Global Warming Alarmists Resort to Hoax

"We are remiss in not having written about the Peter Gleick scandal. Gleick is a founder of the liberal Pacific Institute and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert on water resources, not climate; like many left-wingers in irrelevant fields of study, he has irrationally strong feelings about global warming. So, as Gleick has now admitted, he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses–that is, by lying–and published them in hopes of discrediting the Institute.

The Heartland Institute is a superb organization that deals with many issues, including climate science. We have cited Heartland’s research many times. Gleick published various internal Heartland documents that were genuine, including private information about donors, etc. He has now apologized, sort of, for his wrongdoing.

Before Gleick apologized, however, the liberal media had a field day with his supposed revelations. Go here to read Heartland’s devastating rebuttal to an unusually stupid–even for them!–New York Times article on Gleick’s document dump. Many commentators have critiqued Gleick’s actions, and in particular, addressed the question whether at least one of the documents he published–the only significant one, really–was forged by him. Megan McArdle has done an especially good job; I am not sure whether she was the first person to raise the question of Gleick’s fake document, but she was certainly among the first.

Here is the document in question, in PDF format; click to enlarge. It is two pages long, dated January 2012, and is titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” I think the document was obviously faked, presumably by Mr. Gleick, and will explain why momentarily. Meanwhile, here is Gleick’s memo:"

Read the rest here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/global-warming-alarmists-resort-to-hoax.php

Hmmmmmmmm..........

 

Hardly a hoax when your own link says "Gleick published various internal Heartland documents that were genuine, including private information about donors, etc."

Only one document was confirmed as fake and much of that information is reflected in the other leaked documents.

 

A guy cashed a thousand good $1 checks and only one forged $10,000 check. Hardly a hoax...

Spin it, baby, spin,... this is all Awgists have, - lies, spins and personal insults, does not matter how shamless and obvious they are.

 

Revolve a little further and look in a mirror. You have nothing but puff and blow.

 

have anything to object except for boring, trivial and routine personal insults?

No, you don't.

Lies, spins and insults is all you have.

 

Back atcha as your goddess puts it.

 

.

No, you are not. Never.

 

Ironically, the only spin here is your analogy. Are you aware Heartland has confirmed the other e-mails are real? That a while ago they said they may have been tampered with but still haven't made a statement confirming this? That these other e-mails repeat information about their school curriculum project, budget and funding which are mentioned in the allegedly fake document?

I think not. Saying it is a hoax implies all documents are inauthentic when it is clearly too early to say and all indicators suggest otherwise....Most of the information in those documents really won't be surprising to anyone with some knowledge of Heartland anyway.

 

I already answered that. I said: “Hemingway meant what he said. And you get it; it is exactly what you feel you have to spin.”
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-38.html#post1060925192

You are spinning again.

I said “A guy cashed a thousand good $1 checks”.

I did not even mentioned that they were stolen. Not hacked in from outside, but stolen by one who sneaked inside under a disguise. You are pointing to that and defending that, when I am not even attacking, not even mentioning. I know no appeal to morality or basic decency and honesty is valid for neo-fascists. Stealing under a disguise is good for neo-fascists when it is done in the name of AWG and hurts those who disagree with them. On other hand Heartland has proven that its door is opened to a qualified person no matter what are political views of the person, even to fascists. You are attacking a strawman and defending something which has not been attacked. You are spinning.

I said “and only one forged $10,000 check.” The document is faked. If other e-mails repeat information of a fake document they are also faked. A faked document is no reference or confirmation for any other documents among decent people.

Saying that $10,000 check is forged does not imply that a thousand of $1 checks are also forged. I specifically said that they were good. Understand? g-o-o-d. Understand?

This is what I have been demonstrating all day along, - that any kind of false accusations against somebody who dares to differ and stand against the rule of fascism look credible for any fascists. This is what drives fascism, false accusations, or in other words lies. it does not matter that evidence is forget, we all know that Mr. Heartland is guilty, it is no surprise for as that the (forged) document proves that. Any dirt, any stealing, any perversion, any lie against somebody who descents from their ideology are good in eyes of fascists.

I don’t even know who Heartland is; I just stand for basic justice, decency and honesty against the mob of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, pointing after Hemingway that the overwhelming majorities are nothing more, but nothing less then fascists. This is exactly what they are.

 

...Your analogy was spin because it doesn't accurately represent what happened. Had you actually read my post than making a moronic response that doesn't address the topic, you might have known why your analogy failed: Are you aware Heartland has confirmed the other e-mails are real? That a while ago they said they may have been tampered with but still haven't made a statement confirming this? That these other e-mails repeat information about their school curriculum project, budget and funding which are mentioned in the allegedly fake document?

These are the facts. You spun it by using $1 to represent the other documents to make the fake document seem all important and the others insignificant when they are clearly not. Simple. You got caught out. Deal with it.

What a massive fail of logic... If other e-mails repeat the info that in no way means they are definitely faked. Your reasoning here is fallacious and almost non-existent. There are indisputably a number of possibilities here. See above for the indicators that suggest they are authentic....The big one is Heartland's stalling on their statement. Been almost 2 weeks now. I bet they let it blow over a bit more before confirming the e-mails were authentic.

Don't be pedantic. The title of the thread calls it a hoax and your own post implied it was. My response was justified.

What false accusations? You yourself just said "I don’t even know who Heartland is" so what gives you the right to accuse me of false accusations when you openly admit to knowing nothing? Do you have any idea how idiotic that is? Why don't you do some research and find out how correct I was. Then I'll lend you a towel to wipe that egg off your face

The forged document isn't the only document that 'proves' anything either, but you would know this had you actually read the docs. Also, had you known anything you would know the incredible irony of your post. Heartland is guilty of nearly everything you accuse AGW proponents of. Clearly you are out of your depth in this discussion. People should really bother to learn something before assuming they know it all and criticizing others....Although I guess overall it does their own cause more harm than good.

 

1. The document was forged. The media and local PF warmers made a field day out of it. It did not make it out of e-mails. It did make it out of the Confidential Memo. The Confidential Memo is the big “$10,000” check. It was a big false accusation, a hoax.

1.a. Heartland's was not stalling on their statement when the OP was posted http://heartland.org/press-releases...-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute.

2. Hertland is still investigating e-mails which were not the subject of the field day. I took them as “good $1 checks”.

2.a. They cannot have the same info as the forged Memo unless they are forged, too. Whatever you read out of them and the fact is that you have not read them is your perception and how you want to spin them into, when the big one was definitely found to be a hoax and you have nothing else to go with.


2.b. The Heartland Institute is not a fascist organization.

In a fascist organisation when Mann e-mails that he wants to put MWP on hold or he wants to stop articles submitting real data even if it takes redifinition of the peer reviewed process no other fascist objects to him and it is taken as the strategy of the organization.

In a decent society one may suggest in a PM to me to name Mann and Co what they are, when another PM may suggest that fascists will run to mods and such a Strategy may not be effective, that I should keep on restraining myself from answering the barrage of insult with insuts. Neither of the PMs may be taken by me as Strategy.

And the main point is that all you have:
1. ad hom, i.e. insults,
2. insults
3. insults
4. insults in each and every sentence
5. lies
6. false accusations
7. spins

These are all 7 arguments of believers in AGW.

 

Yes, one document was forged. Although to call it a false accusation betrays your ignorance on the topic. Heartland still haven't made a statement regarding the other documents which we know for a fact came from real e-mails straight from Heartland themselves and that mentions some of the more controversial issues raised in the fake doc.

Yeah you didn't get it. I'm talking about their statement regarding the other documents. You'd think they'd want to clear up any controversy pretty quickly. Why would it take this long?

Yes, a mistaken analogy. The other documents are hardly insignificant in this leak. The media focused on one document which makes people like you think that is the deciding factor in the issue when in reality there is much more to it.

What? Do you have any sense of logic at all? Just because they contain the same info in no way means they are forged. Not to mention the fact that some of the information contained within that faked document has been confirmed as being real by independent sources. As you can see, it is wrong to assume the information in the fake doc is false. You have no foot to stand on here.

Ironically you and other deniers fit all those categories. Especially with your obsession with fascism you reduce your argument to nothing more than folly

 

It is established document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” was forged.

Q1. Is this document the most important, significant, discrediting and defaming HI out of all other documents?

Q2. Did The media and local PF warmers made a field day out of “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” or out of any other documents, e-mails?

 

These questions are meaningless. Read past the first quote in my last post and you should be able to make up your own mind.

 

Who did tell you that when somebody asks a question it only means that somebody did not make his mind?

Can you provide some kind of reference, a text book on English or American or Australian, a dictionary or something which makes state the opposite?

Asking questions may also mean that I reread your posts with attention and did not find answer to 2 simple questions:

Q1. Is this document the most important, significant, discrediting and defaming HI out of all other documents?


Q2. Did The media and local PF warmers made a field day out of “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” or out of any other documents, e-mails?

 

lrn2english because your syntax is all messed up.

Seeing as it has been called a fake. No. The other documents are now much more important and significant especially seeing as they reflect the more controversial issues brought up in the fake doc which have also been confirmed independently.

Q2. Did The media and local PF warmers made a field day out of “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” or out of any other documents, e-mails?[/QUOTE]

So yes, depending on where you get your news from the media might make this seem like the only document of importance is the fake one....Anyone that has read the docs knows this to be wrong.

 

Thank you for the little insult contributing to the subject.

I call other documents fake.

Please, confirm that they are as of no importance for you now as the Strategy.

 

It was unintelligible. Please learn to type proper sentences if you wish to engage in discussion.

Please confirm this is purely your own opinion with no basis in fact as Heartland themselves don't support this position.

Again, your English is bad or you just can't read. Let me quote it again for you. Perhaps read slower.

 

whited are insults.

It is not my opinion. You are mistaken.

I called the other documents fake. This is all I did.

Do it again, I call other documents fake.

Please, confirm that in your perception the other documents are not important and significant now.

 

Okay, so now it appears you don't even know what an opinion is. This is honestly the most inane discussion I've ever been involved in.

Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You said: "I called the other documents fake. This is all I did.

Do it again, I call other documents fake."

Calling the documents fake is expressing your opinion. A five year old could tell you that and claiming it is not an opinion is, to be frank, idiotic. And it just so happens that your opinion goes against the facts. If you have integrity (like you seem to think ) and recognize these as the facts, why do you pursue such an inane argument?

EDIT: And that first comment was definitely not an insult. Your post was unintelligible and you need to learn to communicate properly if you wish to have mature discussions.

Also have already confirmed twice, but which you conveniently ignore, that the other documents are both important and significant, contrary to your claims.

 

I did not express a view or a judgement.

I called the other documents fake. This is all I did.

I am doing it again, I call other documents fake.

Analogy:

In my view and judgement and opinion you are a female.

I call you a male.

Are you seeing that you've been called a male? I bolded and colored red the fact that you have been called male for you to see.









P.S. First I was listing your insults by copying -pasting.

then I whited them out because copying pasting your insults was taking too much time.

I hope you don't mind me just ignoring them even if they are the central point of all your posts.

 

Yes, but that is not a factual statement. As I have said about four times now, not even Heartland have said those documents are fake. Quite the contrary, they confirmed they were real and the only thing they are looking for is if they had been tampered with.

So, it is your view that it is fake as this is contrary to all evidence. This is your perception, your judgement of the validity of those documents that is contrary to the facts.

Do I really have to keep explaining this?

EDIT: Rest of post isn't necessary.

 

If I called you an idiot, would mods punish me on the grounds

of the fact that is not a factual statement
of the fact that you tell them nobody else does call you an idiot
of the fact that it is my view which is contrary to all evidence
of the fact that it is my view
of the fact that it is my judgement
of the fact of all the above

or

only on the grounds of the fact that I call you an idiot, nothing else is needed?



Analogy:


In my view and judgement and opinion you are a NOT male.


I call you a male.

Are you seeing that you've been called a male? I bolded and colored red the fact that you have been called male for you to see.

I have been calling the other documents a fake. This is all I have been doing. this is the only fact which is a fact for sure.

Can you accept as a fact that the other documents have been called a fake?

 

Seeing as nothing you said refuted anything in my last post, I will repeat it for you. Read slower. Let it sink in. You have no argument here. You are wrong. Lets end this farce and move on.

Yes, but that is not a factual statement. As I have said about four times now, not even Heartland have said those documents are fake. Quite the contrary, they confirmed they were real and the only thing they are looking for is if they had been tampered with.

So, it is your view that it is fake as this is contrary to all evidence. This is your perception, your judgement of the validity of those documents that is contrary to the facts.

Do I really have to keep explaining this?

Mod punishment has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. The fact you somehow think it is relevant is evidence of your confusion. Stop deflecting. It's asinine.

You do realize for this analogy to be correct it means that you have been lying the entire time and that in your actual opinion the documents are not fake and you simply said 'I call them fake' for no logical reason whatsoever. Are you really this stupid?

I don't even need to say anything. You own yourself harder than anyone else ever could.

 

You do. Explain again when I say that the particluar statement I have been making

" I call the other document fake"

does not express, judgement or my view and nothing eklse but the fact that I call other documents fake why you keep on telling me that it is my view, judgement or anything else except of the fact that I I have been calling the other documents fake.

My bad . I should have told you that it is an analogy.

So let me do it.

ANALOGY:

If I called you an idiot, would mods punish me on the grounds

of the fact that is not a factual statement
of the fact that you tell them nobody else does call you an idiot
of the fact that it is my view which is contrary to all evidence
of the fact that it is my view
of the fact that it is my judgement
of the fact of all the above

or

only on the grounds of the fact that I call you an idiot, nothing else is needed?

It could be that I've been lying

It could be that I had not logical reason

it could be the they are not fake in your actual opinion

it is your logic I am not questioning/not arguing.

All I am asking, - do you see I have been calling the other documents fake?

I call other documents fake again.

Do you see that the other documents have been called fake?






-----------------------examples:

Question:

Answer : No
Question:

Answer: Yes, I can http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...effects-global-warming-41.html#post1060963796

You do.--------------------------



Do you see how simple questions are answered directly? Do you see I've been anwering them directly?

Do you see the fact that the other documents have been called fake?