Re: Identity theft
Lock him up!
A green hardliner has admitted that he passed illegally obtained documents to the DeSmogBlog website, well known for its dubious activist tactics. DeSmogBlog is funded by a convicted criminal, John Lefebvre, and run by a public relations operator named Jim Hoggan who takes money from "green business". Peter Gleick said he …
Lock him up!
Orange bopiler suit and 'rendition' to Gitmo
Hard to see the climate-gate leaker getting off so lightly if their identity was discovered.
Who is "getting off lightly"? Heartland has sworn to see him jailed.
The Climategate leaker, by contrast, has chosen to remain anonymous. Smart move maybe, but from my point of view, one of these criminals has more honesty, integrity and courage than the other.
Yeah - the one who didn't fake a single one of the thousands of publicly funded FOIAble emails he released.
Just goes to show, it doesn't pay to be honest if you've been dishonest. There's no leniency for having come clean it seems.
In criminal matters, leniency, if any, should affect sentencing. Calling for leniency in charging, trying, and convicting is premature.
He didn't come clean because of honesty, he came clean because someone else figured out it was him.
"Just goes to show, it doesn't pay to be honest if you've been dishonest. There's no leniency for having come clean it seems."
You're arguing there should be?
Fraud is fraud, receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods - no one else guilty of these crimes gets a pass because they admit it, they get convicted...
"Fraud is fraud, receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods - no one else guilty of these crimes gets a pass because they admit it, they get convicted..."
Yeah--well we'd like to think so.
If I--or most El Reg readers--committed this type of fraud then they'd lock us up and throw away the key.
Problem is there's far too many exceptions for those in the 'know', or who've 'special' contacts, or for certain types of crimes, or for crimes that suddenly metamorphose into misdemeanors when committed by the rich, the powerful or influential--or if you're a politician.
It's so rife that it's no wonder the honest have become cynical and the less-ethical also take such opportunities when offered them.
Thumbs-downer: it's nice to have someone who is on my 'exceptions' list confirm its accuracy.
Can we have some kind of feature where we can bar certain Reg writers from our RSS feeds? I just don't have time for this garbage.
Without these short labels people would have to use impractically long "Those who accept X but don't accept Y" phrases all the time to identify positions (actually that might be better..)
There are long and pointless "debates" about what the best labels to use are and people try to invent new "better" ones all the time. "warmist" is a pretty standard polite one (compared to "alarmist" or even "eco--fascist")
No time for both sides of a debate?
Rehashing the same discredited talking points doesn't constitute a debate.
He first received the data anonymously; at that point, he could have sent it to the media without checking. He checked that the data was factual by using somebody else's name, then sent it.
If this was a journalist instead of a scientist, hardly anybody would be surprised, let alone shocked. Had this been done by a denialist rather than a warmist, Lewis would be concentrating on the data rather than the leaker.
Yes, it is a big deal.. From his wiki page
Dr. Peter H. Gleick (born 1956) is a scientist working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity
> He received the data anonymously
Hang on. So your saying a Heartland insider wrote a fake strategy document (containing detailed account information), he sends the fake document to Gleick - who then fraudulently obtains the actual accounts just to check the faked memo? Makes no sense. Why didn't the leaker supply the original documents? Why would a leaker write a half-arsed fake memo. I suspect there was no leaker. I suspect Gleick obtained the accounts (which show nothing untoward) and wrote the memo himself to spice up the story.
I'm sure lying cheating and smearing people with views differerent to your own is 'no big deal' to global warmists like you. Afterall - you think you're saving the world - who cares about the law?
I should add that the fake memo meta data confirms it was generated AFTER the genuine stolen documents. Which again tends to confirm my suspicions. This story has some way to run yet.
"If this was a journalist instead of a scientist, hardly anybody would be surprised, let alone shocked."
So you're completely unfamiliar with the ex-publication News of the World then? The Sun?
There's been a lot of investigations about journalists committing fraud and they've been getting in trouble if I'm not mistaken...
"I should add that the fake memo meta data confirms it was generated AFTER the genuine stolen documents"
It only proves the document was scanned in after those other documents were obtained.
"It only proves the document was scanned in after those other documents were obtained."
But you agree that the document data does not preclude it being faked after receiving the other documents?
> It only proves the document was scanned in after those other documents were obtained.
True dat. I trust Gleick will submit the original to the authorities as part of his defence when he's prosecuted for wire-fraud and libel.
Also notice that Gleick's carefully worded press statement neither confirms nor denies whether he wrote the fake memo: At no point does he say that the faked strategy paper was the anonymous document he received in the mail. One suspects his highly paid legal team are now dictating all his public statements with a view to his upcoming prosecution.
Your medals are showing!
To my mind, the most significant claim in the original story was that Heartland's proposed curriculum materials were aimed at creating an environment that would dissuade teachers from teaching science.
Does Lewis not consider this an important issue, or is it an inconvenient fact that he wants to ignore, or does he dispute that this was Heartlands intention at all?
If Lewis doesn't consider this an important issue, then his own credibility would be severely damaged. It would mean that he has picked a side, and is willing to overlook anything that might make his "side" look bad.
Al, shame on you for pushing the lie. That particular document (that mentioned the dissuasion from teaching science) was faked. So far Gleick has not admitted being the faker, but it is possible that he in fact did, the prose bears a strange similarity to his writings.
Your credibility is completely undermined by your apparent insistence on "fake but accurate".
Al, I'm assuming you know the 'dissuade teachers from teaching science' smear came from the fake strategy document. There is nothing in the real documents to support this claim. On the contrary - it is the climate profiteers and greenpeace luddites who are seeking to brainwash school children with sickening climate change propaganda like DECC's 'Bedtime story' ad and the 10:10 'No Pressure' sceptic extermination video.
"To my mind, the most significant claim in the original story was that Heartland's proposed curriculum materials were aimed at creating an environment that would dissuade teachers from teaching science."
That was part of the faked document, not the genuine ones.
Heartland has said this numerous times. If you read the fake document it reads like a 5yo wrote it, very obviously faked...
"Heartland has said this numerous times. If you read the fake document it reads like a 5yo wrote it, very obviously faked..."
See this is the part that doesn't make sense. Why would he write a fake document knowing that everyone would find out it was fake? I am just saying this doesn't make a lot of sense either way.
Works for me.
Maybe because he knows he's got boatloads of idiots like you out there who will flack for him claiming "See, that is the part that doesn't make sense..."
That presumes CRU are teaching science and Hearland aren't. If the presumption is the other way, it doesn't follow.
Real scientists follow the data, not the ideology.
This brings to mind a wamed up Plitdown man, only warmer. Check that classic aroma.
>>This brings to mind a wamed up Plitdown man, only warmer. Check that classic aroma.
Piltdown! pour homme - the fragrance, the aroma of warm masculinity!
Cue arty, black and white advert with a neanderthol climbing out of the sea, shaking the water out of his hair, and kissing a supermodel.
Then clubbing her over the head, and dragging her back to his cave...
I'd recommend that you have a bit of a read of both "Climategate" archives and then make your mind up.
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt is well worth a look for anyone who is at all software biased, and you might want to do a bit of research into what the story is behind the "Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline" (hint: it does not refer “hiding the fact that global temperatures had been falling” – although that is what the BBC’s Environment Correspondent Richard Black and others have reported.
You might be surprised at what you learn ;-)
Point of information; Gleick has resigned from the board of directors of NCSE, by mutual agreement.
It was a stupid idea for NCSE to get involved in the climate change controversy -- a textbook case of mission creep -- but they seem to have learned nothing.
That's also how I'd refer to Lewis's ongoing abuse of his position as a writer on El Reg to bang his personal views on a subject that he cannot possibly have been recruited to write about in the first place.
Time to rein him in, please.
I don't care where or how it happens -- I've seen it in politics, religion, advertising, creationism, and AGW. Anybody who knowingly and deliberately ignores, fakes, or contradicts data in the process of spreading a Higher Truth is an enemy to all thinking humanity. We don't need our paths encumbered with the bones of Piltdown Man.
Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton, despite repeated invitations to do so? What is he afraid of?
Why doesn't mainstream media report the fact that pro-AGW science funding dwarfs the money received annually by sceptical (e.g. independent, non-governmental) climate science by some $3000 to $1, according to extensive research by Jo Nova and many others?
Why won't the fiercely pro-AGW BBC report on climate change with at least some pretence of balance and fair mindedness? Aren't they legally required to represent all views?
Why are the world's 'expert' pro-AGW climatologists, allegedly resorting to common theft to prove a point? Surely the science can speak for itself?
And so on.
Josh 16: "Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton".
Why would anyone want to debate with Monckton, who uses the Gish Gallop technique to drown his opponent in a torrent of half-truths, lies and straw man arguments?
It's time El Reg realised that pushing this agenda alienates many of their readers and sets them against each other. Stick to what you do well, and keep your politics to yourself.
"Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton, despite repeated invitations to do so?"
Probably because Monckton is an expert at spouting garbage at a rate of knots, the so called 'gish gallop' technique whereby it is impossible to respond to all of the points raised in the time allowed. Moreover, much of what he says is superficially convincing as he quotes scientific studies etc. It takes time to sift through all of that but people have done it and he has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. Incidentally, as well as being an expert on climate science, 'Lord' Monckton also claims to have discovered a cure for AIDS. The guy is a charlatan and whatever your views you don't want to associate yourself with him if you want to be taken seriously.
My thoughts exactly - if what they are saying is so utterly ridiculous then destroy them with facts.
If every credible scientist on the planet agrees then someone like Monckton (for example) should be swatted away with impunity surely? His arguments/claims are out there for all to see, why doesn't someone research them and blow him out of the water?
The fact they haven't, and choose to attack whether he's allowed to be called Lord (really, who gives a s##t what title he uses?) just makes him look right.
I don't understand this playing the man and not the ball in what is supposed to be a scientific debate.
"His arguments/claims are out there for all to see, why doesn't someone research them and blow him out of the water?"
have you seen this?
"His arguments/claims are out there for all to see, why doesn't someone research them and blow him out of the water?"
As I said, people have done so. See the link that NomNomNom posted for example. Why didn't you know that? That's a serious question BTW and I am not necessarily blaming you. For all the talk of balance on this thread, a superficial web search will yield the vast majority of hits repeating the sort of claims that Monckton makes. If that is where people get most of their knowledge from and they are not prepared to dig deeper, it is not surprising that people such as him continue to be taken seriously.
"really, who gives a s##t what title he uses?"
Well the House of Lords wasn't too chuffed that he claimed to be a member and that he used a portcullis logo on his slides, reminiscent of that used for official House of Lords documents. Presumably this was to impress the Americans who attended his lectures and to lend him an air of authority that he does not in fact possess. His scientific credentials have been debunked and that hasn't got through to people like you, so I think it is fair enough to provide additional evidence that he is generally not to be trusted.
"For all the talk of balance on this thread, a superficial web search will yield the vast majority of hits repeating the sort of claims that Monckton makes."
So why aren't scientists putting up more articles debunking his points, and why do all the scientists run away when he invites them to debate? Seriously - smash him with facts at every turn, then he wont run any more debates or articles - why so scared?
Serious question - not being argumentative here - if he is as ridiculous as everyone says just wreck him with facts at every turn and he'll go away.
"His scientific credentials have been debunked"
Didn't think he had any (or even claimed to)? He only references others work doesn't he? There's lots of people on both sides commenting that aren't climate scientists. Pachuri is an Engineer and an Economist, but we're expected to take his words on behalf of the IPCC as scientific fact.
PS As Lord is an inherited/political title I didn't think that gave him any credibility in scientific circles, less in fact...
"Why won't the fiercely pro-AGW BBC report on climate change with at least some pretence of balance and fair mindedness? Aren't they legally required to represent all views?"
All views!? Political correctness not only requires but demands exceptions. Silly.
"So why aren't scientists putting up more articles debunking his points, and why do all the scientists run away when he invites them to debate? "
I thought I'd explained that but I'll have another go. The point is that he spouts such a large volume of nonsense that it takes time to debunk him systematically. People have done this but they have spent months chasing up his references etc. One of his favourite tactics is to quote some study that supports his point but when you actually go to the source it turns out he has completely misrepresented it. One of his debunkers even went to the trouble of contacting the authors of such papers. It takes a lot more time to do that than it does for him to write the stuff in the first place as he doesn't have to bother about whether it's true or not, just how well it comes across as a soundbite in his lectures.
Another point is that he can do this as his full time job. Scientists meanwhile usually have proper jobs doing science and there is only a certain amount of time they can devote to holding back the tide of ignorance.
There is also the matter I alluded to earlier which is that there are a lot of 'denialist' web sites and blogs out there. No one can control that so how do these people who are spending the time debunking Monckton ensure that their voices are heard above the noise?
"He only references others work doesn't he? "
There is more than one way to reference work as I mentioned above.
"PS As Lord is an inherited/political title I didn't think that gave him any credibility in scientific circles, less in fact..."
Once again, you miss the point. He doesn't seek credibility in scientific circles. It's public opinion he is after and as I said, his background and the trappings do give him authority (albeit spurious) with certain people.
Is this like how the "Climategate" emails were stolen and conveniently leaked just before Copenhagen? The anti science side have been on the attack for a decade or more. The pro science side are just catching up ;)
dishonesty = feature, not bug.