From Climategate to Denialgate

Permabear · 22-02-2012 4:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 5:04pm

Unfortunately, while the information is always welcome, it doesn't cover what is produced by the two sides of the debate, and the earlier comparison of the WWF with Heartland doesn't offer any comfort there. We know what Heartland does - misinformation-based rearguard PR actions against scientific consensuses on smoking, climate change, and other such problems where actual research is never going to say what you want it to say.

It's also worth noting that the level of funding available on the "skeptical" side of the debate makes utter nonsense of any claim that contrarian research couldn't be funded. Yet the contrarian research just isn't there, even though climate change is supposed to be an easily debunked hoax - instead, as we've seen from the Heartland documents, what's being funded is PR.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 22-02-2012 5:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 22-02-2012 5:29pm

You keep going on about process this process that.

Yet you steadfastly and repeatedly dodge the actual issue.

That HI is nothing more than PR organisation. That their entire motivation is based on money and not science and that this is something that they have done before, for example tobacco.

The extent to which you keep avoiding the central issues and just try to constantly shift, shift, shift the argument amounts to little more than trolling at this stage in my opinion.

I'd say you have zero credibility left with the majority of posts on here, but I don't think that matters to you, so fanatical are you in pushing this bankrupt ideology.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 5:44pm

That's a mighty fine rewrite! I pointed out that Heartland were clutching their pearls about the release of personal details (names, that is, which are quite probably listed in the phonebook as HI employees), so it was entertaining to see them doing the same, and in rather more detail. And while I suspect the poor Heartland employees won't be getting any extra mail as a result, I very much doubt the same can be said about publishing the home addresses of climate bloggers on a denialist website at a time of major controversy. I suppose that doesn't count in conservative circles, though - abortion doctors, climate bloggers, what's the difference?

You're now making it more entertaining by trying to hit me with that same very bent stick, ignoring both the sequence of events and the original reason for my comments, which are on thread for anyone to read. But keep digging...

amused (and not offended),
Scofflaw

RichieC · 22-02-2012 6:08pm

Animal and habitat conservation isnt a right/left issue as far as I know. Huge corporations like cocoa cola and Ikea donate to these funds. it's wide support will go aways to explain their massive budgets.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 6:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 6:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2012 7:06pm

Heh.

No, like I said earlier, I'm sure Gleick will have cause to regret it, and I'm sure he's done his reputation harm. But emailing HI and pretending to be someone else is rather a long way down the register of evils. Well, alright, a very long way down. It's sneaky, sure, but in the same circumstances I would honestly have to reserve stronger criticism for the secretary who emailed out confidential documents.

As to the bloggers who published a leaked document - don't be ridiculous. I couldn't possibly support a position where publishing leaked documents is some kind of crime, and neither could you, I suspect, in other cases. They even had the honesty to immediately state there was doubt over the Climate Agenda document, just as Gleick had the honesty to come forward at the expense of his reputation.

Um, yes - that's because they haven't been shown to be fake. HI's responses refer to the Climate Agenda (one of seven documents) as fake, but they haven't even shown that to be the case, and they haven't shown who might have faked it either if it is faked. As said, the documents all support each other, so it's not even really relevant except as a flag for HI and supporters to wave.

I personally find it hilarious to watch libertarians calling for a libertarian organisation to rain down the full rigours of every possible shut up law on the planet upon people who have - according to you - done nothing other than embarrass themselves.

By the way, it's not the first time people have attempted to use my apparent reputation for reasonableness against me - but the tactic assumes that I'm only faking reasonableness out of a desire for praise, rather than adopting reasonable positions because I judge them to be right, so it's not really a compliment.

In this case, I have no hesitation in saying that the Heartland documents reveal an extremely discreditable PR operation taking corporate funding in order to manufacture FUD in complex issues on behalf of their clients' bottom line and their own, against the best available scientific understanding of the issues concerned. I don't consider it unreasonable to find that disgusting, because it's a travesty of free speech - which is intended to protect public debate, not allow paid liars to pollute it for profit.

And while I accept that an ultimately libertarian position could be pushed so far as to justify such paid distortion of debate, I don't think that's what's in play here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:11pm

Penny still hasn't dropped with you yet has it? Although I suspect it has but you're wilfully avoiding it. It's not about how much these institution's get in funding, it's what they are actually doing with that money, and that's attempting to debase science.

I understand someone having an affection to a certain political affiliation and fighting it's corner, but when those beliefs actually conflict with proven science then I'm afraid to say that it's yourself who's better judgement has deserted them.

I also don't know why you're persisting with repeatedly protesting about the 'BILLIONS OF DOLLARS' remark, not to mention bolding it, especially since the OP of that remark already pointed out he was exaggerating the figure.

RichieC · 22-02-2012 7:17pm

If you consider the corporate lobbying going on the US billions is only exaggerating by a bit

Permabear · 22-02-2012 7:22pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:24pm

Now at full stretch and cherry-picking!

Permabear · 22-02-2012 7:34pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:49pm

Obdurate? Did you not bear witness to your own performance in this discussion?

Permabear · 22-02-2012 7:54pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 7:59pm

That's richly ironic given your staunch defence of an organisation whose only purpose is to spread misinformation.

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:03pm

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 22-02-2012 8:05pm

Notice what he did there. He did not actually answer or acknowledge your statement about the organisation he is defending.

Instead he engaged in obvious and classic whataboutry.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 8:13pm

You're the one propounding a global scale conspiracy, you're the one defending an organisation built on condoning grand ethical malpractice. And yet here you are lecturing the rest of on ethics. We already have made our positions clear on what Gleick did, it's in black and white in this thread.

You've used the fact that there are some in the climate science community who have condemned Glick as if that validates your point, it does not, it's because of the existence of the very PR organisations you defend that they are compelled to do so. They shouldn't have to waste their time denouncing the rubbish anti-climate PR that exists because the science already tells us it is.

Perhaps if you would spend more time reading up on what these climate scientists write, and less reading the guff that emanates from the hind quarters of these so called 'think' tanks then the world would be a lot better off.

RichieC · 22-02-2012 8:17pm

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

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:25pm

This post has been deleted.

RichieC · 22-02-2012 8:31pm

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

karma_ · 22-02-2012 8:34pm

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

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

I hope this answers your question.

Dr Galen · 22-02-2012 8:35pm

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DrG

RichieC · 22-02-2012 8:36pm

I like this:

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

Permabear · 22-02-2012 8:37pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 22-02-2012 8:41pm

That is not what I wrote.

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

Permabear · 22-02-2012 9:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty · 22-02-2012 9:27pm

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

From Climategate to Denialgate

Comments