An update on my post from Monday. Today we find out that Peter H. Gleick, founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security is the person that duped the Heartland Institute into releasing a number of its confidential documents regarding its funding and plans to attempt to refute the science of climate change and counter or attack those that believe in the scientific method and the weight of evidence in favour of the arguments regarding anthropogenic climate change.
The links to the above go to the Boards of the two organisations above so that readers can do their own research where it matters, at the top of the organisations. I encourage interested parties to also look further into the funding of both, as that information is as illuminating of the agendas of the two groups as anything published on their websites.
Based on his admission, Peter Gleick will now almost certainly face the full force of the best law money can buy from his adversaries, and the truth is that he should. He obtained the confidential information he released through deception, as he has admitted in his statement published by the Huffington Post. If that is a criminal act, or breaks a civil code, he should be tried, convicted and sentenced appropriately. However, that will not diminish the substance of what he collected, as was covered in my previous post.
In the progress of whatever trial ensues, we will find out for sure which of the documents are real and which are fake, as Heritage has claimed both. But you can’t have it both ways, either the documents are genuine and therefore the alleged theft substantive, or they are fake and there is essentially no case to answer.
Perhaps Peter Gleick wants it that way so that his legal journey is well publicised. If that is the case, it will be a demonstration of one of the only real ways to counter the climate deniers. Because the truth is that the climate deniers are funded by phenomenally rich arseholes and corporations they control, and the likes of the Pacific Institue and DeSmogBlog are funded on a pittance in comparison. The only thing the latter have to provide a balance to the war chest of the evil are the scientific facts being on their side and their devotion to the scientific method. I hope that the measure of devotion that Peter Gleick is demonstrating ends up being worth it to him, and worth all the money that Heritage can scrounge together to fund their side of the story to unfold.
#1 by klem on February 23rd, 2012
I don’t think it is necessary that this go to trial. Gleick admitted his guilt so he should go to jail for 5 years, the Pacific Institute should pay the Heartland several hundred million dollars in reparations from the Climate Legal Defence Fund and I’m sure all will be forgiven. Climate alarmism will go the way of Eugenics. Done.
cheers
#2 by Sgt Hulka on February 23rd, 2012
Welcome back Klem. Thanks for your opinion on how the legal system should work, and your further insights to “climate alarmism”. However, if you want to coin terms like that, I also request that you define them, as I am uncertain what climate alarmism is in the context of your comment, or in the information that can be found in the Heartland strategy document (that may or may not be a fake). See, if you were to read IPPC documentation, recommendations from climate scientist around the world, or even some of my reasoned recommendations here (search for the terms “what the further might look like”), and compare them to a literal translation of alarmism, you really wouldn’t see much in common. The application of a policy to move away from the use of coal for electricity production, enacting policy or market-based incentives to make the cost of alternate energy sources closer in cost to non-renewable sources in the short term until such time as the cost of them falls due to economy of scale production being in place, and having an honest holistic discussion about the bridging sources of energy that can be used until we get to a renewable energy future (in say 50 years), does not meet any sane person’s definition of an alarmist approach, whether you agree with the details or not.
Furthermore, let’s examine your use of the comparison of the climate science (if you were trying to go all ad hominem on science by name calling it as I suspect) with eugenics. Eugenics, in my understanding of the term, is the attempt to use science or technology to improve the genetics of the human species and thereby eliminate “undesirable traits”. Now if I were to attempt to make the SAT type comparison of eugenics to climate science it would have to be more like: Climate Science is to Eugenics as Doing Nothing is to Immunisation. More of an antonym type deal, if you follow. See, recognising the changes to the earth’s climate due to anthropogenic emissions since 1850 and then doing nothing about them has a lot more similarity to eugenics, than anything being proposed by reasonable people who accept climate science. We are proposing to stop the rot through reasonable and achievable action and arrive at a point where we won’t be destroying the capability of the planet to host more of our species. A lot more like the advances in immunisation.
Your simplistic attempt at name calling identifies you a lot more like one of the false equivalency folks than someone who follows the rules.
But you keep swinging there Klem.
#3 by Sgt Hulka on February 28th, 2012
Klem supplied another comment to mine, so I will give him a shout out for the attempt. But it was lame, attempted to say he didn’t say what he said above and basically didn’t follow the rules at all by adding nothing to the discussion of the topic, so I just deleted it.
See, what Klem and several other spammers fail to realise is that this place is my place, and therefore not a democracy. Freedom isn’t free here (its at least $1.05) as I pay all the bills. So you can add all the single line comments you want to every thread available, and spout off with whatever crap you are pushing, but if I can’t tell that the post is (1) from a human, on topic, (2) and adds something to the topic (or is at least an interesting point of view), then it will never see the light of day. And that goes for you whether you agree with me or not. A comment that is a well thought out response to a point I make that is completely in disagreement with me is going to make it up. A brainless “right on man” or “I fully agree with you, you’re so fucking cool” is going in the bin. I ain’t a Rush Limbaugh and I don’t need people supplying my daily affirmations.
So try again Klem, if you dare. But engage your brain pan first (rule #1).
#4 by klem on February 28th, 2012
LOL! Once again, another climate alarmist blog host who doesn’t have the backbone to post my comments. For a minute there I thought you might be above that, but alas you’ve shown your character. Too bad. I’ve seen the likes of you before, many times.
I wish you luck as you defend your faith. Have a nice day.
#5 by Sgt Hulka on February 29th, 2012
Dude, you either can’t read, or are simply so dogmatically tied to your view that you start out with ad hominem attacks, rather than getting there a bit more gradually. It’s not that I am not willing to let you have your say, but since I pay for your privilege to do so, some rules apply. Please read them, and if you would like to make a substantive argument for the climate denial side of the argument, I will give you all the space you need to do so.
But a couple of quick lines with name calling, followed by, “aren’t I great? all bow down to Klem” is going to go where the last one did.
{whoosh}