Debunking claims of climate hoaxes, or evidence of the End of Civilization as We Know It

Found this on the Grist site today:

Grist infographic:  Idea of climate change hoax makes no sense

Grist infographic: Idea of climate change hoax makes no sense

The problem?  Far too many people not only don’t weigh ideas to see if they make sense, but instead they actively seek out ideas, no matter how crazy, just because they like the concept.

In short, the fact that such a chart is necessary at all suggests that it may not be useful.  Anyone who had the common sense to figure out that the globe is warming, and the scientists who say so are mostly honest as the day is long (and warm), won’t accept the judgment of Grist, either.

I mean, Peter Gleick exposed the immoral and perhaps illegal acts of the so-called Heartland Institute, virtually walking through the front door of the group’s offices and asking, “Will you show me all your dirty work?”  John Mashey’s painstaking work confirms Gleick’s blowing the whistle on Heartland, and Heartland’s fellow travelers.

What has Heartlandgate brought?  Heartland is spending thousands of dollars on a public relations campaign to impugn Gleick, and widely-read sites like the anti-science Watts Up get suckered in (well, Heartland was paying for Anthony Watts’ pet project . . . what should we expect?).  Even Andrew Revkin at his New York Times Blog can’t find his way to label actions as they should be labeled.

Will it make a difference to state the facts, the common sense version of reality?  My actual hope is that I am in error, and that such a graphic, if pasted around the internet, will make a difference.

Is my hope wholly misplaced?

Update:  At the Washington Post blogs, Stephen Stromberg wrote that Gleick erred by failing to follow the rule that climate scientists must be more than twice as morally straight as the “skeptics.”  I’m not convinced Gleick erred; he’s done yeoman service to exposing the truth.  I’m struggling to find any illegal act he committed.  Heartland claims there may be some fraud, but not all the elements of any crime of fraud are present.  If, as Heartland argues, the documents are fakes, there was no value lost.  If, as most of us suspect, the documents are not fakes, I still see no harm to Heartland in their having their feet held the fire on being honest with the IRS and the public.  Heartland claims an absolute right to fib to the public, and somehow Mr. Gleick interfered?  Where’s the harm to the public good?  Certainly not in exposing Heartland’s dark secrets.  No harm, no crime, in this case.


10 Responses to Debunking claims of climate hoaxes, or evidence of the End of Civilization as We Know It

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Phishing doesn’t apply to policy documents for a non-profit illegally operating a propaganda campaign. It could be fun to get that into court — you can’t be guilty of stealing the plans to rob the bank from the bank robber, and any bank robber worth his salt won’t call the cops to rat it out.

    I recently saw a “stupid criminal tricks” piece about a guy who called the cops to report that his friend had stolen a bunch of his stuff, and he wanted it back because it was valuable. The “stuff” stolen was marijuana. Guess who the cops arrested.

    You’re assuming Heartland Institute has a right to run a scam. I’m not sure that will stand up to scrutiny in court. What of value was taken? Where’s the phish?


  2. Jean Demesure says:

    “Heartland has no law to say they can’t be stupid and mail stuff out to whoever they wish.”

    That’s precious ! No law says you can’t be stupid and let your door open and keys on your car. But stealing your car is still a crime.

    Gleick committed phishing and phishing is a federal & Californian crime.
    Take your pick Ed and stop being delusionnal.


  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Heartlandgate has brought no action from Congress, continuing pollution that kills a few thousand American kids every year, and illegal hacking of secure computer systems.

    FBI is investigating Heartland now? Good. Investigating Gleick? I doubt it. Heartland has no law to say they can’t be stupid and mail stuff out to whoever they wish.


  4. Windy says:

    What has Heartlandgate brought? = Nothing new nothing substanitive

    What has Fakegate brought? = TBD by the FBI who is now involved.


  5. I would tend to agree with the last part of that.

    It’s a mystery to me, however, how this compels you to ask “how much?” How does that even become relevant.


  6. Jim says:

    It’s what I’ve been saying for two decades. Who stands to profit and by how much? Money is not evil nor is wealth. But the love of it and hot pursuit at all costs? Oh yes.


  7. I don’t know. It’s a quotient. There had to be at least two numbers going into it, I’m just wondering what they were — and, how they were produced.


  8. Ed Darrell says:

    You’re right, Morgan: Shoulda been more like “99% of the world’s scientists working in climate change-detecting areas.”



  9. Reblogged this on Everything Wrong with Today's Youth and commented:
    Ed Darrell posted this interesting graphic from, along with his own insightful analysis of it, over at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub. The graphic makes apparent the nonsense; Darrell makes sense of the nonsense.


  10. The “90%” — it was arrived at by arriving what number, into what other number?


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: