From Climategate to Denialgate

RichieC · 22-02-2012 7:17pm

Which was you in 2009 in your posts about climate gate... an actual criminal action. this? might be criminal.. we're the radicals.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 7:25pm

This post has been deleted.

RichieC · 22-02-2012 7:31pm

Is it illegal, though, you keep saying it is, perhaps back it up?

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:34pm

You've spent the entire thread defending the HI and it's practices, am I to deduce from that you do in fact believe that man is having an adverse impact on the climate and you are just defending the institution because there's nothing wrong with a bit of scepticism? Even though, it's not actually true scepticism in the scientific sense, rather just some idiotic spin.

If however, I deduced correctly, and you are a 'denier' in the truest sense, then a categorical YES, you are propounding a conspiracy, on the scale of which the universe has never before seen.

I hope this answers your question.

Dr Galen · 22-02-2012 7:35pm

While watching from the sidelines has been somewhat entertaining, there does come a point whereby someone needs to step in here.

Can everyone involved in this thread please show a bit of cop on. Specifically:

a) Stop being so damn precious (on all sides)
b) Stop with the whataboutery (on all sides)
c) Leave the Ad-Homs aside (on all sides)
d) Attack the post, not the poster (on all sides)

A good, robust discussion is great to see, some would say it's been missing from this forum in the recent past. Let's keep that side of things and dispense with all nonsense

Cheers

DrG

RichieC · 22-02-2012 7:36pm

I like this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/environment-researcher-admits-leaking-climate-docs-claims-theyre-genuine.ars?clicked=related_right

Permabear · 22-02-2012 7:37pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:41pm

That is not what I wrote.

Also, I see you thanked the mod note, perhaps instead of paying it lip-service you could stop the whataboutery.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty · 22-02-2012 8:27pm

He received a lodgement of cash across state lines into his bank account from the HI, did he? No? I don't see how wire fraud is in any way relevant. Phishing is just another form of financial fraud. There was no financial fraud here, by any stretch of the imagination. You're reaching.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:34pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 8:41pm

Documents he already had. I doubt very much will come of this, and I also doubt HI will sue, their credibility is already shredded.

Would you like to see Gleick prosecuted? Even though all he did was to tell the truth. Furthermore, please entertain us with your thoughts, now that we can assume that all the released documents were legitimate? Perhaps falling on his sword was the only way for Gleick to refute the allegation it was false.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:55pm

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty · 22-02-2012 8:55pm

Can you show me anyone that's been successfully prosecuted for wire fraud for receiving (edit: non financial-related, or later benefited financially from) documents by claiming they were an employee?

I'm genuinely interested, I've never heard of wire fraud legislation being successfully used in this manner.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 9:07pm

They have been very aggressive on the PR campaign, and indeed they have threatened legal action, of course that's a long way short of actually proceeding. Time will tell on that one.

And you'd likely have said the same of Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, his reputation did not suffer, in fact quite the opposite.

If that truth was in the public interest, of course, in fact, I expect it.

The evidence we now have is that all documents Gleick had were confirmed when the HI emailed him the corroborating package. It's also plain to see even in this thread, that that particular line of the defence cooled considerably since the Gleick revelation. Coincidence? Surely not.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 9:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 9:27pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 9:46pm

You're twisting my reply to suit yourself now, unbelievably you're trying to rope in the NOTW phone hacking scandal.

I've answered your question clearly, which is more than you have afforded anyone else in the thread.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 9:57pm

I don't recall you - or anyone on the climate opposition - ever condemning the theft of emails from CRU, despite the fact that it was genuinely a criminal act. This has not been determined to be a criminal act at all, yet you're denouncing it furiously. "Wire fraud" is a huge stretch considering that the Heartland Institute lost nothing by the act - a copy sent by email costs nothing, the documents are valueless in themselves.

On the flip side of that equation, the "public interest value" of the documents is very large - this is a public debate about a policy issue that will set the framework for many other policies for years (which is of course why there's money in polluting the debate with misinformation), and HI's documents show the internal workings of an important player.

So the 'public interest value' of the documents is huge, and were there nothing discreditable to Heartland in them, I'm sure Heartland would be amongst the first to claim that outweighs other considerations.

Alas for Heartland, though, the documents are highly discreditable. All the ballyhooing about Gleick is, of course, an attempt to distract from exactly that point, which is why it's occasionally worth cutting through your personal repetition of the HI PR line to remind ourselves that they show corporations paying money to a PR outfit to do for them what the same outfit did for the tobacco giants - spread deliberately manufactured disinformation through apparently "neutral experts" into a vitally important public debate in order to undermine the best available scientific conclusions to protect profits.

We'll keep coming back to that long after HI have had to back off from the pretense that anything criminal has happened to them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 22-02-2012 10:21pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 10:38pm

I did say that I don't recall it - feel free to point to your condemnation at the time.

Not particularly - one started a police investigation because it involved hacking and theft, the other is a "criminal act" only if we're prepared to accept that someone might perhaps be able to stretch an almost irrelevant piece of legislation to cover it.

Both are discreditable, but I think the principle that criminal acts are more discreditable than non-criminal acts is fairly firmly established.

It would be inconsistent for me to support Wikileaks, which I do, or whistleblowing in general, which I also do, and not to take such a stance here.

Good Lord, but why on earth would it damage donor relations? Surely everything is above board and absolutely creditable in giving to such a fine "think tank" - you've said so yourself. If they've nothing to hide, they've obviously nothing to fear.

Even arguing that the secretary was unduly careless is a bit hard considering that donations to tax-exempt organisations such as Heartland are a matter of record. So it can hardly be argued that the donors wish to hide the mere fact of their donations...which leaves us with the undeniable problem that HI have been shown to be spending that money on disinformation campaigns. I can imagine the donors might be upset about that alright - but somehow I can't see Heartland arguing that in court.

Dear me, the irony! After all, according to Heartland, that's exactly what it does. Indeed, it's their whole raison d'etre and business model - and you're defending them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 22-02-2012 11:22pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 11:41pm

How often do you have to be challenged to discuss the actual implications of the documents? Why do you keep driving the discussion away from that? Even in your response here, you cherry-picked the parts of the post you felt like answering and conveniently forgot about the parts you were uncomfortable with!

You have spent this entire thread deflecting, you will literally talk about anything except the actual content of the revelations.

Why?

Moriarty · 22-02-2012 11:47pm

Simple question: do you support organisations and individuals who misrepresent themselves to influence others for their own goals? Would you support a judge who misrepresents themselves as being impartial when they're secretly on the payroll of a company you are about to bring to court and have this judge preside over the case?

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 11:55pm

It is, of course - but the discrepancy in condemnation is equally obvious.

It is, after all, what whistleblowers do - reveal documents that people would rather not have revealed. I do somewhat doubt you were under the impression such documents were ordinarily obtained under circumstances of complete frankness. And that is what has been done here - not very creditable for Gleick, as he admits himself, and deeply embarrassing for someone on an ethics committee.

Yet since Heartland is such a fine upstanding institution, and their work so patently proof against criticism, as you have said, it remains extraordinarily hard to see why these donors should be in any way unwilling to be connected publicly with a body they're willing to contribute to privately.

On the other hand, I can certainly see why Federal employees being paid by Heartland might be an issue:

It's a gift that keeps giving, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 23-02-2012 12:19am

And with the likes of Santorum's position on climate change, I'd say likely to give more.

I wonder who the donor is who gave Millions upon Millions to the institute and how it was financed?

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 12:39am

Some interesting speculation on the Daily Kos, but I admit it's not of great interest to me - there will always be someone who needs the sort of services Heartland can provide for their bottom line, and rich people with strong political views are hardly a new phenomenon.

What interests me is seeing the way Heartland protects its clients' interests, and the defence of such antics by otherwise quite reasonable people, unpaid. It reminds one that in defence of ideology, the end is taken to justify the means, because the means are clearly unjustifiable by themselves - none of HI's defenders here have really attempted to justify them, for example - yet the institution that does those things for a living, and did so for years for the tobacco industry before climate change denial became a paying proposition, is being defended by those same people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 23-02-2012 12:39am

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty · 23-02-2012 12:44am

At the risk of coming across as impertinent, I refer you to the previous sentance:

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 12:47am

Unsurprising I'll grant you - but immensely discreditable too. There's a world of difference between hearing that people use such tactics, and seeing them written out in board minutes and budgets.

The one overtly and publicly accepted as a criminal act, the other one something that would take a very good lawyer a lot of work to thinly stretch entirely different legislation over.

I'd be interested to know whether this condemnation of yours stretches to all whistleblowing, since whistleblowing almost always involves some act of deception or sneakiness where it's not outright illegal.

I have no difficulty at all in saying that donations to any campaigning organisation should self-evidently be public knowledge. How on earth is one supposed to be sure of the honesty of a campaign unless one is sure that it's not simply to benefit someone's bottom line?

In respect of political donations...well, yes I do. You'd apparently be surprised how common a view that is.

As are you. But then neither of us are, I hope, being funded to promote someone else's agenda on a purely commercial basis. We do try to discourage such users, because they tend to inject a lot of dishonesty into the forum's discussions. Hopefully you can see how that principle applies to Heartland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 23-02-2012 4:11am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 23-02-2012 4:23am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 23-02-2012 7:02am

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 8:17am

I imagine the issue will come up wherever climate change gets debated. It's not just Heartland that has been tarnished here - and in some senses, not Heartland at all.

I'm sure he'll do his best. Anyone can litigate, though.

It's not uncommon for whistleblowers to act because for one reason or another they are in possession of internal documents to which they would not normally have access, while the mere act of releasing internal documents is not usually viewed as honest by those whose documents have been released. They too often seek to press civil and criminal charges.

I'm obviously not concerned with small personal donations, because they're individually too small for the donor to wield influence over the recipient.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 9:16am

And the lawyers respond to Heartland's attempts to have everyone shut up:

Doesn't deal with Gleick's position, but hopefully we can at least dispense with the farcical HI claim that those who have in turn used the documents and blogged or written about them were guilty of some misconduct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 9:53am

Desmogblog has decided that the Climate Agenda document is likely not faked:

Assuming Gleick is telling the truth about how he acquired the first document - and given he has admitted to obtaining the other documents by pretending to be someone else to the great detriment of his reputation, I can't see why he'd not say that he'd obtained the other the same way.

There's elements, of course, of "well, they would say that", but the point about the correspondence in language and material indicating that whoever wrote the Climate Agenda already had access to Heartland documents seems reasonable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 10:10am

And Nature takes a critical stance on Gleick's actions:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/482440b.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

karma_ · 23-02-2012 11:45am

Permabear, your stance and defence here of your brand of ideology reminded me of the stance creationists take in pushing their nonsense. Again, my curiosity was piqued and I had to satiate it. Once again I was not to be disappointed:

I found the following to be relevant to the current discussion - in response to this:

You had this to say:

Supplant 'politicians' with 'anti-global warming think tanks' and you should see what I'm driving at.

Valmont · 23-02-2012 1:18pm

Would you also rank Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT as an ideologue pushing nonsense?

What about Freeman Dyson, winner of the Fermi award, Templeton prize, and Wolf prize? Is he simply a nonsense-pushing ideologue for not parrotting the AGW party line?

Some very prominent and respected scientists have their doubts about the AGW narrative specifically because of attitudes like yours. They want debate, discussion, and for the black-listing to stop. These are highly intelligent and respected scientists and trying to cast them off as nonsensical ideologues is simply fanatical environmentalism at its worst. I hope you can see the irony in your attempts to stamp out perceived dissent with ad-hominem attacks and resorts to the majority position.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 1:48pm

And the attempts by skeptical commentators all over the web and mainstream media to stifle this particular item of news and brand everyone who has so much as commented on it as criminals is, of course, not in any sense whatsoever even slightly similar.

In the light of Heartland's actions, your heartfelt plea that some people just want "debate, discussion, and for the black-listing to stop" rings even more hollow than Permabear's citing of "the ends don't justify the means". The whole point of the HI documents is that they're about poisoning the debate through PR, and over the next while we shall be treated to continued desperate attempts to both stifle any attempts at debate or discussion, and to have anyone associated blacklisted or destroyed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC · 23-02-2012 2:21pm

"fanatical environmentalism" - is this Jungian shadow aspect shining through from fanatical free market advocates?

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 3:24pm

There are, of course, fanatical environmentalists, but the branding has had to be extended to reach anyone and everyone who objects to what ought to be a scientific policy debate being poisoned by outfits like Heartland, which are very clearly not trying to add information to the debate, but only disinformation, and not from a neutral position but to protect their paying clients' bottom lines. Basically anyone who accepts that maybe the scientists are right (and if one scientist objecting is important, why are the hundreds of thousands agreeing somehow irrelevant?) and that maybe we ought to do something about the issue is now an "environmental fanatic".

And that's kind of hilarious, really, because it means the world is full of fanatically environmental governments. And as any environmental scientist will tell you, that's not remotely the case. But then, perhaps there are degrees of fanaticism, with environmental experts more fanatical than mere governments?

It's extraordinary, also, that a company like Heartland, which is clearly acting as a PR consultancy and nothing else, has tax-exempt status. What is Heartland doing except PR? I can't see how it's anything but a PR company that needn't pay tax as long as it characterises its clients' payments as donations and its PR campaigns on their behalf as political campaigns, except of course not the kind of political campaigns that attempt to change legislation (is there another kind?) because that would be lobbying, which is something else Heartland apparently don't do, despite the extensive connections with legislators they make a point of boasting about in donor drives.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 23-02-2012 5:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 5:23pm

And there we have it. As almost invariably happens in climate related debates, the two sides here will walk away with completely different histories in their memories.

No attempt will be made by Heartland's defenders to address the issue of a Heartland pumping misinformation into a scientific debate, the fact that they're doing so, despite their tax-free status, as paid PR agents defending corporate bottom lines, or the fact that supposedly "neutral" commentators are being paid by said PR agency to produce material that helps defend their bottom line.

No, it will all be about what a jerk this Gleick guy is. Documents? An honest person wouldn't even look at documents obtained by deception, so clearly there's nothing to be discussed about the contents! Except by dishonest people...oh, really...everyone on the scientific side of the question, you say? Shocking, shocking...but how could one be surprised?

Ah well. An impressive demonstration of the power of rationalisation, where the ends don't just justify the means, but make the means entirely invisible. Mental shields up!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 23-02-2012 5:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 6:00pm

QED, pretty much. Nothing learned here.

The point is not a defence of Gleick - who has, as I've now said several times (invisibly to Permabear, apparently), done his reputation permanent damage through deception - but that HI defenders are very obviously trying to concentrate on Gleick's actions to the exclusion of everything else, because "everything else" here is documents from the people they're defending which show Heartland acting as a misinformation PR agency for corporate interests in the climate change debate, just as they did for the tobacco agency. And HI's defenders don't want people looking at that.

Whatever happens to Gleick, that remains the real story here. One half of the policy debate has been shown through its own documents to have nothing up its sleeve but PR tactics, while "disinterested" commentators like Watts have been shown to be on the company shilling. The facade of neutrality and objectivity is completely broken.

That's what has made this thread so entertaining - there is an issue about Gleick, and there's an issue about Heartland. But Heartland's defenders don't want it to be possible to discuss the issues separately, whereas they're not in fact connected. The documents, however obtained, say what they say about the activities of a supposed "think tank" and their role in the "climate debate", which is one of poisoning the debate for money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC · 23-02-2012 6:38pm

What if the "means justified the ends" and the allegations were far more serious?

Money still wins.

http://wannabehacks.co.uk/2011/12/01/a-us-phone-hacking-tale-chiquita-banana-and-the-public-right-to-know/

Permabear · 23-02-2012 6:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2012 7:00pm

Shrug - neither you nor I define the news. We can only argue our points of view, as we have done, and leave the reader to judge. The wider media will do the same - and there I would certainly expect media to have a slant in the direction of HI's preferred narrative, if for no other reason than that HI are a professional PR outfit with good contacts.

But as I'm sure you're equally aware, even the heaviest PR onslaught is imperfectly effective, and the damage done to the pretence of objectivity and neutrality on the part of prominent climate change opponents will also be non-trivial. I'm sure that in your eyes, and in the eyes of other dyed in the wool "skeptics", they'll remain entirely unblemished - but that will continue to be the case no matter what happens, or what they do, as you've made very clear here.

It's instructive, may I add, that you cannot actually bring yourself to defend HI's tactics, preferring to brush them aside as "unsurprising" or "unremarkable" and batten on Gleick's actions as something you can address with a clear conscience. And I agree they are unsurprising, but they're no less discreditable for that - and apparently you think so too, if your relative silence on them here is anything to go by.

And I would say, if I may make a personal remark, that that's why you feel "bullied" - because you're a moral (if ideological) person, and I keep returning to a point that makes you deeply uncomfortable. Defending corporate profits by lying for paying clients - in an issue where credible scientific evidence shows harm resulting - is not moral. And that's what Heartland does. It's what they did for the tobacco companies (and tobacco companies are still their "donors"), and it's what they do in the climate "debate" (and fossil fuel companies are their "donors").

That's why this has to be about Gleick, for you and for those like you - and for Heartland, although in their case it's because it would hurt their profits, rather than morality. Because the real story here is indefensible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duiske · 23-02-2012 7:47pm

Heartland published lists of donor's until about 2006, when donor's began reporting threats and abuse from climate fanatics. Jim Lakely, Communications Director at HI, today released e-mail discussions between himself and Peter Gleick regarding an invite to Gleick to speak at a Heartland conference. This very issue was discussed in the e-mails.

From Climategate to Denialgate

Comments