nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-21-12 11:18 AM - Post#145679
Has anyone else been keeping up with this? This keeps getting more interesting. It involves forgery, fraud, identity theft, and slander. A Berkeley climate scientist has admitted to being involved, but I haven’t seen much in the mainstream media yet.
It seems that at least one climate scientist has come unglued after the second release of the Climategate files. For a short time, it seemed that they had their own “leaked” set of emails from the Heartland Institute to gloat about. The Heartland Institute’s mission mission is to “discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” They’ve held a skeptical view of climate alarmism, and have organized conferences which have included more skeptical views of the climate science debate.
Roughly a week ago, a “Heartland Insider” published a set of emails and an internal Heartland strategy paper to various alarmist blogs. The emails contained budgeting information. Unlike the climategate emails, personal information was not redacted from the emails. The strategy paper included what appeared to be very embarrassing text from head of the Heartland Institute. The alarmist blogs were having a field day.
It Gets More Interesting
The Heartland Institute quickly released a statement stating that the strategy paper was a forgery. Several alarmist blogger had already been writing scathing commentaries which had assumed that the strategy paper was real. Retractions have been slow in coming, or non-existent.
Even More interesting:
Internet sleuths began analyzing the strategy paper. This document had been printed, scanned, and then turned into a PDF, apparently in an effort to hide any incriminating or exculpatory meta-data within the file. This was consistent with the Heartland’s statement that the document was forged. Analysis of the language inside it was interesting. Amusingly, instead of stating things like “refuting” alarmist climate science, it used phrases like “undermining” climate science. Also, there were some specific grammatical peculiarities that paralleled the language used by one particular rapid global warming activist/scientist, Peter Gleick. The use of parentheses instead of commas, and the use of the word “anti-science” were among these peculiarities that were common with Gleik’s writings. Gleick was already a prime suspect.
The Heartland Institute stated that no information had been leaked by a principled “Heartland insider.” They said that someone had impersonated a board member, and managed to get someone to “resend” some material to a false email address.
Yet, even more interesting
Last night, , Peter Gleik posted a partial confession.He admitted to assuming the identity of a Heartland board member in order to get materials, but he hasn’t yet admitted to any role in the creating the forged document. Oddly, it was the forged document that got fingers pointing towards Gleik in the first place.
I’ll continue to follow this story.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-21-12 11:55 PM - Post#145708
In response to nomoon
Well, he's not the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity anymore. 
Here is a quote from a video interview with someone at Heartland (Original link from wattsupwiththat)
Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3165
Reg: 09-25-09
|
02-22-12 07:23 AM - Post#145711
In response to nomoon
You can't make this stuff up. I'm going to guess Al Gore and M. Moore are not going to team up and do a film based on this though.
Funny how the evening news hasn't picked up any of this.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-22-12 09:46 AM - Post#145714
In response to nomoon
The Atlantic has a good history of this whole episode.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-22-12 11:19 AM - Post#145716
In response to nomoon
From what I read it looked like Gleick got information that Heartland did not want released.
The fact Galeick impersonated someone to get the information does not change the facts of the email from Heartland. Unless you choose which side you wish to believe. I doubt that the man went through all the trouble to fake his identity, risk his career to then put out false information... that doesn't make sense. He could have just put out false information. I think Heartland got caught.
Talking about Teamism, your assuming that one side is telling the truth the other is lying, based on personal feelings about global warming. This is all childish nonsense while the world has pollution issues.
Global Warming is not going to be believed by one group of people, regardless who has the data or what the temperature is on average on this planet. That's just the way it is.
Global Warming or No Global Warming.
All I know is I can sit in the same room with someone that smokes 25 cigarettes a day and I might get cancer after 30 years... or I can sit in the same room with a small gasoline powered car with the engine running at an idle speed and in 30 minutes I will be dead from Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
There are over 1 Billion of these little poison generators running on this planet, and we want to argue over CO2 hockey sticks.
How close do we need to bring the planet to the point of death before we care?
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-22-12 11:21 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3165
Reg: 09-25-09
|
02-22-12 11:38 AM - Post#145717
In response to carygold
Cary,
What report led you to believe the document was authentic? Nothing posted here led me to that conclusion. I agree that people tend to believe only what fits their agenda, but I really don't see any information that would disprove the analysis of this document being a forgery.
It's also surprising that you would say you have a hard time believing he would take the risk of forging this document. I would say that anyone willing to break the law to try to obtain information they believe exists is probably not above manufacturing false documents when that information is not found.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
Edited by mgrayar on 02-22-12 11:45 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-22-12 11:45 AM - Post#145718
In response to carygold
Cary don't forget the fact that the "strategy memo" was almost certanly faked. It is easier to hide a lie among a bunch of truths which is most likely why Gleick did the phishing attack on the HI to get the other documents.
No matter what side you take on the AGW debate the dishonesty and tactics taken by Gleick should be condemed by everyone.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-22-12 12:11 PM - Post#145719
In response to Joe Schirmer
I know all of the software required to fake documents.
If I took any email, printed it and then scanned the print to a PDF document you could not prove anymore than the time I scanned it to a pdf and maybe the tool I used to scan it.
The information in all of this is not proof of anything, except what Gleick admitted to doing, the rest is speculation.
There is no information that proves the data is real or fake, except that the Teams have chosen sides.
Just because Charles Koch says why he donated money to Heartland does not make it fact, especially from a person with the last name Koch.
To me there is no proof anyone here is telling the truth, but the fact Gleick got the info dishonestly... means there is a good chance its real information. Otherwise he could have just made it all up to begin with without scamming Heartland into sending him email.
I think they have all forgotten the point.
It proves nothing.
When two people pretending to be a pimp and his "employee" go into an organization with a hidden camera, then solicit specific responses for the camera and then edit the video put it on an opposing news channel, all to destroy the organizations creditably... who is in the right?
Who benefits from a destruction by lies or misinformation?
These two sides of the Global Warming issue are all twisting the truth to suit their needs. Now, no one will listen and big corporations can keep dumping their garbage into the environment.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-22-12 12:13 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-22-12 12:12 PM - Post#145720
In response to carygold
Congratulations, Cary, you are one of a extremely small group of people who are defending the memo as legitimate. Even rabid warming activist David Appell (The "fake" Memo Definitely Looks Suspicious) thinks that it looks suspicious, as well as several other bloggers who are supportive of the global warming cause. The Atlantic's "Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute" gives lots of details.
I doubt that the man went through all the trouble to fake his identity, risk his career to then put out false information... that doesn't make sense. He could have just put out false information.
Stupid, but it wouldn't have been the first stupid thing that he's admitted to recently. It was the content in the memo that convinced people that he was a prime suspect in the first place. It seemed odd that he admitted to the other stuff first.
It has nothing to do with Teamism. There are plenty of people of both sides of the global warming debate who think that the memo is dubious, based on the evidence.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-22-12 12:42 PM - Post#145722
In response to nomoon
How do we know this part is true... because someone said it was true?
"I used a pdfinfo script to analyse the memos. The info I got is that all the meta data dates changed on the day of the leak in the Pacific time zone (-8 GMT). This is likely where our thief resides."
Come on....pdf info scripts?? Time zones??? When Meta data changed??... really??
If the emails were printed and scanned there is no change to the meta data only a creation date and GMT accuracy has been an issue for lots of software users, it might not even be correct if he could really find it.
Also since the meta data can be easily changed, how do we know these people didn't make it fit their own scenario.
I'm not siding with anyone...
I'm just using Occam's razor. I think it is less likely that a person would post fake information, if they went through the trouble to get the actual information in the first place, even if they faked their identity to do it.
And its more likely that Heartland would say the information is fake, especially if it was gained through their back door.
I don't have a side, my gut says, Heartland got scammed and they don't want to admit it.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-22-12 01:20 PM - Post#145724
In response to carygold
He's talking about where the PDF was created. The Metadata in the PDF files show that it was created in the Pacific Time Zone (or at least the computer used to created it was set to use Pacific Time Zone). And since the Heartland's offices are in the Midwest it would be unlikely that the PDF file was created by them. And if the Metadata was hacked, what would that prove? Why would HI hack their internal documents to make it look like they were created in a different time zone?
I would re-apply Occam's razor, since the preponderance of evidence seems to point to a faked document.
Edited by Joe Schirmer on 02-22-12 01:21 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-22-12 01:54 PM - Post#145728
In response to Joe Schirmer
I'm simply saying just because someone says they saw (-8) GMT does not mean they really did and even if it was in that time zone... so what!!
That does not make the document more or less real, it just a BS argument.
If I send you an email and you print it out and scan it to a pdf, does it make it a lie? No it doesn't, in fact its more of a trail.
Its a hard sell to tell me someone faked their identity to get actual information, to then turn around and post a fake document.
Especially, when that document could risk HI's relationship with Koch Industries.
The meta data proves nothing about the validity of the information.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-22-12 02:21 PM - Post#145734
In response to carygold
Use Occam's razor.
I'm sure that if the metadata said somthing different that at least one of Gleick's supporters would have pointed that out by now?
And you are right that the timezone where the pdf file was created is not, by itself, proof of the document being a fake. But it does show rthat the document was not scaned at the HI. That, along with other evidence seems to indicate that the policy document is a fake. And there seems to be agreement with that from multiple fronts.
You are free to believe, against the evidence, that the document is legit. But like I said, use Occam's razor.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3165
Reg: 09-25-09
|
02-22-12 02:33 PM - Post#145737
In response to Joe Schirmer
Cary, don't you find it hard to believe a known and admitted criminal when he is trying to justify his crime.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1977
Reg: 09-03-07
|
02-22-12 02:42 PM - Post#145741
In response to mgrayar
Is it true that there is a large majority consensus among the global scientific community that are dedicated to this research that the Earth has been warming and that this group, in a majority sense, have concluded that human activity may very well be at cause?
If so, what is the significance of this alleged fraud in the larger picture?
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-22-12 03:52 PM - Post#145751
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Good question. But a better question is: If there is such as strong consesus then why does a well-respected scientist need to resort to fraud to support his theory? The answer to my question would, I suspect, also answer yours.
Edited by Joe Schirmer on 02-22-12 03:52 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-22-12 05:45 PM - Post#145763
In response to Joe Schirmer
Notice how the comments lead you to a conclusion...The "fake" Memo Definitely Looks Suspicious...LOL.. if its fake it would be suspicious.. wouldn't it?
The conclusion IMO..
One guy got info from HI, maybe from a disgruntaled employee of HI. Everything is real, even HI says its real...except one memo, that one memo HI and others are saying contains an information map to the important data that was collected about how an organization wants to turn kids against science and global warming.
There is a big push against academia, by the GOP and the Koch Brothers, in many areas, but that's the way it is when scientific facts get in the way of ideas like pollution for profit is better than clean air and water.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-23-12 09:17 AM - Post#145776
In response to carygold
Cary,
I suppose that there might be room for debate on the authenticity of the policy document. I believe the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that it is most likely a fake, you don't.
But I suppose the bigger question that everyone is avoiding the one I asked earlier... If there is such as strong consesus then why does a well-respected scientist need to resort to fraud to support his theory? My guess is that there is more room for debate on anthropomorphic climate change than Gleick would care to admit.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-23-12 05:40 PM - Post#145829
In response to Joe Schirmer
On the evidence side, it may be possible the one possibly fake document is not part of the original documents, but HI or a member of HI could have created that document themselves and they are now using it as a distraction from the facts in the rest of data. Or Gleick could have created it to point to the issues he wanted to highlight... I don't think we will ever know and I'm not convince that the "evidence," is conclusive, at this point.
It would be dumb to get access to actual documents and then add a fake document, but I don't know Gleick and it is possible that's what he did, I'm not convinced who created the document.
I don't think Gleick was trying to support his theory as much as he was trying to expose the internal workings of HI. IMO
As far as anthropomorphic climate change I believe there is a lot more money behind disproving the theory than to prove it. So, who knows what the truth is at this point, because if the big money is on creating doubt they have been successful.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-23-12 05:41 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-23-12 06:18 PM - Post#145832
In response to carygold
As far as anthropomorphic climate change I believe there is a lot more money behind disproving the theory than to prove it. So, who knows what the truth is at this point, because if the big money is on creating doubt they have been successful.
Really!?! You might want to check the numbers. According to Joanne Nova, the budgets for various alarmist groups are pretty hefty. Here are just the top four in her list:
WWF..................$700 M
Greenpeace.........$300 M
Pew...................$360 M
Sierra Club............$56 M
That’s well over $1 billion. And then there’s the US government’s contribution. The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has a budget of well over $2 billion (closer to $2.5 b). I’m not sure if that includes money that the EPA spends on climate propaganda and overhead. And then there are all of the over governments along with their contributions to the IPCC. Now, we are up to around $4 billion in annual funds promoting the alarmist view.
How does that compare to the Heartland Institute’s budget?
Heartland Institute ....... $7 M
They seem pretty effective with such a small budget. In case you didn't know, they called their rebuttal to the IPCC report the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1977
Reg: 09-03-07
|
02-23-12 06:37 PM - Post#145834
In response to Joe Schirmer
But I suppose the bigger question that everyone is avoiding the one I asked earlier...
Interesting how you conclude that everyone is avoiding your question... I guess you equate no response to avoidance?
IMO, your "bigger" question... is irrelevant.
Having said that... I can instantly think of reasons why someone may mistakenly feel that they need to resort to fraud (assuming there is fraud!) to further their scientific position. But is it constructive to speculate on that? I think not.
My guess is that there is more room for debate on anthropomorphic climate change than Gleick would care to admit.
I am not aware of one single researcher who has or would say that the jury is out, no need for further debate, research/analysis, etc. That would be totally incongruent with scientific method.
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-23-12 06:52 PM - Post#145836
In response to Joe Schirmer
I don’t know if the wording in your first paragraph was intentional or not, but I thought that it was misleading and contained a false premise. Maybe it was copied from somewhere else, but it was phrased in a manner that is often used by people promoting an alarmist view. The key question isn’t whether there has been any warming, or whether man made CO2 emissions may have contributed. Most scientists would agree that there was likely some warming over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Most would agree that CO2 emissions are more likely to contribute to warming, rather than cooling. Your question also included the word “may,” which is pretty inclusive. A person may feel that man was unlikely to have been a significant cause, but they might still answer to “yes” if the question was worded with “may.” The key question is whether man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. A secondary question would be whether CO2 emissions are even responsible for the majority of the warming over the last 150 years.
For people who rely primarily on an argument by authority for this issue, then whether or not the authorities are credible is very relevant.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-23-12 10:02 PM - Post#145844
In response to carygold
I don't think Gleick was trying to support his theory as much as he was trying to expose the internal workings of HI. IMO
Really? Then why did everything, except for the faked document, nothing new or surprising? Why did he feel the need to expose something that was already common knowledge (except for the faked document))? Why doesn't he feel as if the scientific facts were strong enough to support his view without having to sink to the level of fraud?
This may not contribute anything to the anthropomorphic climate change debate, but it does say something about some of the most vocal supporters of ACC.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 01:21 AM - Post#145849
In response to Joe Schirmer
again... Gleick was not after scientific facts.. he was after internal information of the workings of HI, which was not public.
Why would he create a fake identity to get public information?
On nomoon's money comments, your forgetting all of the lobbyist behind stopping cap and trade. You can't stop cap and trade unless you have lots of people beating the "there is no such thing as global warming" drums.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-24-12 09:22 AM - Post#145859
In response to carygold
On nomoon's money comments, your forgetting all of the lobbyist behind stopping cap and trade.
It’s the other way around. The lobby FOR cap and trade is enormous. This market would be huge, and there are plenty who would like to get a piece of that pie.
motherjones.com/could-cap-and-trade-c ause-another-market-meltd own
Cap and trade would create what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton anticipates as a $2 trillion market,
You can't stop cap and trade unless you have lots of people beating the "there is no such thing as global warming" drums.
Cap and trade might be stopped by people making reasonable arguments using sound science and logic.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-24-12 10:05 AM - Post#145864
In response to carygold
again... Gleick was not after scientific facts.. he was after internal information of the workings of HI, which was not public.
That is exactly my point! Why would he stop using science to fight those who have doubts about AGW? Could it be that it is not quite as conclusive as he would like it to be?
Why would he create a fake identity to get public information?
You need to ask him about that. He already admited that he did this.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 01:20 PM - Post#145870
In response to Joe Schirmer
Joe when it comes to the facts and the voters, who knows which scientists are telling the truth about AGW?
So, if someone can prove an organization that is opposed to AGW, is supported by a known corporate polluter then that information speaks to a lack of validity in the data that that organization is supporting.
Its about perception. Even though most Democrats are both protestants and Catholic Christians, and many are Jews as well, the GOP push's the perception of Democrats being a Godless party. Who wants to be a member of a Godless party? Its a way to divide people on emotion rather than facts.
Gleick is trying to get information on HI letterhead to prove they are tied to bad people, therefore the postion they support is a bad one as well.
I'm starting to see nomoon's Teamism here. Gleick is working to build consensus by emotion, because emotion is a bigger motivator, than charts and graphs.
IMO
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-24-12 02:16 PM - Post#145874
In response to carygold
Joe when it comes to the facts and the voters, who knows which scientists are telling the truth about AGW?
I'm assume that all scientist tell the truth when it comes to scientific facts. (there appears to be a slight warming trend in the last century) They only differ when it comes to their interpretation of the facts (the warming trend is correlated to human development and therefore caused by humans, or not) or their predictions (Unless carbon production is drastically cut there will be cataclysmic consequences, or not).
So the real question is not who is telling the truth, but who has the better science to back up their conclusions? And I don't know the answer to that...
So, if someone can prove an organization that is opposed to AGW, is supported by a known corporate polluter then that information speaks to a lack of validity in the data that that organization is supporting.
I don't care if Beelzebub himself is financing the scientist. If the science is good, then the science is good. Let the science stand on its own merits not on who paid for it.
Its about perception. Even though most Democrats are both protestants and Catholic Christians, and many are Jews as well, the GOP push's the perception of Democrats being a Godless party. Who wants to be a member of a Godless party? Its a way to divide people on emotion rather than facts.
WTF? What does the above have to do with the subject?
Gleick is trying to get information on HI letterhead to prove they are tied to bad people, therefore the postion they support is a bad one as well.
Gleick should worry more about collecting evidence for AGW and less about the HI, because he is only hurting his cause by doing this.
I'm starting to see nomoon's Teamism here. Gleick is working to build consensus by emotion, because emotion is a bigger motivator, than charts and graphs.
IMO
Curious, I'm starting to see your teamism show. Maybe it was that political rant which gave it away....
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 06:04 PM - Post#145886
In response to Joe Schirmer
I am talking about the underlying politics.
You think the science will prove itself in the end... and you are correct in the long run as the effects will prove to be right or wrong.
But for now, there may be a few thousand people that know how to read the science. And its the politics of the day that makes the difference. When the decision is made to make law for or against AGW, none of law makers will know the truth about the science. In the short term few law makers actually read the data, or study the science. Instead they depend on others to do it for them
How many members of congress do you really think has a clue what the real science is on either side of the AGW issue?
This issue is driven by politics at this point and its has been for over 30 years, when the idea of global carbon credits was first mentioned.
I see what Gleick is doing, not that I support him, but I see the truth is not in the science... its in the politics.
That's all I'm talking about "the politics." Only the science geeks are actually looking at the charts and graphs, but the science geeks don't make law... politicians do.
And most politicians don't know squat about science.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-24-12 06:05 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-25-12 09:33 AM - Post#145889
In response to carygold
I am talking about the underlying politics.
There's your problem! You are turning AGW into a political debate rather than a scientific. Making it political is just encouraging there scientists to play politics and feel the need to cover their backs rather than taking a serious look at the science.
You think the science will prove itself in the end... and you are correct in the long run as the effects will prove to be right or wrong.
But for now, there may be a few thousand people that know how to read the science. And its the politics of the day that makes the difference. When the decision is made to make law for or against AGW, none of law makers will know the truth about the science. In the short term few law makers actually read the data, or study the science. Instead they depend on others to do it for them
It depends on what you mean by "people that know how to read the science." If you mean people who actually know what is going on with GW much less the possibility of AGW, then I would but that number closer to zero. If you mean people who could look at the published science and it underling data, then that number swells to hundreds of thousands if not millions. The problem is that the politics of AGW have encouraged those who support AGW to not publish all of their data so that it can be reviewed by their peers, thus slowing down the scientific process even more.
How many members of congress do you really think has a clue what the real science is on either side of the AGW issue?
None. I don't expect them too. But I do expect them to find competent advisors and figure out good policy given their best reading of the science of the day. There will be disagreements but politics is where disagreements belong.
This issue is driven by politics at this point and its has been for over 30 years, when the idea of global carbon credits was first mentioned.
Ironically, 30 years ago they were worried about anthropomorphic global cooling. Just goes to show you how quickly science develops.
I see what Gleick is doing, not that I support him, but I see the truth is not in the science... its in the politics.
That's all I'm talking about "the politics." Only the science geeks are actually looking at the charts and graphs, but the science geeks don't make law... politicians do.
And most politicians don't know squat about science.
I too see what Gleick was doing which is why I fault him for it. If his predictions behind AGW is accurate then this bit if foul play is just hurting his credibility, if it is false then it is just making the debate even more political.
Get the politicians out of science, and stop encouraging scientists to play politics.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-25-12 02:21 PM - Post#145891
In response to Joe Schirmer
I am not changing the subject from science to politics.
I am saying that Gleick's actions were about politics and not science, remember that he was publishing who the financial backers of HI were to imply HI's political position.
How many people for or against the idea of AGW, have spent 10 minutes studying the science behind it. How many have based their views on an Al Gore video, how many based their views on opposition to "job killing tree hugger science" as presented by the republican party.
When science asks that laws be made for whatever reason, or when laws are made to control science such as with stem cell research, then the world of science, politics and sometimes religion clash.
You cannot keep politicians out of science nor can you keep science out of politics, especially when one is trying to influence or control the other.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-25-12 02:24 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-26-12 12:38 AM - Post#145898
In response to carygold
I am not changing the subject from science to politics.
You're not fooling anyone. Of course you changed the topic to politics. You seem to have trouble keeping your eye on the subject without making this a left/right republican/democrat issue. But it's not your fault, you see the world the two-tones glasses.
I am saying that Gleick's actions were about politics and not science, remember that he was publishing who the financial backers of HI were to imply HI's political position.
Gleick is a scientist not a politician. He couldn't defend his predictions with better science so he chose to make a personal attack against one of his opponents, it was petty, not political. In other words I don't think he was trying to support a specific political ideology, but was trying to support his scientific conclusions in a very unscientific manner.
When science asks that laws be made for whatever reason, or when laws are made to control science such as with stem cell research, then the world of science, politics and sometimes religion clash.
Science does not ask for laws. Scientists may, but science does not. Politicians have the responsibility to make laws for the betterment of the public who elect them to office. Sometimes it is good to make laws to put limits on scientist, such as laws against human experimentation , making sure that scientists use some minimal ethical standards, which may even include (if you believe in the sanctity of hum life from the moment of conception) laws against using embryonic stem cell research . But that is different from abusing science in order to support a political view.
You cannot keep politicians out of science nor can you keep science out of politics, especially when one is trying to influence or control the other.
I think it is definitely possible to keep politicians from abusing science. To give in and say it is not possible is to doom us to the dark ages.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-26-12 04:49 PM - Post#145905
In response to Joe Schirmer
You know I understand what you're saying.
You're saying that the science should stand on its own. And you believe that Gleick's actions prove that his science cannot stand on its own. You're saying his fraud and trickery are required to make up for his failed science. I also understand that you feel Gleick has lost creditability do to his actions.
I'm not saying that any of your points of view are not true.
But you don't understand what I'm saying, regardless how many ways I try to frame it.
Now you want to attack me personally with words like "two tone" world view, when I'm only presenting contrasts from past events to try explain what I am saying.
You're assuming I'm picking a side when I'm just talking about the facts as I see them. I don't care if Gleick is successful or not. Nor I am not talking about right or left politics, as the Heartland Institute President Joe Bass was talking about when he said a "liberal narrative" in reference to those he disagrees with in the topic, I was talking about politics in the broad general sense.
So, let me ask you this.
Why is it that the most contested document of the group is the one that talks about "exposing donors" to use Joe Bass' words and removing "climate science" from schools and not about the actual science of AGW itself?
Is that not politics just as much as calling Al Gore's film "propaganda," and AGW a "liberal narrative." There are lots of ways to say that without using political terminology.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3755
Reg: 03-29-06
|
02-26-12 07:23 PM - Post#145906
In response to carygold
If you didn't take this as a direct threat to your ideology, you wouldn't have ever responded, much less beaten the fossilized horse into dust.
Your transparency is showing again...LOL
| Pup has left the building. |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4972
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-26-12 08:11 PM - Post#145908
In response to pup
It isn't about ideology at all. I'm fairly neutral when it comes to the CO2 debate. I'm not sold on the fact that AGW is impossible, and I could see how it could be an issue down the road. How far "down the road" is, is to be determined in my mind. There is global warming that I'm sure of, what the cause is, I'm so sure.
What I am trying to get across to the very idealist Mr. Schirmer, is that the science is almost irrelevant. Even the disputed document is mostly about funding and influence not a science debate at all.
Most people don't know the truth, they don't know which data are correct, which charts have meaning or which people are even real climate scientists for that matter.
So, we follow the Team we like most, just as nomoon predicted.
Unless or until CO2 becomes overwhelming or once we spend billions of dollars trying to stop it and then the world gets hotter anyway, because of something like undersea volcanic activity, the battle will rage in political arena.
Which ever way the ball bounces it will not be driven by science, it will be driven by money and politics.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-26-12 08:12 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
