Saving the Earth, One Fraud at a Time

The latest embarrassment for global warming activists

(Page 2 of 2)

But there is something about global warming that attracts the “ends justify the means” crowd. It’s the same fraudulent ideology that California’s state government has embraced as it implements a first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade program that won’t do a thing to cool our state, but will raise taxes on businesses and drive many of them elsewhere. Advocates of AB32 were hardly fonts of honesty and rational debate.

Hey, if Planet Earth is in danger, then anything goes in the political realm also. That ideology is far scarier to me than a little warmer weather.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Playa Manhattan||

    "I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed."

    Unless he disagrees with you, because then you aren't rational...

  • We're Reason. You're not.||

    From the irony department.

  • ^Lacks self-awareness^||

  • It's investigative journalism||

    ...when Andrew Breibart does it.

    Rememeber that ACORN video?

    Did the Fibertarians at "reason" call it Fraud then?

    LULZ

  • ||

    Prior to yesterday, I'd never heard of Andrew Breitbart.

    So... in response to your questions...

    No, and no.

  • Deliberate Ignorance?||

    Or studiously ignorant? Which is it?

    Anyway, where's the indictment or conviction, or even just charges of fraud? Any? No?

    LULZ

  • Deliberate Ignorance?||

    Put down the chalupa--that bitch is mine!

    LULZ

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fair enough, Bretibart selectively edited video.

    Were you okay when Ed Schultz did it against Neal Boortz?

  • Mr.Fify, identification FRAUD!||

    Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.

    Try again.

  • White Imbecile, shit flinger||

    "I don't believe that White Imbeciles have the intellectual capacity to have a composure," concludes Dr. Kimberly Clark, who has devoted several years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought."

    But do they possess any sort of behavior that could be considered as rational?

    "No. If they had, they would have realized that shit flinging is not really that usefull. Higher animals have more sophisticated ways of dealing with stress, lack of education and living rent-free in mommy's basement than White Imbeciles. It's really sad."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • ||

    Deliberate Ignorance?|3.2.12 @ 12:36PM

    You can't get charges of fraud when the government refuses to do anything.
    i.e. Holder will never look at anything that gets "his people" in trouble. (which now includes mexican gangsters also)

    But what would you call 600+ degree temps on the 4th of July, in and around Lake Superior. Only an obama type would believe that the surface was that hot.

  • NotSure||

    We are promoters of fibrous diets?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "It's investigative journalism
    ...when Andrew Breibart does it."

    And you're whining, why exactly? Because you feel that sort of disingenuity should be left to the Moores, Olbermans, Stewarts, Mahers, ETC?

  • ||

    Breitbart didn't commit fraud. This bozo did. I hope Heartland breaks him financially through civil action. Forget the criminal complaint.

  • ||

    2 wrongs does not make wither right. If that is your justification of Gleick's lie, it is truly pathetic

  • ||

    2 wrongs. If you justify this lie with another wrong, it's truly pathetic

  • How is what he did "fraud?"||

    Or is it that Fibertarians just don't like the truth being exposed?

  • It's investigative reporting..||

    ...when Andrew Breibart does it!

  • Why does White Dipshit...||

    ...want to defend an Agricultural City-STATIST?

  • Why do Fibertarian Dipshits...||

    ...defend Agricultural City-STATISM (civilization?)

  • ANSWER THE QUESTION, WI||

  • ANSWER THE QUESTION, FIBertard||

  • ASKED YOU FIRST, PRIMITARD||

  • LOL I asked this a dozen times||

    ...still no answer:

    "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had THE RIGHT TO TAKE over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

    Once again, for the nth time, Questions:
    • Is any white person's right an individual or collective right?
    • Is THE RIGHT TO TAKE a negative or a positive right?

    So you first, since you think answering first is somehow of utmost importance.

  • ||

    Why do you keep insisting that Libertarians defend the European colonization of the Americas?

    Ayn Rand is an Objectivist, not a Libertarian.

  • It Usually Begins With AynRand||

    Brian, don't bullshit me.

    Libertarians are extremely influenced by Rand's works. Libertarian Reason foundation here is part of the ATLAS Network. They promote the Atlas Shrugged movie.

    Yeah, I'm aware of the cultish infighting between the two groups. But you're still just fooling yourself.

    And really, why does it matter if Rand said it? Libetarians say pretty much the same thing as she does, actually, the whole American agricultural city-State does.

    Rand was just parroting common excuses for genocide.

  • ||

    I still don't see where you're going by insisting that Libertarians defend a specific quote by Ayn Rand in order to justify themselves.

    It's difficult for me to be critical of Ayn Rand in this quote without assuming that native people had some rights that were violated. Libertarians are frequently concerns with rights, and respect rights. So, I don't get the part where Libertarians are pigeon-holed into defending this Ayn Rand quote.

    I reject the notion that someone must be an Objectivist to be a Libertarian, or agree with everything Ayn Rand ever said.

  • tarran||

    Given the public, pathological and pitiful hatred Ayn Rand had for libertarianism, I am curious why the moron keeps mistaking libertarianism for for the dying cult of Objectivism and demanding that libertarians defend the cult's messiah.

    On second thought, I'm not curious as to why the griefer does what she does. Like Hitler's hatred of Jews or Michael Bay's hostility to good-movie-making, the roots of the evil are not interesting enough to justify wasting too much time on.

  • ||

    "Libertarians love individual rights. Rand thought that the natives didn't have rights. AHA! You are caught in a clever, contradictory trap!"

    Well, I can decide that Rand is incorrect in determining who has what rights. Seems better than adopting the philosophy that we don't have rights.

    I don't see how you can force Libertarians to defend the colonists, but not utilitarian liberals. Because, after all, isn't living in the modern world better than living in a hut with no medicine? Why, it's in everyone's best, collective interest for the Americas to be colonized. Why let the rights of a few natives interfere with utopia? What about their children?

    How Libertarians end up being forced to defend the colonists, while we assume liberals are on the side of the natives, seems totally backwards.

  • BelowTheRim||

    tarran:

    Great Michael Bay reference. That was classic.

  • Greater Weasel Tarran||

    Fundamentalists always infight.

    However, objectivism and libertarianism are both quite similar; they are Market Fundamentalists.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I never made it through any of Rand's books, nor do I consider her an "influence".

    She had good ideas, but she HATED libertarians. But you knew that, Godesky.

  • ||

    She was a bad writer. A brilliant, thoughtful, insightful, courageous person with a lot of ideas, but a bad writer.

  • Alan||

    I tend to think of Ayn Rand as being a bit of an asshole who occasionally said something smart.

    On the other hand, I've read almost everything by Heinlein and agree with him 95% or more of the time.

    Thanks for informing me who my influences are.

    Idiot.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Brian, don't bullshit me."

    Soon as you want to return the favor.

  • 1913 progessive||

    Wasn't north america discovered by an italian and colonized by some spanish?

    Those people aren't white!

  • No and No, your red herrings..||

    ...have been answered.

    NOW, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

    1) WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE BACK THE STOLEN LAND YOU SIT ON?

    2) WHY DO YOU DEFEND PROGRESSIVE STATISTS?

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    You make me wish we'd killed ALL the Indians when we had the chance. At least one fewer whiner.

  • News Flash||

    Europeans arrived 4,000 to 11,000 years before anyone came from Asia.

  • ||

    Primitard,This has been answered dozens of times here. And you have ignored the answer,given no reply and re-posted the same preposterously worn out shit so many times that you are unworthy of further attention. By now it has become obvious you don't come here for any other reason than to indulge in your penchant for public masturbation.

  • ||

    Good lord, yes. Godesky proposes a return to a hunter-gatherer society that, if enforced, would result in the deaths of 99.9999% of the human population by starvation. He persists in this despite the fact that he acknowledges this is a desired outcome. That is to say, he has ambitions that would make a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao positively blush.

  • Sam Grove||

    The problem here isn't whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you, we haven't got that far in discussion yet.
    The problem is your accusatory tone, straw man arguments, etc. which arouses the feeling in others that they don't want to engage you at all because they already know that you are trying to cheat your way to the top in the exchange.

    You give the aura of wanting to beat up on people and nobody wants to get beat up on by somebody who plays by his own rules.

  • ||

    Full quote here along with two renditions of her thought: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand. I agree with her that individuals, not countries, have rights. But that would not allow one to kill individuals, even if they are "slaves" to a chief. Many were nomads, but they did use the land, so had a right to the property even if they did not "improve" it, or use it directly except as hunting grounds. But even being denizens of the stone age, doesn't mean they lacked a right to continue their existence. I think her understanding of property ownership and tribal culture is insufficient. But where she is referring to cases when Natives sought to violently restrict settlers from lands which were not used in any way by the Natives, I would agree with her. Finally, using understanding of the case to attack all libertarians through a guilt-by- association argument is plain dumb.

  • QUESTION FOR PRIMITARD||

    Progressives love the STATE.

    You defend progressives.

    WHY DO YOU LOVE THE AGRICULTURAL CITY-STATE?

  • Civilization = Progress to you||

    So you're a progressivist too.

  • ||

    This just points out the stupidity of naming a political ideology "progressive". Its assumes, in name, that any exercise of its will is a step in the right direction.

    I'm going to rename Libertarianism "Goodness and Fairnessism."

    "Hey, you don't like liberty? Why are you against goodness and fairness?"

  • Technology is progress!||

    Yet we have more cancer.

    So, you are correct, Brian.

    Nobody ever counts the whole cost of "advances."

  • ||

    Which explains why you can't define a performance measure on what is for the "greater good."

  • Gamboling is progress!||

    Yet we have more tetanus.

  • AgCityStatism makes us sicker||

    The earliest visible populations of prehistory nonetheless do surprisingly well if we compare them to the actual record of human history rather than to our romantic images of civilized progress.

    Health and the Rise of Civilization
    Mark Nathan Cohen
    Yale University Press
    www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm

  • AgCityStatism makes us sicker||

    Yet we still have more tetanus.

  • orion||

    yeah..... that kind of happens when people have a life expectancy that exceeds 30.

  • Agriculture reduces lifespan||

    Life expectancy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    Excavations at Dickson’s Mounds show a sharp drop in all the customary benchmarks of health and nutrition, and also signs of immediate malnutrition. They evidence a catastrophically shorter life expectancy and smaller stature (indicating greater malnutrition). (Goodman & Armelagos, 2000) It is only in the past fifty years that the heights of Western Americans and Europeans, with the modern “affluent malnutrition,” have come to match those of their Mesolithic forager ancestors. Greeks and Turks still have not attained the full stature of their Mesolithic ancestors.

    Thesis #9: Agriculture is difficult, dangerous and unhealthy.
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org.....html#toc10

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    Modern Greeks and Turks are also not being eaten by wild animals, dying before 30, or freezing their asses off in a grass hut, as a rule.
    You fkn retard.

  • Sam Grove||

    Yet we have more cancer.

    Because a lot of people live a lot longer?

    IAC, your statement has no context.

  • Wrong, Sam (typical bullshit) ||

    The KOCHsucker view has already been addressed before, as follows:

    "It has been suggested that the short lifespan of individuals in antiquity precluded the development of cancer..."

    In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to POLLUTION and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

    ~Professor Rosalie David, at Manchester University's Faculty of Life Sciences

    ~Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?
    A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman
    Nature Reviews Cancer 10, 728-733 (October 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrc2914

    Play it again, Sam.

  • ||

    Rosalie David said:
    Although the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed, the first published histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy demonstrates that new evidence is still forthcoming.

    Man must have invented sometime before Egyptian civilization.

  • Fluffy||

    There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.

    You'd have to be an idiot to say something this stupid.

  • The sun...||

    ...can't cause cancer.

    Primitard told me so.

  • Sam Grove||

    In antiquity, disease diagnoses was rudimentary. If someone die of cancer, how would anyone have known what it was?

    This professor sounds ludicrous. There is plenty in the natural environment that may cause cancer, including ubiquitous gamma rays and radioactive carbon not to mention viral infections and abundant natural sources of chemicals.

  • Libertard Creationist Strategy||

    Is Reason Foundation is visiting the Creationist Museum in Kentucky next?

  • Primitard Habilis Strategy||

    Is Jason Godesky visiting Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania next?

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Bill||

    The cause of most cancers is radiation from the sun and cosmic rays and background radiation from nature. Then add some natural carcinogens found in some foods (along with anti-carcinogens) and you have many ways to get cancer without technology.

    Even wood fires if inhaled often can probably cause cancer.

    In today's society you still have all of these things but you may have additional carcinogens from chemicals, cigarettes, pollution. You also have better health care and nutrition.

    I suspect no one knows what the balance of all these is.

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Procter and Gamble Lockout||

    Brushing your teeth is a capitalist plot.

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    I'd rather live 75 years in modern comfort and die a miserable death from cancer, than struggle to survive for 29 and then die of exposure.
    Jesus, you are the stupidest human I've ever read comment. Anywhere. Fk me. Stupid fkn Indian. You've ruined this site. Here's some whiskey and a spotted blanket. Catch scarlet fever and die.

  • Alan||

    Actually, we have less cancer, for any given age.

    What we have is more people living to old age, when cancer is more common.

  • ||

    18 USC § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

  • WI||

    Lefty city-STATISTS are really my friends.

  • ACORN Investigation||

    It's called "investigative journalism" when Fibertarians and Right Wing Authoritarian Conservatives do it for their corporate KOCH masters.

    Anybody else? It's fraud.

    LULZ

    Ok, then, show me the fraud conviction, or even indictment, Fibertard.

  • WI loves the "KOCH" meme||

    So do leftist statists.

    WHY DO YOU SIDE WITH LEFTIST STATISTS?

  • Koch isnt' a meme.||

    Koch is the sugar daddy of reason foundation. Forget that?

  • WI = $oros troll||

    That loves to trash the KOCH BROS on the KOCH BROS' site.

    And who never says a negative word about patron war-profiteer $oros.

  • How is showing your hypocricy||

    ...siding with anybody?

    I mean, really. You just sound like a silly Right Wing Authoritarian nut.

  • Fat Indian||

    Dude you can stay with this as long as you want...the cool kids aren't going to let you hand in their tee pee!

  • Who loves the little boys?||

    White Indian loves the little boys!

  • GLOBAL WARMING is REAL||

    ArborDay.org
    Hardiness Zones
    See Changes From 1990 to 2006
    www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

  • The Little Boys||

    We're not so crazy about White Indian. He touches us in our pee-pee areas.

  • Bill||

    Very few people argue that the temp. has not gone up a little bit over the last 20-30 years.

    It's the idea that the curves will go exponential with very positive feedbacks people don't believe.

  • ALL CAPS IS SO CONVINCING||

    *Sigh*

    Mises.org
    "The Skeptic's Case"
    http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

  • ||

    I am more interested in the hypocrisy than fraud. A climate change researcher commits fraud to disclose documents from a climate change skeptic, while the scientific community refuses to retain and/or release scientific data gathered and processed using public funding.

    I think that the public should have access to the data they paid for, before we address the concerns of scientists in discovering how their critics are funded. How he even has time for this with all the important global climate research to do is beyond me.

    At least AB didn't report on ACORN using public funding and call it "science."

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Bill||

    You know who else flings shit?

  • Besides White Imbeciles?||

    Rhesus monkeys.

    And hippos.

  • ||

    I think the problem is that he (Gleick) represented himself as being a specific member of the Heartland Institute's board to get the papers. That sounds like ID theft, depending on details...

  • tarran||

    Peter Gleick did expose the funding imbalance between those doing science and those trying to advance corporate and special interests at the expense of the general public.

  • Paleo||

    Okay, I'm confused. What in that graph is supposed to be NOT special interest?
    And other than the $6.5 million, the rest (about $2.5 billion) is literally at the expense of the general public, right?

  • tarran||

    To me what's fascinating is the pervasive meme that the people refusing to join the cult of CAGW are part of some well-funded astroturfy campaign by shadowy special interests - primarily fossil fuel companies.

    The reality is that CAGW really took of when Enron figured out that they could use the panic to create lucrative regualted markets for them to trade in, and all the big corporations and NGO's have jumped in to feed on the trough.

    All the large oil companies are donating billions of dollars to promote CAGW. The NGO's promoting it add further billions, and governemnts kick in hundreds of billions on it.

    Opposing them you have people working on a shoe-string budget. HAnsen gets paid millions of dollars to promote CAGW on behalf of BP and T Boone Pickens.
    Steve McIntrye has to beg for charitable donations to attend conferences, yet he's the "fossil fuel shill."

  • Alan||

    With 2.5 billion in public funding at stake, it's no wonder that the recipients of this largesse are shaking in their boots at the prospect that the truth may end their party.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm going to repeat in every thread about this that the fraud is not that he got documents under false pretenses.

    That's investigative reporting and resourcefulness. HURRAH HURRAH HOO-RAH.

    The fraud is that he took a document of unknown provenance (that he now says he got anonymously in the mail) and mixed it with documents of known provenance (the Heartland documents he used his fake identity to get) and then presented the resulting document collage to the press.

    This is exactly the same as (not analogous to, but exactly the same as) having a fossil bone of unknown provenance, and then mixing that bone into the results of a documented dig. "Look! I found a new species!"

    It's cut and dried Piltdown Man style fraud.

  • Tony the Statist||

    He did this for the greater good. Morals are just silly if they don't lead you to utopia.

  • Adrew Breibart||

    I did it for the greater good. Morals are just silly if they don't lead you to Right Wing Nut utopia.

  • Anthony Weiner||

    Your evil mind rays forced me to tweet my junk, schlomo!

  • ACORN Undercover Video ||

    It's "undercover" when we do it.

    It's "fraud" when others do it.

  • Scientists are from products..||

    ...of civilization.

    WHY DO YOU DEFEND AGRICULTURAL CITY-STATISTS?

  • DON'T FEED THE TROLL||

  • Sam Grove||

    I think Beitbart did not subscribe to utopianism.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. Its one thing when investigative journalists do it. I would hope that someone who holds and ethics chair would say to himself, "Is it ethical to request documents on false pretenses under an assumed name before attempting to get them by calling and asking for them as myself?"

  • ||

    He probably would have gotten the document if he had asked for them since it is a charitable organization and they probably have to tell the IRS who donates to them in the first place

  • ||

    It's cut and dried Piltdown Man style fraud.

    It seems more like slander to me. Didn't the forged document relate to strategy, rather than any evidence?

    To me, it seems more like adding a bone of unknown origin to a fossil that was being studied and then saying "Piltdown".

  • Fluffy||

    The forged document was the one that made it appear that Heartland openly intended its efforts to subvert science and science education.

    This "smoking gun" memo was the document the press breathlessly quoted as damning in its initial reports.

    It also happens to be the document that did not have a known provenance.

    That's why it's a Piltdown Man fraud. Because it's like taking, say, known Australopithecus fossils, and then some brain pan fossil someone sent you in the mail, and claiming to the press that you had found the fossil set together.

    His "discovery" was noteworthy because of all of its components - but he was deceiving everyone about the source, and the value, of the most distinctive and important component.

  • ||

    Because it's like taking, say, known Australopithecus fossils, and then some brain pan fossil someone sent you in the mail, and claiming to the press that you had found the fossil set together.

    But that isn't what happened. Gleick didn't claim that HE had made a discovery. He took a fossil from someone else, added a bone, and then claimed that they had purposefully done it.

    Piltdown was an attempt to increase the "discoverer's" reputation. This wasn't an attempt to make a scientific claim, for fame, like Piltdown. This was a direct attempt to ruin the reputation of Heartland. A False Flag Piltdown, if you will.

  • Fluffy||

    The scientific fraud lies in creating the false fossil set, not really in the act of taking credit for it.

  • ||

    I'm going to repeat in every thread about this that the fraud is not that he got documents under false pretenses.

    That's investigative reporting and resourcefulness. HURRAH HURRAH HOO-RAH.

    Meh. Investigative journalists get a source, a leaker or some such. They never misrepresent themselves. Closest thing to that in journo-world I can think of is the skinny effeminate dude and his Kid Toucher Corral show. Can't remember the name of it. And that's the bottom-barrel of ethics already.

  • ||

    Kind of like what rather tried to pull on President Bush with the documents of unknown origin.

  • johnl||

    Good point. Except that there never has been much question on the provenance of the memo that was mailed to him. It was always obvious that he wrote it. That's how he got caught, because everyone could tell that he wrote the fake memo.

  • The Left||

    INTENTIONS INTENTIONS INTENTIONS!!!11!!

  • ||

    ALINSKY ALINSKY ALINSKY!!!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    “What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action,” he [James Garvey] argued. “If his lie has good effects overall—if those who take Heartland’s money to push skepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press—then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. … It depends on how this plays out.”

    Nice to see utilitarianism (we must lie for the Greater Good) rearing its ugly head again.

  • fish||

    So basically fuck honest scientific inquiry....we're politicians!

    Knew Gleick was a turd when he started writing for SFGate.coms "City Brights"! Never a greater collection of lefty cliches has been assembled under one newspaper!

  • Tman||

    It's interesting to contrast the Global Warming debate with other scientific debates, and how they play out.

    For instance, recently there was the brouhaha over the CERN labs potentially breaking the speed of light with neutrinos. Obviously if true this would be a discovery of gigantic implications, so skepticism was very high. Further research was allowed and those who recorded the initial results opened their files to other scientists to review and look for errors. Upon further review they discovered that it was in fact an equipment error that caused the readings to show "faster than light speed". This is how science is supposed to work.

    Contrast that episode with the way the global warming debate has played out. Faking emails, hiding declines, refusing to show your work, having to be forced through an FOIA request to turn over data sets, this is NOT how science works.

  • ||

    It was a bad cable hook up...Comcast strikes again.

    Has the earth been much, much warmer?
    Yup
    Is man making it warmer?
    maybe
    Is the earth getting warmer on its own?
    Maybe
    In either case, how much man made carbon would have to stop going into the atmosphere to have less global warming?
    Nobody knows
    How much would it cost?
    nobody knows
    Would it reduce world GDP?
    undoubtedly
    Is the earth getting warmer bad?
    Maybe for humans, but wonderful for tropical flora and fauna...

  • ||

    How much money can we make from this???
    gobs!

  • ||

    It was amazing the difference between the two claims.

    Half of the CERN scientists didn't even want to release their findings until they had been independently confirmed, like real scientists.

  • Alan||

    What amazes me about people on the Left is their lack of self-awareness.

    Faking results? Lots of people do it.

    Seeking evidence and interpreting results to affirm what you already believe? Ignoring data that disproves your beliefs? It's human nature.

    Tribalism and calling people names if they disagree with you? Common enough.

    Believing that people who disagree with you are idiots? Dead common, and usually true.

    Being entirely convinced in one's own perfection despite copious contradictory evidence? That's pretty much limited to the Left. Religious zealots have the doctrine of Original Sin to keep them a little bit in check.

  • Tony the Statist||

    We believe in utilitarianism for the greater good. We know what is the greater good because of utilitarianism.

  • Who's going to feed 7 billion?||

    When Libertards ask questions like that, it isn't utilitarianism.

    Only when somebody else does it it utilitarianism.

    LULZ

  • Who's going to kill 7 billion?||

    When Primitards ask questions like that, it isn't utilitarianism.

    Only when somebody else does it it utilitarianism.

    LULZ

  • Fat Indian||

    My tribal brother is having another thermodynamic crisis!

  • Agriculture = famine+collapse||

    Just like fiat money = destitution + collapse.

    Now, if you want to be like Ben Beranke, you can prattle on about the temporary bloom of wealth both provide.

    But, long term, both agriculture and paper money prove to be failures.

    Are libertarians at fault of the collapse for warning about it? No? Then be consistent.

  • Agriculture = famine+collapse||

    Yes, it will be an apocalypse of truly Hostess like proportions.

  • Booba Tribe of Nigeria||

    Totaly. It's paradise here. We can hardly keep people form signing up to frolic with us. "Come for the abundant food, stay for the AIDS."

  • White Imbeciles = shit flinger||

    Do White Imbeciles fling their shit when they lose their composure?

    "I don't believe that White Imbeciles have the intellectual capacity to have a composure," concludes Dr. Kimberly Clark, who has devoted several years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Joe M||

    “Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?”

    Oh yes, of course, the ends justify the means, always.

  • sarcasmic||

    The new scientific method:

    1) Take money from politicians to "study" something.

    2) Write a computer program to generate pretty graphics and call it a "model".

    3) Gather together with other "scientists" receiving grants from politicians and have a vote.

    4) Declare that there is a consensus, repeat.

  • Tony the Statist||

    Why do you hate public consensus? It's in the public's best interest.

  • Mike M.||

    5) Make a bunch of wild predictions in order to increase said level of funding.

    6) When your wild predictions completely fail to pan out, start falsifying the data.

    7) When you get caught red-handed falsifying the data and others demand that you turn it over, destroy all of the data and claim that you "lost" it.

  • jj||

    8) Tell all of society how its political and economic systems should be remade in order to avert the crisis.

  • ||

    9. Take some of the grant money you got and make contributions to Democrat campaign funds.

  • ||

    10.Make sure to point out that all the opposing viewpoints get funding from corporate interests and/or the Koch Bros.

  • ||

    Consensus:
    Statins are so safe they should be added to drinking water.

    More Consensus:
    Statins are so safe they should be added to drinking water except in a few, barely mentionable cases...

  • Muad Dib||

    “What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action,”

    What Copernicus is doing is harmful because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. --The Pope

  • Tak Kak||

    If only the cowardly Institute would have been willing to debate him he wouldn't have had to sink so low.

    What?

  • ||

    The Heartland Institute had just invited Gleick to a debate.

    Gleick declined.

    http://fakegate.org/email-thre.....te-debate/

  • Tak Kak||

    Now the joke is ruined

  • ||

    I love how courteous that exchange is. It's like each side was thinking "If I say one thing wrong, I'll get wrung over the coals".

  • Atheists decline Creationists||

    ...debate offers.

    Because Fundamentalists of all stripes are fucking nuts.

  • Observer of Obliviousness||

    Because Fundamentalists of all stripes are fucking nuts.

    Even primitivist fundamentalists?

  • White Imbeciles fling their||

    shit when they lose their composure?

    "I don;t belive that White Imbeciles have the intellectual capacity to have a composure," concludes Dr. Kimberly Clark, who has devoted several years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • ||

    Here is Peter Gleick writing a book review on Amazon, slamming a book he clearly never read:

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R.....r_rdp_perm

  • ||

    What strikes me most about Gleick and Co. isn't just the ethical lapse, but incompetence and mental retardation faking that memo.

    How does a dude feted as a genius - with a Ph.D, MacArthur Grant, Scientific Authority extraordinaire - fuck up book-cooking a PDF that bad? Script-kiddies have better grasp of metadata in a file-header.

    What gets me most about peeps like Gleick is not just them thinking they're smartest guys in the room - everyone does that to some extent. Its their attitude everyone else in the room is so stupid that pisses me off.

  • tarran||

    My answer in two parts:
    Part I

    It's the smartest guy in the room syndrome and one I know well, since I have been recovering from it for the past 18 years (and in constant danger of relapse).

    In all his pre-college classes, he probably was the smartest kid; the best at math, got the hightest grades in physics etc.

    HE goes to college, and he's still one of the smartest kids on campus. He can run rings around all the guys in pre-law. Everything he takes up comes easier to him than the lesser guys training to specialize in it.

  • tarran||

    Part II

    Do it long enough, and one gets really, really arrogant. Either it gets burned out of one (as happened to me once I went into ossifer training in the Navy and found myself at the mercies of a drill instructor who was smarter than me and hadn't completed high-school) or it gets reinforced (if one starts a think tank that gets huge grants from the govt and is feted by the technocratic elite for very little work).

    I suspect Gleick thought that he was so super awesome that there was no way he could screw it up, and if he made little mistakes, there was no way the hayseeds at Heartland, their minds enfeebled by years of bible-studies and flat-eartherism, would catch it.

  • ||

    Impression I get from Grapenuts is a guy who's good at hustling being told what to do.

    But not much of a critical thinker, frankly not terribly bright without an instruction manual. He knew something about file headers or he wouldn't have scanned the doc. But no creativity, no flair, no smarts, no thinking things all the way through.

    Cross his T's and dot his I's (look how carefully all the info was pulled and culled in the 'memo' from real docs) Grapenuts can do. Ideal skills for collecting his degrees. The kind of clown in middle-management with an MBA where you're just like WTF!? everytime he opens his mouth.

  • Amakudari||

    You know, I checked the metadata of that PDF and nothing really struck me as amiss.

    What's more the issue here is that that document's actual source is unknown. Whether it does turn out to be from Heartland or not, the fact is it shouldn't have been presented as being from the same batch. And since that was the only incriminating document, that's pretty important.

  • WanT||

    The only thing amiss is the date, which points to it being from a different source and added to the 'collection' at the last minute.

  • Bill||

    And the time stamp suggests West Coast.

  • ||

    @Amakudari - Neat link man.

    The Epson scan is kinda of a bummer for Gleick. As is the Creator, only other blank in the list is the IRS.

    Heartland's IT dept. needs to get a hold of Joseph Bast and tell him to stop stashing things on his root for best practices.

    Oh, and a WTF...Wordperfect files were the source docs. Wow.

  • Amakudari||

    Yeah, but the document is clearly scanned. If it had the same metadata as documents that were created on a computer that would be suspicious.

  • Amakudari||

    Right.

    What I'm saying is that his story is he received the strategy memo then went to Heartland asking for more documents. That sounds credible.

    It also is dishonest to provide all of the above documents along with the memo as though they were part of the whole.

    All I'm saying is that the metadata neither proves nor disproves anything to me. It's difficult because it was scanned whereas most of the documents were saved as PDF. I might be missing something, of course.

  • Dan Rather||

    How does a dude feted as a genius ...fuck up book-cooking a PDF that bad?

    Believe me, it's not hard.

  • Undercover = Ethical Relapse?||

    How's that?

    Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.

  • White Imbeciles fling their||

    shit when they lose their composure?

    "I don't believe that White Imbeciles have the intellectual capacity to have a composure," concludes Dr. Kimberly Clark, who has devoted several years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • ||

    First, Hannah Giles is totally hot, which always buys a couple points with me. Warmers need to get more ScarJo, less Gleick talking out of their camp.

    Second, Breitbart or O'Keefe were never understood to be anything past provocateurs. They were never lauded with capital C Credibility regarding Fate of the World.

    They didn't chair ethics panels, did not claim to hold up any professional standard beyond partisanship like MSM and Warmer clowns do - lording their Merit Ribbons over everyone else.

    When Gleick mis-represented himself with Heartland, it made his entire public past and persona a mis-representation to everyone.

  • Alan||

    That's a pretty good summary.

    The problem with the Left isn't that they aren't as smart as they think they are (though they clearly aren't). The problem is that they think other people are dumb, even when those other people are in fact much smarter than them.

  • blubi||

    No man - even a genius - knows everything, even things you may consider simple.

    The point is, why did a presumably intelligent guy do something so stupid (ethics apart)? He was blinded by emotions, such as perhaps:
    -arrogance: not bothering to research the intricacies of IT (fingerprints, metadata)
    -ideological zeal obscured his thinking

    We are assuming that this "scientific extraordinaire" (in "climate studies", particularly water) is a genius, which may be charitable.

  • ||

    Had he committed fraud in the science that might mean something, but he only committed fraud -- using a fake name -- to obtain documents showing someone else was dissembling.

    The science is still clear.

  • ||

    So when your girlfriend lies to you about where she was last night, should you believe her when she swears the kid is yours?

  • N8||

    Why commit fraud if the science is so settled on your side of things? Why not use your immense talents to figure out a way to geoengineer the planet to that arbitrary level of optimum w/o wrecking the economy?

    Man-made global warming or no, expecting any meaningful legislation on CO2 emissions to pass is, thankfully, a retard's pipe dream. Get creative.

  • Sam Grove||

    The science is still clear.

    What's clear is that the "smoking gun" of AGW has yet to be seen.

    The science is not clear, despite the claims of grant seeking politicized scientists.

  • GRAVITY IS JUST A THEORY||

    THE SCIENCE IS NOT CLEAR!

    And thanks for KOCHsucking.

  • Yes, because...||

    ...we can do the same kind of experiments with climate change that we can with gravity.

    WI = Primitard fundamentalist

  • Fake Name=UNDERCOVER not Fraud||

    Throughout the ACORN undercover sting video saga..."

    reason.com/archives/2009/10/21/building-e

  • Fake Name=UNDERCOVER not Fraud||

    I had never really known who Jason Godesky was. Perhaps because the name itself had no meaning. But as I heard my Indian name being called over and over, I knew for the first time who I really was.

    I was Fat Indian.

  • cynical||

    As Fluffy pointed out, the greater fraud was in knowingly mixing the questionable document with the real Heartland docs to give it greater credibility. That isn't misrepresenting yourself to find the truth, it's tainting the chain of evidence to make others believe what is, as far as you know, a possible lie. And that reflects much more on his scientific conduct (and the justifications and rationalizations of his behavior reflect very badly on the scientific ethics of the climate believer community in general.)

    Of course, the greatest fraud was forging the document, and the circumstantial evidence suggests to me that Gleick did that himself. But that's what trials are for.

  • Bill||

    The documents did not show that. They showed Heartland had a tiny budget with NO money from oil companies, very little from Koch Fdn. (some in 1999 and 25K in 2011) and the money from Koch Fdn. was for health care.

    The documents showed nothing amiss and showed Heartland went from 7 mill. a year to less than 5 mill. since 2008.

    The only document that had anything that raised eyebrows is clearly faked and badly at that.

  • ||

    I agree that the science is clear. It's clear that the AGW Hypothesis makes several testable claims that are falsified by observations.

  • LOL||

    Can we leave the global warming writings to Ron Bailey, please?

  • HURR HURR DURR DURR||

  • BoscoH||

    Of course we're really just dancing around the issue of "what is truth" and who the arbiters are and then who decides what action to take or not. Skepticism is not wrong, nor is it right. It is simply a fact in the political equation, one that AGW proponents conveniently ignore or dismiss.

    If this were particle physicists arguing over whether some particle exists or they made it go faster than my grandfather after sipping prune juice, few people really give a fuck, because few people are materially affected.

    (continued...)

  • BoscoH||

    The problem here is that the favored remediations will make a lot of people significantly poorer, with less access to cheap energy. A similar dynamic occurred as a result of the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs. Deploying new air conditioning and upgrading existing units was significantly more expensive in the 1990s than the 1980s as a result. Is there any doubt that, for example, there would have been fewer deaths among the elderly in the hot late 90s summers in France if air conditioning were more readily available (i.e. less expensive)?

  • BoscoH||

    The as yet unappreciated truth is that the AGW proponents actually need a very robust opposition checking their data, poking holes in their models, offering alternative solutions, questioning the cost/benefit claims, etc. if the AGW proponents want to have any shot in hell of seeing their preferred narrative played out. Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Right now, they doth protest so much, that it's obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with lying 8 year old that they haven't put the requisite thought into what they suggest.

  • sounds real good||

    You got it. And meantime, in our day to day lives, how can we even attempt to have a rational (drink?) conversation with people who support or condone this type of behavior? People that I like and/or respect? It leaves me speechless.

  • ||

    What's a little deceit and manipulation when you're on the side of the angels?

  • GLOBAL WARMING is REAL||

    ArborDay.org
    Hardiness Zones
    See Changes From 1990 to 2006
    www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

    And why can Andrew Breibart commit exactly the same kind of "fraud," and reasonoids applaud? Weird, eh?

  • fish||

    I would think that just the constant linking and repeating of postes would make that flabby frame of yours too tired to continue. I guess you have that boundless energy of the desperately mentally ill. Good for you.

  • Reposting 2 constant stupidity||

    You keep repeating TEH STUPID.

    I keep repeating TEH SMARTIES.

    OK?

  • fish||

    No...you're a poopy head.

  • Don't forget, he also flings||

    his excrement at the merest provocation.

  • Confirmation bias...||

    ...how does that work, WI?

  • Global Warming ISRAEL||

    Just admit it, and blame Teh Joooos for the minute fluctuations in temperature. You know you want to.

    Also... Teh Joooos cause hangnails.

  • Also Ran||

    He compared Gleick’s action to that of a man who lied to keep his friend from driving home drunk.


    Right, because keeping a friend from driving drunk requires robbing everyone of trillions of dollars. An awful analogy from a dishonest prick.

  • Bikerider||

    I can't believe that no one has said it yet..

    It's OK because he did for the children.

  • Slavery. It's For the Children||

    "Here's the situation. My child is gravely ill. Only an operation can..."

    Voluntary Slave Contracts
    by Walter Block
    Austrian Economic Scholar, Mises Institute
    www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • The idiot really believes||

    this: "Voluntary Slave Contracts" is inherently controversial.

    It's not.

  • CJ||

    So: judging by Greenhut's logic, the real scandal of "Climategate" is that someone hacked into their computers in the first place, right?

    Nevermind the fact that, you know, the e-mails uncovered in climategate were really non-consequential, whereas the expose of Heartland is actually damaging, but, don't trouble yourself with those details.

  • cynical||

    In ClimateGate, someone retrieved (by hacking or by leaking) documents that were legally supposed to be in the public view already. IIRC, many of the emails were supposed to have been purged to prevent them from being returned for the FOIA request, which is illegal.

    The ClimateGate leak was the equivalent of a whistleblower stealing a box of documents that had been subpoena'd by a court and that he had been ordered to take to the shredder.

    The Heritage leak was the equivalent of a guy conning his way into an office to grab some legitimate files so that he could forge a false file to falsely incriminate the people that worked there.

    Not even remotely the same, if you care about truth and justice. Of course, since you come across as a lefty, I won't make any assumptions on that account.

  • CJ||

    Wow, that is some tortured f'n logic.

    "Climategate was noble whistle blowers!"
    "Gleick was a scumbag conman!"

    Stop with the shitty analogies. Fact is, both used questionable means (outright hacking or social engineering) to obtain private documents which purport to show bias.

    Because you agree with the climategate hackers, the ends justify the means for you, and because you don't agree with Gleick, you excoriate him.
    Enjoy that cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy, it suits you well.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    CJ|3.2.12 @ 7:21PM|#

    Quack quack quack GAINSAYING quack quack quack GAINSAYING quack quack quack GAINSAYING

    How fucking fascinating! Please, tell me more!

  • ||

    Uh... CJ, exactly what was revealed about Heartland that is "actually damaging"?

    Quotations please.

  • CJ||

    "Quotations please."

    Bite me, please.

    It's actually damaging because it lays bare the fact that they have an agenda and that they prioritize that agenda over the truth.

    Exactly what Climategate scientists were accused of.

    The difference being, of course, that the Heartland docs show that they cynically profit from this agenda as a business plan, which causes ALL of their statements to be suspect.

    Of course, the e-mails that the climatetards think prove the global warming hoax, actually do anything but, and if you read them, it's clear from context that the "agenda" is only to present coherent data without irrelevant noise that may be seized upon by the climatetards.

    Then again, "reading" is not usually in the toolbox of most climate change deniers.

  • Paul||

    Please don't feed the trolls. That is all.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    We shall defeat the Enemies of the city-State with a glorious 5 year leap into absolute and literal dumbness.

  • fish||

    Now this is Rectal again isn't it. She does the "Political Officer" bit doesn't she?

  • Da, Comrade Zampolit||

    I smell a big communist fish. ~General Turgidson

  • Da, Comrade Primitard||

    Let's call everyone who disagrees with our golden-age myth a Soviet officer.

    For our glorious return to the ORIGNAL AFFLUENT SOCIETY!!!

  • ||

    This place is a mess.

  • your philosophy is a mess||

  • I know you are but what am I?||

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    First thing we do, we kill all the Indians.
    Well, one at least.

  • UNDERCOVER vs FRAUD||

    ACORN video = undercover investigation.

    Saving the EARTH = fraud!

    Cuz our right wing nut panties are in a wad.

  • SAVE THE EARTH||

    SAVE THE EARTH SAVE THE EARTH SAVE THE EARTH ALL CAPS ALL CAPS ALL CAPS ALL CAPS ALL CAPS

  • ||

    Stupid libruls and their librul climate agenda!

  • Hardiness Zones = Librul Ploy!||

    sigh

    ArborDay.org
    Hardiness Zones
    See Changes From 1990 to 2006
    www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

  • Skepiticism = Rite twing koks!||

    *Sigh*

    Mises.org
    The Skeptic's Case
    See how AGW fundamentalists have no data to support their claims.
    http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

  • Schmoopy||

    Stoopid liburtariuns and their stoopid scientific method!

  • ||

    "often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate,"

    All the skeptics I read about proudly proclaim their name and the only people trying to stifle debate are the pro global warmers literally telling the skeptics to shut up

  • ||

    The lack of ethics today is very sad. If we can agree on nothing else, we should be able to agree on a base set of ethics.

  • FRAUD vs UNDERCOVER ||

    Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.

    Reason glorified Breitbart yesterday, whose main scalp was the ACORN video. Weird, isn't it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy.


    WHAT controversy?

    and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.


    There the same staff agreed to help two total strangers break the law. So where's the controversy?

  • Besides, why would anyone||

    be upset when tax-sucking crooks get exposed?

  • A scientist||

    If a scientist is found to have committed fraud he should be ostracized or at the very least lose his job.

  • FRAUD vs UNDERCOVER ||

    Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.

    Reason glorified Breitbart yesterday, whose main scalp was the ACORN video. Weird, isn't it?

  • Fluffy||

    Breitbart has been accused of deceptively editing the videos in the ACORN matter to strengthen his case.

    If that was proven to my satisfaction, I would regard Breitbart as an untrustworthy scientific source, if he could be raised from the dead and turned into a Zombie Scientist.

    Geick's method here, as I explained above, would be considered fraudulent if applied to any scientific inquiry.

    The fact that he could matter-of-factly engage in this conduct when dealing with Heartland, the press, and the public, should lead us to look at all of his scientific work skeptically.

    If you'll mix evidence streams to deceive when the topic at hand is PDF files, we have to consider the possibility that you'll put your finger on the scale in your scientific work, too.

  • Fluffster, it's the ID "fraud"||

    ...not the selective editing.

    Get with it, dude.

    ~Officer Riviera

  • Fluffy||

    I don't care about the ID fraud in either case.

    All that matters in both cases is manipulation of evidence.

  • WI grasping at straws...||

    ...how cute!

  • Fake Name=UNDERCOVER not Fraud||

    Throughout the ACORN undercover sting video saga..."

    reason.com/archives/2009/10/21/building-e

    • Why is it UNDERCOVER when KOCHsuckers approve of the discovery?

    • why is it FRAUD when KOCHsuckers disapprove of the discovery?

  • ||

    I think that Koch is pronounced as "Coke" and not "Cock".

    Or is it "Kotch"?

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • The Derider||

    A Koch-funded organization (Reason) re-posts material from another Koch-funded organization (Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity) to make cover for a third Koch-funded organization (The Heartland Institute).

    Actual journalists would make note of these connections. Paid propagandists don't, I guess.

  • It's capitalism when we do it.||

    It's corruption when they do it.

  • Are White Imbeciles so easily||

    startled if they fling shit all the time?

    After years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild, Dr. Kimberly Clark has discovered a pattern of repetitive shit flinging whenever White Imbeciles (which by empirical evidence demonstrate to be animals) are excited or startled. The pattern of repetition seems invariable, suggesting a totally instinctive behavior and not an intellectual one.

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Fluffy||

    Gleick has admitted what he did.

    You're aware of that, right?

    All we have to do to destroy Gleick's reputation as a scientist forever is read his own account of what he did.

  • ||

    Gleick's only partially admitted to what he did.

    The authorship of the fake strategy memo remains unidentified, but I'd pay dollars to dimes that Gleick wrote it himself (or rather, he cut and pasted bits from the other documents he phished, and then he freestyled the rest of it to make it sound ultra-dastardly.)

  • cynical||

    But, as Fluffy has pointed out, he knowingly mixed the memo with the other documents and released them all as having come from Heartland. That's deliberately dishonest in and of itself, whether he forged the document or not (though he almost certainly did forge it).

  • reputation as a scientist||

    What science fraud did he commit?

    None?

    kthanks.

    Oh, he did an undercover job with "fraudulent ID" like Breibart's hacks did on ACORN?

    kthanks.

  • Fluffy||

    He has demonstrated to me by his handling of these documents that he cannot be trusted to not act in a similar manner with scientific evidence.

    Anyone who would cover up the questionable provenance of a document by nesting it among other documents can no longer be trusted to honestly present scientific evidence on any subject.

    Sorry.

    It's a one-strike kind of thing.

  • WI||

    MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING HAS TO BE REAL CUZ CIVILZATIONS ARGUCULTRES ARE TEH EVULS AND THEY HURT MOTHER GAIA MOTHERR GAIA NEVER HURT ANYONE THOSE MEAN RIGHT TWNINGERS AND KOCK PUPPPETS ALLL!!!

  • The Derider||

    Sow instead of an overwhelming majority of scientists who think global warming is happening, you're faced with an overwhelming majority minus one?

  • ||

    We'll let a scientist answer that.

    "“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.”
    Micho Kaku

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where's your defense of freedom of speech now, Derider?

    BTW, Michelle can *say* whatever she wants, but should be forbidden to *set* public policy. Learn the difference.

  • The Derider||

    Michelle Obama does not "set" any public policy. She has no elected power.

  • Government-funded scientists..||

    ...only have the public interest at heart.

    BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

  • Fluffy||

    Also, I'd like to note that in earlier discussions, when I said that I trust climate scientists less than, say, physicists, because the sociology and psychology involved is so different, people like MNG whined that I was being unfair.

    People who enter a given scientific field because they think that it is their responsibility to save the world will be likely to have a different set of ethics than people who enter a given scientific field because they want to solve a mathematical puzzle of great difficulty.

    Ultimately, people who think they are the only ones who can save the world are likely to permit themselves a lot of leeway on "petty" ethical questions.

  • BoscoH||

    ^^ this ^^

  • Ask ur Dr. if you're a puzzle.||

    Cuz if he's trying to save you...

    Well...he's...

    likely to have a different set of ethics.

    *furrowed brow look of a shyster cop*

  • White Imbecile, shit flinger||

    "I don't believe that White Imbeciles have the intellectual capacity to have a composure," concludes Dr. Kimberly Clark, who has devoted several years of studying White Imbeciles in the wild.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought."

    But do they possess any sort of behavior that could be considered as rational?

    "No. If they had, they would have realized that shit flinging is not really that usefull. Higher animals have more sophisticated ways of dealing with stress, lack of education and living rent-free in mommy's basement than White Imbeciles. It's really sad."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Psychologically Projecting?||

    Again?

  • Repetitive Behavior of White||

    Imbeciles in the wild.

    Shit flinging.

    "They tend to fling their shit at everything when startled. They do not present a patters of behavior consistent with rational thought.

    "And they are very easy to startle - their irrational mind makes them prisoners of instict - they will fling at the smallest provocation, despite the situation."

    But do they possess any sort of behavior that could be considered as rational?

    "No. If they had, they would have realized that shit flinging is not really that usefull. Higher animals have more sophisticated ways of dealing with stress, lack of education and living rent-free in mommy's basement than White Imbeciles. It's really sad."

    "Study of White Imbeciles In The Wild"
    By Dr. Kimberly Clark, PhD
    University of Clark County Press
    1972 pages 233 through 320

  • Doctors. We don't care about U||

    Unless you're a puzzle.

  • House, M.D.||

    Ahem...

  • Physicists aren't physicians..||

    ...but it's OK. I know it's hard for you, WI.

  • Doctors who let their feelings||

    dictate how they practice medicine...they're not very scientifically-minded. Nor are they good doctors.

  • ||

    good call Fluff, speaking as a degreed 'hard' scientist
    plus...
    Do you want to know who else thought the end justified the means?

  • MattyP||

    Machiavellian tactics in political discourse represent a collective action problem, as does ethical behavior in general. If you choose to act ethically, then you are at a competitive disadvantage in the battle for ideas if your opponent does not.

    As for your global warming debate. Using economic influence, buying off regulators and legislators, and surreptitiously indoctrinating young people to your position (that lies counter to mainstream science) is pretty unethical in a debate. It seems that the AGW crowd doesn't have that much of a chance unless they "stoop to their level."

    It winds up turning into a classic prisoners' dilemma situation, and the debate will just devolve into a deluge of unscrupulous tactics without some sort of mutually-assured compliance to simple ethics.

  • ||

    It isn't the truth of one's position but the strength of one's conviction which matters... at least since Nietzsche.

  • ||

    "As for your global warming debate. Using economic influence, buying off regulators and legislators, and surreptitiously indoctrinating young people to your position (that lies counter to mainstream science) is pretty unethical in a debate. It seems that the AGW crowd doesn't have that much of a chance unless they "stoop to their level."

    Are you fucking kidding? Notice the attached graph doesn't include environmental groups or NGO's who spend tens of millions every year on their own propaganda and "not so surreptitious indoctrination".

    http://bishophill.squarespace......ending.jpg

  • ||

    As a scientist I am a little disappointed in this article. The title suggests that the scientist committed a large fraud of the caliber of altering data or something of the sort. That someone signed up for a newsletter using a false name is hardly worth reporting about. By the way, Rex Stetson isn't my real name and I am not apologizing for using it.

  • ||

    Gleick invented and wrote the memo. What newsletter are you talking about? Can you read?

    God, you must be a shitty scientist.

  • The Derider||

    Can you prove that with evidence?

    That's what scientists do.

  • ||

    I can't prove a negative. But Gleick can disprove it - with the original he received before he scanned it. And the envelope he undoubtedly kept. Actually, undoubtedly didn't keep because he made all that bullshit up.

    And that's not science that's human contention - court battle shit.

  • ||

    "As a scientist...."

    Horseshit. If you were a scientist you would be horrified at the egregious sins Gleick has committed by damaging the already fragile credibility of science in the public's mind. This whole AGW sham is going to be a huge black eye for the scientific community for decades to come. These fuckers have no shame. I hope they and all of their apologists get colon cancer. That means you Rex. Scientist, my ass.

  • ||

    The title suggests that the scientist committed a large fraud of the caliber of altering data or something of the sort.

    I am afraid it is actually much worse.

    That someone signed up for a newsletter using a false name is hardly worth reporting about.

    He didn't "signed up for a newsletter". He engaged in identity theft. See 18 USC 1343 and California Penal code SECTION 1. Section 528.5.

  • Canman||

    Gleick:


    and a rational public debate is desperately needed

    Well how about doing some debating?

    The 'consensus' of climate scientist is a debating point, not an excuse to duck debate!

  • Canman||

    Block quotes. How the fuck do they work?

  • B||

    What the fuck am I reading in this comment section?????

  • Cuz it's a cool chat room.||

  • Canman||

    If you are referring to my above comments, leading figures on Team Hot have a history of refusing and discouraging debates with members of Team Not.

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/03.....joe-romm-d

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/.....lip-stott/

  • The Derider||

    Debate in science occurs in scientific literature, not on a stage.

  • ||

    Debate in science occurs in scientific literature, not on a stage.

    A convenient position to take when peer review has evolved into pal review.

  • Canman||

    Policy debates don't!

  • Realist||

    Steve, have you told Bailey yet???

  • lxiayuxin||

    like>>>

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "if those who take Heartland’s money to push skepticism are dismissed as shills"

    Skepticism is simply a combination of question asking and the apllication of critical thinking. It is inseperable from science and scientific method. It IS science and scientific method.
    It's extremely telling when people like Garvey attempt to paint skepticism as a negative thing. All he's doing is calling for more dishonesty and hysteria in science, provided they suit his goals.

    "Only lying douchebags hide from the truth." -Thomas Paine

  • ||

    The very principle of the scientific method is just that, it should never need to be propped up by by any lie regardless of intention. This is heresy in the world of science and must not be tolerated in the slightest.

  • ||

    Steve,

    Biggest embarassment was not that he got access to Heartland emails. It was that he "created" the emails from whole cloth. Your article is worthless without this point.

  • ||

    Scientists are human, Mr. Greenhut, and they make mistakes. Having to constantly fight a relentless and well-financed misinformation machine when you are trying to warn humanity while there is still time about an existential threat will make even good scientists lost it now and then. You go right ahead and nail them for every trivial transgression while the stakes get ever higher and more and more people lose their livelihoods and habitats. Maybe you have no children or grandchildren to worry about.

  • ||

    What a maroon!

  • ||

    More Kool-Aid, Art?

  • ||

    Art,
    If you have done honest research and are honest with yourself (and with your children & grandchildren), there are two very important questions that have yet to be scientifically proven:

    1 - that the globe is warming
    2 - that humans are the primary engine of this warming

    If the answers to these two questions were "readily apparent", deceit such as Peter Gleick engaged in would not be necessary.

  • JBlooze||

    Yep, all those children and children's children's children that they worry will face a financial burden placed upon them by this generation, won't be worrying about finances much when things which have started to go screwy and conditions become increasingly hostile to our species. but that's all just crazy talk right? sigh...

    All I can say is; If you are right and we make the changes we need to into reversing OUR effect on climate, we save a lot of suffering to our species and way of life. If you are wrong we have a cleaner, healthier planet for our descendants.
    TO BE CONTINUED

  • JBlooze||

    CONTINUED.
    If the denyers are right, nothing gets worse and we go on. And.. here's the clincher.. Follow me.. If they are wrong, We do so much damage that we can't turn back. The tipping point is reached and we kill the environment that sustains us and we can't grow all the food we need, weather becomes really unstable and dangerous, insects and pests move to regions where they could not live before and bring diseases to new areas that cannot cope. It could be really bad.

    But somehow the future financial undoing of our kids is something that people can visualize and yet the idea that polluting our planet somehow will have no consequences is an elusive figment of a ghost in their minds to be mocked and scorned.

    It's unfortunate that it looks like we will get the privilege of saying I told you so but I'd rather skip it and make a healthier environment now.

  • JBlooze||

    CORRECTION:

    But somehow the future financial undoing of our kids is something that people can visualize and yet the idea that polluting our planet somehow will HAVE consequences is an elusive figment of a ghost in their minds to be mocked and scorned.

  • ||

    Deceit and lying on behalf of their ideology is Standard Operating Procedure for the extreme left. Its in the handbook of Mao, Lenin, Stalin! Always for the greater good of course! Obama clearly has no issue with it in the pursuit of his extreme left wing agenda. What's troubling is that some of us are open to understanding the reality of climate change, but the Global Warmists have so discredited themselves in their lust to get hold of vast amounts of money and political power, that they can no longer be trusted to present valid scientific data! And who is going to turn over power and trillions of dollars to dishonest people!

  • ||

    I actually am uncertain that it is as simple as a lust for power that motivates global warming enthusiasts. I actually believe there is some sincerity in their belief that they must lie and cheat for a supposed greater good which is nothing less than saving the world and all live on it. But the question posed to rational people is this, if we must lie and cheat, if the truth is not convicting, then when we save the world using such tactics, with what world are we left? I think readers of a magazine called "Reason" might want to ponder that.

  • JBlooze||

    What about the majority who work hard and don't cheat and lie and still believe based on the evidence that there is a problem that it is important for us to address and that it is a time sensitive issue and they have been talking about the problem since they first noticed something that might not be good was happening to our climate.That was at least 25 years ago.
    The truth could be very convincing for those who research it and not just accept bullshit political talking points from either side.If the truth has been made not convincing by people with a stake in the status quo, what then? The readers of "Reason" ought to ponder that. And research it for real.
    TO BE CONTINUED:

  • JBlooze||

    Don't tell me everyone out there remembers the weather being this weird all the time when they were kids.There's a lot of solid science out there that indicates there is something happening.And the question which SHOULD be posed to rational people is, isn't that evidence something we should not dismiss casually when so much is at risk?

  • ||

    Good Lord, the only people who even think about Globaloney any more are the alarmist parasites on various grants. Everyone else thinks about hula-hoops more frequently than they consider climate change.

  • ||

    The Progressives' Bible is one sentence long: "The end justifies the means." Call it 'moral relativism'. Call it 'I'm always right, you're always wrong'. Call it what you like. After fifty years of self-righteous tyranny, one can hardly be surprised.

  • ||

    Fanatics always believe two things: That they're right, no matter the proof, disproof, or anyone else's opinion, and that "the ends justify the means," no matter who gets hurt. It's the thought process of the Spanish Inquisition and Adolph Hitler.

  • ||

    "The ends justify the means."

    The ends ARE the means.

    Whatever you do, characterizes both you and the issue you advocate.

  • ||

    If I believe that the Earth is in danger but I can't convince others of this should I lie and make up facts to save it? If yes, then an important factor to consider is exactly what we are saving it for? It a serious question: is it really worth living in a world like that?

  • ||

    Fuck you, asshole.

  • ||

    All of this stuff would be cleared up if people did not spend $70 million on Lorax this week. Lord help us, a green fluff lying again about climate. The Bamas are sold on wind power and articles today blasted that. For pete's sake: elect Pubs in local, state and federal levels and allow them to drill on and offshore for oil, gas, shale whatevers, coal, and build safe nuclear plants. To heck with climate, GW or any of this nonsense. Common sense is the last resort when our gas pump prices are crushing the poor as well as the middle class. Heating oil prices kill seniors in the NE. And we hear blather about this nonsense. If Obama and the Dems are re-elected, we not only lose our liberties, we lose our status as a power which has a military(which will never run on green power) that will be meals on wheels forever and we become Albania.

  • ||

    Argument about global warming misses the larger point. No one believes more exhaust gases are better for us.

  • JBlooze||

    No they just believe that they don't really cause any problems. Certainly not ones worth paying any money to fix when they can breathe just fine. "See look, I'm breathing and not falling over so everything is fine!It still snowed somewhere so Climate change is a hoax" Duh.So pervasive it's sad. And it makes me wonder what we're even trying to save our environment for too. Just to save idiots from themselves. Ugh.

  • ||

    The idea that global climate change is the result of human activity springs from a religious ideology, not from scientific inquiry. This dubious theory is one of the central tenets of the religion of our age. It is a false religion, to be sure, and one that has both glaring internal inconsistency and external decoupling from reality. This "progressive" ideology is repugnant and produces predictable bad behavior.

  • ||

    I don't care that Gleick obtained documents by misrepresenting himself.

    But I have a problem when he fabricated a bogus memo, the only damaging document. This is what "progressives" call conducting "science".

  • JBlooze||

    You paint with quite a wide brush sir/ma'am. Guess that covers up a lot so you don't have to think about it. This is what normal people call obtuse. Do you really believe anyone thinks this is science? and do you also think that this one thing or even a few things like this outweigh the mountains of data that exist as evidence to the concept? Really? That memo is so powerful it undermines decades of scientific research? That's a hell of a memo.

  • jt||

    "he may have lied, but it may have justified greater good"

    so why the protest against bush. why grill him on due process. why ever protest torture. what's wrong with violating some civil liberties? why no warrant-less searches? why not just open secret prisons all over the place? oh, right, it's because other people might find out and give you a slap on the wrist. as long as other people can be lied to like a 3 year old, it's ok.

    talk about a child-like mentality from living off a care-giver for too long, that there is no routine principle or behavior to follow for the mental ease of one's own in order to function more consistently in a society, no. all she/he has to do is avoid pissing off a care giver. shh! as long as nobody knows, it's ok!

  • ||

    Did you express the same outrage about the STOLEN (and distorted) climate gate e-mails?

    Pick a position, either you think the theft of the so "called climate," gate e-mails was legitimate in which case you ought not be surprised when the anti AGW side chooses to engage in similar practices, or you ought to denounce the climate gate hackers and thieves of private data, which do you choose?

    BTW I am an anti statist so NO I am NOT arguing for statist solutions to the IMO verified by peer reviewed science problem of AGW.

  • JBlooze||

    Well put.

  • Apogee||

    Did you express the same outrage about the STOLEN (and distorted) climate gate e-mails?

    IMO verified by peer reviewed science problem of AGW.

    If you'd paid attention, you would know that the climategate emails weren't distorted, and revealed the gaming of the peer review process, along with argumentation over the failure of the climate models predictive capabilities.

  • jimbosie||

    "climate change" has probably been around about as long as our planet. I don't think humankind is powerful enough to affect it, however. To call people who think as I "deniers" is to try to put us in the class of holocaust deniers. In other words, diminish us to buffoons or worse. What is really shows is the defensive attitude of the other side and their fear of being exposed as the frauds they are.

  • someguy||

    i think you just misunderstand the frustration. most people, if they are knowledgeable about a subject will act as a defender of its practice/truth/etc. in the same way someone may adamantly defend the idea of capitalism as a great generator of wealth, or evolution by natural selection being the generator of life, people will adamantly defend the theory of human-caused climate change. the legitimate research is there, and there are also people who are stupid about it (same with most other theories.) so for people who are knowledgeable in such areas to encounter people who deny such claims it is confounding as to why someone would reject what they know to be a solid scientific theory. just food for thought.

  • JBlooze||

    You are a denier of man made climate change. I do not use that term in relation to anything else and has nothing to do with the holocaust.You deny that man made climate change exists. You ARE a climate change denier. Whether you are a buffoon or worse has yet to be determined but suggesting people calling people climate change deniers has anything to do with the holocaust doesn't help your case. What is really shows is the defensive attitude of the other side and their fear of being exposed as the frauds they are.

  • JBlooze||

    "Hey, if Planet Earth is in danger, then anything goes in the political realm also. That ideology is far scarier to me than a little warmer weather."

    Ugh. 1st stage is denial. The ignorance expressed in the idea that what climate chance represents is "a little warmer weather" is staggering. dropped like a turd on your doorstep in the last sentence. Climate changes are taking place everywhere and they are making changes to intensities of our weather patterns, melting the arctic ice and working towards changing how our planet works. This is more important than you may know if you're just going by bullshit political talking points but I'm not getting into that now too much actual science. I just think that dismissing even the concept of climate change as something happening is acting as a license to not use any time to think about it.

  • JBlooze||

    CONTINUED: Climate change or no, it makes no sense and certainly can't be what God intended to pollute our air, our land, and our water. It can't be good for us and our food and animals. Don't let prejudgement of an idea like climate change stop you from doing the right thing and polluting less. Oil in our water and spilled on the land devastating life is real.Smog over cities is real.Rivers catching on fire(pre EPA) were real.We don't need to talk about climate change to put a stop to oil in our water, reduce poisonous auto emissions and stop toxins being dumped on the land. Just stop polluting and all the climate change talkers will stop talking. And your children and children's children's children and so on, will inherit a cleaner healthier place. Can you really argue with that idea?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement