Is Heartland Institute the Master of Hypocrisy?
It appears Gleick wasn't the first one to try to obtain documents illegally. Back in 2007 the Heartland Institute (HI) itself tried to obtain documents from a Greenpeace staff member under false pretenses by calling her at 4 AM at her hotel.
When they did not succeed they posted portions of the illegally recorded phone conversation online and send out a press release titled "UN Gives Confidential Press Contacts to Political Allies". The audio is no longer on HI's website.
Though this happened back in 2007, we find out now because the Greenpeace staffer in question has written a letter to HI's Joe Bast (given Bast's comments on Peter Gleick's actions) kindly requesting him to "show the same level of post-action forthrightness of Dr. Gleick, admit what you did, and re-post the audiotape of the full conversation."
Is the defense of Heartland's integrity still tenable for normal, by nature skeptical people?
I wasn't 'somehow saying' anything. My observation is clear: HI are hypocrites for denouncing what Gleick did and above all how he did it because they did exactly the same thing in 2007.
How is it that you alleged skeptics believe every single anti-AGW claim you hear or read about without actually checking the facts? Is it because you are biased or just incredibly dumb? Perhaps a combination of those two?
Steve Zwick does not speak for me. But while we're on the subject of 'despicable covert actions', do you condone what Heartland did in 2007?
Ah, the Club of Rome quote again. How nice! Denier idiocy knows no limits it appears as your version of this already cherry picked quote is even more incorrect than previous versions published in the denialosphere.
Given the alleged importance of this quote (it's all over the denialosphere and must scare the hell out of many with its references to "World Government"), I sh
- SagebrushLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
Gringo, how come is it you warmies always cuddle up and protect these people who corrupt data, lie, falsify figures and outright take yours and my money by outright deception?
Steve Zwick, the managing editor of Ecosystem Marketplace: Whistleblowers [like Gleick] deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large … Gleick took a significant personal risk — and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.
You cover over for your outright crooks and try to show some hypocrisy to ones like Heartland trying to uncover your despicable covert actions that effect us all by picking our pockets.
Quote from Wikipedia: In 2011, Dr. Gleick was the launch Chairman of the "new task force on scientific ethics and integrity" of the American Geophysical Union.
This man led a panel on 'scientific ethics' and you would expect a higher standard that anyone else when you put a man on a pedestal. Not so for you warmies. The old Marxist theory of, "The ends justifies the means." is your creed. You will make heroes out of anyone who supports your lame agenda and goats for those who seek the truth.
Those emails in Heartland's case should have been READILY available through the freedom of information act. Years back we had a President who had to reveal his personal documents so what makes you think that those who are shaping our environmental policy should be more sacred? These emails revealed the hypocracy and outright fraud of you warmies and many of those people should be in jail for violating the RICO law of this nation. You can't stand the light being shown on your actions just like the cockroaches you are.
What did your warmie groups do when they found this less than ethical action. You didn't oust him you let him go on leave. He will duck his head down, lay low for a while and probably raise it somewhere in a political position. This is where he belongs in the political arena not the scientific arena.
In fact that is what this whole GW movement is about. It is purely politics and absolutely no science. Your actions prove that.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
So Senor Gringo, if you really want to do humanity a favor remove these frauds from your midst and not coddle them.
Jeff M: You have shown us the science? Really? The hockey stick? That's science? The corrupted data from East Anglia? That's science? Thousands of pages of laws have been enacted due to these vile people and you shrug it off as though it was nothing. Where are these corrupters of data? They still have their jobs and still get their big their big salaries. Their corrupt data impacted millions of lives and all you have to say is oops? That is downright disgusting!
And like you say the culprits were exonerated. That sure shows that it is true science. Bah! I know of some hackers who were caught and the government didn't exonerate them they barred them from using any computers. Where is the similar action with these culprits?
In the following article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/noaa-swpc-up... it shows that some data was lost by NOAA. The overseer of this was a Dr. Leif Svalgaard. What was his answer to that? I quote in part, "I have had a long email exchange with Doug Biesecker who is in charge of this. If you look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndic... for December 2011, you see that the data there is that for February 2011. Apparently when they tried to enter data for February 2012 [which is 33.1] they lost that and instead dumped Feb. 2011 on December. Don’t ask how this is possible, we all screw up now and then. The bad news is they don’t know when it will be fixed."
Now I'm sure pegminer will accept data from them as gospel even though they are a proven schlock outfit but Heartland? Not on your life because they not only don't agree with you they expose your crooked theory.
- MoeLv 69 years ago
Not very masterful, in fact I've read everything in both links and I'm not actually sure what happened.
Let me see if I got this right. John called Cindy to see if she had a list (that she wasn't supposed to have?). She had the list but was warry about giving it to John because the call was strange and the list wasn't supposed to be public.
I am supposed to be upset because the guy at the Heartland Institute didn't create a media list and present it as the list?
Gringo: this might be hard for you to understand given my theory of liberalism being a genetic mutation (for lack of a better term your missing the common sense gene). One wrong doing has no bearing on the other.
You know we are destroying the planet yet you continue to participate in that endeavor. Many people around the world survive on a small percentage (like the percentage of CO2 it takes to cause devastation the likes we have never seen or the comparison to a small amount of poison being deadly) of what you use in a day. It is hypocrtical of you because you think what you are doing is destroying the environment but you continue to do so even though you don't have to. Many around the world grew up in a time when the resources we survived on was a whole lot less than what we use today. But your just one person though right, well if all of you hypocrits decided to put your actions where your beliefs are you would see a dramatic change in our CO2 output, perhaps this would act as a catalyst after we see how well you guys are doing without the benefits of industrialization more and more of us will join you.
Now it's not hypocritical of me for doing the same thing because I don't have the liberal genetic mutation.
- IanLv 59 years ago
Well, if they did something illegal they should be prosecuted. Are you somehow saying that since Heartland supposedly did something illegal that it was okay for Gleick to do something illegal? I'm not sure that will fly in a court of law. I think OJ tried that defense on his last trial.
It's too bad Cindy never downloaded the audio file in 2007 if she suspected that the conversation was recorded illegaly. Actually it's a bit strange that someone from Greenpeace wouldn't do that.
@Jeff M..."And Ian provides the first example. It's an "I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" type argument."
Lol...Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know I couldn't use the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument because you told me I couldn't. Oh wait, I can because it's perfectly valid. As I've said, if they have done anything wrong they should be prosecuted, just like Gleick should be for fraud and theft. Unfortunately it's going to be hard to prosecute an alleged illegal audio conversation. That's really too bad she didn't download the audio file.That would have been the first thing I and perhaps 99.999999999999999999999% of the population would have done instead of waiting 5 years before coming up with an allegation I most likely couldn't prove.
I think you should go drink the Kool Aid and keep praying that CAGW is going to happen. You're trending below Hansen's drastic cuts to C02 scenario and now IPCC's low estimate for 2100. But you know, keep believing in CAGW and eventually it will happen right?
- Ottawa MikeLv 69 years ago
"Is the defense of Heartland's integrity still tenable for normal, by nature skeptical people?"
I wish I could answer your question but in fact I have never defended Heartland's integrity.
As for this caper, I'm not really clear what has happened. I see no connection for this "John" being a person associated with Heartland. As far as I can tell, Heartland posted some information that was given to them (given that the acquisition of that information was questionable). This is the same as Desmogblog posting the Heartland documents which were given to them (where again the acquisition of that information was questionable). And this Cindy person said she never gave "John" the media list so that's a loose, unexplained end. And it looks like Cindy Baxter has accused Heartland of being "John" but I see no evidence of that.
To me, it looks like Heartland and Desmogblog are exactly on the same page. Maybe Peter Gleick is the "John"?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Jeff EngrLv 69 years ago
As for Gleick, my understanding is that he forged the "most damning" document. Other documents without the forged document are fairly benign. Even if the forged document was real, and it has been PROVEN false, then it still ouwldn't matter. They are fundraising, so what?
In a free society this should be more or less business as usual.
- Anonymous9 years ago
The Heartland Institute and Greenpeace are both masters of hypocrisy. In fact, Greenpeace made climate denialism possible by keeping us hooked on coal power in its campaign against nuclear power. Global warming denialism is not about any legitimate questions about global warming, but rather, it is about the politics of fear of remedies to global warming. If Greenpeace really cared about the environment, if would embrace technology as a solution to global warming, instead of letting peoples' wild imaginations running away about supposed draconian solutions.
There is no evidence that Gleick forged any documents. Because that document is damning, the Heartland Institute does not want to admit that it is authentic.
- pegminerLv 79 years ago
Not sure why Sagebrush brought my name up even though I hadn't answered this question, but I'll respond to him (but first to the question).
Heartland Institute is a sleazy outfit in the business of spreading misinformation and confusion--that's their mission. For that reason I don't think of things they do as being "hypocritical." I reserve that word for people that are least occasionally honest.
Sagebrush brings up some problem with errant data capture that NOAA. That things occasionally go wrong doesn't surprise me either--this is an agency that deals with many terabytes of data and of course there will be occasional glitches--does this really shock anyone? As for the idea that I would accept data from NOAA before I would accept it from the Heartland Institute, well there is no question of that--a person would need to be insane, naive, or profoundly stupid to accept Heartland data. However, that does not mean that data from NOAA or any other trusted source should be used blindly. When dealing with real data there are almost always some problems, and at least minimal error checking should be done before using any data. I've emphasized this in multiple answers, and it is quite easy to find examples of bad data in just about any field of science. The data sets in atmospheric science are so large and come from so many disparate sources that an entire field of study (called "data assimilation") has been created to deal with determining the best ways to use data. It's somewhat ironic that the same deniers who complain about "adjustments" being made to data are the same ones that point out the occasional problem with NOAA data. Apparently they do such a good job of compartmentalizing different things in their heads that they don't see that one thing is connected to the other.
- Jeff MLv 79 years ago
I was just reading about this. More than likely those people you are asking are either going to ignore this question, state that two wrongs don't make a right, or else back Heartland by stating that Greenpeace is a bad organization using lies to forward it's agenda.
They won't care because they are too narrow minded.
And Ian provides the first example. It's an "I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" type argument.
Sagebrush: We've shown you the science and we've shown you the meanings of the misquoted words in climategate. Those involved with the emails in climategate have been found innocent of what they were accused of 6 different times. Why is it that you trust those people who put out false info such as Heartland? Much of what you quote as evidence in the past came directly from Heartland or a similar think tank. As I've said before, it's alright to be a skeptic just make sure you are skeptical of the right things. Accusing people of doing wrong when you don't have a full grasp on the reasoning isn't the way to go about it.
Ian: You're arguing technique is childish and playgroundish. At least in this instance it is. "ROFL"?
Sagebrush: Do you recall me showing you the frequencies and wavelengths associated with CO2 absorption and the absorption of other greenhouse gases? Do you recall me showing you studies concerning peer reviewed scientific studies what frequencies the warming in the troposphere is due to? Why do you continue to act as if I haven't? why do you continue to disregard anything that doesn't meet your beliefs? Did you even look at them?
Regarding NOAA, wow they plotted the wrong data then changed it to the correct data, imagine that. Do you actually think that anyone with knowledge in sunspot activity would believe that there was a sudden drastic drop in sunspots during an upswing in the 11 year cycle? Are you saying that this was intentional? Seriously, give it up.
- david bLv 59 years ago
The last time I backpedaled that fast the chain came off my bike.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Does it matter? Really...in the grand scheme of things, does it really bloody matter?