Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[lukin]

as a bit of an aside, more a reflection on Heartland, at large, another of their strategy intents:

Wow, these articles you cite are terrible. You reek of desperation, lonely ole buddy. You pedal in extreme bias. You and your weak arguments are losing all credibility.

[TimG]

Wow, these articles you cite are terrible. You reek of desperation, lonely ole buddy. You pedal in extreme bias. You and your weak arguments are losing all credibility.

What is really disgusting is how waldo actually celebrates when alarmist groups do EXACTLY the same thing.

Political lobbying is a fact of life and nothing to be concerned about. Slimeballs who fabricate documents in order create controversy are the real concern. Tactics straight out of 1984.

Edited February 17, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

keep squawking lukin - your sole purpose on this board is to insult... you go from thread to thread offering nothing substantive, offering nothing to add to/spur discussion. In any case, don't you have a few outstanding questions to answer?

as for recent cited articles, I trust you will write the NYT and complain about the quality of their journalists/content. I could also link you to an assortment of today's coverage from various other mainstream outlets... if you'd like - perhaps you could start a significant letter campaign complaining about your claimed bias in writing! But look out, some of what's coming forward looks like the party's just heating up - stay tuned, hey?

[waldo]

Political lobbying is a fact of life and nothing to be concerned about. Slimeballs who fabricate documents in order create controversy are the real concern. Tactics straight out of 1984.

keep playing that failed card... were talking about a single document, the so-called 'strategy document' - and we have nothing more than Heartland to state it's a fake... and yes, I've read all about the 'metadata'. We'll see.

in any case, you're floundering. As I've said and quoted reference to, now twice in recent posts... the content of the 'supposedly' fake single document, the 'strategy' document, has been separately verified/confirmed by the other Heartland documents... those separate documents that Heartland has acknowledged are legitimate. I can re-quote that same quote again... for the third time, if you'd like. This is simply a most dishonest extension to Heartland's very being.

quit making shyte up!

[lukin]

keep squawking lukin - your sole purpose on this board is to insult... you go from thread to thread offering nothing substantive, offering nothing to add to/spur discussion. In any case, don't you have a few outstanding questions to answer?

as for recent cited articles, I trust you will write the NYT and complain about the quality of their journalists/content. I could also link you to an assortment of today's coverage from various other mainstream outlets... if you'd like - perhaps you could start a significant letter campaign complaining about your claimed bias in writing! But look out, some of what's coming forward looks like the party's just heating up - stay tuned, hey?

Actually the NYT is in financial dire straits due to extreme bias. They don't fool many people anymore, other than people like waldo. You have a weak understanding of science waldo. Your style is despicable.

[Michael Hardner]

Can we get back to Heartland ?

[waldo]

Actually the NYT is in financial dire straits due to extreme bias. They don't fool many people anymore, other than people like waldo. You have a weak understanding of science waldo. Your style is despicable.

clearly, you're in position to call out the New York Times! Answer the questions... or take Micheal's latest advice. Anything but your ongoing insult theme, hey?

[TimG]

Can we get back to Heartland ?

What is there to discuss about Heartland? They are a think tank with well publicized politically leanings. The real story here is now alarmists are so desperate to smear sceptics that they actually create fake documents.

The contrast with climategate is astonishing. When the story first broke the sceptical blogs were sceptical. They were careful to point out that the emails could be fakes or (more likely) could have fakes mixed in with the real ones. In the end nothing was faked in the emails. Yet when alarmists get their hands on similar material they are jumping all over it without any attempt to verify. Now that it appears that one of the documents has been faked they refuse to let go of it like a mangy dog on a bone.

Says more about the mentality of alarmists than the Heartland.

[waldo]

What is there to discuss about Heartland? They are a think tank with well publicized politically leanings. The real story here is now alarmists are so desperate to smear sceptics that they actually create fake documents.

a single document is in question... we only Heartlands "word" it is not real. But again... the content of said faked document has been verified within other Heartland documents as well as confirmation from persons funding ala said strategy. Again, quit making shyte up.

The contrast with climategate is astonishing. When the story first broke the sceptical blogs were sceptical. They were careful to point out that the emails could be fakes or (more likely) could have fakes mixed in with the real ones. In the end nothing was faked in the emails. Yet when alarmists get their hands on similar material they are jumping all over it without any attempt to verify. Now that it appears that one of the documents has been faked they refuse to let go of it like a mangy dog on a bone.

utter crap - "skeptical blogs were skeptical"... that is one of your all time best howlers!

[Michael Hardner]

What is there to discuss about Heartland? They are a think tank with well publicized politically leanings. The real story here is now alarmists are so desperate to smear sceptics that they actually create fake documents.

The contrast with climategate is astonishing. When the story first broke the sceptical blogs were sceptical. They were careful to point out that the emails could be fakes or (more likely) could have fakes mixed in with the real ones. In the end nothing was faked in the emails. Yet when alarmists get their hands on similar material they are jumping all over it without any attempt to verify. Now that it appears that one of the documents has been faked they refuse to let go of it like a mangy dog on a bone.

Says more about the mentality of alarmists than the Heartland.

All the skeptical blogs were skeptical ? This seems like a tit for tat thing to me.

But I don't think Heartland is getting the same press that Climategate got. Why ? People shrug. They expect big money to pay people to cloud the issue.

[TimG]

All the skeptical blogs were skeptical ?

All the ones that I read regularily. The response was extremely restrained when the story broke. Most skeptics waited until UEA confirmed the authenticity before making any strong statements about them.

They expect big money to pay people to cloud the issue.

Big money? The Heartland spending is peanuts compared to what NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace spend doing EXACTLY the same thing. If anything these releases serve to remind people how little money skeptical views get compared to alarmists. Edited February 17, 2012 by TimG

[lukin]

Can we get back to Heartland ?

Why must we have to get back to heartland? can we talk about Maurice Strong? heartland wasn't what this thread was about. Waldo, in his typical nonsensical fashion twisted this thread when he realized he was on the run. There's no doubt as to where your allegiances lie, Mike.

[lukin]

Here are 100 reasons why climate change is natural. Mike and waldo, may I suggest you read CAREFULLY so that you might come close to understanding the truth. have a nice rest of the night.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/146138

[Michael Hardner]

Why must we have to get back to heartland? can we talk about Maurice Strong? heartland wasn't what this thread was about. Waldo, in his typical nonsensical fashion twisted this thread when he realized he was on the run. There's no doubt as to where your allegiances lie, Mike.

That was the last topic posted before everybody started dancing around and talking about each other.

[Michael Hardner]

Here are 100 reasons why climate change is natural. Mike and waldo, may I suggest you read CAREFULLY so that you might come close to understanding the truth. have a nice rest of the night.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/146138

They didn't provided sources for those 100.

Like, where did this come from ?

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

[lukin]

They didn't provided sources for those 100.

Like, where did this come from ?

Actually, #10 is a well-known fact. I find it laughable that you don't know that, Mike.

Edited February 17, 2012 by lukin

[TimG]

Actually, #10 is a well-known fact. I find it laughable that you don't know that, Mike.

It is not a well known fact. It is a hypothesis much like the CO2-warming is a hypothesis.

Attribution studies are largely exercises in data mining so I don't think they should be taken seriously no matter what the conclusions are.

Edited February 17, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

All the ones that I read regularily. The response was extremely restrained when the story broke. Most skeptics waited until UEA confirmed the authenticity before making any strong statements about them.

extremely restrained! Most "skeptics"! BS, absolute BS. I've just looked at 3 of the worst blogging purveyors of denier crap, including 2 sites where the hacked emails were deposited along with your favoured climate-fraudit haunt. In all 3 cases I quite easily find full emails being printed out the very day, Nov 19, that they have been uploaded. Why do you keep making shyte up?

Big money? The Heartland spending is peanuts compared to what NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace spend doing EXACTLY the same thing. If anything these releases serve to remind people how little money skeptical views get compared to alarmists.

nice try - that's the standard talking point out there right now... of course, it really falls flat when you point out both of those organizations are world-wide. But we've gone down this path before; fortunately, many have taken the time to put those comparisons together - to truly look at just how much deniers are being funded. Care to dance?

[waldo]

Here are 100 reasons why climate change is natural.

hey now! I thought you just said you were undecided.

They didn't provided sources for those 100.

Michael, c'mon... this is lukin - he doesn't do sources! He insults others while blathering about his scientific prowess and understanding... which equates to nothing more than him dropping links to denier blogs/articles, shouting "ta da", and scurrying away!

[waldo]

It is not a well known fact. It is a hypothesis much like the CO2-warming is a hypothesis.

fact? What legitimate hypothesis exists to suggest warming can be attributed to the sun? You have been repeatedly challenged to step-up and support whatever principal causal tie(s) you attribute warming to - those other than anthropogenic sourced CO2. Of course, you go silent... typically you'll disappear for a few days rather than have to stick around and showcase you've got bupkiss! So, of course, what you do here is presume to add a sense of credibility/legitimacy to, "the Sun is the cause"... and you absolutely, flat-out, can't support it. Go ahead... speak to temperature rise/trending as (not) correlated with solar irradiance levels; let's start there. I will most enthusiastically bring forward support from the World Radiation Center, from the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research, from the IPCC AR4 reports, from multitudes of scientific papers... all showing why recent increased/accelerated warming can't be attributed to the Sun.

Attribution studies are largely exercises in data mining so I don't think they should be taken seriously no matter what the conclusions are.

more TimG nonsense - you simply can't stomach the prevailing attribution, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited February 17, 2012 by waldo

[TimG]

In all 3 cases I quite easily find full emails being printed out the very day, Nov 19, that they have been uploaded. Why do you keep making shyte up?

No, you are making crap up. Where did I say that nothing was posted? I said the response was restrained. Caveats that the the e-mails may not be real were repeately posted. Comments in the threads below the post (by sceptics) reminded people to wait for confirmation because the real message could be 'salted' with fakes.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

Here is an independent analysis that concludes the Heartland memo was a fake:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

Peike Jr really captures the nature of slime ball alarmists here:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/02/reality-is-not-good-enough.html

More generally, the episode already illustrates much of what has become of the activist wing of the climate science community -- Apparently, reality is not good enough, so it must be sexed up.

You can sputter and fume as much as you like: this episode illustrates once again that alarmists are liars that can't be trusted. Edited February 17, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

No, you are making crap up. Where did I say that nothing was posted? I said the response was restrained. Caveats that the the e-mails may not be real were repeately posted. Comments in the threads below the post (by sceptics) reminded people to wait for confirmation because the real message could be 'salted' with fakes.

ha! Restrained! Ya, ya... again, the very day of the uploads, full prints of the hacked CRU emails started appearing - everywhere... and right from the onset the out-of-context down & dirty anal parsing began. The very next day we have the start of the flood of skeptic "journalists" throwing their vile analysis forward... I will gladly link you to the best of the worst if you keep up this BS "restrained" nonsense. More directly I will quote a post referencing McIntyre himself, the very day of the uploads, stating he believes the emails are real... because... he's found many that he himself has sent. Restrained! BS.

additionally, I will revel in your own, as you say, sputtering and fuming, as you try to hand-wave away the outcomes of the 7+ independent reviews of Hackergate. Related past MLW posts are simply a search and cut/paste away.

Here is an independent analysis that concludes the Heartland memo was a fake:

the "Heartland memo"... well, at least we now have you down to acknowledging it's a single document that Heartland claims is a fake - the so-called "strategy document". I can also put up lots of comments that believe there is a strong likelihood the scanned document is legitimate - so what? I've repeatedly stated, over and over, that the contents of that strategy document have been confirmed by other Heartland documents that aren't being disputed... have been confirmed by persons that are being funded to do work associated with particular "strategy initiatives". Of course, this "fake" claim is the distraction being played out by Heartland and it's acolytes - like you. How about you step up and state what's within the supposedly faked strategy document that hasn't already been otherwise confirmed by the other Heartland documents or by persons receiving Heartland financing. Step up out of the "fake fog".....

Peike Jr really captures the nature of slime ball alarmists here:

You can sputter and fume as much as you like: this episode illustrates once again that alarmists are liars that can't be trusted.

Pielke Jr.! Oh snap - he's a putz; always has been, always will be. The sputtering and fuming is entirely yours. But like I said, I believe some of the best is yet to come given related fallout and more in-depth analysis of the documents... notwithstanding separate attention that was already being directed to "oddities" within Heartland tax submissions... that's right, it's a non-profit, it doesn't do any lobbying!

[waldo]

fact? What legitimate hypothesis exists to suggest warming can be attributed to the sun? You have been repeatedly challenged to step-up and support whatever principal causal tie(s) you attribute warming to - those other than anthropogenic sourced CO2. Of course, you go silent... typically you'll disappear for a few days rather than have to stick around and showcase you've got bupkiss! So, of course, what you do here is presume to add a sense of credibility/legitimacy to, "the Sun is the cause"... and you absolutely, flat-out, can't support it. Go ahead... speak to temperature rise/trending as (not) correlated with solar irradiance levels; let's start there. I will most enthusiastically bring forward support from the World Radiation Center, from the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research, from the IPCC AR4 reports, from multitudes of scientific papers... all showing why recent increased/accelerated warming can't be attributed to the Sun.

let's see some more TimG 'fake fog' distraction, hey? Apparently, you conveniently bypassed the above post... is there a problem?

[Shady]

your sole purpose on this board is to insult

OMG, the hypocrisy metre has been completey destroyed while measuring this post. And will probably never be repaired!

[waldo]

Shady, there's a post and questions waiting for you over here - snap to it... chop, chop!