Now we know who pays our trolls

[PhillipS]

Fakes?

As we learned with the 60 Minutes story "Fortunate Son" about George Bush's supposed terrible National Guard service, in 2004, atheists advancing an agenda have no issues lying to 'advance the greater good'. The ends justify the means. That story was based on a memo about Bush's ANG service, was supposedly typed over 30 years prior, but had the default fonts and kerning of the most popular version of Microsfot Word in use in 2004.

Those that will lie for propaganda count on a sympathetic press, and didn't bother actually finding old typewriters, in the 'Fortunate Son' case.

Fake but accurate. Those evil deniers are all tools of Exxon, even if someone has to manufacture the proof.

You are days behind the latest developments in this story. Peter Gleick has admitted that he is the person who obtained and leaked the Heartland docs. The doc your link claims is fake, the strategy memo, was anonymously mailed to him earlier this year. Which is why its metadata doesn't match the other docs.

Heartland is changing the tone of its press releases on the disclosure - I believe because Heartland has realized they can't have it both ways. If the docs are fakes then they weren't stolen and no crime was commited - and if they were stolen then they aren't fakes. The only way Heartland has a case against anyone is to admit authorship (ownership) and then go after Gleick and possibly others for theft.

[cheetah440]

Source of the HI published docs: Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute

http://dotearth.blog...-climate-files/

Typical. The ends have always justified the means with these cultists. It hasn't been about the science for a long time. Not surprised that nobody is even referencing this, just ignoring it.

[PhillipS]

This is important news.

It might pay to copy any docs that are available and possibly stash a copy on a drive.

Depending on how the judicial system deals with this, an attempt could be made to remove the data, but it will probably amount to unringing a bell.

Probably just paranoia - but just because you know you're paranoid, doesn't mean they ain't after you.

I like your analogy of unringing a bell - it's spot on.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, charges are filed against Peter Gleick. I don't know of any laws his actions might have broken. The first document was mailed to him (no crime there), and the package of material which makes up the majority of the disclosed documents was voluntarily emailed to him by Heartland. It appears that he misrepresented himself to staff at Heartland - but is that criminal? (Whether his actions were unethical or unprofessional are separate questions.) I would think Heartland has the responsibility to verify who it is releasing materials to. Their document control procedures were apparently very lax - but that doesn't make Gleick a criminal.

But whether or not Gleick gets charged I expect Heartland to file a civil suit against him, if only to squash him with legal fees and intimidate other whistleblowers.

[PhillipS]

Typical. The ends have always justified the means with these cultists. It hasn't been about the science for a long time. Not surprised that nobody is even referencing this, just ignoring it.

What specific laws do you feel Peter Gleick broke?

[TerryM]

Typical. The ends have always justified the means with these cultists. It hasn't been about the science for a long time. Not surprised that nobody is even referencing this, just ignoring it.

The 'cultist quip is one of Heatlands talking points - portraying environmentalism and particularly global warming (climate change), as a religion - not science. I believe Frank Luntz's came up with this one.

As for nobody referencing Gleick's involvement, It's almost all that this thread has addressed since it was first noted.

[Ed Lizard]

You are days behind the latest developments in this story. Peter Gleick has admitted that he is the person who obtained and leaked the Heartland docs. The doc your link claims is fake, the strategy memo, was anonymously mailed to him earlier this year. Which is why its metadata doesn't match the other docs.

Heartland is changing the tone of its press releases on the disclosure - I believe because Heartland has realized they can't have it both ways. If the docs are fakes then they weren't stolen and no crime was commited - and if they were stolen then they aren't fakes. The only way Heartland has a case against anyone is to admit authorship (ownership) and then go after Gleick and possibly others for theft.

Or the person who created the fakes decided to divert attention rom that with a sudden confession.

I doubt Heartland has George Soros type money behind it, like Terry's favorite source Think Progress.

[Ed Lizard]

Echo chamber, maybe. Little mention of convicted felon billionaire George Soros funding Think Progress, because he is on the "correct" side (in your view) of the issue. Koch Brothers are evil because they support capitalism, George Soros is a hero. Koch's make their money in manufacturing, Soros made his money betting on the economic collapse of Third World nations and then helping to trigger them.

I don't claim to know the science. I posted too much in this proxy PR for the banned members already, I suppose.

This topic should be locked, probably.

[LakeEffectKing]

the news that the memo was faked has been out for a while now. that doesn't mean HI isn't funding the denier echo chamber.

this isn't that difficult to understand.

Do you agree with Andy Revkin that Gleick's career is "ruined", or do we need to dig deeper into what Gleick actually did (wrt the document in question) before we can determine such a seemingly rushed judgement? Personally, I think his career will skyrocket regardless!!

[PhillipS]

Or the person who created the fakes decided to divert attention rom that with a sudden confession.

I doubt Heartland has George Soros type money behind it, like Terry's favorite source Think Progress.

Divert attention from what? Even Heartland is only claiming that one of the pile of documents is fake. The others are real and Heartland is claiming they were stolen. I am not a legal expert in any sense but I would think Heartland will have a tough time proving to a court that any laws were broken. The Heartland staff chose to send the documents to Gleick without verifying that he was authorized to receive them. A simple phone call to the Heartland board member would have uncovered Gleick's deception.

[TerryM]

Do you agree with Andy Revkin that Gleick's career is "ruined", or do we need to dig deeper into what Gleick actually did (wrt the document in question) before we can determine such a seemingly rushed judgement? Personally, I think his career will skyrocket regardless!!

Wasn't Revkin one of those being considered by Heartland for a payoff in 2012?

[LakeEffectKing]

Wasn't Revkin one of those being considered by Heartland for a payoff in 2012?

Never heard that one before....he would be a nice feather in the cap, if so.

But back to my question to Trix, do you have an opinion?

[Ed Lizard]

there's no need for this topic to be locked. and if you don't know the science, then please go find another forum to continue your OCD ranting about George Soros.

Stay classy.

I at least have a BS degree. You edit technical papers, IIRC, and are extremely partisan. You are certainly not more of an expert on climate science than I am.

The 'OCD' about George Soros, this is a thread about who might be paying people who question AGW, while conveniently ignoring those who may well have placed a large bet on the economic collapse of the United States. That is what Soros does. He makes his money off collapsing economies. The Koch's make their money in manufacturing.

People using Think Progress and other Soros funded organs to support their claims that those not convinced we need to cripple the economy of this country are being bribed and not seeing the irony of it all, well, people see what they want to see.

[TerryM]

I'd think that to cause the "economic collapse" of an energy importing country one might try to increase it's dependency on imported oil.

If I wanted to strengthen an energy importing country, I'd have them invest in locally available renewable resources.

If I feared the populace would find me out, I'd hire Heartland, who has a long history of selling snake oil.

Frankly the whole thing is about oil companies making more money - everything else is collateral damage.

[cheetah440]

What specific laws do you feel Peter Gleick broke?

I don't think I said he broke any law.

[cheetah440]

The 'cultist quip is one of Heatlands talking points - portraying environmentalism and particularly global warming (climate change), as a religion - not science. I believe Frank Luntz's came up with this one.

As for nobody referencing Gleick's involvement, It's almost all that this thread has addressed since it was first noted.

I came up with it all on my own. Anything other is simply a coincidence. Hell, I never even heard of Heartland until this thread.

[cheetah440]

Stay classy.

I at least have a BS degree. You edit technical papers, IIRC, and are extremely partisan. You are certainly not more of an expert on climate science than I am.

The 'OCD' about George Soros, this is a thread about who might be paying people who question AGW, while conveniently ignoring those who may well have placed a large bet on the economic collapse of the United States. That is what Soros does. He makes his money off collapsing economies. The Koch's make their money in manufacturing.

People using Think Progress and other Soros funded organs to support their claims that those not convinced we need to cripple the economy of this country are being bribed and not seeing the irony of it all, well, people see what they want to see.

This entire thread makes me want to go start one of my evil 2-strokes. I love the smell of 2-stroke in the morning.

[dabize]

I don't "edit papers", Ed. I work with scientists to develop book length scientific monographs for the research community, including several published volumes on climate change, and so have at least a basic literacy.

enough! the story has been reported in myriad outlets OUTSIDE thinkprogress.org. please take your Soros mania elsewhere.

Trix, Soros is a dogwhistle for wingnuts of a certain stripe - particularly during the Bush Wars - who couldn't stand it that not all sources of corporate wealth were on their side (as you may very well know). They've been trying to Gore him for years. The fact that "Ed" keeps bringing him (and Think Progress) up tells you all you need to know about him - he's a GOPer oppo type of the kind who used to work out of Karl Rove's office. Waste of our time - candidate for the ignore button.

BTW, - completely off topic - do you work with biologists (or know people who do)?? I tripped on something recently that has given me and my past work far more attention than I am accustomed to dealing with- I just got 5 review article invitations in the last month - and am wondering if I should start looking for ways to cope with high volume. I've never heard of such a service as the one you offer for scientists, mainly because I was always too obscure to need it.

[am19psu]

Ed, this is not PR. Knock it off.

[PhillipS]

The more I read about this episode the more I'm convinced that Heartland is throwing a hissy fit because they failed to practice basic information security. These are their internal documents and they fully understand how inflammatory their release would be - but when contacted by Gleick they send him everything he asked for. This is not a case of hacked computers, or a Mission Impossible style facility breach - this was more like something out of Ferris Bueller's Day Off with Gleick pretending to be a Heartland Director and the Heartland staff too dumb or lazy to check.

If I were to call the Pentagon and say "This is the President. Send me the classified nuclear war plans - my email is [email protected]." and they were actually to send me the war plans - guess what, I'm not the one who screwed up. All of Heartland's actions since the release of the documents - the bluster, the claims of forgery, the threats - should be seen for what it, damage control.

[TerryM]

The more I read about this episode the more I'm convinced that Heartland is throwing a hissy fit because they failed to practice basic information security. These are their internal documents and they fully understand how inflammatory their release would be - but when contacted by Gleick they send him everything he asked for. This is not a case of hacked computers, or a Mission Impossible style facility breach - this was more like something out of Ferris Bueller's Day Off with Gleick pretending to be a Heartland Director and the Heartland staff too dumb or lazy to check.

If I were to call the Pentagon and say "This is the President. Send me the classified nuclear war plans - my email is [email protected]." and they were actually to send me the war plans - guess what, I'm not the one who screwed up. All of Heartland's actions since the release of the documents - the bluster, the claims of forgery, the threats - should be seen for what it, damage control.

Many of Heartland Institute's supporters wish to keep their relationship quiet. This episode may cause some to get wet feet.

I think those who have been using Heartland to keep internet prices up may feel particularly vulnerable.

[Ed Lizard]

Ed, this is not PR. Knock it off.

I agree and abide by the second sentence...

[TerryM]

Nice piece over at Science2 noting that many of Murdoch's publications are ignoring the whole story.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/heartland_institute_and_murdoch_media-87115

[dabize]

congrats on your success! I am strictly in the hard sciences, so unfortunately I can't provide you with any contacts. I'm acquistions/commissioning editor for a small scientific press so I'm not sure I provide a service as much as strong arm physicists into writing books, ahahaha. I am guessing your solution lies in finding some co-authors to help with the article writing tasks?

Thanks - it's all very sudden. I am in the position of an erstwhile "crank" overturning conventional wisdom in my field.

Pretty funny, seeing as what we discuss around here. Now you'd think I had been a big honcho for years. I don't really know what I need - maybe just a secretary.......

I showed that one of the main players in Alzheimer's disease (previously assumed to be kept strictly inside of neurons) is secreted, and that this probably accounts for some of the earliest signs of the disease. Pretty exciting.

However, the "big boys" should have spotted this years ago. Ironically, it is their behavior (which sometimes resembles what the deniers accuse climate scientists of here) that let a small timer like me find it.

I get the strong impression that climate science is (in comparison with AD) at once much less well funded and conducted by people who care more about the science than any money that might be in it for them.

But it is better not to call biology "soft science" when biologists are around. :<P That might have been so once, but no more. The problem in my field is too much imperialism and blinkered thinking, not bad science. We HAVE had problems with peer-review integrity, sad to say.

The AGW "controversy" is much more ridiculous than being wrong about what I showed, however. To get a biological parallel to that, you have to go to Creationism.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This is a pretty huge blow to BS science.

I don't think it will change that much overnight.

Beyond politics the two biggest PR pieces in this entire thing is Arctic Sea Ice and Global Temperature anomalies.

I think those things are going to be the most speculated stuff.

This summer's Arctic Melt Season is the most anticipated in the climo community in a long long time. If not the most. This season can define quite a bit.

We all know scientifically that one summer is irrelevant. 4.0 mil sq km min or 5.0 mil sq km min, doesn't mean to much for the climo of the arctic.

However in the PR game they are big numbers. One can make it look like a big recovery and one starts sealing up the coffin. An under 4 mil km2 sea ice extent min would = pretty very ice less arctic ocean and friends images. Over 5 mil km2 shows a much fuller healthier basin then we have seen since 2009 or maybe before if it is 5.5 mil or more.

Also the global temps have a large affect if we see something record high or dropping lower than the 90s and 00s.

[Vergent]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

WUWT are in CDL(confuse, distort, lie) mode, condition red.

[dabize]

This summer's Arctic Melt Season is the most anticipated in the climo community in a long long time. If not the most. This season can define quite a bit.

We all know scientifically that one summer is irrelevant. 4.0 mil sq km min or 5.0 mil sq km min, doesn't mean to much for the climo of the arctic.

I think that people are starting to wonder if we will see 2.5 or 3 mil.

Yes, the recent past teaches us that 4+mil extents shouldn't matter to Arctic climatology, but 30% less than that, with attendant massive increases in heat input during high insolation periods (the whole Kara soaking up sun at 20%+ sun angle for months on end is unprecedented).

THIS summer may not be irrelevant

[ORH_wxman]

I think that people are starting to wonder if we will see 2.5 or 3 mil.

Yes, the recent past teaches us that 4+mil extents shouldn't matter to Arctic climatology, but 30% less than that, with attendant massive increases in heat input during high insolation periods (the whole Kara soaking up sun at 20%+ sun angle for months on end is unprecedented).

THIS summer may not be irrelevant

At the same time posters like Friv are on the line...he said anyone who predicts a 5 mill sq km min is completely delusional and he would leave the board if we get an extent that high. Yet we got a 5.25 sq km high in 2009.

[dabize]

At the same time posters like Friv are on the line...he said anyone who predicts a 5 mill sq km min is completely delusional and he would leave the board if we get an extent that high. Yet we got a 5.25 sq km high in 2009.

I quite agree that predicting the minimum is very hard, and that there in no guarantee that extents will drop off like that. I am not predicting 2.5-3, I am just saying that it is understandable that some folks see that coming.

With thicknesses as they are, the unprecedented insolation levels at high latitude seem like a good bet. Whether that translates directly into massive melting around the Pole - ah, this is trickier.

But it's not delusional to think it might. We'll see.

And Friv is going nowhere............he'll want to see too.

[TerryM]

At the same time posters like Friv are on the line...he said anyone who predicts a 5 mill sq km min is completely delusional and he would leave the board if we get an extent that high. Yet we got a 5.25 sq km high in 2009.

Any personal predictions?

(perhaps over on the ice extent thread)

[ORH_wxman]

I quite agree that predicting the minimum is very hard, and that there in no guarantee that extents will drop off like that. I am not predicting 2.5-3, I am just saying that it is understandable that some folks see that coming.

With thicknesses as they are, the unprecedented insolation levels at high latitude seem like a good bet. Whether that translates directly into massive melting around the Pole - ah, this is trickier.

But it's not delusional to think it might. We'll see.

And Friv is going nowhere............he'll want to see too.

Hey I'm just putting it into perspective...I wasn't the one who claimed they would leave the board if the extent dropped below 5.0 mil sq km next year...Friv did. I'm a big proponent of natural variation...and arctic sea ice has seen that to an extreme. Not just recent years even if they were lower than any other year recently....we were starting from a high point.

I'll never be one to say we don't influence it, but to claim it as the bigger proof of AGW INHO is garbage....you'd have to prove that moves in sea ice extent were much less prior to satellite data which we really cannot.