The Combustible Climate Debate
The Peter Gleick shocker is dominating conversation in many science circles this week. That’s understandable. It’s as if he emptied a can of lighter fluid on an already flammable climate debate.
To make matters worse, the most partisan and shrillest voices are fanning the flames in spectacular fashion, as they downplay/justify/praise Gleick’s action. It’s tribalism gone amok. I’ll have more to say on all this, plus some of the outstanding questions that remain, tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle (her latest on the affair) has a must-read piece that touches all the right bases. Hers is a voice of reason, sanity, and perspective. She also probes some of the oddities of Gleick’s explanation that many of his sympathizers conveniently ignore or dismiss. In a normal world, that would be known as healthy skepticism.
Anyway, just before this crazy story got crazier with Gleick’s admission, I took stock (over at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media) of the “anti-science” meme that has become much propagated. I examined it in the context of recent remarks made by Nina Fedoroff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
I wrote that it was important to recognize “that unscientific thinking on numerous issues clouds the minds of both liberals and conservatives.” Have a read and let me know what you think.
But who is wrecking labs, stealing documents, boycotting stores, intimidating editors, compromising the peer review process and calling for war crimes trials?
Keith –
I think you make a mistake in conjoining ‘science’ with attitudes, beliefs, prejudices and imaginings of ‘scientists’. Science is simply a process – it doesn’t speak, believe, understand or imply. Human beings do all that stuff.
“It’s also important to note that unscientific thinking on numerous issues clouds the minds of both liberals and conservatives.”
I think there’s an implication here that is actually false – which is that the ‘thinking’ of people who are called ‘scientists’ is necessarily scientific. One reason for this is that there is no such thing as scientific reasoning – there is sound reasoning and unsound. Most ‘thinking’ is more like motivational bias toward justifying our imaginings.
I you wanted to find the least scientific ‘thinking’ you only have to look at the writing of James Hansen or Stephen Schneider. What has science got to do with their imaginings? Their picturing of terrible happenings?
A book by Schneider that I’m reading has the subtitle “Inside the battle to saves Earth’s climate”. The ‘thinking’ that arrived at that impression of what he was doing bears no relation whatsoever to any kind of ‘science’.
I think you’ll find that most of the people who appear to you to be ‘anti-science’ are more generally anti the use to which some interpretations of science have been put. And even where there is genuine anti-science, is the tyranny of science [being the only way to access truth] so strong that we have to condemn alternative understandings? For instance, that GM is just wrong?
Well I am sure this is going to result in a very calm and civil debate about which side of the aisle is more “anti-science” than the other. ha ha.
Folks,
Just a quick unrelated announcement: You’re going to start seeing some ads appear. I’ve opted for a model that spaces them out on the site in as tasteful a manner as possible.
With great reluctance, I’ve decided to go this route, so I can keep blogging. I applied for google ad sense early last week and it takes about that long for an application to be approved.
Let’s hope the ads are non-partisan 😉
Keith,
Congrats on the choice to take on ads. I will be certain to click through on any that appear interesting.
Anteros makes a good point: Scientists are no better than anyone else. It is science that works well for us. Scientists are workers who may or may not do a good job.
let us not go even close to the direction of priesthood. It does not work well for religions, and it will work even worse on secular activiites like science.
Megan McArdle asks:
> If he didn’t write the memo, how did Mosher correctly identify his involvement? A good portion of Mosher’s argument was based on the similarity in writing styles.
She answers her own question here:
> Gleick’s name had always seemed somewhat anomalous in the climate memo
Gleick stuck out enough to be a starting point, and Mosher was dead on that it was a scanned document created at a different time than the others with a West Coast timestamp, PDF version etc all of which will have ramped up the pressure on Gleick to come clean. However, all that does is corroborate Gleick’s story. It says precisely nothing about the original authorship. People keep citing these aspects as if they demonstrate authorship when they don’t – they fit either of the proposed narratives and rule nothing out.
Everything subsequent is an exercise in working backwards from the conclusion, and I find it pretty empty. I find the “anti-climate” phraseology link in particular extremely tenuous. It is a single tweet that is *139* characters long. Have you never culled words to meet the 140 char limit? Using this textual analysis to claim Gleick was the author is extremely premature (seriously, would is stand up if applied to a random sample of the writings of 50 other AGW commentators, for example?). I don’t doubt its a possibility, but it is by no means a clear winner in the likelihood stakes, and the manner its been arrived at (working backwards from Gleick and finding facts that fit) is just circumstantial speculation.
She also asks:
> How did his anonymous correspondent know that Gleick would go to heroic lengths to obtain confidential material which confirmed the contents, and then distribute the entire package to the climate blogs?
If we’re going down this particular narrative, the suggestion is that they didn’t, and that Gleick’s unexpected actions caused this to blow up on Heartland much more than anticipated. Hence Heartland’s extremely confused and delayed response, where documents we now know to be legitimate were initially claimed to have been altered.
She also says:
> You receive an anonymous memo in the mail purporting to be the secret climate strategy of the Heartland Institute. […] Do you:
> A. Throw it in the trash
> B. Reach out to like-minded friends to see how you might go about confirming its provenance
> C. Tell no one, but risk a wire-fraud conviction, the destruction of your career, and a serious PR blow to your movement by impersonating a Heartland board member in order to obtain confidential documents.
When the alternative narrative is that Gleick chose option C with no prompting whatsoever, and threw in some even more incriminating forgery for good measure.
People saying that this chain of events is obviously true are way overreaching.
Why don’t Heartland release the relevant portions of text of the email Gleick sent? That would demonstrate once and for all whether he asked for named documents cited in the strategy memo or not.
Why would Gleick forge, print and then scan the strategy doc, given that it left such incriminating information behind? Is it not plausible to suggest that someone aware enough of document metadata to undertake the first step would be aware enough to check the metadata again after scanning?
Many questions, no answers yet.
@ 7 Dave H,
Why don’t Heartland release the relevant portions of text of the email Gleick sent? That would demonstrate once and for all whether he asked for named documents cited in the strategy memo or not.
This is the second time I’ve seen you say that Heartland should release the E-Mail that Gleick sent them. I don’t recall seeing where Gleick sent them an E-Mail; what E-Mail are you talking about?
I’m inclined to believe Gleick’s version of events until additional evidence comes to light, but then maybe that’s just me being shrill and tribal…
@Matt B
Gleick says he pretended to be someone else via email to obtain the documents he subsequently released, and he obtained the PDFs by email from Heartland.
His story is that the strategy memo prompted him to do so, and it references specific documents which he subsequently obtained through subterfuge from Heartland to validate the strategy memo. Thus, the wording of the actual blagging email he sent is crucial in corroborating or otherwise his claimed chain of events.
I hope for Gleick’s sake he isn’t the author of the fake memo. He’s already greatly damaged his credibility – authoring the memo and then lying about would destroy it.
Right now it seems to me the evidence is ambiguous with regard to authorship.
on a totally unrelated note…
will you give me a cut of your ad revenue if i promised to click on the banners twice a day 😉 ?
To be clear – if the fishing email corroborates Gleick’s version of events, Heartland’s supporters may regret trying to christen this incident “fakegate” because the provenance of the fake will become the total focus. Whoever fashioned that memo did so with inside knowledge.
OTOH, if it doesn’t hold up his story, the case claiming him as the actual author of the memo gains momentum.
She also probes some of the oddities of Gleick’s explanation that many of his sympathizers conveniently ignore or dismiss. In a normal world, that would be known as healthy skepticism.
She asks a lot of the same questions I asked in the last thread that need to be answered by Gleick, yet seems to be another one who’s been completely fooled by how HI knew it was Gleick. Astonishing she isn’t asking questions about the fish-i-ness of this situation, nor demanding any proof of of this style comparison that’s been taken as objective truth even though it obviously subjective, even if on the up and up. I give her a C on skepticism as she seen evidence that preserves her initial bias but has yet to look into it.
“It’s also important to note that unscientific thinking on numerous issues clouds the minds of both liberals and conservatives.”
I agree with Anteros here Keith. To me it is not ‘unscientific thinking’ but differences in ‘risk perception’.
Differences in ‘risk perception’ are a necessary part of species survival. I.E. Someone has what would be considered an ‘irrational’ fear of virtually everything and will take ‘unwarranted’ steps to protect against that ‘threat’. If it turns out they were ‘right’ then the species survives.
@2 +1 Very well said.
There is no shortage of those who seek to add the veneer of scientific objectivity to what are expressly moral positions. There is of course also the oft commented upon tendency of scientists to flash their credentials to support what is merely their personal policy preferences(“The Scienceâ„¢ sez we must stop economic growth!!”).
This tendency is obviously worse among Social “Sciences”. Here in Canada(I’m sure elsewhere as well) there are academic departments in many universities under the title of “Social Justice Studies”. Now I would never begrudge anybody for subscribing to the political views that these programs cater to, I believe a society is healthiest when there is a plurality of view points. That said, I don’t think a degree in “Social Justice” is anymore credible than a degree in “Christianity”, “Conservatism” or any other ethical position and I certainly wouldn’t expect any paper from such a department to be very objective. The real problem is when people like this claim authority under the auspices of the academy and paint anyone who disagrees as “anti-intellectual” or I’m sure in some cases “anti-science”.
Also worth noting is the inconsistent fealty to scientific consensus among many when it comes to say Climate Change vs GMOs which in my view lends weight to the argument that people’s morality precedes rationality.
@3. Haha, I expect nothing but the upstanding and gregarious conduct that we’ve come to expect.
@4. SACRILEGE!!!
Dave H, wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one gets wet. The fishiness completely surrounds the rotten fish in this case, Peter Gleick. He chose to commit fraud.Ge chose to fabricate a document so transparently bad. He chose to dump it all out, without redcating personal information. He chose to lie and claim that it was all authentic when Revkin asked him. Gleick chose to do this. This sick balming-the-victim mentality of so many true believers shows us all a level of bigoted arrogance that is destructive to civil society.
Dave H,
Your defense of Peter Gleick is basically this:
Yes the defendant broke in, and yes he stole the jewelry, but he promises he did not assault the victim. And besides, she was a tramp and whore anyway. And maybe she lured him in, in the first place. And in fact, the defendant is such a good moral person that assaulting that slutty tramp was downright patriotic.
Actually, I realise I am speculating here about Mosher’s order of investigations, which is not appropriate. If Steven Mosher happens to swing by this thread and read this it would be nice to get a confirmation as to what the first thing that led him to Gleick was. It seems likely to me that it was the mention of his name in the memo that planted the seed, but without confirmation I’m just guessing.
@hunter
You really are a fantasist. Where am I defending Gleick?
@20
it’s a side effect of the tinfoil 🙂
Hi,
Here is Pacific INstitue’s mission statment:
” “Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet via wealth reduction and redistribution, global environmental regulation, and drastically reduced economic activity. Only these can lighten the terrible and immoral burden humanity places on Earth’s ecosystems. We will continue to pursue our mission by any and all means possible, because that is the only morally defensible path. The planet is depending on us, and nothing else matters.”
Does anything about it strike anyone here as inotable?
Marlowe, I keep looking for tinfoil you go on about, but it is all used up by gleick’s friends and supporters.
It seems there is anational shortage being created by AGW true believers and I cannot even find enough to wrap a baked potato, much less put over my noggin.
Dave H,
At least have the bravery to stand behind your words.
” Everything subsequent is an exercise in working backwards from the conclusion, and I find it pretty empty. I find the “anti-climate” phraseology link in particular extremely tenuous. It is a single tweet that is *139* characters long. Have you never culled words to meet the 140 char limit? Using this textual analysis to claim Gleick was the author is extremely premature (seriously, would is stand up if applied to a random sample of the writings of 50 other AGW commentators, for example?). I don’t doubt its a possibility, but it is by no means a clear winner in the likelihood stakes, and the manner its been arrived at (working backwards from Gleick and finding facts that fit) is just circumstantial speculation.”
You are just making a long winded distraction. Peter confessed he broke in. But believers hate HI and that is OK with many of them.
Keith,
As a journalist, how would you judge Gleick’s behaviour if his version of events turns out to be true (i.e. he didn’t forge the ‘fake’ document but did obtain the other legit documents through less-than-honest means)?
I ask because I thought that this type of practice is fairly common with investigative journalism. If it is, how do you explain the ethical considerations to your students? If it isn’t common, then why don’t we hear more denunciations when such methods are routinely used in other cases (the Foxconn situation comes to mind)?
It’s as if he emptied a can of lighter fluid…
and set himself on fire.
@23
Did the documents that Gleick obtained reveal that Heartland was doing something illegal? Not something you find reprehensible but is actually illegal?
I’ve heard something about taxes but also that those arguments are misguided.
@Marlowe
This kind of thing as performed by Gleick really isn’t all that common – they normally try and blag stuff without explicitly duping people – and if it does occur there has to be a serious public interest involved.
@ 10 Dave H,
In Gleick’s HuffPo piece he never says he sent an E-Mail, he only says:
I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.
My guess is that he did this by phone, I would think it would have been easier and smarter that way. So, there wouldn’t be an E-Mail from him to Heartland.
Am I missing something?
@ 23 Marlowe,
Foxconn may not be the right example of hard-core investigative journalism cracking the case; I used to sell to those guys and it didn’t take Dick Tracy to figure out their factories were one step above a forced labor camp.
I’m sure they’ve cleaned up their act now, though, since Apple INSISTS that their supply chain follow all appropriate environmental, safety & labor laws…….yeah……..
@Matt B
That’s a damn good point – he doesn’t explicitly say he made the request by email, I was just assuming that. That said, they did email the documents to him, so I don’t see how doing it by phone is any easier or smarter? Don’t you have a problem there with voice recognition also?
@ 29 Dave H,
Nah, you can always turn up the heater in the car, blame a crappy connection, & pretend you’re in a big rush (all things I have done to get away from conversations with customers/bosses/etc). Also, most Board Members I know don’t spend much time talking to admin types (unless it’s to tell them how great their car/boat/home/3rd wife is) & the admin types are usually happy to get them out of their hair, so any reasonable-sounding voice should have no problem passing muster.
Besides, if they start questioning you on the phone, just hang up!
The Peter Gleick shocker is dominating conversation in many science circles this week. That’s understandable. It’s as if he emptied a can of lighter fluid on an already flammable climate debate.
That’s a liitle much, don’t you think? This entire episode doesn’t seem to be gaining much traction outside of a few blogs. I suspect this will have essentially zero impact on public opinion, contrary to the breathless claims of Gleick setting back some movement or another by so many years.
“Skeptics” seem to want desperately to believe that Gleick admitted somehow proves he forged the strategy document, irrespective of what he actually said.
The “climate concerned” seem to think Heartland’s actions are real scandal here.
In other words self reinforcement of existing beliefs, and little else.
McArdle seems to be slightly less credulous WRT the conspiracy theories of “skeptics” here compared to accusations of temperature data fraud, but that’s damning with faint praise rather than a compliment.
@22- the mission statement of the Pacific Institue which I quoted had been Gliecked.
Their real mission statement is as folows:
“”The Pacific Institute works to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities. We conduct interdisciplinary research and partner with stakeholders to produce solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity””in California, nationally, and internationally.”
@31,
thingsbreak,
It is not desperation to declare him guilty. It is that he has already demonstrated over time and in multiple settings that he is willing to act deceitfully. It is an Occam’s razor sort of call to link a memo that he distributed which is written in his style with the docs that stole out of HI. It is also not unusual for people guilty of something to confess in stages. I attempted to show a defense based on partial admissions up thread. Time will tell, but Mosher was spot on with this from the get go, and he is well convinced that Gleick created the counterfeit document, slipped it in the docs he stole and dumped it all out to the media nad his pals.
Marlowe Johnson Says:
I ask because I thought that this type of practice is fairly common with investigative journalism.
Since when is assuming the identity of a living person a common practice in Journalism.
Would it be acceptable for a Journalist to pretend to be Marlowe Johnson and get your medical records? How about your financial records? How about your phone bill?
You are missing the ‘identity theft’ portion of the crime. Gleick didn’t pretend to be a ‘generic’ board member. He pretended to be a specific board member.
tb –
Fair point. Those of us who hang out at climate blogs are seriously deluded about how much the rest of the world gives a toss.
Judith Curry currently has a post up talking about teaching college students climate science. She said she gave a class yesterday and the students hadn’t even heard of the Heartland incident. The CRU emails maybe were a different kettle of fish, but at least as far as the UK is concerned only about 17 people know who Peter Gleick is [or was..]
Incidentally, I sent him an email this afternoon asking for clarification on the forging of the strategy document. He must be busy at the moment 🙂
@32
I had to read the original comment twice and then concluded you MUST have done something to it. It’s for similar reasons that many find the memo so fishy, it fails the ideological turing test.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html
@26
I agree with you that the public interest has to figure into the moral calculus, but so does the nature and target of the deception. Whether or not the discoveries in this particular instance warrant such behaviour is an interesting question. While there isn’t anything newsworthy from the perspective of most climate war veterans, I’m not sure the same can be said about the general public.
Personally, I don’t think it’s that big a deal if all he did was con HI into giving him some documents that they otherwise wouldn’t have shared. I’ll freely admit that I may well be letting my antipathy towards HI and their ilk cloud my judgement.
OTOH if Gleick also forged the document then it’s whole other kettle of fish.
@28
Matt, if the reality of the working conditions at Foxconn is so widely known isn’t the comparison to the Heartland episode appropriate, since the released documents merely confirm what was widely suspected?
@Anteros
I’m traveling right now and haven’t had much time to sit at a computer. The news is focused on the stock market, Greece, potential war with Iran, Reublican primaries, etc.
WRT Curry teaching students, I hope she sticks to science and not the nutty crap she posts on her blog, for their sake. Any student unwary enough to take stuff at face value like we don’t know that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, they’ll be in for a rude awakening in their next course.
WRT Gleick saying one way or the other if he faked the strategy document:
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.
I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
Seems pretty clear to me.
thingbreak @ 31 writes:
“I suspect this will have essentially zero impact on public opinion.”
This may be true among members of the public, most of whom possess common sense. Used car salesmen have more credibility than climate scientists among members of the general public since ClimateGate and this will just cement that status.
However, among members of the governing elite this incident is more widely known and its significance may be greater. They have been fooled by the “scientific” veneer of the AGW hoax and assign a much greater importance to climate change than does the general public. Now they may be much less willing to back public policy based on the say so of climate scientists.
Marlowe (26) I ask because I thought that this type of practice is fairly common with investigative journalism.
I’ve seen this mentioned several places and the idea that falsely impersonating someone to obtain information is common is an odd view of journalism. Revkin posts on this over at dotEarth:
22. Staff members and others on assignment for us should disclose their identity to people they cover, though they need not always announce their occupation when seeking information normally available to the public. Those working for us as journalists may not pose as anyone they are not ““ for example, police officers or lawyers.
Jim R,
The true believers seem remarkably free of ehtics or integrity and most of all information in the formationof their opinions. And they seem to confuse their opinions with facts, and wish those opinions honored as law, with disturbing frequency.
anteros,
We both know where this story would be if it had turned out to be as Gleick first represented: The NYT ran with it immediately, in full attack mode. They covered the docs in detail. It would have been in the national media cycle continuously until HI either fired its eladership or closed down. The way the media turned on a dime to suppress the story by neglect is not surprising but is still amazing. All the news that fits, etc.
@ 37 Marlowe,
I agree that anyone surprised that Foxconn is a sweatshop or that Heartland is a hard-knocking outfit fighting against the AGW crowd either wasn’t paying attention or has comprehension problems.
For me, the difference is getting inside info on Heartland is way harder than Foxconn, simply because Foxconn is a giant & many, many people had contact with that outfit. They sell more in 2 hours than Heartland’s entire budget & a beast that big needs many people to feed it……
hunter –
Too true. Richard Black from the BBC did a whole sneering piece on Heartland, the denial machine, and the exposing of calculated misinformation… Of course, when Gleick confessed, nothing – not a word. In fact he ran a story on something completely different.
To see that kind of thing at the BBC is painful for a Brit. We don’t have anything like it in terms of [alleged] impartiality and balance. The same with the Royal Society. The CAGW mentality has done quite a lot of damage to some very well established reputations.
Still, when the world doesn’t end, I guess life will return to normal 😉
Somehow I’ve recently become aware of more bad science done by scientists. E.g., a friend published a paper essentially proving that a medical researcher in India had faked data on several journal articles. The proof was statistical. I found it totally convincing, but it’s not the same as a specific investigation showing that the recorded data was fudged. Of course my friend has no way to do such an investigation, nor do the journals. I suppose the university in India could do such an investigation, but AFAIK they haven’t done so.
44. Anteros – Baghdad Black at the BBC now has a verbose apologist spin piece on Gleick attempting to explain why 2 + 2 = 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17126699
Needless to say, most of the commenters are calling him on his BS. But I suppose that once a ‘journalist’ gets in the habit of spinning and making stuff up, it is hard to stop.
Keith,
This ‘anti-science’ meme is getting truly ridiculous. Does anybody not know yet that this project was never about real science?
The cherry-picked scientific evidence used to support this project was just the veneer, the leverage, for a political project. So all this talk about ‘anti-science’ is just a distraction – which is why they keep using it.
The irony is that the AGW promoters who so eagerly asserted that ‘the debate is over’ and called those who asked questions ‘deniers’ are the only truly ‘anti-science’ players in this show.
@EdG
Ouch, I hadn’t seen the ruling about the GWPF:
> Judge Alison McKenna said the GWPF wasn’t influential enough for disclosure to be merited.
While I’m slightly pleased that that will bruise some egos, I think that is absolutely the wrong justification. It reminds me of the bizarre refusal of Ofcom to sanction the Great Global Warming Swindle on the grounds that – although it was misleading or inaccurate – there was such a noverwhelming acceptance of AGW that the rules for impartiality did not apply because the programme was unlikely to have any impact in any case.
@48
Wait a minute here, I thought it was these dastardly, well funded think tanks that were the main culprits in stopping any meaningful climate policy being passed. Turns out they’re “not influential enough”?
That’s why this whole thing is so stupid. If you think your whole advocacy campaign can be/has been derailed because of some marginal think tank or evil genius David Wojick you either:
A) Tremendously overestimate the power/reach of David Wojick/Heartland
B) Are incredibly insecure about your argument
C)Underestimate the intelligence of the public
People hyperventilate as if Wojick’s climate module was going to be made compulsory and parroted along to children.
“TEH PEOPLEZ DON’T FEEL TEH SAME AS ME……THEY MUST BE BRAINWASHED!!!!DAMN YOU EVIL BRAINWASHERZ!!!”
Meanwhile Congress has already started to sniff around HI. Makes it all worthwhile. Gleick for President.
Keith,
I’m totally against the anti-science crowd. Their refusal to share data is anti-science. Their slander and libel of anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science. The refusal to replicate or audit work is anti-science. Their hype of press releases before peer review is anti-science. Their employment of press releases from political acitivist groups in assessments is anti-science.
And I’m really against the use of that brain dead polar bear study. That has to be the worst example of anti-science in history.
Don’t you have a problem there with voice recognition also?
Caller ID.
Meanwhile Congress has already started to sniff around HI.
Link?
I think I found the story bigcitylib is talking about. A member of congress has written a letter to Hastings and Markey requesting an investigation:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/letter-about-heartland-payments-to-goklany/
Believing that a ubiquitous gas emitted as a by-product of our industrial civilization threatens society with catastrophe is a depressing and tension inducing viewpoint. Especially as it seems there is no chance that the complete revamping of our economy that is felt necessary by the theory’s adherents to prevent disaster will take place. All this talk of CO2 levels reaching a “point of no return” may be taking its toll. Perhaps it got Gleick wrapped so tightly he snapped and acted out in the bizarre, anti-social, and self-defeating fashion he did. That many other warmists totally sympathize with and support his actions suggest that they too may suffer from similar states.
Adherents to CAGW theory may want to introspect and consider what effect it theory is having on their state of mind. Interestingly, Keith recently had a posting up on cognitive/social science aspects of CAGW theory but the effects of the theory on its adherents unfortunately did not come up.
Those who want to continue to hold to the CAGW viewpoint might want to try joining a fundamentalist church. This may be the most socially adaptive way of dealing with the unbearable tension apparently caused by believing that increasing CO2 levels are inevitably dooming us. Such organizations offer unconditional acceptance and an all-encompassing world-view that may bind the desperate feelings that apparently led Dr. Gleick to his current unfortunate circumstances.
@Dave H
You do know that there should be TWO copies of the alleged Heartland email.
You keep pushing for Heartland to release theirs from the “sent mail” file, but there should also be one in “somebody’s” inbox.
And don’t say that the “account was deleted” since NOTHING is ever really gone from the internet.
And don’t say that the “account was deleted” since NOTHING is ever really gone from the internet.
Was the same email account used to obtain documents from Heartland and send them to the “Dear Friends (15 of you)”? The latter account was to be deleted. If it’s not the same as the former, the former could well exist.
@54 Fred,
CO2 obsession is what I cause it.
bigcitylib,
How else do you please yourself? HI will stand up to scrutiny. Will Pacific Institute? How about Greenpeace, WWF, etc.?
Be very careful of what you ask for, buddy.
Dave H.
What lead me to suspect Gleick.
I first just read the document properties and commented about that.
Nobody seemed much interested. So I skimmed the document and found budget mistakes that I highlighted. On this first read it seemd fake. Hell it looked fake. It didnt read like a strategy document. I’ve listed about 10 things that seemed wrong.
The smoking gun paragraph seemed very odd. Why call out those individuals? Gleick, Taylor, Wojick, Revkin Curry.
That was odd. The method of reasoning I used is called ABDUCTION.
That paragraph seems really odd. So I ask myself? what would have to be true for it to NOT be odd. It hit me. Gleick wrote it. He put himself in the scene of the crime ( like an arsonist metaphorically)
Then it all fell into place. His fight with taylor, the attitude toward revkind, the humilation he suffered at the hands of Curry. This was revenge, revenge for humiliation of a Macarthur Genius. No wonder he put himself at the center of their strategy, they were at the center of his hatred. These types of people personalize debate. It’s all about them. Then the west coast details fell into place.. then the irs 990 fell into place. Then I learn about his fight with Taylor
Then Mcintyre called me and asked If I looked at high entropy terms. He pointed out the tweet. Folks did some reasearch on that.
I suggest you google zipfs law. Then I looked at the memo again
and predicted a few things that one would find if you looked at other writings. Here is what I wrote at 11Am on the 16th.
” Who ever wrote the document doesnt know how to punctuate long complex sentences. There perfered method of handling these things
is using parathesis. See all the uses in the document, especially (such as) and ending sentences with parenthetical comments”
I told steve to look for ‘extemporaneous writing” not stuff that had been reviewed or passed thru editors. Why? because this paragraph smelled like something that hadnt been rewritten. Years of reading freshman writing.. I suppose. After making this prediction Steve and others sent me writings to compare. I went to Judiths blog to compare his comments.
So for me style was the last component I looked at. I predicted what people would find. They brought me back stuff and asked what do you think.
My opinion? Gleick wrote it. multiple lines of evidence.
I heard Roger Jr. on the radio today making the same point I did in @31. This is (for now anyway) way too inside to nudge public opinion meaningfully.
@Jake
Actually, if you read my comments on an earlier thread I was pushing Gleick to release his first.
@Steven Mosher
Thanks a lot for that. What I take from this is that you had multiple lines of evidence indicating that the memo was a fake, and that it was Gleick’s name in the document that initially led you to Gleick. Subsequent comparisons of style were then based on this connection.
This is why I find it unconvincing as yet (especially 1 word excised from a single 139 character tweet). Right now you are looking pretty good with 2 out of 3 – Heartland claim the document is a fake (and it contains errors), and Gleick is the source of the PDF. You have circumstantial evidence that he was also the author, but he tells a tale of receiving it in the post which *also* matches all the available evidence and your analysis so far.
EdG @ 47
The cherry-picked scientific evidence used to support this project was just the veneer, the leverage, for a political project.
That would be the NIPCC ‘report’ discreetly funded by the HI. Along with the misleading curriculum project. Veneer and leverage for a political project.
Dave H
Agreed. Along with (IIRC) grypo. The circumstantial evidence for PG as author is suggestive but not compelling. Perhaps no further commentary on this topic can be considered fair since it is not possible to resolve on the present evidence.
Further evidence is required.
@BBD
> Further evidence is required.
Agreed. Of course, in hunterfantasyland, reserving judgment is the same as mounting a hypocritical defence and blaming the victim, but there you go.
Great summary from Mosher. Contrary to what Dave H says, Gleick’s story doesn’t stand up. See the article by McArdle raising a whole bunch of awkward questions for him. Also another article by her today where she asks
“How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?
How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?”
The fake memo was written after the genuine ones, and it was written by Gleick.
@Charles
> How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?
Because it was based on – and referred explictly to – internal documents.
> How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted?
Because he asked for the documents cited in the memo he received.
I’m sorry, but these are really, really obvious answers to those questions if you accept Gleick’s version of events. There is no contradiction or difficulty.
Mosher, you also mention in the comments of your original post that you were in the process of getting the leaker’s IP address. Did you, and if so from who? Heartland?
I mean the most likely series of events was Gleick didn’t cover his tracks very well. Forensics for the email he used to contact Heartland vs. any earlier contacts with HI were used to figure out who the likely culprit was. The Zips law stuff Mosh and Steve probably picked up on Wiki and have bandied about since.
David H
What I think Charles is saying is that the Strategy Memo is too much of a perfect fit. Any detailed information in the memo is corroborated by the stolen documents and vice versa.
The first think that leaps out is that the memo, that will be kept confidential and only distributed to a subset of Board Members and Senior Staff, is that the anonymous donor is not named. If anyone would know the name it would be this group. In the parallel funding paragraph donor anonymity is again protected and maintained even from fellow insiders. This is unrealistic. The potential for bad publicity demands that most higher-ups know where the big check is coming from so they can be somewhat prepared if it hits the fan.
The Megan Mcardle reporting, which is being praised as brilliant from here to Cameroon, is pretty good, but hardly deserving of its journo love. She’s repeatedly missing some pretty obvious information and just keeps asking the same answerable questions, all which confirm her initial bias, pointing to Gleick as the author of the strategy doc. Now, while questioning Gleick’s health
“so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment”
she’s still not telling the whole story. For instance, she’s still asking,
“How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?
How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?”
This is just a bad question. In the first paragraph of the strat doc (the doc she gets props from dissecting) is the answer:
“More details can be found in our 2012 Proposed Budget document and 2012 Fundraising Strategy memo.”
She’s reporting as if she just knows that Gleick is both crazy and guilty. If articles that looks like half reporting and half email-to-her- buddy-at-the-racquetball-court is the best that can be done, just fold it up. I believe it can be done better.
There’s less fun and capital attached to admitting to direct funding when you can fund the sponsors and make anonymous “˜gifts’ all day long.
Apparently, some folks are still learning how to do political math and others, like Megan, just pretend they don’t know how. Megan has been what you might call less transparent and less than objective or critically engaged in her reporting of Koch. L
On the other hand, if you look around the internet (not the circular blogosphere) and observe, folks are responding in new ways to this situation. They’re expressing being fed up with who owns most of the wealth, and how they are manipulated and oppressed by the likes of Heartland and rich Republicans like the Kochs. There’s not a lot of mention of how upset anyone is with Gleick.
By the way, who IS that donor enjoying the Donor’s Trust slush fund protection for rich Republicans seeking tax incentives via anonymous gift-giving to Heartland? Love it.
On a side note, it seems that no once cares about Keith’s announcement that this site will now be monetized with ads to assist with the cost of managing a blog and to generate some compensation for his time. No serious thoughts from libertarians about Google servers deciding what posts are about and displaying what it considers to be the relevant ads from corporate networks with the biggest margins to purchase ad space in this economy? Fascinating.
grypo,
You ask the wrong question:
Why is Gleick still not telling the whole truth and admitting what everyone who has critical thinking skills knew from the start: That Peter Gleick is the source of the first memo?
The Pacific Institute Board is likely to oust their founder, Peter Gleick, today or tomorrow.
Why is it that the people who actually have responsibility, from the AGU to NCSE and his peers in academia are not joining in your disgusting amoral display?
Martha,
As alwayswhen we hear from you, we get a good feel for what the kooks think.
Thank you for your update.
Martha,
You are a gift that keeps on giving.
Now Keith is monetizing his website? What a pretentious blowhard you are.
Yeah, well she’s married to someone who has worked for Competitive Enterprise Institute and FreedomWorks, so it isn’t all that necessary to tell us she’s not surprised by what goes on in those types of places and that all the focus should be on how crazy and insane Gleick was.
as someone who donated and lobbied hard for Keith to put up banner ads, I’m pleased to see that my advice has been taken. Keith still hasn’t indicated whether or not I’ll get a cut of the profits if I agree to dutifully click on the ads.
Not sure if you were aware of this or not Martha, but the ads you see are generally determined by the content of your cookies (i.e. what sites you’ve visited previously). I’m currently seeing the economist on the left and traffic cops on the right. Can you guess why my week didn’t start off so well 🙂 ?
Keith,
A hypothetical question, which may be relevant:
Is impersonating someone (either overtly or covertly) in order to get deep background information that would normally never see the light of day an acceptable practice? Example: Let’s assume as a journalist, you have strong reason to believe a certain politician is dirty. You know who his closest friends are, but can’t break into the circle and get any details. So, you impersonate him to trick one of his friends to send you some information (let’s say its for an off-the-record meeting with “supporters”). Now rather than publishing that information, you use that information to spy on the meeting. You track who shows up and when. You realize that there’s someone you didn’t expect attending the meeting and now you start investigating them also.
In the ensuing investigation, you expose significant malfeasance and report on it, thus bringing down the corruption. Through out all of this, you never are questioned as to how you knew about that meeting.
Does it matter that the whole chain of events was reliant on the illegally/unethically obtained meeting notice?
Re: 71.
Just yesterday I was minding my own business, surfing the web when I came here to Keith’s and noticed a banner at the top advertising the “Sustainability Operations Summit”. “Yeah, so?” you may ask, WELL I also noticed that it was being held at the Hilton Hotel NYC. Again, you may ask “Big deal, so what?”. The Hilton Hotel chain is of course run by Hilton family patriarch William Barron Hilton I (Net worth $2.5b). According to wikipedia: Barron also became president of the Carte Blanche credit card firm, was owner of an orange juice company, head of a business leasing jets and an investor in a Texas oil company.”
A Texas oil company. Oh Keith, not you too? We’re through the looking glass here people.
“Evaluation Shows ‘Faked’ Heartland Climate Memo is Authentic”
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
Heh. NYJ should be well pleased.
@Stu
I am decidedly unimpressed with that piece. A better title would be “Evaluation shows ‘Faked’ Heartland Climate Memo is definitely pieced together with access to internal Heartland documents, something that was obvious to everybody”.
Yeah, that Desmog article is only useful fro counter-spin for the other spin that’s emanating from everywhere else. This look at the statement from HI is interesting:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/22/heartland-memo-origin-questions/
#63 BBD says:
“EdG @ 47
The cherry-picked scientific evidence used to support this project was just the veneer, the leverage, for a political project.
That would be the NIPCC “˜report’ discreetly funded by the HI. Along with the misleading curriculum project. Veneer and leverage for a political project.”
No BBD. I was describing the IPCC ‘voodoo science’ you fell for.
According to Otto, using Watts suggested software is… {click here}
According to Otto, using Watts suggested software, the author of the strategy memo is”¦ {click here}
@84,
Why do I think Otto speaks with forked tongue?
He needs to use unrelated authors and cut another sentence out of the memo, I believe.
Anteros wrote at #2:
“I think you’ll find that most of the people who appear to you to be “˜anti-science’ are more generally anti the use to which some interpretations of science have been put. And even where there is genuine anti-science, is the tyranny of science [being the only way to access truth] so strong that we have to condemn alternative understandings? For instance, that GM is just wrong?”
So true! Let’s just admit that both sides are 100% correct and move on.
BBD
That would be the NIPCC “˜report’ discreetly funded by the HI.
From the ‘front matter’ of the report
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Front%20Matter.pdf
Please use the following citation for this report:
Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009.
What is discreet about ‘claiming to be the publisher’.
harrywr2
Yes, poorly worded. I was trying to convey that we don’t know where the money come from originally. Although we do know that the single largest donor to the HI last year – by far – gave $3.9 million. Anonymously.
Sorry – $3.9 million 2010 – 2012 projected. Tired.
Here is the environmental education association of Washington
http://eeaw.org/privacy
EEAW is committed to protecting the privacy of our members.
Ohh look
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants/hq2010.html
EE Association of Washington – $121,971
I’m apparently donating to a non-profit charity with my tax dollars for ‘environmental education material’ that doesn’t release information about it’s donors.
If some ‘rich person/corporation’ wants to produce ‘environmental education material’ with his/her own money and remain anonymous why is that a problem?
Ohh wait…I know…the Anonymous rich persons ‘environmental education project’ hasn’t been approved by the official ‘Ministry of Truth’ and the one being funded with Taxpayer dollars and Anonymous Donations has.
Ohh look…here is the donor list for the Bellevue Schools Foundation…I actually like this organization…after three years of begging they actually agreed to sponsor a ‘Science Olympiad’ team that I had sponsored out of my out pocket previously.
Check our the number of ‘anonymous donors’.
http://bsfdn.org/Documents/2010%20Annual%20Report_web.pdf
And here is the funders list for the non-profit Pacific Insitutue(Gleicks place)
http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Funders%202009.pdf
I’ll excerpt the ones that jump out at me –
California Environmental Protection Agency ,California Public Utilities Commission,California Transportation Commission,Dept of Toxic Substance Control,Department of Water Resources,Environmental Protection Agency,Florida Department of Environmental Protection,National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration,United Nations Environment Programme,The University of Alabama in Huntsville, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wow…that’s a long list of ‘taxpayer’ funding.
Is Heartland taking ‘taxpayer’ money or is it just ‘private funds’?
*looks at watch*
Still waiting for a reply to harrywr2’s comment.
Nobody?
harrywr2
To my considerable surprise you appear to be adopting hunter’ non-argument from the previous thread. To which I responded:
Here’s a simple example for you from the email you quote:
> Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly
> over the years by cultivating a diverse base of
> donors who share its mission. Today it has
> approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it
> received 48 percent of its income from
> foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and
> 14 percent from individuals.
The donors of public interest are foundations (which in turn are of course the recipients of corporate funding) and corporations. This accounts for 48% and 34% of HI’s funding respectively; a total of 82%. That is what I am talking about. Not the private individuals ponying up a hundred bucks a year.
Marlowe Johnson made it very clear (as I should have done) that this cuts both ways. ENGOs must be as transparent in their sources of funding as the multitude of lobbying organisations passing themselves off as think tanks. BUT in neither case is there any suggestion that small private donations cannot be made anonymously.
It’s GOOD that we can see that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund an ENGO. That’s the benefit of transparency.
Menth
*looks at watch*
Still waiting for a reply to harrywr2″²s comment.
Nobody?
I really dislike this. People have to sleep, work, attend families etc. Trying to make a ‘point’ out of natural pauses in the conversation is a miserable tactic.
Is Heartland taking “˜taxpayer’ money or is it just “˜private funds’?
I missed this. Of course HI is subsidised by the US taxpayer. It is (very questionably) tax exempt. For now.
@95 “I really dislike this. People have to sleep, work, attend families etc. Trying to make a “˜point’ out of natural pauses in the conversation is a miserable tactic.”
Relax, have a chamomile tea. I wrote this last night while others were talking in another thread. I understand that people live in different timezones, it wasn’t targeted at you.
Re: 96
Am I missing something here? Is there not a difference between being given $121k in tax money AND being tax exempt AND keeping donors anonymous vs simply being tax exempt and keeping donors anonymous?
Re:94 “It’s GOOD that we can see that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund an ENGO. That’s the benefit of transparency.”
I agree. How taxpayer money is spent should be transparent because there’s no choice in whether to give it or not. It’s not a voluntary transaction between private citizens.
So the common thing I keep hearing here from people is that Heartland and other organizations are rooted in one aim: to misinform, to confuse, to delude.
Here’s what I’m proposing for your consideration: they actually believe in what they are saying. Note that this is distinct from whether they are correct or not, that’s not what I’m trying to debate. Is an organization free to advocate for something they believe in, even if it’s wrong? There seems to be this premise that these people secretly understand the science the same way you do but choose to “deceive” people anyway.
Simplistic Vignette:
Heartland Meeting Chairman *petting cat on lap*: “Well boys, the planet’s gonna fry but if people find out about that our benefactors will be out a TONNE of cash, so let’s get to work making sure everything gets muddled. Who wants a cigar? MUAHAHAHA.”
So it’s been shown that other organizations also prepare their own K-12 education modules. Is the whole premise faulty or only if it’s the “wrong” organization? Let’s say the Center for American Progress funds a K-12 project and it includes a bunch of phony attribution claims and tells kids that Santa’s gonna be homeless because mommy drives them to soccer practice in an suv. Is this okay?
In a pluralistic society there will be a plethora of competing viewpoints and many will seem morally abhorrent to one another. It is also unsurprising that it is easier to ascribe ulterior motives(“it’s that corporate money that makes ’em think the way they do!” or “they’re secret communists!!”) than to accept these differences.
@96 BBD, everyone notes how you lie by misdirection. Being tax exempt is not the same as receiving government grants.
You desperately do want your little list, don’t you?
In fact, that tax payer funds are su=bsidizing directly with cash the likes of Pacific Insitute and so many other wealthy enviro groups raises some troubling questions about the undue influence NGO’s have on public expenditures. I would propose that a condition of any ngo be that it recieves no direct tax funding at all.
Being tax exempt is not the same as receiving government grants.
That is a very good point. 501(c)3 organizations are under much more stringent restrictions than are placed on Federal grant recipients.
IANAL, so I don’t know if “Operation Angry Badger” violates the prohibition on “carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation.”
Are you an L, Hunter? Do you know?
PDA,
No, 501 (c) 3’s are not tightly regulated. we are setting one up for a neighborhood improvement group. It is no big deal, and short of directly endorsing candidates, it is pretty much anything goes.
From your link:
(3)Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
And go on to read modification (h) that defines influencing legislation- it is VERY broadly written in favor of the organizaiton being active.
and if you were in the least bit non-hypocritical, you would be thanking your luck stars that this is the way it is.
You guys live on misleading people.
As to Operation Angry Badger, what is it with you idiots and not getting free speech?
Awesome, Hunter. By saying subsection (h) somehow makes it BETTER for Heartland, you’re asking people to accept that “a substantial part of the activities of” Heartland does NOT “consist[] of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation.”
And then you want to take me to task for not being “non-hypocritical.”
Can you sit comfortably with balls that big? Do they make special chairs, or something?
PDA,
Perhaps if your head is stuck where it seems to be you see this as a problem, but I would suggest that your combination of anger and ignorance on the subject of 501 (c) 3’s is not making you look more credible. You should really really start thinking about the expenditures by the big green 501 (c) 3’s and how great it is that the law is contrued broadly in favor of freedom of speech. Or maybe your head really is where yo uare acting like it is, and you don’t think this tactic could be used much more against your side?
And do note that in the definition of what orgs are qualified for 501(c)3 status, there is not one word about member lists or science tests.
Hunter,
“Anger.” You are really a projection machine here, aren’t you kid? I’m alternately amused and dismayed, but hardly angry. Who’s namecalling? Who’s accusing people of lying
As far as 501(c)3’s go, I’ve served on the board of two, so I’m pretty familiar with the legal constraints the IRS imposes to hold on to tax-exempt status. So, good luck with your neighborhood group, and maybe hold off on accusing strangers of “ignorance.” Looks like another projection from here.
Your obsession with “sides” is another dead giveaway. The fact that I don’t hold truck with Heartland’s distortion of the scientific conclusions about climate change doesn’t mean I’m on a team. My position is that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that if the CRU hack was wrong, Gleick’s pretexting was wrong. That’s called ‘integrity.’
Your position seems to be “whatever my team does is right.” That’s called ‘blind partisanship.’