.
Who gets to define pseudo-science and disinformation and to whom exactly should I be accountable?
You’re a very confused person BBD. I pity you.
The way to stop people cheating is to ensure transparency and accountability.
I suuppose you add thes gyms to erase any doubt that you might be capable of rational thought.
I’m sure you have in mind the committee and the mechanism by which I will be held to “account” for supporting an opinion different than yours.
Your ideas aren’t misguided, they are dangerous. Thank goodness the sane people, at least in the US, especially the south, aren’t putting up with you and your ilk.
That way, the rest of us know which self-interested individuals or organisations are trying to warp public policy by throwing vast sums of money at organisations that deceive other people.
How do we know who is self interested and who is altruistic. How do we define “vast” sums. Exactly which organization are decieving people; and who gets to decide.
Confused wasn’t strong enough. You are fantastically deluded – perhaps beyond repair.
But amusing.
In case it hasn’t been covered, Monbiot has a good article on the topic of discussion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists
@132
as part of the top 1% of 1% I suppose we shouldn’t pity you? Remind me again what the cut-off is for membership to the club?
NYJ
Monbiot’s been saying this for some time. He’s very interested (along with others, including myself) in the funding for the GWPF.
From the Guardian article:
This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders.
I’m sure kdk33 and hunter will be delighted to have discovered someone else as ill-educated as myself they can pour scorn on.
lucia: Do you mean the documents in the leak that have not been decreed absolutely fake.
Oh please. If there was anything fake in any of the other documents (very easy to check), HI would have definitively asserted that by now. There would be no reason to hold that back given it would force further updates to media stories. I find your skepticism here to be extraordinarily selective, quite at odds with your certainty on the forgery and authorship of the alleged fake memo.
HI transgressions have already been covered.
hunter (#74),
It remains that HI claims major and long-lasting damage has been inflicted on them. Lucia and other HI fans are asserting they are coming out ahead. I’m trying to determine why there is such a large discrepancy in both assessments. One might speculate HI is greatly distorting the situation to keep a consistent story for bolstering any lawsuits, but you can’t admit that because that would imply dishonesty. One might speculate that HI fans are claiming HI will come out ahead as a way to downplay the significance of the leak contents and subsequent media coverage, while shifting focus to their preferred storyline, which is the leak itself.
kdk33
Your ideas aren’t misguided, they are dangerous. Thank goodness the sane people, at least in the US, especially the south, aren’t putting up with you and your ilk.
Ah yes. The good ol’ boys. How reassuring that must be for you.
Remind me again what the cut-off is for membership to the club?
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.
The good ol’ boys. How reassuring that must be for you.
Exactly
BBD: I’m sure kdk33 and hunter will be delighted to have discovered someone else as ill-educated as myself they can pour scorn on.
I thought you were being faceitous, but there above are the insults. But watch out: people in the U.S. south are on to our “ilk”.
Delighted? Not, not really. I’d much prefer the not-free-speech-unless-it-agrees-with-me crowd would just go away.
But in the meantime, yes we are on to you. And have been for some time. And it looks like much of the “climate concerned” are on to you as well.
Which is helpful, because now we can start to sort out who is actually “climate concerned” and who is leveraging climate as means to an end.
Divide and conquer.
So what if Monbiot is also wanting a list so he can check it twice?
Do two authoritarians somehow equal some sort of mandate?
Again: YOU creeps have not outlined how to enforce this or if you would like the think tanks on your sdie would even be covered by it.
And please do tell us the penalty for declining to cooperate with disclosure of who gives of what to whom.
If I give cash to my Church at the offering, and since Churches are certainly, by your standards, disseminators of pseudo science and disinformation, what should they do? More importantly, what should be done to them? Ooh…what if I go anonymously to my church and that church teaches that God created everything and even teaches that in the school they run? Oh my gosh! we have religion AND pseudo science AND disinformation being shoved down those innocent citizen’s noggins.
There is no end of this for you, is there? There is no tolerance. There is no freedom. There is your definition of democracy, which oddly means “do as we tell you or else”.
kdk33 has it correct; You guys are deeply disturbed.
@134
Top 1%: $380,354 (as of April 2011).
I couldn’t find the .1% figure – but assume it is in the millions.
Did you know that as of 2008 tax data – 49.2% of tax filers paid no federal income tax and 51.2% of filers paid 100% of the individual federal income tax? Almost 1/2 of filers paid no income tax (25% of those do pay social security and/or medicare).
Did you know that the top 28.14% of filers (as of 2008), making $95,000 or more, paid 82.53% of all the individual federal income tax. By the way that 28.14% only earned 68.64% of the income – that’s right – they are paying more than their fair share.
Check out the 2008 tax data available from the IRS.
As Andy Revkin observes at Dot Earth, the fallout is likely to be… ambiguous:
I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed.
BBD,
By the way: I do read your comments. that is why I know you are a misanthropic twit.
do you even know what misanthropic means hunter?
the fallout is likely to be”¦ ambiguous:
Much like AGU ethics, apparently.
Oh, this is just too much fun.
kdk33 don’t you get it? BDD thinks this thread is dead and you should just read dammit. /
The BDDs of the world (just because they are so gosh darn smarter than the rest of us) have the self-given authority to tell the rest of us when a thread is done, when to read (and I assume when not to), what is science and what is psuedo-science, what is propaganda, what is not, which organization is good, which organization is not, what is up, what is down, etc, etc and then have the audacity to supposedly champion – “one man” (no women? – non PC down twinkles), “one vote”.
Superiority complex? Abused as a child? I dunno. Still….scary stuff.
A couple of Seinfeld quotes come to mind (paraphrasing); David Puddy; It’s for the cause man. Seinfeld; Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?
Marlowe
He spelled it correctly. Credit where credit is due.
Hugh
Steady on.
BBD Says:
The way to stop people cheating is to ensure transparency and accountability.
Every retailer in the world experiences something called ‘shrinkage’. I.E. Inventory that has walked away. The standard rule of thumb in retailing is that reducing ‘shrinkage’ below 2% ends up costing more then the shrinkage.
Shop lifting and employee theft are definitely ‘bad things’. But so is treating every employee and customer like a potential thief.
A retailer taking significant actions to reduce it’s ‘shrinkage’ below 2% will find that the first people to abandon their store will be the ‘honest employees’ and the ‘honest customers’.
In the 1950’s the FBI spent enormous effort on trying to ‘unearth’ secret funding to various groups in the US made by the KGB. Groups lobbying on behalf of ‘foreign governments’ are indeed obligated to disclose those ties.
What did the FBI accomplish? Was it worth the societal cost of treating anyone with ‘marxist leanings’ as a potential ‘agent of a foreign government’?
If we stamp out ‘anonymous’ funding we run the risk that it will just become ‘secret’ funding. Money will just quietly flow into Swiss Bank Accounts.
Decent honest people who give to various charities anonymously to avoid the onslaught of charitable groups that would use the public disclosures of charitable giving for fundraising purposes would stop donating.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has 980 employees to manage the Gate’s ‘Charitable’ giving. Every charity on the planet asks them for money.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx
harrywr2
Monbiot says it so well:
This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders.
I take your point, but only up to a point. I think we are going to have to agree to differ here.
I note you have defended anonymous funding before. We were discussing the GWPF.
I propose that the government should create some kind of “Truth Department” or “Pseudo-Science Detection Agency”. This government body should be able to shut down any group or make mandatory the disclosure of any funding from any group it decides has made “un-scientific” or “pseudo-scientific” claims. For example if your supposed “think tank” publicly states something along the lines of “climate sensitivity is 1.5 deg C or below—->BAM! LET’S SEE YOUR BOOKS!
Don’t you see? People are too stupid to make up their own minds and must be protected from the wrong information. Lost in all this is the fact that had it not been for Peter Gleick’s exposé, David Wojick’s curriculum could be compulsory right now and there’d be an army of young anti-climate automatons walking around! We dodged a bullet on this one but there will be other David Wojicks and if not for them we’d be well on our way to the carbon free socialist paradise so beautifully described by Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.
He must be really smart; he reads the guardian, and Monbiot
Menth
Best comment for a while 😉
A couple of things though. I did not say ‘unscientific’ I said ‘pseudo-scientific’. As in ‘fake science’.
The NIPCC is still a considered and careful misrepresentation of the science. Created to mislead and confuse and funded by HI. And you are all defending this tripe with an increasingly ugly snarl. I wonder why?
Because it’s got fuck-all to do with defending free speech and democracy.
Goodnight all.
Menth,
I hope it is not possible that BBD missed that your irony was directed at him. And notice how he still cannot defend his position except to shout more loudly and profanely?
Marlowe,
Why yes I do. Do you?
The hubris and unseriousness of you true believers is an endless source of entertainment.
hunter,
in that case could you point me to *any* comments by BBD that justify you calling him misanthropic? Heck, I’ll settle for any comments by anyone on this thread that fit the definition.
Between your cluelessness, billionaire-kdk’s vacuousnness, NiV’s endless prevarication and Menth’s obtuseness, it’s hard to pick a winner for the tinfoil prize…
For me, someone who consistently backs stupid, unintelligible polices that result in increasing human suffering, decreasing liberty and wasting resources on policies that have been proven to not work is misanthropic in the sense that he is decreasing the level of humanity. The BBD’s of the world dehumanize, and always in the name of some greater good. He is a twit because he tediously repeats his summary position with no evidence and not even a plan to put his ideas into effect.
marlowe,
By the way,
Your obsession with tinfoil reminds me to ask: Are you possibly referring to shortage you are experiencing? I don’t keep any, but I am betting a local Walgreen’s would not only have some foil available for you, but also the Xanax refill you surely need.
BBD Says:
Monbiot’s phrase
This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests.
Ohh please…which corporations?
Look at the Fortune 500 list – it’s quite ‘fluid’.
Last year-
http://money.cnn.com/magazines
1980-
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1980/
16 oil companies where in the top 25 in 1980. It’s only 4 now.
Corporations are like people…they rarely live longer then 80 years.
@96 DaveH. Greenpeace do it all the time.
I would strongly suspect that a lot of these think tanks from both sides do it as a matter of course. Lobby groups help fund like minded lobby groups. All do it and to think otherwise is truly to live in “denial”.
@hunter et al. Guys, can’t you see that there is obviously very wrong and suspicious about HI? They are privately funded, which means something inherently evil is going on. A proper think tank has its mouth firmly attached to the public teat and is suckling strongly.
It’s quite simple really. In the experience of the left, no-one thinks highly enough of think tank ideas to give them enough money to operate, which is why left wing tanks are suckling at the public teat. Right wing tanks OTOH are often privately funded and do not require gov money.
The problem this gives the left is that they either have to believe in some far reaching, nefarious conspiracy, some evil empire hiding in the dark. OR They have to face the reality that their ideas are viewed as worthless by the majority of people.
Their innate conviction in their own correctness won’t let them believe that anybody could possibly, simply and honestly, disagree with them. If it is impossible for someone to honestly disagree with them then all disagreements must be from a dishonest cause. QED.
This is why people like BBD want their little list, so that they can “investigate” who is giving money to whom and finally get to the bottom of the deep dark motivations of those behind the conspiracy.
@161 harrywr2. Monbiot might be right. “Billionaires and corporations” is more than the fortune 500 list.
Greenpeace and the WWF classify as large corporations and they are certainly trying to reshape politics to suit their needs. So is Maurice Strong, the Soros Foundation and similar groups from the right.
In some nations it is a war of ideologies and think tanks where the vote of the average person is irrelevent. It doesn’t matter who “the people” vote in, the big money just buys them afterwards.
John B,
I have been considering for some time the idea that the AGW mania is a symptom of larger failings in society. As I read BBD, NYJ, Marlowe, etc. I am afraid I am correct.Your two posts above give a different view to the same train wreck.
An even cursory reading of BBD ( and others) leads one to readily surmise that CAGW is simply and expedient mean to political ends.
The only meaningful question in the climate debate is: should we do something. Because there is much uncertainty, we are each performing our own risk benefit analysis. Doing something reuires massive government interfernce in the free market – and at a global level.
You will tend to be a wamists if
1) you imagine government to be altruistic and benevolent, hence you will not deeply question government funded science.
2) you are one who imagines governments are good at managing economies, so the solution – government control of the energy market – is the kind of thing appeals to you anyway.
3) you view the world as the battle of the “good poor people and their representatives” versus “evil, greedy, big money, entrenched interests, and their undue influence over the gullible little people” – CAGW is a windfall in your fight for social justice.
None of these have anything to do with physics.
It doesn’t matter who “the people” vote in, the big money just buys them afterwards.
Not so fast. Exactly what is it that big money buys. They can’t literally buy a congressman – at least not these days. They can influence the legislation that the congressman puts forward and how that congressman votes. But we the voters get to see the legislation and know how they vote. If we don’t like the result, we can vote in someone else.
For example: Barney Frank. There are many big money interests that absolutely abhored BF’s politics. They would have bought him off if they could, but they didn’t; why not? He would have lost re-election. Barney did what his constituents wanted – or what over half the voters wanted.
The vote isn’t irrelevant. It is the only thing that matters. We (the voters) get the government we deserve.
” They can’t literally buy a congressman ““ at least not these days. ”
Your fantasy island sounds much more appealing than reality. By the way, the cutoff for the top 0.1% is about $18 million last time i checked in case you were wondering.
kdk33,
But who exactly did Barney Frank consider to be his constituency?
He and his lover were enriched by FNMA and FMAC, and he led the fight in the Bush Administration to stop all reform of those organizations.
Frank is probably not, for many reasons, not the best example of how a Congressman works.
#168 Marlowe,
Can you explain why someone named Marlowe Johnson was admitting on Rodger Pilke’s blog last year that it was policy- specifically tax hikes- that drove defeat of liberals in Canada. Can you tell us why Canada has not only avoided being run by the Eco illuminati, but gave them less than 4% of the vote in the last national election despite strict campaign finance laws?
I can’t wait to see your answer, given that despite all the handwaving about “money in politics” the fact is that real people really don’t like the greens real agenda for really good reasons.
@hunter
so anyone who disagrees with you is misanthropic? well that’s certainly an interesting twist on the original definition. What’s your definition for delusional?
Marlowe,
How about anyone who endorses the book, “Time’s Up!”?
As for delusional, I think you AGW true believers are defining that for the ages.
@170
Care to provide an actual quote? The defeat of the Dion liberals was due to a combination of factors. in no particular order:
1. poor sales job.
2. good attack ads by conservatives
3. better ground game by the conservatives ( aided in no small part by the ‘in-and-out’ scheme)
4. dorky, nice, but ultimately un-charismatic liberal leader (same problem with subsequent model as well)
5. vote splitting on the left
6. poor analysis by the mainstream media – focused on horse race and overarching narratives rather than substantive discussion of policy positions/choices. This favours the Conservatives who are much better at constructing and pitching simple narratives.
#173 “Care to provide an actual quote?”
Sure- “All of the parties on the left were leery of a repeat of the 2008 election when the Conservatives used the carbon tax portion of the Liberal platform to impale another uncharasmatic leader, Stephane Dion.” Marlowe Johnson, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-does-canadas-election-mean-for.html
Consider this possibility- Gleik didn’t do what he did simply because his cause is losing, he did it because it’s losing and being ignored. Even CAP downgraded Romm from having his own blog – and that was the NYTime’s “essential” blog. Whole countries are pulling out of the AGW policy nonsense because it doesn’t work and because their people are tired of blowing money on liberal pipe dreams- especially if it is to halt calamities that don’t materialize. Even Ontario is going “coal free” with nukes and natural gas which- surprise, surprise, surprise – is exactly what “skeptics” have been willing to accept all along. Ontario’s plan to make ’em suffer to efficiency with carbon price hikes and it’s “pledge” to build lots of renewable power… sometime? Well, we’ll see how sustainable that is in a world where those steps are expensive, ineffective and unnecessary.
Which is, ya know, our world.
@174
since you brought up the thread from RPJrs, consider my follow-up reply to that a question on that very quote:
“Part of the problem, as Raven alludes to above, is that support for environmental policy tends to be broad but shallow. The devil of course is in the details. Home energy tax credits, ecorebates for efficient vehicles, etc. have always been more popular with the electorate than other policies that are demonstrably more effective (e.g. efficiency standards, carbon pricing). Perhaps when everybody is forced to take an economics/public policy 101 in high school this will change :).Public support for an industry-first strategy on climate change has much more support in Canada (and carbon pricing more generally) than it does in the U.S. The most recent polling data that I’ve seen referenced is here . What the data shows is:1. A greater % of Canadians believe in climate change (80% vs 58% in U.S.). Apparently not all are convinced (Raven for one)…2. Canadians believe government should play a significant role (89% vs 73%)3. Canadians are willing to pay more (~75% support a premium on renewable energy compared to 55% in the U.S.)4. Canadians are almost 3 times more likely (58%) to support C&T @ 15/tCO2e than Americans (18%)In light of #4, consider that the Conservative Party was the only federal party in Canada to oppose a Cap and Trade system in Canada. This is what I was getting at when I said that they are out of step with most Canadians on this issue.That the Conservatives were able to score points against the Liberals during the 2008 election by using deceptive negative attack ads (a practice that unfortunately has been imported from the U.S.) does not, IMO, mean that the public is against climate change policies such as revenue neutral carbon taxes. Rather I think the lesson that the other political parties took from the experience was that it was not an obvious vote winner and the risks (i.e. attack ads) outweighed the potential benefits.”
A couple other points.
1. Last time I checked B.C.’s carbon tax was set to rise to $30/tonne this July. IIRC you’re a resident of B.C. jeff. When/where are the riots scheduled to take place again?
2. The coal phaseout plan is predicated on natural gas, nukes, conservation and renewables. To encourage the latter two components, you’ve got time-of-use pricing and the feed-in-tariff program. You may not realize this, but the Libs managed to get re-elected to a third term, while agressively defending their actions on renewables. Guess the opposition to green pipe dreams isn’t as widespread as you thought eh?
JohnB Says:
harrywr2. Monbiot might be right. “Billionaires and corporations” is more than the fortune 500 list
There is no denying that ‘people with money’ are trying to shape policy to benefit whatever they perceive as in their ‘best interest’.
But even within that group there is a ‘great diversity’ of opinion about ‘what is good’.
If I compare Costco which is #38 on the Fortunate 500 list with Walmart. Costco pays wages above ‘mininum wage’ and offers it’s employees a fairly generous benefit package. At least compared to it’s competitors.
It is in Costco’s interest that the minimum wage be raised to their starting wage and the government mandate a minimum benefits package as generous as Costco’s in order to remove the competitive advantage of other retailers who are using minimum wage workers and not offering a benefits package.
On almost every issue I can find ‘big money’ on both sides.
Keystone XL…if it gets built a billionaire pipeline developer will benefit..if it doesn’t get built a billionaire railroad magnet will benefit.
CO2 tax…hurts coal…benefits natural gas.
No matter what government does…some rich billionaire or corporation will benefit and another will suffer.
Corporate America doesn’t speak with one voice.
Maybe Corporate UK does…when I worked in the UK I was genuinely appalled at how the ‘working class’ was generally treated by management.
@176
this is a good point Harry (about there being money on both sides of most issues). Incidentally, it’s one of the few reasons to prefer a C&T system over a straight tax. C&T opens the door for the financial services sector whereas as at straightforward tax does not. When that particular sector has a vested interest in promoting your preferred policy, your chances of implementation are higher.
mea culpa correction to #1 @175
B.C. may be getting cold feet. Hard to blame them, but it’s hard to see how else they’ll be able to pay for the tax cuts that go hand in hand with the carbon tax.
@173
You left out “completely unworkable policies and platform” from your list.
@178
Admirable that you’re willing to post information that undermines your own argument. Kudos.
@177 Marlowe
C&T opens the door for the financial services sector whereas as at straightforward tax does not. When that particular sector has a vested interest in promoting your preferred policy, your chances of implementation are higher
From my current vantage point the ‘financial services sector’ in the US appears to have become ‘persona non grata’ in US political circles due to the ‘mortgage fiasco’.
How does the ‘financial services’ industry manage to lobby for C&T on the grounds that it would ‘stimulate the economy’ when their advice as to ‘mortgage lending standards’ ended up going horribly wrong?
harrywr2
We are in danger of drifting off the point. Which is that the public needs to know who is lobbying for what (ie funding transparency).
The diversity of self-interest is not in doubt. It is the concealment of it which is problematic. As I have said repeatedly.
Sorry – I didn’t mean to interrupt the conversation with Marlowe. The above shoudl be “harrywr2 @ 176”
175/178
The point of referring to Canadian elections is to compare the success of the “climate concerned” message in the similar countries with very different approaches to campaign finance.
The answer is the their preferred policy fails in both places. To quote myself- it ain’t the money, it’s the message. The money is an excuse to avoid reviewing the message.
A carbon tax proposal hurt the liberals. BC is retreating from green “action” items along with Germany, Spain, UK, etc etc
Ontario is building nukes and gas, talking about renewable and conservation.
FYI- no biggies, but I live in Virginia, not Canada.
I suggest that the reason Gleik did what he did is not because he fears HI’s puny $6 million will affect the conversation. It’s because there isn’t any interest in his cause anymore. BC is walking away regardless of HI and ol Pete needs to do something to get their attention. It won’t work
@182,
Yes, we all understand you want you little list of people so you can make sure that those you dislike are subjected to whatever you and your pals want to do to them. And of course you will also have your list of approved organizations to be creative with.
And just to be sure it is clear how disengenuous BBD’s oft-repeated demand of “openness” is, here is an e-mail from a Heartland Institute leader, Jim Lakely to Peter Gleick just this January. Do note the part about how nice tolerant lefties harrassed donors::
” At 03:25 PM 1/17/2012, Jim Lakely wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Travel and lodging
> expenses would be covered by Heartland. Our
> annual dinner is tentatively set for August.
> This would be a moderated debate, though details
> about the question on the table, the time for
> each side, etc., is yet to be determined.
>
> I will get back to you on your other questions.
> But I’m sure you’ve seen James M. Taylor’s
> response to the funding questions at Forbes.com
> – a question he has answered publicly many
> times. In short: We used to publicly list our
> donors by name, but stopped a few years ago, in
> part, because people who disagree with The
> Heartland Institute decided to harass our donors in person and via email.
>
> More donor information from our Web site:
>
> Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly
> over the years by cultivating a diverse base of
> donors who share its mission. Today it has
> approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it
> received 48 percent of its income from
> foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and
> 14 percent from individuals. No corporate donor
> gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget.”
Lists are for bullies and censors.
jeffn,
I think we may be talking past each other. Campaign finance laws or the transparency of the tax system for charitable donations has relatively little bearing on how the ‘To green or not to green’ policy questions play out. As Harry pointed out up thread, there’s plenty of money on both sides of the issue. It’s a systemic problem that transcends party lines and poisons the policy process for a host of issues. This is what BBD is harping on about (rightly) because it contributes to irrational policy outcomes.
If you think you have a case to make for your preferred policy option then make it openly and transparently. The challenge that Heartland and like-minded think tanks face on the climate front is that the facts and rational risk assessment simply do not support the policy position that they are defending. Hence the need for secrecy, mendacity, and prevarication. Does this mean that Heartland or AEI, or Heritage are always wrong? No, but in the absence of transparency and openness, it’s hard not to characterize anything they put forward as bought-and-paid-for propaganda. I feel the same way about ENGOs that don’t disclose funding sources for reports that they put out.
I think I may have confused you with EdG on the B.C. connection. As it happens, I live in Ontario, and as far as I know we’re still going gangbusters on renewables 😉 but less so on gas. BANANA thinking is alive and well here.
hunter
Lists are for bullies and censors.
Lists are for keeping voters informed.
Yes, we all understand you want you little list of people so you can make sure that those you dislike are subjected to whatever you and your pals want to do to them.
For ‘my pals’ read ‘the electorate’.
hunter
Here’s a simple example for you from the email you quote:
> Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly
> over the years by cultivating a diverse base of
> donors who share its mission. Today it has
> approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it
> received 48 percent of its income from
> foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and
> 14 percent from individuals.
The donors of public interest are foundations (which in turn are of course the recipients of corporate funding) and corporations. This accounts for 48% and 34% of HI’s funding respectively; a total of 82%. That is what I am talking about. Not the private individuals ponying up a hundred bucks a year.
Do you finally get it? I’ve used lots of bold to help make things extra-clear for you.
#187 Marlow
Hence the need for secrecy, mendacity, and prevarication
Allegedly, EPA has just scrubbed it’s grants database of grants to Dr Gleick. Past grants…so it isn’t a matter of the grants being withdrawn.
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/23/breaking-epa-scrubs-web-site-of-gleick-grants/
Why would a US Government Agency suddenly delete records of grants to a specific organization from it’s ‘public’ database?
“In short: We used to publicly list our
> donors by name, but stopped a few years ago, in
> part, because people who disagree with The
> Heartland Institute decided to harass our donors in person and via email.”
I find it hard to believe that somebody would do something nutty thinking they were saving the biosphere. A sanctimonious nut haranguing someone at their home or place of business is frankly a pretty difficult scenario to imagine.
Menth
Of course no ‘sceptic’ has ever done such a thing to, say, a climate scientist.
187- Marlowe, I don’t see BBD complaining that there is money on both sides of the issue, he’s complaining that one side is spending money.
That is the point. The claim made by greens is that fossil fuel money is corrupting the process and preventing action. That claim is not true. The action demanded makes no sense, therefore it has no support whether HI or Greenpeace is blowing cash.
BBD thinks his side will win if the rest of will just shut up. He’s wrong.
harrywr2
Um, Milloy? To be fair you do say ‘allegedly’.
jeffn
Just read my comments. Please.
Instead of making up your own versions.
@190,
Again, besides your incorrect claim about foundations, so what?
Why does your desire to know who is giving what to whom outweight their privacy?
And, as Greenpeace is fixing to learn, calling for investigations into one particular group can lead to a lot more investigations; be careful of what you wish for.
Not one dime given to HI is illegally given. You just want to know soyou can join those who harass the donors. why should you be able to, for instance, harass me?
And again, what about Churches, those great bastions of non-progressive KKKristianity? They teach GOD made all this stuff, and that Jew a long time ago was born of a virgin, walked on water, got hisself crucifed and rose fromthe dead. Cannot get less scientific than that. And they even teach this to children!!!!
You need a long list for that, BBD. And every Sunday those pseudo-science disinformation Churches collect money anonymously from their co-conspirators and spend it with nearly zero governmnet control! How can this be allowed in a democratic society?!?!? Dear Gaiaz, they even run schools and clinics! How can you let this happen? hurry, BBD. Save us!
@194, jeffn,
BBD / NYJ, Marlowe, etc. are starting to look a weebit rough around the edges. Their desire to impose a nice little sciencey dictat on us is falling apart and they getting a tad frustrated.
Well, toooo friggin bad.
@BBd,
As to your rationale for the list: Bunk.
The electorate has no right to know what I think or do with my money in private unless I am vioalintg the law. Is giving money to HI (which I have done in honor of you) a crime?
Is any group that recieves money and propagates ideas required in your delusional disgusting world to list their donors, or only the ones that offend you?
hunter
Not one dime given to HI is illegally given. You just want to know soyou can join those who harass the donors. why should you be able to, for instance, harass me?
Please read my comments (especially 188 – 190) instead of making up things like this. First, there is no suggestion of illegality. It is hidden corporate sponsorship that is at issue. Second, at (190) I very specifically, very clearly distinguish between donors of public interest, and private donors (in the case of HI 82% vs 14%). Here it is again. Please read it this time:
The donors of public interest are foundations (which in turn are of course the recipients of corporate funding) and corporations. This accounts for 48% and 34% of HI’s funding respectively; a total of 82%. That is what I am talking about. Not the private individuals ponying up a hundred bucks a year.
I have tried to be polite over the last couple of days, but this is getting very, very boring now.
#191 harrywr2
“Why would a US Government Agency suddenly delete records of grants to a specific organization from it’s “˜public’ database?”
For the same basic reason that other agencies have ‘adjusted’ temperature data.
Why did Connolley ‘adjust’ facts in wiki?
Why did Bernie Madoff ‘adjust’ his books?
We all know why.
Joe McCarthy, by the way, loved lists. And those told him “no” were considered heroes. Those were damaged by McCarthy’s disgusting behaavior are today considered brave souls who stood up for freedom.
I am proud to be ready to join that group and stand against this ridiculous new manifestation of anti-freedom that the CO2 obsession is inflicting.
BBD,
Your patience is faux, just like your issue. You have no right to know.
You are just a wannabe thug.
By the way, your selective quote shows your point to be deceptive. You over looked that no donor gives a substantial amount to the HI.
Again you are just a Joe McCarthy wannabe.
Yawn.
He needs to use unrelated authors and cut another sentence out of the memo, I believe.
But who exactly did Barney Frank consider to be his constituency?
Doesn’t matter what he believes. Enough of the voters in his distric approved of his choices to reelect him – over and over again. If I were BBD or Marlowe, I would point to this as a failure of democracy becuause, clearly, noone in their right miind could actually approve of this man. But he reality is, the majority of his voters did. That’s democracy, whether I like it or not.
He and his lover were enriched by FNMA and FMAC, and he led the fight in the Bush Administration to stop all reform of those organizations.
So what. I don’t approve, but that doesn’t matter. The voters in his district didn’t seem to mind.
Frank is probably not, for many reasons, not the best example of how a Congressman works.
No, but he is an excellent example of how democracy works – even though I despise his politics, I don’t question his right to be there or the right of his district to elect him.
Bishop Hill observed : ” Anthony Watts has launched a crowdsourced textual analysis project to see if science will provide backup to Mosher’s observations about the similarities between the literary styles of the counterfeiter and Peter Gleick…It’s a good idea,”
But. shades of the feckless Watts BEST project backfire, unleashed on all the documents in question, and controls for Gleick and his accuser, the textual analysis software WUWT provided points to Joe Bast as the “fake’ ‘s likeliest author
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-document_b_1297042.html
The loophole Bast has tried to jump through in denying the damning summary’s authorship consists in Heartland’s self definition of “staff member”– neither he, as an officer, or senior fellows like Taylor are counted as such- here’s a fairly thorough examination of the matter :
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/22/heartland-memo-origin-questions/.html
@BBD. I own a small company and I/it make/s donations to a number of organisations. Please explain to me why you believe that you have the right to see these records.
Newsflash laddy. It’s my company and my bloody money and so long as I’m not breaking the law it’s none of your damn business. You don’t get to see things just because you feel that you are entitled to see them.
@208 Russell, good luck with that one.
Thanks for the chuckle,
hunter
Just looked sourcewatch definitions:
Global warming skeptics is a term whose meaning has shifted; it has become shorthand for “opponents of effective action to limit greenhouse gas emissions“. Thus it’s now something of a misnomer: many of these opponents are not true skeptics,[1] plus many now accept that global warming is occurring. The term AGW denier is also frequently used, with AGW standing for “anthropogenic global warming.” Those “skeptics” who accept that warming is occurring, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, now find refuge in the claim that it is “natural” and has nothing or little to do with human activities.
So it’s not about science anymore, it’s about policy?
Judging by Durban, skepticism rules.