Nice Fakegate* Observation

|

Ethics Chair of the American Geophysical Union (retired)

Today's Washington Post has a pretty good article on the continuing public fallout from the Fakegate scandal in which global warming activist Peter Gleick phished documents about its global warming counter-campaign from the free-market Heartland Institute. The in paper edition, the subhed reads:

Climate change researchers put their credibility on the line when frustration turns to politicization. 

No, really?

The article features a nice quotation characterizing the motivations behind Gleick's actions from climate catastrophe skeptic Princeton University physicist Will Happer who is chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute: 

"If you are saving the planet, along with a good funding source, the ends apparently justify the means."

The whole Post article is here. Read Steven Greenhut's recent Reason column "Saving the Earth, One Fraud at a Time," here

*Based on the claim that one of the more incendiary documents revealed by Gleick is an alleged cut-and-paste job. 

NEXT: Did the Saudi Goverment Know About the 9/11 Plot? Two Former Senators Seem to Think So

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.

  1. Based on the claim that one of the more incendiary documents revealed by Gleick is an allegedly cut-and-paste job.

    Being very careful there. How about almost certainly, probablity-one, near ontological certitude.

    1. Farewell to a Friend: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
      Matt Welch | March 1, 2012
      https://reason.com/archives/201…..eitbart-19

      Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie. Reason lauds.

      “THIS IS OUR SEWER, DAMMIT!”

      1. Fuck you. The pimp story was exactly what it claimed to be. Go lie somewhere else.

        1. Fibertarian told me so.

          1. I have to hand it to you rather. You do have a tremendous understanding of the smug, dickless, immaculated liberal. You must have dated a bunch of them or something. It is quite remarkable how well you have their anger, their faux masculinity and general douchenes down so perfectly.

            1. their faux masculinity

              Remember, there aren’t any women on the internet.

              1. The griefer character that Rather has invented is male. He likes to call everyone cock suckers and fags, like that is some kind of an insult on a Libertarian website.

                1. He likes to call everyone cock suckers and fags, like that is some kind of an insult on a Libertarian website.

                  As if being called a fag on the internet is insulting.

                  1. Weird how your imagination runs wild.

                    But then there’s a KOCHsucker born every minute.

                    1. wow…if it was not for the Kochs, Fox, and a few other assorted boogeymen, the left would have no talking points at all. I guess Soros’ millions and Buffett’s outright dishonesty are okay, though.

                    2. wow…if it was not for the Soros, Obama, and a few other assorted boogeymen, the right would have no talking points at all. I guess Koch’s millions from the Soviet Communists and Breibart’s outright dishonesty are okay, though.

                    3. You tell them rather.

          2. “Breibart’s actor = a real pimp”

            The story was “obviously fake pimp clowns acorn” so I have to wonder what kind of retard thinks pointing out that the pimp was fake makes the story a lie.

            1. A very special kind of retard. But sadly a common one.

            2. I have to wonder what kind of retard thinks pointing out that the Heartland memo was fake makes global warming a lie.

              1. Crap like this from MNG is par for the course. At least he’s leapt a rung from yelping “Piltdown Man!”

  2. Fist

    1. Dammit!

  3. “Integrity is the source of every power and influence we have as scientists,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We don’t have the power to make laws, or run the economy.”

    Frumhoff then drifted briefly into reverie before snapping back to reality, discreetly hiding his sudden erection.

    1. He just forgot to say “yet”.

    2. I’ve known real scientists, Mr Frumhoff, you sir, are no scientist.

  4. The more some militant anything accuses others of “denial” or lying, the more you can be sure they’re doing it themselves, just as you can be sure anti-homosexual activists are closeted.

  5. In short: it’s okay if someone from Team HOT “misrepresents” himself and forges documents because he really really cares about the science.

    1. And your point is …?

    2. …that scientist uses Market Fundie tactics.

      “THIS IS OUR SEWER, DAMMIT!”

      Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie. Reason lauds.

      Funny. Every. Day.

      1. Fuck off Rather.

        1. sarcasmic|3.5.12 @ 11:52AM|#
          When someone demands immediate action and an end to debate, you can be quite confident that they’re full of shit.

          It’s only bullshit when the other guys do it. Right?

          LULZ

          1. At some point all debates end rather. And last I looked your website required registration to comment.

            1. I don’t have a website, KOCHsucker.

              Do you just make up shit and instantly swallow it? Like a fucking recycling machine of garbage is the right wing authoritarian mind, especially when it thinks it’s got a handle on liberty.

              1. Brilliant rather. Just brilliant. What did you do to get this good at imitating liberals? Did you spend years reading Kos diaries?

            2. Keep trolling it man, he’s getting pissed.

              1. anon is getting very angry

              2. Anon,

                I have almost come to respect Rather for all of her strangeness. I almost wish she would drop character for one post and give us a wink. But that would ruin it too.

                1. It’s probably sarcasmic laughing his ass off.

                  1. Maybe so. When the griefer posts a link to Kate Moss, we will know. Whoever it is, you have to laugh.

                2. I can’t quite decide if it is brilliant but strange craziness, or just bizarre, sad, obsessed, serious mental health problem type craziness.

                  1. It’s probably someone bedridden because a “capitalist pig doctor” stole his legs to sell on the black market.

                    Or something.

                    1. Generally inferior to:

                      Conservative 8th grade punch in the mouth or
                      the Brains of a pretty Senior. And you know she’s liberal.

                    2. No one is taunting you rather. Quite the opposite, we are giving you props for creating such a ridiculous but believable character.

                    3. You’re still What’s the Matter with Kansas.

                3. I have almost come to respect Rather for all of her strangeness. I almost wish she would drop character for one post and give us a wink. But that would ruin it too.

                  I used to play a lot of MOO’s and MUD’s back in the day as different characters. I guess I don’t see the brilliance.

  6. …that scientist uses Market Fundie tactics.

    “THIS IS OUR SEWER, DAMMIT!”

    1. For a market fundamentalist about the only thing that is not allowed is force or fraud.

      So by using fraud, the scientist is breaking one of the few rules.

      FAIL.

      If you really think that a social conservative and a market fundamentalist are the same thing, then you should read more.

      1. You don’t even know the definition of fraud, Bill. You should read more.

        Oh, if it really is fraud, where’s the charges, indictment, or conviction?

        There isn’t any. Because it isn’t fraud. It’s just “undercover” dirty tricks, just like Reason thinks is ok when it advances their agenda.

  7. When someone demands immediate action and an end to debate, you can be quite confident that they’re full of shit.

    1. Who wants to ban WI?

      LULZ

      Yep, you’re full of shit, Fibertarian.

      1. Life is so hard rather.

        1. Of all the trolls on all the internets, how the fuck did we get stuck with rather and White Indian?

          For fucks sake.

          1. It is all the same troll. And if you take it as performance art, WI and the griefer voice of hers is really kind remarkable in a weird way. To be able to post so consistently in that voice requires a real understanding of how these losers actually tick. I wish she would go away. But I have to hand it to her in some ways.

            1. Dude, cutting & pasting isn’t hard.

              1. …like above, it’s hard, right?

              2. White Indian cuts and pastes. But the griefer character doesn’t. And when she really gets in character, you see a pretty good portrait of a whinny dickless douche. Why anyone would want to waste time doing that is beyond me. But she does.

                1. It’s What’s the Matter with Kansas.

                  1. Hey, I whinny!

                    Neigh! Neigh!

                2. If it wasn’t so repetitive and boring, it might almost be entertaining.

                  1. Zeb, you have to poke it a little bit. She hates it when people call her out for being in character.

                  2. taxes
                    regulation
                    privatization
                    corporations good
                    zoning
                    lubrulz
                    gays

                    Rinse. Repeat as desired.

                3. To me it is quite clear. Rather dated one or more libertarians in the past and had a tough break up. Now she has gained 100 lbs. and will spend the rest of her life tormenting us.

                  I’m still not so sure that Rather and WI are the same person. Her normal comments out of character are so stupid I have a hard time believing she can put herself into all these characters.

                  1. Bill it is not like her griefer comments are that intelligent. It is just that she can put herself into character so consistently.

                    1. Why does everyone think Rather is a girl? I finally looked at “her” lame-ass blog about a year ago and the above-the-nose closeup photo posted across the top of the site was obviously of a dude in guyliner. A petite, angry, ginger dude.

                    2. …always lurks intermittently.

                    3. She refers to herself as female.

                    4. Maybe he or she has gender issues.

                    5. Good point, John.

  8. Climate change researchers put their credibility on the line when frustration turns to politicization.

    Jesus what a kindly quote.

    You think they call it ‘frustration’ if the situation were reversed? No, they’d call it fraud. Lying. Cheating. Call it whatever. That quote is crafted to make it look like a bunch of good guys were so frustrated with the evil opposition, that they went a little too far, you know, just this once, but their intentions were good. Tsk tsk.

    1. Farewell to a Friend: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
      Matt Welch | March 1, 2012
      https://reason.com/archives/201…..eitbart-19

      Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie.

      Oh, right, his intentions were good. Right, Paul?

      LULZ

      1. I might care what you have to say if you weren’t too stupid to make a link work.

    2. Hitler was frustrated with Jewish commercial success in Germany.

      Yeah, I went there.

      1. Know who else was frustrated with Jewish com….

        Fuck, nevermind.

      2. And you should have gone there.

      3. comment I saw: “We obsess more about Nazism than the Nazi’s did.”

        1. I blame Hogan’s Heroes.

  9. A sad tip o’the hat to Ron for again failing to mention :

    1. That allegations of the memo’s bogosity have backfired rather hilariously.

    All of its facts have been corroborated, and applying Java stylometric software, per denialist Anthony Watts demand, reveals the ” fake” document’s likeliest author to be not Gleick, but Heartland President Joe Bast.

    2. Credit for the fake allegation is due the lady wife of our august Editor, the Koch Foundation Fellow.

    1. Do you have any citations for that “information” beyond the voices in your head? Because that great denier rag the Washington Post doesn’t see it that way at all.

      1. Since when are they important to you, John?

        Oh God, this is really What’s The Matter with Kansas.

        1. Oh rather you really are on a roll today. The impotent sputtering, the name calling, the smugness, the insecurity, it is all there.

          1. ….again, John?

          2. Don’t forget the ad nauseum repetition.

            1. Or maybe one of the staff at the library just taught her how to do italics.

        2. I think it’s a bit funny that it believes John is from Kansas. It is a little bit like some weird post-modern performance art.

          1. …you people wouldn’t believe.

            And yeah, John’s from Kansas. And acts like it.

            1. Originally from Kansas or currently living in Kansas?

                1. Why would John answer? You’re the one insisting he’s from Kansas. There have been any number of other posts where he has said where he lives.

                  1. And I’m right. And it bothers you.

                    1. It bothers me? If you say so. I guess my stalking of John has not progressed to the level of fact checking him when he says he lives somewhere other than Kansas. I didn’t go look up his birth certificate and I didn’t snoop and trace his IP address or anything.

                    2. John’s What’s the Matter with Kansas.

                      Really. It’s not stalking. But Fibertards like you like to say shit like that, because you’re Fibertarian.

                    3. Rather,

                      I hope feigning all of this anger isn’t affecting you.

                    4. Huh, if you say it’s a fact then I obviously missed John’s post where he said anything about living in Kansas. I guess since I’m not a stalker I failed to make a proper note of it like a true stalker would have.

          2. That is exactly what it is. And it is all rather. If you read her blog, she is a writer. I think this is her way of keeping her character skills sharp.

            1. o
              m
              g
              !

              1. See above Sparky. Rather is very excited by the idea that someone looked at her blog.

                1. Yeah, maybe you’re right.

                  1. I don’t.

                    I’m not rather.

                    So I’ll just take John’s word on his beau’s blog.

                    1. We know who you are.

                    2. This is starting to look to me like MNG. Insists on getting the last word, butthurt from losing so many arguments to John, decent spelling.

                    3. ^^This. He gets tired of playing the good natured progressive, open to (mostly) pleasant debate and discussion, and has to release the vapors ALL DAY by playing half a dozen other personalities, mostly geared toward tweaking John or hounding the other regulars who won’t play with him. Awwwwwwwww. Yuck.

    2. Java stylometric software vs. metadata off a Wordperfect doc ripped to PDF and an Epson scanner?

      Do you know what kind of ignorant clown you’re announcing yourself to be? First rule getting out of the hole is to stop digging, stoop.

    3. Russell: Just a question: What if a “forger” simply cut and pasted actual language from real documents, and arranged the cut-and-pasted language so that the “fake” document reads as witting intellectual dishonesty? For example, the forger might try to heighten the impression of witting dishonesty, just throw in a word or two like “undermine” as a subtle change in language. Are you sure that the software you cite would rule out such a cut-and-paste job?

      1. Also Ron, he mixed documents of questionable providence in with documents of unquestioned providence. That is de facto forgery.

    4. Damned threading. See my query to Russell about the software’s ability to detect a cut-and-paste bogosity?

      1. JGAAP ( Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program)) stylometrics were demanded by Anthony Watts ( full disclosure: I think he’s meteorology’s answer to Yosemite Sam) .

        Shawn Otto obliged him , reporting the results here:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..97042.html

        Who copied what, when, and with which may signify less than who threatened the Heartland leaker with what- note that for all the gargling legalese about the memo not being written by a Heartland staffer, non-staffer Bast has not sworn to not writing it.

        1. I see you’ve answered several questions which weren’t asked and avoided answering the one that was:
          “Are you sure that the software you cite would rule out such a cut-and-paste job?”

          And I notice others have found different results: see Sean says:
          February 24, 2012 at 6:15 am, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..uthorship/
          (cut for 900 rule, see below)

        2. (continued)
          And regardless of your ad hom re Watts, at least his audience isn’t willing to take his suggestion (not “demand” as you attempt to mislead) as proof of anything. See: Smokey says February 24, 2012 at 6:31 am: “It appears that the program is a cherrypicker’s delight. So I’ll wait for Mosher’s input. He was the one who ID’d Gleick, forcing Gleick to admit to criminal activity in his noble cause corruption. I trust Mosher’s reasoning much more than any GIGO program in beta testing.”
          Now, could you please answer the question:
          “Are you sure that the software you cite would rule out such a cut-and-paste job?”

  10. Who does John keep responding to? (I filter any post with ‘LOL’ in it)

    1. Just rather in griefer mold trolling the thread. Nothing to see.

      1. I don’t know. I may be castigated for this, but I don’t think it’s rather with the alter ego. I think if it were there would be more references to things that eventually lead back to her blog.

        Of course, I could be wrong but I think this goes beyond rather. In truth, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone on the reason staff having a little fun with the inmates and seeing just how serious some are about letting others do their thing as long as it’s causing no harm.

        1. I used to think that too. But the coincidences of rather always posting on the same day as the griefer became too numerous to ignore. That combined with how insanely angry it gets when called rather finally convinced me it is all her.

          1. Um, John, you also always post on the same day as the griefer…

            1. No. I have missed some of the worst griefer threads that occur at night or on the weekends. And I am here when the greifer is not here, unlike rather.

        2. . In truth, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone on the reason staff having a little fun with the inmates and seeing just how serious some are about letting others do their thing as long as it’s causing no harm.

          Someone needs to check the correlation on Nick’s public appearances and the troll postings.

          1. I was thinking along the lines of either Lucy or Peter.

            1. I can’t be Lucy. Don’t even say that. Maybe Suderman. But not Lucy.

  11. I think it’s a bit funny that it believes cares if John is from Kansas.

    ftfy.

  12. Because, of course, [someone else] DID IT TOO!!!1!! is such a brilliant argument.

    Someone was doing so well with their meds, but apparently has slipped…:(

    *six more weeks of Seasonal “Forgot-My-Meds Affective Disorder*

    1. Address how it is when:

      Breibart lies = “undercover.”
      Gleik lies = “fraud.”

      1. How’s it different? Breitbart is no scientist. He never chaired an ethics panel on anything.

        Oh, and something else…everything Breitbart exposed was true. He never typed anything up and said it was someone else’s. Back to your hole, clown.

        1. …aren’t faked.

          Back to your hole, clown.

          1. Take it up with the Washington Post. They say otherwise dipshit. Seriously rather, sometimes you are just too fucking believable as dickless angry liberal and go from comic to annoying.

  13. …in the Sewer of Market Fundamentalist deception tactics like the Breitbagger.

    Lying is the sole domain of right wing nuts, funded by KOCH.

    THIS SEWER IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. GET OUT!

    Koch Whores
    The Breitbart Conspiracy: Yasha Levine Goes To Westwood To Investigate Breitbaggers’ Claims Of White House Assassination Plot
    By Yasha Levine
    http://exiledonline.com/cat/koch-whores/

    1. You are always right up to date on your leftist talking points rather.

      1. You are always right up to date on your rightwingnut talking points john.

  14. Just a bump, as Russell has made some claims and has yet to back them up:

    “Ron Bailey|3.5.12 @ 12:49PM|#
    Russell: Just a question: What if a “forger” simply cut and pasted actual language from real documents, and arranged the cut-and-pasted language so that the “fake” document reads as witting intellectual dishonesty? For example, the forger might try to heighten the impression of witting dishonesty, just throw in a word or two like “undermine” as a subtle change in language. Are you sure that the software you cite would rule out such a cut-and-paste job?”

    C’mon, Russell. How about some evidence that this software is better than a polygraph test?

  15. I don’t like calling this “Fakegate.” Seems like an attempt to distract from the fact that the substance of what was in the one single allegedly fake document was a summary of what was in the admittedly true documents.

    1. Not really. Gleick cooked the doc up precisely because there was no story in the ‘real’ ones.

      Heartland has anonymous donors? Not exactly breaking news there. Heartland has a skeptical AGW bent? Stop the presses. Heartland has curriculum ideas for schools counter to the Warmer narrative already ensconced in such? Oh the humanity.

      Gleick made his doc to have a story where none was, and ended up making the story he didn’t want. The fake memo is so glaring precisely because there’s nothing to distract us from it here.

      1. Exactly. All the inflammatory wording is in the memo, which is comically overwrought and reads more like Gleick pretending to be a villain than anything Heartland would have written. It’s obviously fakey-fake-fake.

    2. I haven’t been following this very closely, but the memo in question just read so much like a clumsy parody that I couldn’t believe it was real. The actual substance might reflect what they did say, but the wording and tone sounded like the climate deniers in someone’s head.
      I don’t really care enough to be certain one way or the other, though. Two groups of idiots who I don’t care about are having a fight.

      1. It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.

        The only people I see out there in the climate fight who ? as far as I can tell ? never admit to an error are people with agendas from which they can never stray. They’re perfect.

        More on Peter Gleick and the Heartland Files
        By ANDREW C. REVKIN
        February 22, 2012, 12:42 pm
        http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes……and-files/

        1. So he owned up to being a fraud after he was caught in his fraud. That doesn’t take integrity. That is just ass covering.

          Bad trolling rather.

          1. His behavior was improper for a scientist but that doesn’t make him a fraud. He acted like an investigative journalist. Certainly the ethics of investigative journalism can be debated, but the word “fraud” implies something else entirely.

            1. Gleick made things up – literally manufactured them – and alleged somebody else as the creator. That is fraud. He hasn’t admitted as much cause his sharks told him the stakes there so Brave Advocate is scared shitless hoping this all blows over – hiding out on his Sabbatical or whatever his tools-and-masters call it.

              The incendiary doc that could come out of this is out-of-court-settlement between Pacific Inst. and Heartland where a Gleick-clown shells out whatever the check is to Heartland to sweep it under the rug, logged as an ‘anonymous donor’ so Gleick can still pretend to be a scientists with all his pretend-scientist friends.

        2. Gleick hasn’t admitted he’s a liar, just a clown gone phishing. Like everything about him its guarded and half-assed.

          1. It’s a “modified limited hangout”!

        3. So in addition to being an eco-terrorist, White Indian is also a global warming alarmist? Color me surprised.

          1. The name alone – ‘White Indian’ – hints at deepest self-loathing there, wishing to be something most likely not. Bet he’s one of those honky clowns who’s 1/64th Iroquois on the DNA report but insists he’s full-on in the tribe.

            1. Hey, I’m proud of my 1/128’th Cherokee heritage!

              1. I thought the ‘one drop’ stuff went out of fashion with slavery.

                1. It came back into fashion with talk of ‘reparations’ and ‘affirmative action.’

  16. Sevo- vide supra:

    Ron Bailey|3.5.12 @ 12:50PM|#
    Damned threading. See my query to Russell about the software’s ability to detect a cut-and-paste bogosity?

    reply to this
    Russell|3.5.12 @ 6:00PM|#
    JGAAP ( Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program)) stylometrics were demanded by Anthony Watts ( full disclosure: I think he’s meteorology’s answer to Yosemite Sam) .

    Shawn Otto obliged him , reporting the results here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..97042.html

    Who copied what, when, and with which may signify less than who threatened the Heartland leaker with what- note that for all the gargling legalese about the memo not being written by a Heartland staffer, non-staffer Bast has not sworn to not writing it.

    1. Russell|3.5.12 @ 8:09PM|#
      “Sevo- vide supra:”
      Still, no answers; see Sevo|3.5.12 @ 8:35PM|# and Sevo|3.5.12 @ 8:37PM|#
      Would you please answer the question?

  17. Quien sabe?

    It’s still mostly a Payola replaces Thought in Tankland story

    1. Russell|3.5.12 @ 8:18PM|#
      “Quien sabe?
      It’s still mostly a Payola replaces Thought in Tankland story”

      Where do they offer degrees in poisoning the well?

      1. Having attracted enough Abramoff retreads to staff a law school, Heartland seems an obvious place to start.

  18. Fruity bloom fragrance by using mangosteen, redcurrant thrive,lacoste women short-sleeved shirts outlet waters lily, very old elevated, shining waters conform, forest, mahogany hardwood, florymoss, Tonka beans, and so on.click here are some of the many other types. The nickname stuck with him after returning home to France but with no cognate in his native language.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.