From Climategate to Denialgate

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nonsense. Good investigative journalism goes at least that far. And in this country we expect them to, at least what few we have!

K-9

Mod

Could we have less of the one liner responses and personal attacks please.

End of Mod.

I don't see how this revelation changes what was in the documents and I detect, as I did pre this revelation, a certain amount of faux outrage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Goodness me! So we're down from criminal acts to something that would "almost certainly be a firing offence".

Unlike, say, the Climategate emails, which were actually stolen and the subject of a police investigation, and where the perpetrator of the theft never in fact came forward and admitted his part.

Still, spin aside, we remain with the fact that the documents are HI documents, and that what they say in them is HI policy, and even had they been obtained by murder that would still be the case.

Gleick will probably have cause to regret - as it appears he already has - his actions here, but I fear the HI will regret it more, since his small dishonesty has exposed their very much greater dishonesty.

It's also interesting to see who takes up the HI spin message directly here. Hard to believe any claims of impartiality where several journalists appear to reach within the space of an hour or so exactly the same conclusions, which happen also to be HI's preferred PR response to the crisis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And still, we cannot get back to the crux of this debate.

Why is her opinion so important that every article she writes on this has to be linked to us. I also find her to be disingenuous:

And I agree that it's a pity that this is distracting from the important question about how fast the climate is warming, and what we should do about it.

If she actually felt this way why did she not write about it? instead she was right in there from the beginning trying to muddy the waters about a 'supposed' fake document.


As for this statement of hers:

And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say "Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!"

I find it impossible to reconcile the fact she's actually a journalist and typed this, no journalist could ever say that in good conscience, ever! She's completely undermining her own profession, although I suspect she has ideological motivations for doing so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Heh. I see a little treasure trove of old Heartland documents has been released, from their days as shills for the tobacco industry. From HI chairman Joe Bast to Roy Marden, a Philip Morris executive and member of the Heartland board:

Dear Roy:

Thank you for inviting me to request renewed general operating support for The Heartland Institute for 1999.1 note that Philip Morris contributed $5,000 last August (for a Gold Table at our annual benefit) and $25,000 in October (general operating support). It also has allowed you to serve on our Board of Directors, which has produced many positive results for the entire organization.

...

Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris’ bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000 and once again reserve a Gold Table for an additional $5,000.

We genuinely need your financial support. Maybe by the end of this letter you’ll agree that we merit even greater support; I certainly hope so!

...

Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco (and other industries) from what I view as being an unjust campaign of public demonization and legal harassment. We’re an important voice defending smokers and their freedom to use a still-legal product.

–

The Heartlander, our monthly newsletter for members, has called attention to the dangerous legal precedents and discriminatory taxes that are part of the campaign against tobacco in cover essays appearing in the October, November, and June issues.

Recent and past Heartland publications on tobacco, including a Heartland Policy Study and several Perspectives, and the 21 documents on the subject available fromPoIicyFax, are all available on Heartland’s Web site. Particularly popular are two of my essays, titled “Five Lies About Tobacco” and “Joe Camel is Innocent.”

Well, well - splendid stuff, and nothing like the work they now do for the fossil fuel industry in promoting exactly the same kind of FUD.

Oh, no, wait, it's exactly the same. Money in, denialism out. If you need your bottom line defended against, well, you know, scientific evidence that your bottom line gives people cancer, or changes the planet's climate, or pollutes their water supplies, then, hey, you pay someone like Heartland, and they pay "unbiased" journalists and media commentators to repeat their spin. Just as we're seeing now, really.

amused,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

There is enough grist for the mill here without the need to resort to snarky one-liners, gloating, and personal attacks. I've gone through and chucked out some of the more egregious comments.

Please keep it civil, and keep your comments focused on the topic of this thread. There have already been multiple warnings, and there won't be any more.

Cheers,

SSR

RichieC

please god, can we put not being disingenuous into the forum charter?

I am literally stunned at what I came home to read in this thread...

Basically the argument here is that if Gleick had of remained anonymous then the points raised in the (not) stolen documents would have had merit. Alas, he went public and rendered all findings mute.

I know I've mentioned it before but strangely Permabear considers himself above answering it, but there was absolutely no action taken against the CRU after the hacking. No wrong doing. Yet he continues to defend the criminal activities even now while making hay (or so he apparently assumes) from the non criminal wrong doings of this Scientist.

mind boggling. utterly mind boggling.

RichieC

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh. I see a little treasure trove of old Heartland documents has been released, from their days as shills for the tobacco industry. From HI chairman Joe Bast to Roy Marden, a Philip Morris executive and member of the Heartland board:



Well, well - splendid stuff, and nothing like the work they now do for the fossil fuel industry in promoting exactly the same kind of FUD.

Oh, no, wait, it's exactly the same. Money in, denialism out. If you need your bottom line defended against, well, you know, scientific evidence that your bottom line gives people cancer, or changes the planet's climate, or pollutes their water supplies, then, hey, you pay someone like Heartland, and they pay "unbiased" journalists and media commentators to repeat their spin. Just as we're seeing now, really.

amused,
Scofflaw

Lead based paint too, and Aspestos.

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote: »

Lead based paint too, and Aspestos.

Fracking's an obvious addition to the portfolio. I appreciate that you could make a decent fist of a scientific case that fracking isn't anywhere near as black as it's painted - although injecting drilling chemicals into fractured rock is always likely to have some impact on local/regional groundwater - but, you know, I just somehow don't think Heartland will be stumping up for actual research.

I can see we're not going to get Permabear to agree that allowing PR agencies to wade into scientific debates with deliberate misinformation strategies is a bad thing, though. And it's so much cheaper than funding scientific research, which is of course vitally important when you're defending your bottom line - particularly when there's no real chance the research will end up saying what you want said. So much cheaper and much more certain just to say there's a "controversy" - pay enough people to repeat it often enough, and most people will think there must be something in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

I firmly believe it takes a mad man or an ideologue to refuse to believe that pumping millions of gallons of water into the ground laced with "propellants" (who knows, industry secret) could not, under any circumstances get into the water table.

They pretend to care about individual rights. It's about their right to make money hand over fist.

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote: »

I firmly believe it takes a mad man or an ideologue to refuse to believe that pumping millions of gallons of water into the ground laced with "propellants" (who knows, industry secret) could not, under any circumstances get into the water table.

They pretend to care about individual rights. It's about their right to make money hand over fist.

Having worked in both the oil industry and groundwater, I would regard it as a hard case to argue - particularly when you're introducing new fractures into the rock. However, I'd say that it can be made safer than I suspect industry would argue for, while being even at the levels industry would argue for rather safer than it is sometimes painted by its opponents. Contamination is incredibly hard to avoid, but it can be limited both in terms of risk and potential size.

My problem is that, again, what should be a scientific and policy debate about possible levels of safety and acceptable levels of safety is, instead, going to be put into the hands of misinformation specialists. People create, and believe, all kinds of rubbish in complex debates, which is regrettable, but part of freedom of speech - deliberately setting out to contaminate the debate with carefully crafted rubbish to benefit someone's bottom line is very much more than regrettable, and is a disgusting abuse of the notion of free speech. And that's what Heartland does - it's what it has done in the climate debate, the tobacco debate, and other complex debates, and it does it purely for its own bottom line and the bottom lines of its clients, no matter whether all the scientific evidence shows that the outcome will be cancer or catastrophe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ed2hands

Valmont wrote: »

Why would he go and do such a silly thing when he already has the full weight of logic, reason, and science on his side? And the overwhelmingly incontrovertible Scientific Consensus?

Good question. Probably because he despises the Heartland Institute, what they stand for and the power they wield.
Logic, reason and science can be all so easily obscured by well financed propaganda and obfuscation as we all know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Christ... you have to be joking.

It is a multi million dollar think tank and only one within a larger web of samey think tanks all out doing the same job.

Atlas research foundation, the Heritage foundation, The Centre for global development, the Cato institute, mercatos centre, progress and freedom foundation, Makinac centre for public policy, American Enterprise institute, ect ect... yea the money sure is thin on the ground with little or no power. :rolleyes:

all in all it is BILLIONS of dollars.

SupaNova

RichieC wrote: »

all in all it is BILLIONS of dollars.

Can you back up this claim?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Not anywhere close - Permabear et al are on the money here. Frankly, if anyone had to spend billions on disinformation campaigns, it would be evidence they were doing it wrong, and it would seriously impact the bottom line that the campaigns were to protect, be that big oil or tobacco. The whole point of an HI-style strategy is that it's cheap.

Permabear wrote:

Atlas Economic Research Foundation: $6.9 million
Cato Institute: $20.1 million
Center for Global Development: $7.6 million
Mercatus Center: $7.8 million
Progress and Freedom Foundation: $2.2 million
Macinack Center for Public Policy: $3.5 million
American Enterprise Institute: $50.9 million

Total: $99 million.

On the other hand, that's a lot more than I would have thought, and is a hell of a lot of money for propaganda.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, that's a lot more than I would have thought, and is a hell of a lot of money for propaganda.

And lawyers, although perhaps not the best ones. HI are apparently threatening to sue all and sundry for theft of documents they won't entirely admit came from them - a somewhat inconsistent legal position. But then there's a vein of inconsistency running rather widely through the whole thing - HI's attempts to get everyone to shut the hell up are in no sense an attack on free speech, apparently, even though the point is rather obviously to stop people discussing what HI doesn't want to discuss. If there's nothing discreditable in the documents - as HI's defenders assure us there isn't - what's wrong with discussing them? Surely it just adds lustre to HI's reputation...and donations to their bottom line?

Nice to see the HI thinks nothing of publishing the letters it's sending out, including the home addresses of the people it's sending them to. Some people might consider that rather worse than simply naming people - others, including I am sure every single man jack of HI's resolute defenders, will claim that it is an entirely justified response which is simultaneously in no sense comparable.

So we have a situation where HI is accusing people of stealing documents it won't admit belong to it, sending out legal shut-up notices that in no way are intended to intend anyone discussing stuff that isn't discreditable anyway and which in no sense should be seen as an attack on free speech, in a manner that reveals the home addresses of people it accuses of cavalierly revealing names...

Keep on digging...

amused,
Scofflaw

karma_

And the defence has now come full circle, after exhausting every other avenue it's now back to where it all began, the defence of the HI itself.

20Cent

So when handed a smoking gun Gleick could have published it anonymously like the climategate hackers did but instead uses a bit of investigative journalism to confirm the documents as real. Considering the Heartland institute is trying to prevent or delay action being taken against possibly catastrophic climate change it is easy to see why one would do that. Hope this shines a light on the abuse of its tax status by HT and other PR organisations.

Their reaction is also very telling, threats sent to bloggers so much for freedom of speech. How childish is this site!
http://fakegate.org/

RichieC

Scofflaw wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not anywhere close - Permabear et al are on the money here. Frankly, if anyone had to spend billions on disinformation campaigns, it would be evidence they were doing it wrong, and it would seriously impact the bottom line that the campaigns were to protect, be that big oil or tobacco. The whole point of an HI-style strategy is that it's cheap.

Permabear wrote:

Atlas Economic Research Foundation: $6.9 million
Cato Institute: $20.1 million
Center for Global Development: $7.6 million
Mercatus Center: $7.8 million
Progress and Freedom Foundation: $2.2 million
Macinack Center for Public Policy: $3.5 million
American Enterprise Institute: $50.9 million

Total: $99 million.

On the other hand, that's a lot more than I would have thought, and is a hell of a lot of money for propaganda.

cordially,
Scofflaw[/Quote]

That's not even all of them. And that revenue pb posted was 2008. I was exagerating, though.. )

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote: »

That's not even all of them. And that revenue pb posted was 2008. I was exagerating, though.. )

Sure - but at this stage of the Denialgate disaster HI's defenders will be clutching at anything and everything that offers them an easy comeback.

It is interesting, though - it suggests as much as $100m thrown at trying to discredit science over the last decade by those institutions alone, and that doesn't count those that have gone out of business for one reason or another. I note it also doesn't include the Heritage Foundation, or some of the more entertaining organisations like the various LaRouche bodies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

I can't even find the Heritage foundations 2008 revenue let alone last year... Though they focus a lot on foriegn policy, they indeed weigh in on the denial side of this argument.

here's my source: http://think-tanks.findthedata.org/d/t/Conservative

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote: »

I can't even find the Heritage foundations 2008 revenue let alone last year... Though they focus a lot on foriegn policy, they indeed weigh in on the denial side of this argument.

here's my source: http://think-tanks.findthedata.org/d/t/Conservative

Wikipedia:

In 2007, Heritage reported an operating revenue of $75.0 million dollars. As of February 2011, Heritage reported 710,000 supporters.

Their "legislative scorecard" for senators etc contains little gems like this one - naturally enough, legislators needed to vote "yes" to get a scorecard point here:

Stop All Job-Killing Global Warming Regulations: Legislation would prevent job-killing global warming regulations via Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

I think we're all in the wrong business :O

RichieC

Going to see if I can grab this book while I'm out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

ed2hands

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh the straw!
It certainly is a well-financed powerful right-wing propaganda organisation. The dogs on the street can see that.

Since 2003, the Heartland Institute has taken in average revenue of $4.4 million annually. It expects to receive revenues of $7.7 million in 2012. For sake of comparison, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported $95.4 million in operating revenues last year, while the World Wildlife Fund took in $238.5 million, over 54 times Heartland's average. Last year, the World Wildlife Fund spent $68.5 million on public education alone.

Now i wonder why the WWF takes in 54 times Heartlands average?

Maybe it's because the WWF is an international organisation with over 5 million supporters worldwide, works in more than 100 countries and supports around 1,300 conservation and environmental projects. So they sort of actually do things.
And the Heartland Institute?
Well, they host conferences for climate skeptics, lobby for tobacco companies, lobby their little hearts out for tax cuts for the wealthy, and all the other usual right-libertarian think-tanky stuff.
Bit of a difference there between the two i'd say.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Unfortunately, while the information is always welcome, it doesn't cover what is produced by the two sides of the debate, and the earlier comparison of the WWF with Heartland doesn't offer any comfort there. We know what Heartland does - misinformation-based rearguard PR actions against scientific consensuses on smoking, climate change, and other such problems where actual research is never going to say what you want it to say.

It's also worth noting that the level of funding available on the "skeptical" side of the debate makes utter nonsense of any claim that contrarian research couldn't be funded. Yet the contrarian research just isn't there, even though climate change is supposed to be an easily debunked hoax - instead, as we've seen from the Heartland documents, what's being funded is PR.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You keep going on about process this process that.

Yet you steadfastly and repeatedly dodge the actual issue.

That HI is nothing more than PR organisation. That their entire motivation is based on money and not science and that this is something that they have done before, for example tobacco.

The extent to which you keep avoiding the central issues and just try to constantly shift, shift, shift the argument amounts to little more than trolling at this stage in my opinion.

I'd say you have zero credibility left with the majority of posts on here, but I don't think that matters to you, so fanatical are you in pushing this bankrupt ideology.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a mighty fine rewrite! I pointed out that Heartland were clutching their pearls about the release of personal details (names, that is, which are quite probably listed in the phonebook as HI employees), so it was entertaining to see them doing the same, and in rather more detail. And while I suspect the poor Heartland employees won't be getting any extra mail as a result, I very much doubt the same can be said about publishing the home addresses of climate bloggers on a denialist website at a time of major controversy. I suppose that doesn't count in conservative circles, though - abortion doctors, climate bloggers, what's the difference?

You're now making it more entertaining by trying to hit me with that same very bent stick, ignoring both the sequence of events and the original reason for my comments, which are on thread for anyone to read. But keep digging...

amused (and not offended),
Scofflaw

RichieC

Animal and habitat conservation isnt a right/left issue as far as I know. Huge corporations like cocoa cola and Ikea donate to these funds. it's wide support will go aways to explain their massive budgets.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Heh.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, like I said earlier, I'm sure Gleick will have cause to regret it, and I'm sure he's done his reputation harm. But emailing HI and pretending to be someone else is rather a long way down the register of evils. Well, alright, a very long way down. It's sneaky, sure, but in the same circumstances I would honestly have to reserve stronger criticism for the secretary who emailed out confidential documents.

As to the bloggers who published a leaked document - don't be ridiculous. I couldn't possibly support a position where publishing leaked documents is some kind of crime, and neither could you, I suspect, in other cases. They even had the honesty to immediately state there was doubt over the Climate Agenda document, just as Gleick had the honesty to come forward at the expense of his reputation.

Permabear wrote: »

(you won't even use the word "forged," preferring the sly insinuations of "unverified").

Um, yes - that's because they haven't been shown to be fake. HI's responses refer to the Climate Agenda (one of seven documents) as fake, but they haven't even shown that to be the case, and they haven't shown who might have faked it either if it is faked. As said, the documents all support each other, so it's not even really relevant except as a flag for HI and supporters to wave.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I personally find it hilarious to watch libertarians calling for a libertarian organisation to rain down the full rigours of every possible shut up law on the planet upon people who have - according to you - done nothing other than embarrass themselves.

By the way, it's not the first time people have attempted to use my apparent reputation for reasonableness against me - but the tactic assumes that I'm only faking reasonableness out of a desire for praise, rather than adopting reasonable positions because I judge them to be right, so it's not really a compliment.

In this case, I have no hesitation in saying that the Heartland documents reveal an extremely discreditable PR operation taking corporate funding in order to manufacture FUD in complex issues on behalf of their clients' bottom line and their own, against the best available scientific understanding of the issues concerned. I don't consider it unreasonable to find that disgusting, because it's a travesty of free speech - which is intended to protect public debate, not allow paid liars to pollute it for profit.

And while I accept that an ultimately libertarian position could be pushed so far as to justify such paid distortion of debate, I don't think that's what's in play here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Penny still hasn't dropped with you yet has it? Although I suspect it has but you're wilfully avoiding it. It's not about how much these institution's get in funding, it's what they are actually doing with that money, and that's attempting to debase science.

I understand someone having an affection to a certain political affiliation and fighting it's corner, but when those beliefs actually conflict with proven science then I'm afraid to say that it's yourself who's better judgement has deserted them.

I also don't know why you're persisting with repeatedly protesting about the 'BILLIONS OF DOLLARS' remark, not to mention bolding it, especially since the OP of that remark already pointed out he was exaggerating the figure.

RichieC

karma_ wrote: »

I also don't know why you're persisting with repeatedly protesting about the 'BILLIONS OF DOLLARS' remark, not to mention bolding it, especially since the OP of that remark already pointed out he was exaggerating the figure.

If you consider the corporate lobbying going on the US billions is only exaggerating by a bit

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Now at full stretch and cherry-picking!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obdurate? Did you not bear witness to your own performance in this discussion?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's richly ironic given your staunch defence of an organisation whose only purpose is to spread misinformation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

karma_ wrote: »

That's richly ironic given your staunch defence of an organisation whose only purpose is to spread misinformation.

Notice what he did there. He did not actually answer or acknowledge your statement about the organisation he is defending.

Instead he engaged in obvious and classic whataboutry.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're the one propounding a global scale conspiracy, you're the one defending an organisation built on condoning grand ethical malpractice. And yet here you are lecturing the rest of on ethics. We already have made our positions clear on what Gleick did, it's in black and white in this thread.

You've used the fact that there are some in the climate science community who have condemned Glick as if that validates your point, it does not, it's because of the existence of the very PR organisations you defend that they are compelled to do so. They shouldn't have to waste their time denouncing the rubbish anti-climate PR that exists because the science already tells us it is.

Perhaps if you would spend more time reading up on what these climate scientists write, and less reading the guff that emanates from the hind quarters of these so called 'think' tanks then the world would be a lot better off.