Tuesday, February 21, 2012

HeartlandGate?

In a previous thread, we were discussing the claims of desmoblog.com, which presented leaked e-mails and documents supposedly originating from the US Heartland Institute. That thread has now been closed for further commenting (refer to "addition" in http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/02/climate-gate-of-skeptical-site.html).

Reports indicate misconduct by an activist climate scientist (see below). We consider this case a very exciting demonstration of the situation the issue and science of climate finds itself in, and invite readers for discussion, also how this case compares with ClimateGate.



Background information:

The Heartland Institute had contacted us with this letter (as of 20 February 2012):

" Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/02/climate-gate-of-skeptical-site.html

Dear Dr. von Storch:
It has come to our attention that your blog or web site has taken one or more of the following actions:
- Posted links to a document titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.”
- Posted links to certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute.
- Posted blogs or web pages discussing any or all of these documents.

Please be advised that the Confidential Memo is fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document, or blogs or web pages about it, is improper and unlawful.

As to other documents purported to be authored by Heartland, we are investigating how they came to be published and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication or republication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs or web site posts about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and wrote about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove links to these documents from your blog or web site; (2) that you remove all posts that refer or relate in any manner to these documents or quotes from them; (3) that you publish retractions of prior postings; and (4) that you remove all such documents from your server, if you have placed them there.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours, Maureen Martin General Counsel


The claim that the "Confidential Memo" is a fake seems to be correct. The analysis Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake? of the text supports the understanding that the document would not be authentic. Also reports from other sources, such as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html or http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com indicate that among the leaked "real" e-mails a document of  unknown, questionable origin has been placed by Peter Gleick.

We have closed the original thread and are willing to remove comments of readers, which may constitute "falsche Tatsachenaussagen", but not "Meinungsäusserungen". (For the background of this, refer to the verdict in the Rahmstorf-Meichsner case.) We would appreciate if somebody with a better legal understanding would volunteer in supporting us in case of complications. (It is non the first case that we are confronted with legal demands.)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For legal reasons we add

Haftungshinweis: Trotz sorgfältiger inhaltlicher Kontrolle übernehmen wir keine Haftung für die Inhalte externer Links. Für den Inhalt der verlinkten Seiten sind ausschließlich deren Betreiber verantwortlich.



272 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 272   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Ah, die Klimazwiebel hat also auch (ich hatte es vermutet) die Serien-Email von Heartland erhalten, wobei auffällt, dass sich der Absender nicht einmal die Mühe gemacht hat, den Text auf den Klimazwiebelbeitrag zuzuschneiden.

M.E. hat sich die Klimazwiebel nichts vorzuwerfen, aus dem Text geht zweifelsfrei hervor, dass die Echtheit fraglich ist.

Interessant folgende Passage (geschrieben vor Gleicks Geständnis):
Please be advised that the Confidential Memo is fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics.
Das steht in Widerspruch zu Gleicks Geständnis. Laut Gleick hat er das Strategiepapier Anfang Januar von einer unbekannten Quelle zugespielt bekommen, die im Lichte der anderen Dokumente über ein hohes Maß an Insiderwissen verfügen muss.

As to other documents purported to be authored by Heartland, we are investigating how they came to be published and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated.
Und nach 7 Tagen liegt immer noch kein Ergebnis vor ;-)

Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs or web site posts about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and wrote about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
Huch, bei climategate hat man dies bei Heartland aber noch wesentlich lockerer gesehen. Muss schon lachen bei der Vorstellung, die CRU hätte nach dem Hack solche Emails verschickt ;-)
Interessant wird ein juristischer Aspekt sein: Es wurde ja kein Rechner von Heartland gehackt, Heartland hat die Dokumente selbst verschickt. Da dürfte wohl auch ein gewisses Mitverschulden eine Rolle spielen in einer gerichtlichen Auseinandersetzung mit Gleick.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (2) that you remove all posts that refer or relate in any manner to these documents or quotes from them;
Netter Versuch, aber ich finde, über die mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit echten Dokumente sollte durchaus gesprochen werden. Ich hab's getan, werde es auch weiter tun und sehe keinen Grund, dies zu ändern.

Meine Vermutung:
Ein Einschüchterungsversuch, aber Hunde, die bellen, beißen (meistens) nicht. Es gibt Zweifel, ob die Steuervergünstigungen für Heartwell gerechtfertigt sind, siehe den Report von Mashey. Vermutlich liegt genau da das Problem für Heartwell, sollten die übrigen Dokumente echt sein. Und ob man sich da auf weitere Prozesse einlässt, die unangenehme Fragen aufwerfen könnten?
Jede Wette - nein.

PS:
Mein Kommentar #2 zitiert eine Passage aus dem Strategiepaper, mir egal, was damit passieren soll.

Andreas

Reiner Grundmann said...

Oh boy - activist climate scientists with egg on their face, again!

Some years ago you could hear them saying "we may have the best science in the world but seem to be losing the PR war"

It looks as if they did not improve since then. Instead of engaging mass audiences in a meaningful way they have given grist to the mill of their adversaries. Both in the CRU and Heartland hacks it is the climate activists who are losing public credibility.
Still, there are some who think Gleick is a hero:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?newsfeed=true

Roddy said...

It is unbelievable. To illegally (?) obtain documents through impersonation, and to have something to do, whether as author or disseminator, of an apparently fake document (it seems unlikely Heartland have misled on the fake), a document, it's an own goal of striking stupidity and incompetence, and I'm afraid he deserves what he gets.

Heartland come out of it fine - they're a strident lobbying organisation, sure, who do exactly what it says on the tin, and that's been confirmed by the genuine released documents (which even confirmed that they are not Big Oil let alone Koch-funded).

Anonymous said...

Reiner

Yes, there's some irony. Although roles have switched, it's again science losing the "PR war".

You might be surprised, but I think, the longterm consequences of climategate include some positive effects, kind of "reinigendes Gewitter". It will be interesting to observe, if heartlandgate will have an carthatic effect, which camp in climate wars will be able for self criticism?

Personally for me there's sth new: a feeling of being ashamed, acompanied at the same time by some compassion with Peter Gleick.

Andreas

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Reiner
"activist climate scientists with egg on their face, again!"

"Both in the CRU and Heartland hacks it is the climate activists who are losing public credibility."

Are you always concluding from one member of a group or population on the rest of the group or population? Or is it just a problem with plural and singular on your spell checker? Just asking.

PS By the way, there is this famous australian oceanographer who killed his wife and dissolved her body in their home's bathtub. He continued publication even in prison. What are your conclusions regarding climate scientists?

@rest

Someone understood how Gleick got these documents? I dont understand. I mean did he physically break into the offices of the Heartland institute?

confused

@roddy

What does that mean "through impersonation"? How did he get them?

@Hans
At the beginning I was not very interested in that. I mean, is there someone surprised by how these guys work, get funding etc etc? But now with this obvious thread I think they are overdoing it a little bit.
Links, texts, whatever soon on my website.

Anonymous said...

Hans, you still have the fake document linked on your previous thread and the link still works. You should take it down.

Anonymous said...

@ Hans von Storch

Heartland: "... that you remove links to these documents from your blog or web site"

I have not the slightest intention of giving you advice but I don't think your legal notice ("Haftungshinweis") does enough for what should be done without delay.
The desmoblog link has to be removed.
Even more so when you state that "the analysis of the text supports the understanding that the document would not be authentic".
Regardless of legal considerations there are other good reasons to remove the link.

@ Andreas
We all know that Heartland is a conservative think tank, a political and a private project.

It can't be compared to scientific bodies like the CRU which are funded with public money.

You are deliberately ignoring the damage done for climate science when a man like Gleick, lecturing on integrity and scientific ethics, leaves his reputation in ruins.

Whatever you refer to, you should not try to make Gleick's behaviour acceptable, spreading new suspicions. No way.

Andy Revkin (NYT) got it right: "The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed."

V. Lenzer

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg,
yes, I do see some similarities here (unlike the case of the macabre example you quote). It seems as if you feel troubled in such company which would be a good sign.

Roddy said...

Georg Hoffman - Heartland in their first response:

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/heartland-institute-responds-to-stolen-and-fake-documents/

"The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address."

Gleick in his 'confession:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

"I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name."

Roddy said...

Hans, you ask for a discussion of similarities/distinctions with climategate - the following spring to mind:

1 We still don't know who released the CRU emails, nor how they were obtained. We do know how Gleick obtained the HI documents, by impersonation.

2 The CRU emails were true/valid, one of the HI docs is fake. We presume faked by an anti-HI person, whether Gleick or another. (The double-bluff argument is surely not credible.)

3 The CRU emails revealed (to us non-scientists) something of how this group of scientists behaved, with respect to peer-review and the IPCC. Having said that, it wasn't earth-shattering.

4 The HI docs (ex the fake one) reveal nothing surprising at all, except that HI do exactly what they say they do, no more no less. Their 'political' stance is explained fully on their web-site. Their 'anti-alarmist' and free-market stance is well-known.

5 Gleick's individual behaviour is extra-ordinary, breaking the law as he did with what can only be a means-justify-ends mentality. Petulant email deletion aside, there is nothing like that in climategate.

6 The accusations against IPCC scientists over climategate were against a team, a group. This is one man losing his cool, no generalisations are possible.

7 I would like to think some good came of climategate, in terms of the 'system' working strictly better afterwards. Not much good can come of Gleick-gate.


On another subject there is a fascinating post on Bishop Hill exploring a paper published by Grantham Institute (LSE) people (Sharman and Homes 2010) on how EU biofuel legislation was introduced. See http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/20/the-entrepreneur.html

Hans von Storch said...

Anonymous informed me that the address of the link to the disputed document is still in our thread. That is intentional. We are not responsible for what others write. We made clear that we do not support or endorse the claims made in that document. We also made clear that the document is contested and that Heartland labels it as a "fake".

However, it is a document of general public interest. For me it is now less a document about Heartland but about the adversaries of Heartland.

Anonymous said...

@ Lenzer

You are deliberately ignoring the damage done for climate science when a man like Gleick,...

Whatever you refer to, you should not try to make Gleick's behaviour acceptable, spreading new suspicions.

Where did I do both?? Please stop talking sh*t. BTW, I recommended Revkins article before in another thread here.

PS:
I would recommend to link the other documents. Heartland had a whole week to check if the texts were altered. How long should I wait "to be allowed by Heartland" to write about the contents??

Andreas

Hans von Storch said...

Georg, you asked "By the way, there is this famous australian oceanographer who killed his wife and dissolved her body in their home's bathtub. He continued publication even in prison. What are your conclusions regarding climate scientists?". I am not sure what you are after. Maybe that a person, who murders his wife, can still generate scientific knowledge (i.e, be a scientist)? True, he can. But maybe he would not be considered a trustful partner in a future marriage?

However, if he did not only murder his wife, but also produced a scam with data for arriving at certain conclusions about some oceanographic phenomenon - that would disqualify him as a scientist, in my opinion.

But with Gleick, if we understand the story correctly, we have a case of a scientist, who with his childish manipulations is squandering the authority of science - unfortunately this authority is the capital we all live from, you and me and the others. This capital should be preserved, better even - extended.

That we have severe negative repercussions of the reputation of science in this case and in case of ClimateGate is not because of a failure of setting up an insufficient PR-scheme, but due to the failure to understand the underlying social dynamics, of which Gleick, you and me are part of. Heartland has the right to do what it does (within the limits of the law), and Gleick have the right of not liking it (within the limits of the law). I guess eventually a US court will determine, if both, or even none of the two, remained within the limits of the law.

The oceanographer's doing was not within these limits.

Werner Krauss said...

I don't get it. What's up? Someone has the patience and can give me a short chronological account of what exactly happened? Feels like I missed an important piece. Who's the bad guy now?

Manneke Pis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hallo Werner

Wer ist gut, wer böse? Ich schätze mal, das ist eine Geschichte ohne die Guten, aber was soll's, das Leben ist nicht Star Wars.

Ich versuch's mal auf deutsch, das verstehen die Heartland-Anwälte nicht. Falls doch, dann sei hier klar gesagt, dass es sich im folgenden um Spekulationen und keine Tatsachenbehauptungen handelt (und falls es anders gesehen wird, bitte die Blogbetreiber verklagen ;-)


Möglichkeit 1:

Gleick richtet einen Email-Account auf den Namen eines Heartlandvorstandes ein und bittet mal um gut Glück um Papiere zum Januar-Meeting. Er erhält welche mit zwar interessanten Details, aber da man Lobbyistenpraktiken kennt, fehlt das wirklich Sensationelle. Er erfindet also ein Strategiepaper, in dem unverblümt über die mit den Projekten verbundenen bösen Absichten gesprochen wird, geht dabei aber völlig stümperhaft vor (Sprache, Form, nennt z.B. seinen eigenen Namen darin) und fliegt auf (Kompliment an Steve Mosher an dieser Stelle).


Möglichkeit 2
(basierend auf Gleicks Darstellung)

Gleick erhält Anfang Januar das Strategiepaper per Post von einem Unbekannten. Er zögert. Um sicher zu gehen, wagt er "Gleicks Trick": Versehen mit einigen Insiderinformationen aus diesem Papier kommt seine Mail bei Heartland an, er erhält eine Antwort mit den weiteren Dokumenten im Anhang. Gleick scannt das "Strategiepapier" ein und gibt es mitsamt den Dokumenten anonym weiter, Heartlandgate kommt ins Rollen.

Pech für Gleick: Das Strategiepaper war kein offizielles Paper von Heartland, der unbekannte Dritte scheint nicht aus der Führungsebene zu stammen, sondern jemand aus dem Heartland-Umfeld zu sein, der seine eigene Abrechnung mit Heartland formuliert hat und sein Schreiben an Gleick etwas "aufgesext" hatte (wäre dies dann eine "Fälschung"?).

Fast schon komisch absurd:
Ein Papier unbekannter und zweifelhafter Herkunft gepaart mit Gleicks Zweifeln spielen ihm nun durch Zufall richtige, echte Dokumente in die Hände. Weil er die Perlen aber samt des Misthaufens (den er für die Perle hielt) veröffentlicht, zerstört Gleick nicht Heartlands, sondern die eigene Reputation.

Entscheiden Sie selbst, welche Variante ihnen plausibler erscheint. Geklärt werden kann es nur durch ein gerichtliches Verfahren, ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob Heartland eines anstreben wird, was schade wäre. Aber das ist eine andere Geschichte, nämlich die aus der Perspektive Heartlands.


Tja, Werner, eine Geschichte ohne die Guten. Eher eine über Böse, die glauben, gut zu sein. Über Intrigen, Neid, Missgunst, im Grunde fehlt nur noch eine Prise Sex.

Richtig fesselnd an der Geschichte ist wohl die Person Gleick.

Stay tuned
Andreas

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Werner Krauss said...

@ Hans #12

you write:

"But with Gleick, if we understand the story correctly, we have a case of a scientist, who with his childish manipulations is squandering the authority of science..."

Is the authority of science really dependent on the behavior of each and every of the millions of scientists? Does each and every cheater endanger the institution of marriage? This doesn't make sense to me.

I think this is not the problem. The problem is the fight between alarmist and skeptical scientists, which indeed causes neurotic behavior. Not the authority of science is in danger, but the mental health of some scientists. This is a serious problem, too.

Anonymous said...

@ Lenzer

Sie verblüffen mich, es scheint ja doch Unterschiede zu climategate 1 und 2 zu geben, die Sie freundlicherweise erläutern könnten.

Warum soll ich hier nicht über die Heartland-Dokumente sprechen dürfen und über den möglichen Tathergang?
Bei climategate 1 und 2 war dies ja nie ein Problem für irgendwen. Doch nicht etwa, weil Heartland sagt, ich darf das nicht?

Nur mal so zum Nachdenken:
Für die internationale Presse war es nie ein rechtliches oder moralisches Problem, über die Wikileaks-Dokumente zu berichten, erinnern Sie sich?

PS:
Ich hatte vor Ihnen Revkins Artikel zu Gleick verlinkt, weil er meinem Empfinden am nächsten kommt. Es befremdet mich, dass Sie behaupten, ich würde Gleicks Verhalten "akzeptabel" machen.

Und als letztes:
Dies ist der Blog der Klimazwiebelautoren. Diese entscheiden, was hier gesagt werden darf und was nicht. Diese, nicht Sie, und schon gar nicht Heartland.

So, jetzt noch schnell beweisen, dass ich kein robot bin, dann Gute Nacht.

Andreas

Werner Krauss said...

@ Andreas #15

Andreas, vielen Dank dass Sie sich die Mühe gemacht haben! Gehe ich recht in der Annahme, dass der Inhalt des gefakten Dokuments durchaus den Tatsachen entspricht? Und was ist der Inhalt der "Perlen" - haben die wir auch? Sorry für die dummen Fragen, ich habe gerade nicht so recht Zeit, alles zu lesen...

RainerS said...

Keith Kloor has a thoughtful though rather frustrated comment here:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/21/climate-wars-reach-new-lows/

"The reaction from climate scientists and the climate activist community will be closely watched and either further cement the partisanship or help repair it."

As far as I am concerned, this is definitely true. I am not even a WG1 "skeptic", but further developements will surely have some influence on which person or organization to trust on matters I don´t have the time and/or means to check myself.

Peter Heller said...

Verstehe ich das jetzt richtig?

Heartland verschickt Mails, in denen Blogbetreibern, die den Vorgang diskutieren und auch zu Dokumenten verlinken, rechtliche Schritte angedroht werden?

Das ist nicht hinnehmbar. Das bestätigt meine Auffassung, daß Heartland vielleicht ein wirtschaftsliberaler Think Tank ist, aber ansonsten ganz sicher nicht verstanden hat, was Liberalität wirklich ausmacht.

Ich bin entsetzt. Die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung ist eines der höchsten Güter, dies darf nie und unter keinen Umständen von irgendwem in Zweifel gezogen werden.

Die Klimazwiebel hat meine volle Solidarität in dieser Frage. Falls es tatsächlich zu rechtlichen Maßnahmen seitens Heartland kommt, bitte ich mich zu kontaktieren (meine Mail-Adresse ist ja bekannt). Ich werde sehen, was ich tun kann (ich bin ja in der Skeptikerszene ganz gut vernetzt).

Im Moment komme ich nicht zum Bloggen, werde das Thema aber aufgreifen, sobald ich Zeit und Muße dafür finde. Der Ansatz, eine Debatte zu ersticken, indem man versucht, Menschen mundtot zu machen, ist nicht akzeptabel.

RainerS said...

@15 Andreas

Gegen Ihre Möglichkeit 2 spricht bspw., dass Mosher und Pielke Jr. schon frühzeitig aufgrund des Schreibstils des sog. Strategiepapiers auf der richtigen Spur waren.

Die Urheberschaft des gefakten Dokuments hat Gleick aber mW noch nicht bestätigt.

Ansonsten bleiben Sie leider deutlich hinter der Kreativität anderer Netzbewohner zurück, die sich schon viel schönere Geschichten ausgedacht haben, um Gleick als "Opfer" Dritter erscheinen zu lassen.

RainerS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RainerS said...

@17 Dear Werner Krauss,

you write:

"Not the authority of science is in danger, but the mental health of some scientists. This is a serious problem, too."

I beg to differ. When important proponents of science and/or a specific scientific position go wild, this will harm the credidibilty of their position as well as, although to a lesser extent, science in general. Speaking in Hoffmann´s terms, this is not just about silencing your wife for good, but terminally silencing her for disagreeing with your research.

Just a possibly stupid question: my employer offers coaching for managers appearing to be challenged psycho-socially, but who are still considered valuable because of other skills.

Are there comparable services at research institutions?

Had Gleick had some supervision after the Amazon/Laframboise and the Tamsin Edwards incidents, he could have spared himself a lot of trouble, I guess.

Maybe the IPCC should install a psych unit with the authority to send those on the brink to some tropical island for a week or two - under supervision. Doing calculations about how likely it is the wave that destroyed your sandcastle was due to AGW, are strictly forbidden.

Anonymous said...

Werner,

Sie stellen schwierige Fragen und ich schätze, Sie wissen es genau.
Da haben Sie gleich zwei Fallstricke eingebaut, nämlich "Tatsachen" und "gefaked".

Zum ersten:
Im "Strategie-Memo" finden sich viele Inhalte, die man auch in den anderen Dokumenten wiederfindet, das sollte reichen ("Tatsachen" geht in Richtung "Tatsachenbehauptung, Sie wissen schon ;-)

Was meinen Sie mit "gefaked"?
Dass Peter Gleick das Memo nach Erhalt der Dokumente selbst verfasst hat? Das wäre in der Tat ein Fake, aber ziemlich bescheuert (gleichwohl überrascht mich langsam nichts mehr).

Schwieriger ist die Frage, wenn das Memo wie von Gleick behauptet, von einem unbekannten Dritten stammt. Klar ist, dass dieser dann über Heartland-Insiderwissen verfügt. Gut möglich, dass es kein "offizielles" Heartland-Dokument ist, aus Sicht des Dritten (und wohl auch Gleicks) ist es aber kein Fake, aus der Sicht Heartlands durchaus. Der Begriff "fake" passt dann nicht mehr.

Zu den "Perlen":
Vieles hat man vermutet, hier finden sich endlich mal konkrete Zahlen über Geldgeber und Empfänger. Gilt bei den Geldgebern allerdings nicht für die "Klimasparte": Hier überragt der Anteil des "Anonymous Donor" (Barre Seid ist ein heißer Tipp) und zweier ungenannter Stiftungen.

Aus deutscher Perspektive ganz interessant:
Bayer findet sich auch unter den Geldgebern für das Projekt "Free to Choose Medicine", aber wer könnte schon gegen Freiheit sein, Gruß an Peter Heller an dieser Stelle.

Haben Sie amerikanische Innenpolitik verfolgt? Scott Walker in Wisconsin oder die "schlanke Schule" in Texas? Auch dazu ganz interessante Projekte.

Für mich persönlich war am eindrucksvollsten, welch knallhartes Geschäft Lobbyismus ist. Ich dachte ja bislang naiv, da wären Leute am Werke, die ihre politischen Ideen befördern wollen. Nein, es geht zuvorderst um Geld und Profit. Nicht genug Gelder eingetrieben? Oh, dann erst Teilzeit, dann ganz weg vom Fenster (Bruno Behrend oder ähnlich hieß der Mitarbeiter).

Wussten Sie, dass es neben PR auch GR (governmental relations) gibt? Etat bei Heartland ungefähr eine halbe Mio., glaube ich.

Und jetzt das für Heartland wichtigste: John Mashey hat in einem Report auf knapp 250 Seiten die Aktivitäten diverser Institute, darunter Heartland, untersucht und hat als Ergebnis Zweifel, ob diese Institute ihren gemeinnützigen Status, sprich ihre Steuerbefreiung, zurecht tragen. Es gibt hierfür eine Höchstgrenze an Mitteln, die für Zwecke des Lobbyismus eingesetzt werden dürfen. Bin kein Experte für Steuerrecht (Al Capone war's auch nicht), aber das scheint der Hebel zu sein, mit dem man den Instituten ans Leder möchte. Unmittelbar nach Veröffentlichung des Mashey-Reports tölpelte nun Gleick mit seiner "Bombe" hinein. Laut Mashey nichts wesentlich neues, Lücken konnten geschlossen werden. Aber wer weiß, vielleicht enthalten die Dokumente ja etwas, was für Steuerbehörden verwertbar ist, möglicherweise kann dies das seltsame Verhalten Heartlands erklären.

Haben Sie die hitzige Debatte in Australien im Vorfeld der Einführung der carbon tax verfolgt? Bob Carter war hochtourig engagiert, ich finde ihn als Gehaltsempfänger von Heartland mit 1.667$ monatlich (klingt nicht so viel, aber Carter ist zusätzlich noch mit einer australischen und einer neuseeländischen Organsiation involviert).

Damit wird Carter von Heartland mit exakt ein Drittel des Wertes von Singer taxiert (Idso ist Spitzenreiter mit über 11.000$ monatlich).

Zu Singer ein Schmankerl aus dem Mashey-Report: Singer führte in den SEPP-Steuererklärungen den verstorbenen F. Seitz noch zwei Jahre weiter als chairman mit einer Arbeitszeit von 1h/Monat. Ich vermute, die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Singer und Seitz verlief reibungslos.

Einen der Autoren des jüngsten WSJ-opeds, das so Furore machte, fand ich im Direktorium von Heartland wieder.

Anonymous said...

Ok, ich höre jetzt schon manchen grummeln, ob die Macht des Geldes nicht etwas überschätzt wird.

Dann verweise ich einfach mal auf die hitzigen Konflikte zwischen den GOP-Präsidentschaftskandidaten, die für ihren Erfolg bzw. Misserfolg nicht ihre Argumente, sondern die Geldmittel und Ads der Opponenten verantwortlich machen.

Und ich verweise darauf, dass Heartland nur eines von vielen Instituten ist, wir sehen nur einen kleinen Ausschnitt des Ganzen.

Vielleicht hilft diese Betrachtung zu verstehen, was einen Menschen wie Peter Gleick dazu bringen konnte, jegliches Augenmaß und Moral zu verlieren.

Ich meine, das ehrenwerte Anliegen der Klimazwiebel verstanden zu haben, lese daher hier auch ganz gerne und meine auch, dass es meinen Blickwinkel erweitert hat. Aber ich hoffe, Sie verstehen jetzt auch ein wenig besser die Entgeisterung bei mir und manch anderen Lesern bei Überschriften wie "praise of skepticism", da meine ich hier und da einen blinden Fleck gegenüber dem hier beschriebenen Lobbyismus zu entdecken.

Jetzt aber wirklich gute Nacht
Andreas

RainerS said...

@26 Andreas,

wenn Sie schon dabei sind: könnten Sie bitte mal eben nachschauen, wer das "Pacific Institute" von Gleick finanziert?

Besten Dank :-)

MikeR said...

"When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say 'Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!' and not, 'Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.'
"After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else."

(Megan McArdle at the Atlantic)

Anonymous said...

@ Peter Heller

Ich ziehe meinen Hut. Ich dachte schon, ich sei der einzige, den das Heartland-Schreiben zwecks Einschüchterung verärgert hat. Danke.


@ RainerS

Um es ganz klar zu sagen, Gleick ist sein eigenes Opfer geworden, nicht das eines Dritten.

Gegen Ihre Möglichkeit 2 spricht bspw., dass Mosher und Pielke Jr. schon frühzeitig aufgrund des Schreibstils des sog. Strategiepapiers auf der richtigen Spur waren.
Ja, das ist mir auch aufgefallen. Wie gesagt, ich tendiere zwar zu Möglichkeit 2, kann aber auch nicht (mehr) ausschließen, dass Gleick tatsächlich so bescheuert war, wie er nach Möglichkeit 1 sein müsste.

Man müsste Mosher mal fragen, was ihn auf die Spur gebracht hat. Vielleicht der Umstand, dass der Name Gleick im Memo stand (was wohl eher zu 2 passen würde, es sei denn, Gleick ist noch besch...).

Aber Sie wünschen ja mehr Kreativität, mehr neue Wendungen:
Dann schauen Sie mal in Lucias Blackboard Blog, dort sagte Mosher zuletzt, dass er hofft, über die IP den unbekannten Leaker zu finden.

Hm, Mosher hat IPs? Geht das nicht nur in Zusammenarbeit mit Heartwell? Na, das sind doch auch mal für Sie interessante Wendungen, hoffe ich. Hatte Mosher nicht auch in Climategate eine tragende Rolle in der Frühphase der Enthüllung? Nur dass er sich damals deutlich weniger für die Herkunft interessiert hat. Aber einige hier kennen Mosher ja von Lisabon her, vielleicht erfahren die ja mehr.

Und da Sie noch mehr Kreativität wünschen: Ich wage mal die Vorhersage, dass Heartland keine Anklage gegen Gleick erheben wird, man wird sich außergerichtlich einigen. Kleine Wette? 50€ für einen guten Zweck nach Wahl des Siegers?

MfG
Andreas

Reiner Grundmann said...

Andreas

Heartland ≠ Hartwell

Oder benutzen Sie Freudsche Mathematik

Heartland + Hartwell = Heartwell?

Peter Heller said...

Na, loben Sie mich nicht zu früh, Andreas.

Was sich Gleick da geleistet hat, ist nach meiner Auffassung eine Straftat. Er kann auch keine "mildernden Umstände" für sich in Anspruch nehmen, denn er hat planvoll und bedacht gehandelt, nicht im Affekt. Im Prinzip tut mir der arme Kerl leid, eine außergerichtliche Einigung wäre ihm zu wünschen. Aber dazu wird es kaum kommen können, fürchte ich.

Der Vorgang bestätigt meine Beobachtungen in der Klimadebatte. Hier ist eine Clique alarmistischer Wissenschaftler am Werk, die man durchaus als fanatisiert ansehen kann. Man hat den rationalen Blick auf die Problematik völlig verloren, man ist nicht mehr dazu in der Lage, seinen eigenen religiösen Eifer zu erkennen. Weil es eben nicht um Wissenschaft geht, sondern um eine politische Agenda, der man sich unterworfen hat. Dies ist das Klima, in dem jemand wie Gleick dann eben auf solche Ideen kommt. Und auch noch geglaubt hat, das wäre gerechtfertigt und klug und man könne mit so etwas durchkommen. Sämtliche Vorbehalte, die auf Seiten der Skeptiker gegen eine bestimmte wortmächtige Gruppe von Forschern bestehen, sind damit auf einen Schlag bestätigt worden.

Es steht nichts in den Heartland-Dokumenten, das irgendwie überraschend oder gar skandalös wäre. Die Lobbyisten der anderen Seite (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth usw.) arbeiten auch nicht anders. Sie bewegen nur noch weit höhere Summen.

Über diesen Vorgang zu diskutieren und ihn in den diversen Blogs transparent zu machen, kann daher Heartland eigentlich nur recht sein. Und es muß nicht nur gestattet sein, es ist sogar zwingend erforderlich. Statt zu versuchen, die Debatte abzuwürgen, sollte Heartland sie daher eher forcieren.

Die oben wiedergegebene Mail an die Klimazwiebel ist eine Frechheit, ist naiv und außerdem würde sich ein deutsches Gericht darüber nur amüsieren.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Joe Romm has a comment up on Climate Progress. He shoots a broadside against Andy Revkin who is the real villain for him (and behind Revkin, Roger Pielke Jr).

"Last night I, and I imagine everyone else, was stunned to learned that Dr. Peter Gleick was the one who put these documents into the public domain. In a Huffington Post piece, he acknowledged “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics,” an assessment I would not disagree with. He then apologized for his mistakes, a move that distinguishes him from Heartland or his critics in the media, like Andrew Revkin, whose too-rapid response to these events certainly crossed the line. ...

But Revkin has never retracted his attack or apologized. And he keeps quoting Pielke (as does the NY Times), even though Pielke’s statements on climate scientists inspire objections from scientists like Ken Caldeira...

What Gleick did was wrong and Gleick not only knows it, he admitted it and apologized, thereby preserving his reputation in a world where everyone makes mistakes, but few admit it.
All of us wait for the same from Heartland and Revkin."


If Romm-style reactions become the norm in the climate science community it will only undermine itself further.

Yesterday Judith Curry speculated that "Joe Romm, at least so far, has ignored the whole issue. Which strategically is not a bad move."

He has now chosen to replace it with a terrible move.

Hans von Storch said...

Werner, #17.

I would not agree that the issue is the mental health of an individual scientist. Please note the reaction of the overwhelming majority of scientists to the case - nothing, if any then defending Gleick. (As an additional measure I have such reactions in my facebook-friends milieu, with quite a few active scientists.)

Also, one should keep in mind that Peter Gleick is a prominent scientist, part of a large network, even a member of the US Academy of Science (as far as I know).

The party is paid for by all climate scientists, including Georg and me. However, the case is interesting and intriguing, worth an analysis by our cultural science colleagues :-)

On the other hand - maybe the story has not yet come to an end. I would not be surprised if other unexpected developments will show up in the coming weeks (no misunderstanding: I have no information about any such development, my statement is based on general expectations.)

Hans von Storch said...

V. Lenzer
- please stop your aggressive rhetoric. I have deleted your "vulgar" comment. I will delete any other comment of yours if you decide to continue your practice of shouting at others; if you want to take part in the debate, then behave. -- Hans von Storch

Anonymous said...

Hello all.

I do also agree that the HL docs were kind of unsurprising. Who did believe that Watts and Singer told the truth in saying that they receive no funding from lobby groups? Unfortunately the whole discussion now focuses on Gleick, who sacrificed his reputation in order to expose the machinery of US climate denial.

Christian

Hans von Storch said...

Christian #35
I do not think that Gleick sacrified himself - your wording sounds heroic, but it was merely stupid behaviour and demonstrating that the difference between deniers and alarmists in their approach is not that different. Gleick was caught; I do not believe that he intended to come out openly with his misleading move. If he would have been a hero, he would have published the material right from the beginning openly: "I do this NOW."

On top of it, he is not only damaging himself, but the whole community, among them: me. I do not like that.

Anonymous said...

Cheating and lying in the name of a "noble cause"?

There was the case of William Connolley, co-founder and member of the staff of Realclimate, re-writing more than 5'000 Wikipedia articles on global warming, erasing the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, defending the hockey stick graph etc.

There are Climategate I and II, exposing the misconduct of prominent scientists, manipulating data, suppressing opponents and taking influence on the review processes in the major scientific reviews.

This is all well known. Nobody ever doubted the authenticity of the leaked documents from scientific institutions funded with public money. There is not even one faked document published by FOIA.

A large number of NGOs is supporting the claim of a dangerous man made global warming, some of them funded with tax money, all of them sponsored by all kind of donators, private and industrial sources. Al Gore for instance was able to launch a 300 Mio campaign.

On the other hand there is Heartland a right wing think tank fighting in this PR battle with its arguments against the cause and funded with about 3 or 4 Mio $ in its climate division (no big oil money involved as being insinuated. The Koch money went to the Heartland’s health care program).

You don't have either to support or to hate the Heartland Institute for what it is representing. They are just legally doing what all their opponents on the other side of the debate do: PR.

Thus, comparing climategate with the leaked Heartland documents can hardly be done seriously.
Neither do people like Gleick or Connolley deserve some kind of a hero status or the glory of whistleblowers. Far from that: they are just damaging their cause - and the integrity and the public image of science.

As Megan McArdle puts in the Atlantic: "Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it's no good to say that people shouldn't be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?"

V. Lenzer

Hans von Storch said...

V. Lenzer #38 - I would like to hear more about this assertion "There was the case of William Connolley, co-founder and member of the staff of Realclimate, re-writing more than 5'000 Wikipedia articles on global warming, erasing the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, defending the hockey stick graph etc.". This case is new to me.

Roddy said...

The issue is demonstrably not the mental health of one scientist, I agree with HvS fully.

While Gleick may have flipped in doing what he did, that someone in his position, with his titles, his awards, head of AGU ethics, on the committe preparing schooling materials, giving Congressional testimony, etc etc, could do what he did is just a shocker. (If he had anything to do with the fake document, whether authoring or distributing knowingly, it just gets worse.)

And, like it or not, it makes one wonder what else there is out there.

Megan McA has put it all very well in her Atlantic post, other have quoted excerpts above.

HI, like them or loathe them, seem to do exactly what they say they do, legally.

If 'the cause' can justify treating them as such a Satan that they deserve burgling, and if a perfectly legal and pretty small lobbying organisation can drive respectable commenters, including scientists in the field, so crazy that they support Gleick's actions, then there is something wrong with those people.

If sceptic 'activists' decided to phish/pretext (even fake) documents from Greenpeace in order to disclose their workings and motives and fund-raising and lobbying techniques, would these same people really say 'I would agree with those actions if I disapproved of Greenpeace's behaviour'? That's crazy.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Hans
"(Gleick) who with his childish manipulations is squandering the authority of science - unfortunately this authority is the capital we all live from, you and me and the others. "

Hans, I think I start to know where the problem is.

Scientists do a lot of things, some of these things they do statistically even more than other people. They manipulate, exploit postdocs, bore to death undergraduates, are alcoholic, dont wash themselfs regularly, cheat on their wifes, are childish (I am not referring to Gleick but to more or less any normal science meeting) and sometimes even furt in the elevator. All of this behavior can be more or less rightfully be associated to scientist. People do not have confidence into scientists because they are nice, correct, good smelling persons. Not even since they are absolutely convinced that scientists never manipulated the data and arguments they are producing. They trust in Science because the fridge works, the iPhone plays music and the doctor get them stop coughing.

So here is the problem: Your idea of a scientist is protestant, even puritanist. Only a pure person can deliver the message. You are copying the role model of a priest straight to the science and and the scientists. I dont think that this is necessary and it has some issues with democracy.

I am catholic. You can do a lot of sins and still two Ave Maria will fix it.

Back to Gleick (never heard of him before). I have not the slightest problem with what he did. I wouldnt have done it and probably the HI is not really worth the effort. He obviously tried to get even with these guys and nearly succeeded. What is the big deal? He tried to make fun of the HI and kind of messed it up at the end. Still the dump in this spectacle is clearly the Heartland: Someone sends you a fake mail and you send him all the stuff that you consider afterwards as so important that you try to silence half of the planet to even speak about? What comlete morons!

Anonymous said...

georg, there's so much wrong with that I have no idea where to start!

No-one expects idealised priest-like purity from anyone.

He committed burglary. Somewhere in there a document was faked.

I'd be surprised if HvS suspected the science of a man seen at a conference with a lady clearly not his wife.

A private, albeit lobbyist, organisation objects to being burgled and having their private documents and lists of donors published, and to being defamed by a fake document - that makes THEM morons?

Gleick seems to have believed that the cause of hurting Heartland over-rode anything - and other scientists have come out in support of that view?

What else would they do to get their views across?

And you can't see how that makes HvS sad, that he worries that people like me will wonder what motivates scientists pressing for policy?

Of course scientists are motivated by career, money, publications, fame and so on, and of course this can bias their behaviour, as well as their frequent farting and even adultery.

But that's simply not the issue here. And the issue isn't this one individual. It's the apologists saying that it's fine to break the law in the right cause, the cause being climate policy, especially if the other party are libertarian republicans. Which absolutely causes people like me to wonder what else they might do or say.

Roddy Campbell

Anonymous said...

@ Hans von Storch

(40)
Looks like the citation (distinctly marked with quotes) of a sentence in post N° 11 - to which I replied, is attributed to my own assertions.

Anyhow, there are more important problems to solve.
E. Lindemann


(41)
The Conolley affair ...

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

V. Lenzer

Werner Krauss said...

@Hans #34 and Roddy #42

Sorry, I did not express myself correctly; the mental health argument was intended not in a personal, but in a more general way: there is something neurotic or pathological about the conflict alarmist versus skeptic.

For example, both sides pretend that the fight is about humanity's future and the integrity of science. This is neurotic, because it's not the case and it is not consistent with reality. Neither climate politics nor the integrity of science depend on the outcome of this fight (which will never have an end, by the way. Until people or combatants lose interest. They ARE this fight, day and night).

That's the error both sides share: that truth can be discovered independently from any societal, economic or political constellations, and that this "truth" will decide our destiny. It's simply not like that.

(What we have, is the IPCC, consensus in many questions, belief in others, and lots of uncertainty. That's what we deal with. Climate science is post-normal science, some folks call it).

The problem is that both sides don't listen. They completely agree that their fight is the most important in the world. They agree that (their) truth will decide the fight, and this will save the whatever...(and, of course, they agree that post-normal is postmodern fake etc).

This is sad, somehow. It's not science. It's something pathological.

Anonymous said...

@ Georg

"People do not have confidence into scientists because they are nice, correct, good smelling persons"

People have confidence in science because they believe that there are control mechanisms working - contrary to what they think to be the case in the political and the PR business.

This confidence doesn't get lost by the misbehaviour of one or some individuals - but by downplaying, feeble or trivializing reactions of some parts of the scientific commmunity.

V. Lenzer

Alex Harvey said...

Hans, #41:

I know about this personally.

"There was the case of William Connolley, co-founder and member of the staff of Realclimate, re-writing more than 5'000 Wikipedia articles on global warming, erasing the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, defending the hockey stick graph etc".

This claim is based on an article by Lawrence Solomon that I think exaggerates the case against William Connolley's abuse of Wikipedia. I think the article is wrong to focus too much on the Little Ice and Mediaeval Warm Period. It is true, I think, that William Connolley has contributed to more than 5,000 articles in Wikipedia. It is true that he completely rewrote some if not many of them. It is true that he excised a lot of material he disagreed with and grossly distorted Wikipedia to an alarmist bias. It is true that he treated Wikipedia's processes and other editors with contempt.

In reality, and I think without doubt, the worst part of Connolley's reign of terror (before he was topic banned and put on a good leash) was his efforts to defame skeptics in their Wikipedia biography pages, often in knowing violation of Wikipedia's rules. He is still banned from writing about living people, which shows that the community still remembers what he got away with for so long.

And yes, he did all this while he was an active member of RealClimate, and presumably with their blessing. There is evidence of coordination with Mike Mann behind the scenes in some of the Climategate emails, for instance.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Roddy
If this is burglary in the US a judge might decide. In Spain the level of how criminal an act is (or criminal at all) is considered proportional to the number of obstacles the criminal had to overcome to commit the crime. Basically you cant "steal" something which just lays on the street. If you just have to open an unclosed door then its "hurto" if you break the door, then its "robo".
If Gleick really didnt make more then sending a mail saying that he is Bob X and wants the documents of the last meeting then he pretty much took the things that were just laying on the street.
Just my short legal estimate.

"that he worries that people like me will wonder what motivates scientists pressing for policy?"

Scientists pressing for a certain policy are using their democratic rights. Hope you are fine with it? Or do you live in a country where the constitution excludes some professions from the democratic process?
And their motivation is pretty much what the motivation of whoever tries to press some policies. If you dont like the policy just press for some other.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Lenzer
"This confidence doesn't get lost by the misbehaviour of one or some individuals - but by downplaying, feeble or trivializing reactions of some parts of the scientific commmunity."

I totally disagree. Science is a closed social system which according to their own rules produces something that is called "scientific knowledge". The society as a whole appreciates the work of this system because their products work, that is weather forcasts, nuclear reactors, chess computers and viagra, and nobody cares about who is correctly condemning whatever bad behaviour has to be condemned.

Anonymous said...

@ Georg

I have not the slightest problem with what he did. I wouldnt have done it and probably the HI is not really worth the effort. He obviously tried to get even with these guys and nearly succeeded. What is the big deal

You miss the problem, Georg. In the moment, Gleick made his illegal trick, he never had a chance to succeed. He only had a chance for a short moment of success, but an the longscale he was doomed.

And I agree with HvS, it's going to be a problem for all climate scientists.

PS:
Gleick was one of the main contributors for climate etc. issues in HuffPost and Forbes. You see the problem?

Andreas

Anonymous said...

@ Reiner,

sorry for the Freudian "Heartwell", it was a little bit late.


@ Werner

Did I understood your intents properly and we've had some fun?
I've drawn some conclusions in regard of your question and the Heartland email, hope we played the same game in the same team ;-)

Andreas

Hans von Storch said...

Thanks, V. Lenzer #43 and Alex Harvey #46, for your explanation of the "William Connolley-affair". I had never heard anything of that sort - but had noticed that the entry on me on Wikipedia was repeatedly changed, which I thought was an unfair description. In particular with respect to the hockeystick affair.

Please do not be offended that I am still skeptical. I would like to hear what the "other side" as to say. Maybe Georg - you seem to have a rather liberal view of what constitutes acceptable behavior and what not. What about the others, such as Bam and Rob Dekker - have you heard about these assertions about William Connolley and RealClimate?

Where do people know from that MC modified more than 5000 entries?

Greetings to E. Lindemann :-)

---------------------

Georg - I do not think that two Ave Maria's make the public forget easily. Even the deeds of Catholic priests dealing with little boys in a very catholic country like Ireland was not forgotten, even though certainly many Ave Maria's were used for mitigation. Also, you may have noticed that culture matters in such such cases.

Anonymous said...

Warum löschen sie jetzt meine Beiträge?

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Georg

"Also, you may have noticed that culture matters in such such cases."
Of course. I just found out the underlying cultural background of you and me. I am fine with good science and two Ave Maria, but you want good science AND good smelling scientists. That is asking too much of human beings (such as the protestant church asks too much).

Concerning the alleged wikipedia affair by William Conolley (who actually is a very nice guy I know from a common project).

a) Since years he is no longer member of realclimate. I dont think he wrote more than 3 posts there.

b) For many years he was the climate guru at wiki (they have this strange hierarchy names at wiki, like in the army. He was on top of this hierachy for climate) so I guess yes he edited a lot of texts and the generally excellent texts are partly due to him. If yourown entrance in Wiki is bad probably you could do something about it.

c) He is no longer in science but still bloggs on climate. You can contact him for example here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

d) I cant say anything to these accusations (though by experience ...). Here are a number of texts he wrote on the subject.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/wikipedia/

e) I think he is/was a member of the green party in the UK.

Hans von Storch said...

Anonymous/52 fragt warum ein Beitrag gelöscht wurde. Zunächst weiss ich nicht welcher gemeint ist, da die Frage anonym erfolgt. Also bitte ein Alias benutzen, besser noch einen Klarnamen.
Ich lösche dann Beiträge, wenn sie inhaltsleer sind, reine Verlautbarungen, beleidigend sind oder mit Unterstellungen operieren.

Georg Hoffmann said...

Arrg. Lots of spelling errors.

It is
@Hans and not @Georg

and Connolley is with two n. Sorry.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg
I think you confuse science and technology. A working piece of technology is not "true" and not made "by science" but by engineers. They may or may not use scientific principles.
Conversely, science does not "work" like technology does. It produces knowledge as you rightly say. You may even regard it as a social system but this is not operating in isolation from other systems. Public credibility and trust are important.

Hans von Storch said...

Georg #53.
So you would confirm two points - Connnolly was a member of RealClimate and he did edit many entries in Wikipedia on climate and climate change - correct?

And: A caretaker, who rapes little boys in his custody, can be a good priest or cardinal, as long as a few Ave Maria's are applied. Somebody, who fabricated data, can still be a good scientist, as long as he apologizes.

You seem to have a very pessimistic view of both, your fellow catholics and your fellow scientists.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Reiner

But I explained (or tried to) WHY people have confidence in Science. It's because they see (I think rightly so) technology as THE PRODUCT of science. Nobody trusts science and/or scientists because there is some convergence in the scientific opinion that dark matter explains about 30% of the total mass in the universe but because the little GPS thing shows them the way to Grossburgwedel.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Hans
"You seem to have a very pessimistic view of both, your fellow catholics and your fellow scientists."

Yep. I see both so incredibly similar to the rest of the people. Its depressing.

"Connnolly was a member of RealClimate and he did edit many entries in Wikipedia on climate and climate change - correct?"

Yes, pretty sure this is correct.

Anonymous said...

HvS: 'Georg - you seem to have a rather liberal view of what constitutes acceptable behavior and what not.' - yup, better and more pithily put than I could have done.

Impersonating a director of Heartland in order to obtain their property from them is ok? So if I impersonate your builder and you send me money intended for him, that's ok too I guess! :) You pretty much left it 'lying in the street'.

Of course I'm ok with people advocating policy being motivated by something, whether they believe in that policy for the good of mankind, some constituency thereof, possibly just their good.

But I would like to believe they will advocate reasonably fairly, and if I catch them promoting (or even authoring, who knows) fake documents to smear their opponents, and stealing, and also see others standing up for their behaviour, I begin to look at them differently. I also expect their colleagues in arguing the same policy not to support their behaviour.

HvS's point is that Gleick is a respected, decorated, titled, chair of ethics, climate scientist, and that other climate scientists have stood up for his actions. And that this diminishes climate scientists' capital, in terms of the likelihood of them being trusted or believed.

I don't see that as being so complicated.

And none of this has anything to do with how they are as human beings, necessarily imperfect. We all sin, we all smell.

Indeed, if Gleick had NOT been supported by others it would matter far less, it would be one man who ran amok who should see a shrink because he lost all sense of proportion.

Roddy Campbell

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg
maybe Time Magazine has a better way of putting it:

"Scientific integrity isn't about having the right goals. It's about using the right methods, which is why research is policed so rigorously, and why even the hint of cheating can ruin a career. Scientists aren't perfect, and there is enormous temptation to bend the rules and massage results — which happens more often than the scientific community would like to admit. But science works because the importance of those rules is drilled into students from the moment they first step into a lab. It's why the public still trusts scientists far more than any other public figures. It's how we know what's real and what's not."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html?xid=tweetbut

Hans von Storch said...

Science is also not about having the right or the good answers. We know that even our best answers are most of the time only almost "right", whatever "right" may mean. The normative quality "good", on the other hand, is a moving target. The authority comes from the methods, not from the intentions.

Anonymous said...

Science in this context is not technology, indeed nothing like it.

This is science telling us what might happen. What the chances of bird flu epidemics are, how many people might catch hiv, how rainfall might change in Africa, whether BSE is a danger to humans and to what extent.

So trust and credibility are rather important, these are not falsifiable predictions, and scientists of this type inform public policy. Unlike your satnav.

Roddy

MikeR said...

I have limited experience with Connolley at wikipedia. Shortly after Bray and von Storch came out, I attempted to add it to the wikipedia article on the AGW consensus. It moves around, but roughly here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
People kept erasing the link, saying that your previous survey was known to be biased. I replied that this one was better. I didn't get very far. Eventually, Connolley said to add it, since the results were acceptable, and that was that.
Later, a couple of other surveys were added, and I tried to add comments that I thought were fair limitations on the results. It was impossible; each survey got a short quote that supported that consensus and no other details were allowed. Essentially, someone who reads the page will not know a thing about the existence of contrary opinions. I know that most scientists agree with AGW, but it was just too much, and there was nothing I could do; changes disappeared immediately.

Anonymous said...

@ Georg

"Science is a closed social system which according to their own rules produces something that is called "scientific knowledge"."

"A closed system"?

That's what some parts of the climate science community made it look like for quite a while.

Gleick's case is not the first and not the only one to open up this kind of a wagon fort.

"The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

V. Lenzer

Peter Heller said...

Weather forecasts, nuclear reactors, chess computers, viagra and navigation devices are in general not results of science, but of engineering. The engineering method differs from the scientific method in many ways.

While scientists try to explain processes in nature by basic principles and models, engineers try to use such processes - even without any explanation or without any understanding of the "why" and "how". The engineering method is about conrolling and amplifying what nature shows in an observation.

In most cases I can think of, not science but engineering led to innovations. Often scientists became aware of a new phenomenon not before a technical system using it catched their interest.

So the case of Gleick ist about damaging public trust in science, public trust in the quality of machines and technical products of all kinds is not affected and will not help to diminish, what Gleick has done.

Anonymous said...

@Hans,

I had intended to stay out of this, and I am also not sure why you would like my opinion. Why not ask William Connolley himself?

A good start is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php
I will ask him to comment himself also, but he may not be very interested to discuss with the likes of V. Lenzer, who just repeats false claims.

Also, I think Rob Dekker will not be returning. This is at least what his last comment on this site suggested.

Bam

Hans von Storch said...

Bam, I was just interested what you, who had voiced strong positions before on the Zwiebel, would say to these claims on Connolly. I was wondering what others, with different views would say to these assertions - that Connolly was a founding member of Real Climate, an influential person dealing with climate issues at Wikipedia, effectively acting as a gatekeeper who looked out for more than 5,000 climate related entries.

Belette said...

I see I'm being lied about, again. No surprise there.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php contains some useful guidance. Essentially, Lawrence Solomon is hopelessly cnofused about wikipedia and mostly wrong about it all.

Hans: you seem concerned about your own wiki-article. Checking the history is easy; see here. You can search for my changes if you like. I did outrageous things like this and this.

Anonymous said...

re Connolley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Arbitration_report

Articles related to the climate change topic (CCT) are subject to specially tailored discretionary sanctions. Editors should avoid contributing towards a battlefield mentality.

A Quest For Knowledge, ATren, ChrisO, Cla68, FellGleaming, GregJackP, Hipocrite, JohnWBarber, Marknutley, Minor4th, Polargeo, Scjessey, Thegoodlocust, Verbal,

William M. Connolley, and ZuluPapa5 are each indefinitely banned from the CCT.

Anonymous said...

@ Peter Heller

Na, nun freuen Sie sich doch ein bisschen über mein aufrichtiges Lob. Unsere Übereinstimmung reicht sogar weiter, als Sie wohl denken.

"Was sich Gleick da geleistet hat, ist nach meiner Auffassung eine Straftat. Er kann auch keine "mildernden Umstände" für sich in Anspruch nehmen, denn er hat planvoll und bedacht gehandelt, nicht im Affekt. Im Prinzip tut mir der arme Kerl leid,"

Unterschreibe ich alles, ergänzend würde ich den Straftatbestand als "Phishing" bezeichnen. Ist die Weitergabe der Dokumente ebenfalls ein Straftatbestand?


"Hier ist eine Clique alarmistischer Wissenschaftler am Werk, die man durchaus als fanatisiert ansehen kann. Man hat den rationalen Blick auf die Problematik völlig verloren, man ist nicht mehr dazu in der Lage, seinen eigenen religiösen Eifer zu erkennen."

Im Prinzip Zustimmung. Allerdings ist zu zeigen, ob es noch weitere Wissenschaftler geben sollte, die sich krimineller Methoden bedienen. Ich glaub's nicht, hätte es aber bei P. Gleick vorher auch nie geglaubt. Mit "religiösem Eifer" übertreiben Sie allerdings mächtig und das Beispiel Gleick ist für religiöse Menschen ja fast schon eine Beleidigung ;-)


Sämtliche Vorbehalte, die auf Seiten der Skeptiker gegen eine bestimmte wortmächtige Gruppe von Forschern bestehen, sind damit auf einen Schlag bestätigt worden.
Ja, das ist das Problem, das Georg nicht recht sehen möchte. Es ist bedeutungslos, ob die Vorbehalte richtig oder falsch sind, der Imageschaden wird schwer zu reparieren sein.


Es steht nichts in den Heartland-Dokumenten, das irgendwie überraschend oder gar skandalös wäre.

Ja, da steht das, was sich alle immer so oder ähnlich gedacht haben, nun aber mal schwarz auf weiß. Erinnern Sie sich an ihre "gelbe Karte", als ich auf ihrem Blog Singer als Lobbyist bezeichnet habe? Wäre nett gewesen, ich hätte damals diese Dokumente verlinken können.


Die Lobbyisten der anderen Seite (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth usw.) arbeiten auch nicht anders. Sie bewegen nur noch weit höhere Summen.
Hier springen Sie allerdings sehr kurz. In vielen Skeptikerblog werden Vergleiche auf Geldsummen zurückgeführt. Nicht angerissen wird die entscheidende Frage, WOFÜR diese Gelder eingesetzt werden, der Unterschied zwischen offenen und verdeckten Zahlungen scheint auch nicht weiter zu interessieren.

Mal konkrete Beispiele:
In einem Blog wurden als Beispiel für "AGW-Geldsummen" Mittel genannt, die sich nach kurzer Recherche als Fördermittel für US-Schulen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz entpuppten. Ein anderer Posten enthielt Summen, die z.B. für den Bau von Satelliten anfielen (nebenbei: Ist der Satellit, der die Daten z.B. für Spencer aufnimmt, nun skeptisch oder pro-AGW zu verbuchen?). Sollen diese Summen einfach mal so mit Heartlandgeldern für public und governmental relations verglichen werden? Gibt es wirklich Beispiele dafür, wo Wissenschaftler monatliche Gehälter von Greenpeace oder dem WWF erhalten, damit sie möglichst alarmistische "Wissenschaft" für die Öffentlichkeit fabrizieren? Hunderttausende von Dollars für einen NIPCC-Bericht, auch hier vergleichbares?

Das hätte genau die Diskussion sein können, die Gleick zerstört hat: Was sind die Grenzen der probaten Mittel der skeptischen Seite? Eine Grundsatzfrage, die schon lange aussteht. Eine Diskussion, die allerdings kaum mit den Methoden Gleicks in Gang zu setzen ist.

Grüße
Andreas

Hans von Storch said...

Belette #69 - could you confirm that you are "William Connolley", please? Why do you not use your real name?

In the anonymous contribution above this claim is made: "William M. Connolley, and ZuluPapa5 are each indefinitely banned from the CCT." - is this correct?

On the entry about me, do not worry, I left it to itself - I am not used to argue with invisible powers behind curtains. Also, please be aware that I did not claim that you did something with the entry about me.

Belette said...

Belette, c'est moi, William Connolley. Click on the link from the pic. As to why... I like weasels.

> "William M. Connolley, and ZuluPapa5 are each indefinitely banned from the CCT."

I've no idea what the CCT is, I'm afraid. You might want to read this.

Please be aware that people have a tendency to lie about this *reasons* for the sanctions; some of those commenting above certainly have.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Roddy
"So if I impersonate your builder and you send me money intended for him, that's ok too I guess! :) "

Probably not. Though in any case I wouldnt give you the money and if I did that would be incredibly dump isnt it?

"HvS's point is that Gleick is a respected, decorated, titled, chair of ethics, climate scientist, and that other climate scientists have stood up for his actions."

By the by are there some links and evidence for this. I dont know Gleick. So I would be interested in links demonstrating that he is so important and that there is such massive backing him up in the scientific community.

For me he did a hoax on the HI and it did work, against all odds.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Heller
"Weather forecasts, nuclear reactors, chess computers, viagra and navigation devices are in general not results of science, but of engineering. The engineering method differs from the scientific method in many ways."

Might be true to some extent (so there are many semesters shared between engineers and scientists) but that's irrelevant. My statement is that people true in Science because they surrounded by the working output of Science. They rightly associate all modern technology with Science. I consider this much more important than a definition in the Times magazine of the scientific method and on correct scientific conduct.

Roddy said...

apologies, that was me, Roddy Campbell being unwittingly anonymous.

CCT was defined (by Wikipedia, CCT = Climate Change Topic) in the excerpt I posted, the full Wiki article it came from was linked to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Arbitration_report

So as far as I can tell WC was 'indefinitely banned from the CCT.'

I have no idea why, or who can ban, or what the process is, or indeed who William Connolly is, I just posted this because HvS asked about it.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to add some points to the (off-topic?) discussion about Connolley:

1. I'm really baffled, because supposed the allegations to be true, Connolley would have acted in a way, which is identical to Heartland PR (e.g. K-12 curriculum), but nobody has seen a problem with such Heartland strategies up to now. Seems to be rather onesided and hypocritical.

BTW: Have you heard of Heartland's own climate wiki? No?
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/the_heartland_institutes_faile.php


2. "Gatekeeper" at wikipedia? Some people seem to underestimate how wikipedia really works.

Ask Connolley, sb suggested. Why not simply read Connolley?
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php

Andreas

Anonymous said...

The main difference between this and the CRU hack is:

We still don't know who hacked the CRU.

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Lenzer

"A closed system"?

Im Sinne Luhmanns dass also ein System geschossene Operationen durchfuehrt, die sich nur auf sich selbst bzw aehnliche Operationen beziehen. So schliessen wissenschaftliche Operationen immer wieder an wisssenschaftlicher Operationen an und der Operator waere so etwas wie ein wahr/unwahr Operator.

"Ein System besteht so lange, wie Operationen jeweils nächste gleichartige Operation ermöglichen. Operationen müssen anschlussfähig sein. Wie eine Operation abläuft, hängt von der jeweils vorangegangenen Operation ab. Deshalb werden diese Systeme als operational geschlossen aufgefasst. "

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemtheorie_%28Luhmann%29

Roddy said...

Georg - maybe we have cultural differences. If you were dumb enough to send me the money when I impersonated your builder, then it could be redefined as a hoax, rather than a theft?

If you look at Wikipedia's entry for Gleick you should be able to identify his standing fairly easily.

If you use Google News and search under Peter Gleick you should be able to find some evidence that some of his fellows are supporting his behaviour.

In other words ... use technology!

:)

Peter Heller said...

@ Andreas:

Erinnern Sie sich an ihre "gelbe Karte", als ich auf ihrem Blog Singer als Lobbyist bezeichnet habe?

Nein, ich erinnere mich nicht. Ich erinnere mich nicht einmal, daß Sie jemals auf Science Skeptical irgendetwas kommentiert haben. Sind Sie im Netz unter verschiedenen Nicks unterwegs?

Gelbe und rote Karten gibt es bei uns, wenn Dritte auf eine Art und Weise beschimpft werden, die den Tatbestand der "Verleumdung und üblen Nachrede" erfüllen könnte. Dies ist insbesondere dann der Fall, wenn Leute wie Singer ohne Belege als "Lügner und Betrüger" bezeichnet werden. Nach meiner Auffassung vertreten Singer und die anderen Heartland-Angestellten und -Auftragnehmer ihre ehrliche, ureigene Meinung. Sie handeln nicht wider besseres Wissen, sondern aus echter Überzeugung. Sie werden dafür bezahlt, und das ist auch gut so. Wir leben in einer Marktwirtschaft. Ich würde auch gerne bezahlt, für das, was ich denke und schreibe.

WWF, Greenpeace und andere verfügen über erhebliche Mittel aus Beiträgen, Spenden und öffentlicher Förderung, die sie gezielt Wissenschaftlern zur Verfügung stellen, die damit genehme Studien erstellen. Der Umfang dieses Machtmittels ist weitreichend. Liebesbeweise von Greenpeace werden gerne entgegengenommen. Dagegen kommen Unternehmen wie Heartland nicht an.

Hans von Storch said...

Georg #75: you meant "My statement is that people trust in Science because they surrounded by the working output of Science.", right? - I guess that is wishful thinking. Why did most previously trust in the dominant explanation system provided by the catholic church? Because they were surrounded by the working output of the Church? Why did many in Germany trust the knowledge claims of the Nazis? On the other hand, I would expect that some scholarly analysis has been done on the issue of the foundation of trust in science in different times and cultures. Anybody around, who could help?

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Roddy

"Georg - maybe we have cultural differences. If you were dumb enough to send me the money when I impersonated your builder, then it could be redefined as a hoax, rather than a theft?"

As I said, no. I just consider what Gleick did as a hoax and as you might have realized the Heartland just send him their documents on the annual budget but not the budget itself. So your analogy is of limited help. Gleicks problem is, it worked.

So that it is? The most extraordinary success of Gleick is a presentation at the Sundance film festival. And where are exactly the list of hundreds of scientists backing him up? The technology doesnt work, since I cant find them.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg 74

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/21/BA0R1NAEQI.DTL

Anonymous said...

@ Connolley

Lies?

From the source ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29

"William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved"

"William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area"

"William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy"

"William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29

"William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3"


V. Lenzer

Anonymous said...

@ Peter Heller

Ich habe ebenfalls keine Probleme mit Lobbyismus, solange er transparent.

Nach meiner Auffassung vertreten Singer und die anderen Heartland-Angestellten und -Auftragnehmer ihre ehrliche, ureigene Meinung. Sie handeln nicht wider besseres Wissen, sondern aus echter Überzeugung.

Ich schätze, das Studium der Heartland-Dokumente birgt dann wohl doch so manch Neues für Sie. Mein Eindruck ergab, dass oberste Priorität das Eintreiben von Geldern hat. Hey, der eine Mitarbeiter wurde nicht wegen mangelhafter politischen Gesinnung gefeuert, sondern weil er nicht genug Gelder eingetrieben hatte.

Mein Eindruck der Funktionsweise ist wie folgt:
Da ist ein potenzieller Geldgeber. DIESER hat eine politische Gesinnung und dieser hat ein bestimmtes POLITISCHES Ziel. Er möchte aber nicht namentlich in Erscheinung treten, das überlässt er dann den Profis, nämlich Heartland. Das "Free to choose medicine-Projekt" wird von Heartland doch offensichtlich deshalb so positiv bewertet, weil es die Nachfrage traf und viele Geldmittel eingebracht hat.

Es schmerzt mich, den Tatsachen des Falles Gleick ins Auge sehen zu müssen, das trifft ins Mark meiner Werte und Überzeugungen. Warum nicht selbst auch mal die Begegnung mit unangenehmen Tatsachen wagen? Nur so entwickelt man sich weiter.

Andreas

MikeR said...

@77 "supposed the allegations to be true, Connolley would have acted in a way, which is identical to Heartland PR (e.g. K-12 curriculum)," Really bizarre. Someone has a problem with Heartland trying to push their beliefs? And that they feel schools are teaching wrong, and want to fix it? Well, I guess you have a problem with that, but most of us understand that everyone does that and there's nothing wrong with it.

But what does that have to do with trying to take over (a piece of) wikipedia by force, using a team of verbal thugs to allow nothing to be said except for what they believe, erasing contrary changes, and abusing other editors?

You don't see the distinction between, "We would like to add our input into what schools teach", and "We will allow nothing to be taught except our input"?

Anonymous said...

@ MikeR

"You don't see the distinction between, "We would like to add our input into what schools teach", and "We will allow nothing to be taught except our input"?

I think, it's not so easy.Belette could write "I would like to add scientific input into Wikipedia, why should I be excluded?"

A larger part of disagreement here in the thread seems to arise from our different preconceptions biasing our attribution of facts.

Interested in my opinion?
I'm relieved that WC doesn't work at Wikipedia any longer. Not because of how he handled it, I do not know any example of his work I would criticize. But as science Wikipedia is based on trust, and if there's a part of our climate regarding climate scientists at Wikipedia as a problem, let's leave them aside.


@ William/Belette

Thanks for your work! Wanna good laughter? Read this at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/crowdsourced-climate-complexity-compiling-the-wuwt-potential-climatic-variables-reference-page/

Andreas

MikeR said...

"Belette could write 'I would like to add scientific input into Wikipedia, why should I be excluded?'"
He wasn't banned for adding his input. I do that too, sometimes, and so can everyone. He was banned for silencing everyone else. I don't see why this distinction, between speaking and suppressing others' speech, is so subtle.

Anonymous said...

V. Lenzer, you have indeed repeated lies about William Connolley.

You stated:
"There was the case of William Connolley, co-founder and member of the staff of Realclimate, re-writing more than 5'000 Wikipedia articles on global warming, erasing the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, defending the hockey stick graph etc."

You can easily check all modifications William Connolley made, and he indeed made 5000 'changes' to articles, but not 5000 related to global warming. That would be lie 1.

Second lie is that he erased the LIA and MWP. See, I'm nice and only make that one lie.

That he "defended" the hockeystick (by which I guess you mean MBH98 or MBH99) will be a matter of what you consider "defend", so I'll leave that one as not a lie, but possibly a distortion.

Bam

Anonymous said...

MikeR,

I think you will find that William Connolley was just one of many who were involved in writing, editing, and administrating the articles on climate change. There certaintly is and never was anything that looked like "we will allow nothing to be taught except our input". Unless you take as example the changes Connolley made to some biographies of living people, which were then removed because they were supposedly contentious or negative, etc. Is that what you meant?

Bam

Hans von Storch said...

Concerning William Connolley and the claim that he would be topic banned - this web-page was suggested to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29.

I did so, and found this

"5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

To replace remedies 5.1 to 5.5 above. Roger Davies talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shell babelfish 08:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:
(Placeholder. There is a pending thread on my talkpage in which I am awaiting some input from this editor.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"

From what I understand, and that may be false, 8 "arbitrators" discussed different proposed measures, among them measures related to William Connolley. It seems a proposal was accepted with 5 (or 4) support votes (in case of no (or 1-2) abstentions). Thus the above proposal seem to have been accepted. If that decision was in any sense binding or final, I can not say.

There were other decision taken concerning WC, such as
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped (whatever desysopped may mean)
William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons (here it says: "William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.")

When "remedies" were discussed, several were rejected by a majority, only the one listed above was voted for.

Did I understand the document correctly? Belette?

MikeR said...

As I said above, my experience is very limited. All I tried to do was add a few statistics, quoted directly from some surveys that are mentioned in the article, into an article. But I got the same impression that I have heard from others: Nothing is going to be allowed unless Connolley and his team think it fits their narrative. My statistics were in the wrong direction, so they were not allowed. Any change was immediately deleted.
That's the way wikipedia works, of course, but if you get a team of people together to do that all the time you can completely skew a set of articles. Vast numbers of comments in the Talk sections of the articles were constantly complaining about it. Vast numbers of comments by Connolley and his friends were constantly sneering at them.

Of course, they think that's good, because they're right, and all those complainers are just a bunch of dumb Deniers! So there you are.

Belette said...

anon> "William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved"

Yes, but not while involved in Cl Ch.

> "William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area"

I have most definitely called a number of fools and trolls fools and trolls. The crinkle-your-finger-while-drinking-tea brigade don't like that.

> "William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy"

Yeah, but that is twaddle.

> "William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own"

And that is utter bollocks, as my contributions would show anyone who actually bothered look. Clearly, that isn't you. Are you a fool, or a troll?

Anonymous said...

I suggest looking at the final decision (as opposed to the proposed decision):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision

Summary: The atmosphere around climate change articles had turned into a battlefield, with edit wars, egos clashing and people trolling each other. The Arbitration Committee did what it usually does in such cases - hang the users they recognise (right or wrong) as principal troublemakers on both sides.

WMC was topic-banned for a year. The ban was appeal-able. He did appeal an year later. His topic ban has been partially lifted and limited only to articles about living persons connected to CC.

Belette said...

Andreas> I'm relieved that WC doesn't work at Wikipedia any longer

Ah, you're a fool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley.

That was easy.

> science Wikipedia is based on trust

Of course it isn't. It is based on the validity of the text, and the quality of the references.

> Thanks for your work! Wanna good laughter? Read this at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/crowdsourced-climate-complexity-compiling-the-wuwt-potential-climatic-variables-reference-page/

Yes, you're right, it is indeed risible. As I've pointed out in the comments. Next time, do your homework.

MikeR> He was banned for silencing everyone else

Oh grief, not more ignorance. If you're clueless about wikipedia, have you considered not talking about it?

Hans> Did I understand the document correctly? Belette?

You have indeed quoted the text properly. But, I'm not sure I actually understand your point. Are you suggesting that you consider the decision of the arbcomm to actually mean something, in the sense that you trust them to get it right? To have any understanding of science?

Anonymous said...

It seems that I have broken the link to the appeal. Here's the naked URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=457410987#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Climate_change

Hans von Storch said...

Belette #97
I wanted to find out if the claims, according to which you would have been banned from CCT would be valid or not. I do not know how Wikipedia runs internally, therefore I followed the suggestion to look at this web-site. My impression is that the claim was supported by the deliberations in this committee. If (and how) the decision was implemented I can not say.

But from what I read I have certainly the impression that you did some gate-keeping, with listening to some scientists more that to others.

If you meddled with "my" entry, is irrelevant for me.

MikeR said...

I guess I should add that I quite understand that Connolley and company should think that it's necessary to keep the wikipedia articles their way. Wikipedia is very important, after all, there's only one article on Medieval Warm Period or whatever, and why should some Denier idiots wreck the article their way? Better I should wreck the article my way.

One can see why wikipedia should not be trusted on controversial topics.

MikeR said...

Mr. Connolley seems to be demonstrating here the environment I saw him creating at Wikipedia. I wish that people like him understood that the harm they do to their cause by their meanness and attitude is the biggest problem that AGW science has today. He and those like him are directly responsible for the way most of us outsiders feel about climate science - a bunch of angry sarcastic partisan warriors.

Anonymous said...

@ Connolley

I correctly quoted the proposals supported by a majority of the Wiki arbitrators.

Their discussions and decisions can easily be found in the linked reports (see links in post N° 85).

You are calling me names?
I'm not surprised.


@ Bam

"Medial Warm Period"
I hope you know what you are talking about.

Wiki talk (Connolley):

" A paper by [http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf Soon and Baliunas] disagrees with the IPCC and Mann and states that those warm and cold periods were indeed widespread climatic anomalies (amusingly enough, Soon & Baliunas don't disagree altogether with Mann because Soon & Baliunas state in their table 1 that Mann shows a widespread Little Ice Age). However, the Soon and Baliunas report itself has been extensively criticised [http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=476586430&oldid=7518753

"Initial research on the MWP and LIA was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious, and it was assumed that this period was global. However, more recently this view has been questioned"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=476586430&oldid=9996625

etc. etc.

V. Lenzer

Belette said...

Hans> But from what I read I have certainly the impression that you did some gate-keeping, with listening to some scientists more that to others.

Really? I'd be interested in where you get that idea from.

Anonymous said...

What's going on here? Are we proceeding in climate wars? First Gleick, now Conolley, who's next?
If there's a lesson in the Gleick story, nobody seems to see it. Yesterday I was ashamed because of Gleick, today because of this off topic discussion at Klimazwiebel.


@ William

Sorry for my mistake. Thanks for calling me just fool, not twat ;-)
I tried bring up the importance of trust in the discussion. Ok, wrong time, wrong place.

"The moderator of Saturday's jam-packed AAAS plenary discussion on science communication repeated the meme that scientists are in a "street fight". That may be true. But as I wrote last month, if climate discourse is a street fight, then we need to do more than fight back with the same dirty tactics. If you want to win a fight, you need to be able to take a punch.
Is Simon Donner a tosser?


Andreas

Mathis Hampel said...

Isnt it more interesting (and at the same time boring) to see what the reaction to these somewhat esoteric concerns is?

Climategate, for example, was turned into a bureaucratic-managerial event by several boring inquiries. Now what will happen after ('retro-modern') Heartland? Will there be a prescription of 'post-normal' science? By whom? For what? Wouldnt that just push the superfluous boundary into different spaces (see BEST).

And are scientists-cum-science policy makers co-responsible for this mess by carrying what was (merely) supposed to be a description (post-normal) into a prescription (transparency, participation, extended peers etc.)? Also we need to ask what science policy can actually do for us – I assume less than many would believe.

+ I think most scientists in this forum are fine with post-normal as descriptive however shakey it is – it doesnt hurt. They just cannot stand post-normal science as prescription. Myles Allen has expressed such concern. I too cant see any salvation post-normal science may bring. What should, for example, citizen scientists do for dendroclimatology? How different are BEST's results from other reconstructions? The earth has been warming-this message comes to no surprise to those who have been walking their dogs for the last 50 years. Still, they couldnt care less about the numbers behind the comma. They want honest people "up there".

And, finally, is it arrogant to brush aside these problems in order to concentrate on, that is, to ask the big questions? This, foremost, requires a different language. Soon even the suffix -gate will lose its power to "switch on" citizens.

Anonymous said...

So you can understand why HI will press charges and ask for damages.

Joe Bast, President of Heartland

In his Skype interview with the Wall Street Journal, Joe Bast explains the similarity between Climategate and Fakegate:

We call it Fakegate after ‘faked document.’ We think that this event, very similar to Climategate, documented how desperate these scientists are. How they are willing to stoop to very low levels in order to advance their agenda. How they’re not really interested in debate at all, they’re interested in shutting down debate, shutting down institutions like the Heartland Institute that take a different point of view.

Noting that the Climategate scientists stonewalled Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methods, Joe also explains why there is no inconsistency in applauding the release of the Climategate emails and condemning Gleick’s theft of the Heartland documents:

Now it’s been pointed out that maybe we’re hypocritical to complain that documents were stolen from us and yet we quoted from the documents that were taken from the scientists, the Climategate event. I think it’s very different. The Heartland Institute is a private organization, we’re not a public organization, and we’re not subject to FOIA requests. The documents that were taken from us don’t show any scheming, any kind of dishonest transactions, any attempt to suppress debate. Just the opposite, it’s an open plan that we write about all the time, put on our Web site, put it in newsletters, to our donors, all of that information was there. The purpose of stealing our documents was very specific. It was to expose our donors and to create a fraudulent narrative about why we do what we do. That’s very different from the Climategate situation.

h/t GlobalWarming.Org.

Harald

Alex Harvey said...

Hans,

You do not need to take my word or anyone's word for anything.

Everything that happens at Wikipedia is publicly archived.

The archive shows that William's Wikipedia activity began on 7th February 2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=William+M.+Connolley

It is quite apparent that his only interest was in the topics related to the controversy of global warming. Anyone can see that by simply glancing at his archived contributions.

While he may not have "erased" the Little Ice Age, he certainly attempted to bring it into line with Michael Mann's views, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=1672675
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=2088509
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=3664322

By early 2004, he had begun on what he would be infamous for, the smearing of other scientists. In this diff, he excises from Roy Spencer's biography all mention of Roy's scientific awards - giving the extraordinary reason that they were "out of date":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29&diff=prev&oldid=10514535

On 4th July 2004 he created biography pages for Craig, Keith and Sherwood Idso, apparently for the purpose of linking Greenpeace's smears from the 'Exxonsecrets' webpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_D._Idso&diff=prev&oldid=4443677

It goes on, and it took a few years before his behaviour really degenerated. On the subject of utter degeneration, I encourage you to read the discussion page inside Lawrence Solomon's biography (it's no accident that Solomon wrote against Connolley, if you saw the extraordinary lengths Connolley went to to smear Solomon in his biography).

And nothing has changed, as far as I can tell. Just a few weeks ago I attempted to engage in discussion with William at his blog. He began by inventing a childish story that I didn't know CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere. Then, so that I couldn't respond to this nonsense, he began selectively deleting my responses. In one classic instance, he published one comment I made but then silently deleted a correction I made a few minutes later.

And unfortunately for Wikipedia, there are others in there just like him. Published scientists - some quite well known - often editing anonymously - abusing Wikipedia's processes to present a slanted view of climate change and bullying anyone who disagrees in the hope that they'll leave.

Anonymous said...

The first thing in all Universities, the Professors teach their students, IS NOT to use Wikipedia...

jorge c.

Anonymous said...

I note that V. Lenzer did not contradict me calling him out on the "5000 articles on global warming"-lie. So, V. Lenzer, do you admit that was a lie?

Second, none of the evidence provided by V. Lenzer showed Connolley erased the MWP and LIA, merely that he added well known facts. Even Alex Harvey contradicts him, although he adds spin to _his_ story, since he claims something to be Mike Mann's viewpoint, while there are many (and I dare say even most) that hold exactly the same position: there was a LIA, there was a MWP, but the latter was likely not global.

But there is more disturbing evidence of how Alex Harvey adds spin to his comments on this site:
earlier he claimed there is evidence of "coordination" between Mike Mann and William Connolley in the UEA e-mails. That "evidence" amounts to one e-mail in which Mike Mann refers to a figure put up on Wikipedia by "Connelly". What kind of evidence is that?

But here comes the fun stuff: you can check the history of that file, and you'll find William Connolley did not make it, nor did he put it on Wikipedia. That was a certain user "Lumidek" on February 13. Funnily enough, Lumidek has had his share of fights with Connolley. That would require some interesting coordination: Mike Mann asks Connolley to help him defend himself, and through some interesting telepathics William Connolley gets his adversary Lumidek to add a figure.

Alex Harvey also claims Connolley created pages for the Idso'sfor the explicit purpose to refer to supposed "smears" on the exxonsecrets website. While Connolley indeed added these pages, there is no evidence provided that he did so for the explicit purpose to link to the exxonsecrets page. In fact, the link Alex Harvey provides shows quite the contrary, as Connolley only adds the exxonsecrets link in a revision to his own article. If the explicit purpose was to link to exxonsecrets, the link would have been there right away.

But let me also ask Alex Harvey to provide evidence that the exxonsecrets page contains "smears".

Harvey further claims Connolley removed a section about Awards from Roy Spencer's page. However, the link he provides shows exactly the contrary: Connolley _added_ the section on awards and papers! The "out of date" clearly refers to the fact that he put information in from a congressional testimony from 1997, a whole 7 years prior to adding this information. That is, the information is outdated.

So, how about Alex Harvey's claims about William Connolley's changes to Lawrence Solomon's entry on Wikipedia? Well, let's ask Alex Harvey to come with some evidence that he did anything in that entry which could be considered malicious in any way.

If William Connolley would be anything like Heartland or Meischner, he would sue Alex Harvey for making maliciously false claims with the clear intent to damage his reputation. But he isn't like either, so Alex Harvey can breath a sigh of relief.

Bam

Anonymous said...

I really fail to see why this one document is supposed to be false.

It is from a different source than the others. Heartland says it is false.

That is about all that the linked Atlantic article finds out.

The article even states "Every single verifiable fact that's in the memo is found in another one of the documents, or available in a public source". Nevertheless the next reason is "the style is different." So has it been copied, or is the style different.

The article in the Atlantic sheds no light on the issue whether one document is fake.

So is the Klimazwiebel biased? Probably.

_Flin_

Rob Dekker said...

This guy Peter Gleick has balls, I give him that. To call up the Heartland, and persuade them to send him their BoD package ? That's brave. But to include a 'memo' that points right back at him as the culprit, and gives the political media denial machine a strawman to burn, which from political point of view was political suicide.

By itself, the BoD material is pretty embarrassing for the Heartland, but nobody talks about that any more now, since all the eyes are on Gleick and the stunt he pulled.

So let this be a lesson for everyone : If you argue with an ideologist, you need to get every detail right and based on facts. I you make one mistake, you will be in their arena (ideology and lies). Gleick can testify to that (he should never, ever have released that unverified 'memo').

The political ideology denial media machine is extremely efficient in diverting attention away from the truth, and they use any mistake as a strawman or red herring to discredit you and push their ideology. You know what I mean if you ever argued with them on 'skeptic' blogs or elsewhere. These guys are professionals in PR and debate. Gleick did not stand a chance in that arena.

That, my frieds, is the PR lesson today on debate based on reason, versus debate based on ideology.

Meanwhile, the denial media machine runs at full throttle. More BS (Bad Science) by the Marshall Institure in the Wall Street Journal. Supported by hundreds of commenters creating smoke and mirrors to obfuscate any scientific fact anyone may bring up.

The main question is : How do reason and facts and science stand a chance in this political argument funded by hundreds of millions of fossil fuel dollars and the Murdock media empire ?

Anonymous said...

This is how normal science works:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Hans
"Georg #75: you meant "My statement is that people trust in Science because they surrounded by the working output of Science.", right? - I guess that is wishful thinking. Why did most previously trust in the dominant explanation system provided by the catholic church? Because they were surrounded by the working output of the Church? Why did many in Germany trust the knowledge claims of the Nazis? On the other hand, I would expect that some scholarly analysis has been done on the issue of the foundation of trust in science in different times and cultures. Anybody around, who could help?"

Hans

these are question I feel not really capable to discuss in English and in a reasonably time.
Just some elements

1) Yes I think religion did make working and extremely relevant knowledge claims. Actually there are people saying that these claims were at the origin of the oldest known forms of religion. I am referring to astronomical observations and the useful claims they did concerned the best moment for different agricultural activities (ie sowing, irrigation etc).

2) My claim is that modern societie's trust in science and scientists is strongly affected by the fact that people perceive their every days live as formed by modern science. A perfectly normal day of a perfectly normal person is every day in contact with the results of special and general relativity, modern genetics and biochemistry, and solid state physics. They might not entirely be able to track their everyday's tools and habits to the respective science departments but they intuitively know that there is this link. This is an important element to my opinion.

3) You say that it is very essential how scientists behave and what they do and how they behave as a scientists. Could you give me any evidence that this is what controls peoples trust into science as a system and into scientific knowledge claims?

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Hans, William

Ok, obviously some disagreement here.

I just had a reading of some typically very disputed issues such as the hockey stick debate on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

I found this article actually relatively balanced and provided with a lot of links and papers. If this is the results of all the fighting and struggling then the method seems to work?

Reiner Grundmann said...

Nature has the following comment:

Under the headline "Dishonesty, however tempting, is the wrong way to tackle climate sceptics" it says:

"Gleick's deception — using an e-mail address set up in someone else's name to request the documents from Heartland — is certainly in line with some of the tactics used to undermine climate science. When in November 2009 a hacker distributed thousands of e-mails stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, Heartland was prominent among those who criticized not the hacker, but the scientists who wrote the messages. However, Gleick, as he has admitted, crossed an important line when he acted in such a duplicitous way. It was a foolish action for a scientist, especially one who regularly engages with the public and critics. Society rightly looks to scientists for fairness and impartiality. Dishonesty, whatever its form and motivation, is a stain on the individual and the profession. Gleick does deserve credit for coming clean — but, it must be said, he did so only after he was publicly accused on the Internet of being involved."

Nature 482, 440 (23 February 2012) doi:10.1038/482440b
Published online 22 February 2012

Roddy said...

That is an absurd opening.

"Gleick's deception — using an e-mail address set up in someone else's name to request the documents from Heartland — is certainly in line with some of the tactics used to undermine climate science."

I am not aware of any evidence of any such 'tactics'. Do Nature know of alleged cases where 'underminers' have done anything like this?

I'm afraid this is another example of 'climate science', even when it is forced to condemn, hedging/mitigating the condemnation as far as possible.

On the other hand maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe as Georg says it's little more than a hoax, or as Nature say, just a foolish action.

MikeR said...

@107. I'm having trouble following your point. The strategy memo document is not "supposed to be false". Read the other Atlantic articles by McArdle, near that link. It is false, and anyone who reads it with a critical eye will see that. It is written by a pro-AGW person who thinks that AGW-skeptics are evil and know it, and talk that way to each other when no one else is listening. "dissuading teachers from teaching science". "undermine the IPCC report". Sure, that's the kind of thing Heartland says in their secret lair. They don't really think that they're right about the science.

The memo is false. And Steve Mosher began saying more than a week ago, before anyone connected Gleick with the theft, that Gleick's writing style matches the memo. By far the most obvious explanation for all this is that Gleick forged the memo as well, after he got the other documents, because the other documents weren't exciting enough (no good lines like "dissuading teachers..."). That's why its creation date was a few days ago. Then when he was caught, he made up this absurd story of getting it in the mail and trying to get the other documents to verify it. That's what I would do too if I got a weird unsourced document in the mail, risk my career and liberty to commit wire fraud. You just have to think about that a little to see how unlikely it is.

That's what really happened. He (a) lied to get some Heartland documents, and (b) forged a totally false document to improve his story when they weren't good enough. Not the kind of thing we want from our scientists. (b) bothers me much more than (a) - which is probably why his confession tries to avoid (b).

@108 ("So let this be a lesson for everyone : If you argue with an ideologist, you need to get every detail right and based on facts. I you make one mistake, you will be in their arena"). Let this be a lesson: If you're claiming to be a scientist, arguing with some political operatives, don't make things up. Don't try to fool us so we'll agree with you. We don't appreciate scientists making things up. For some reason, their chance of convincing us that we should trust them on their science decreases.

"How do reason and facts and science stand a chance in this political argument funded by hundreds of millions of fossil fuel dollars." Did you read the documents, or the story on them? Heartland's budget is a few million dollars total. Even less of that is for climate change issues. People like M&M did their damage on no support at all, because some scientists liked their results better than their competition. Judith Curry has been saying this for a while: The really dangerous and effective skeptics are a few amateurs who happen to be interested in the science.
If you want your "reason and facts to stand a chance in the political argument", stick to reason and facts. That is the only way to win in science. Name-calling and mud-slinging leads to the kind of results Gleick is now getting.

Anonymous said...

Rob

"The main question is : How do reason and facts and science stand a chance in this political argument funded by hundreds of millions of fossil fuel dollars and the Murdock media empire ?"

In Germany you can hear:
Nichts ist so mächtig wie eine Idee, deren Zeit gekommen ist.

So if your ideas are based on the truth of science, no money in the world can people confuse about science for all time.

Caveat: How long can we wait?

Andreas

Karl Kuhn said...

@116 thanks, this post was overdue, as puts things into proper perspective.

1. The resources that sceptical scientists and economists have at their disposal are very small. But have a look at the side of the established science:

2. If you look at calls from big european research donors like EU FP or the German BMBF, they are littered with the 'climate change' buzzword to legitimate research expenditure. All scientists applying for and working in such projects are well aware that their funding, and thus jobs, carreers, families, are based on the 'dangerous AGW' narrative ... so hardly anyone will stand up and question it, particularly when he cannot argue climate models.

3. Not talking about national and international bureaucracies. We can longer turn our eyes away from the fact that it is the climate change industry's billions (yes, billions) that call the shots. It is a similar industry as for instance the development aid industry. There are possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs as stake, totally dependent on the DAGW narrative.

3. And it is not big oil, no longer. They have learnt since years that their business is not harmed at all by the emergence of the climate change industry. The oil price is rising, demand surges, so these two industries (big oil and big climate) nicely coexist with each other. Just look a 'Beyond Petroleum'.

Does anybody still wonder why outspoken sceptics are few, as compared to mainstream scientists? I strongly believe that humans just respond to incentives. There are strong disincentives for a scientist to publicly question even small parts of the DAGW narrative. You will be called denier, vilified, not be published, not promoted, not funded. All this does not happen to those comfortably swimming in the mainstream.

So to me it is small wonder that there is not more academic questioning of the DAGW narrative. Someone has to do it after all, but the punishment is likely to be severe.

Anonymous said...

@ MikeR

Let's try to be balanced. You write

"The strategy memo document is not "supposed to be false". Read the other Atlantic articles by McArdle, near that link. It is false, and anyone who reads it with a critical eye will see that. It is written by a pro-AGW person[...]"

First, I'm not sure, if your conclusion in the last sentence is supportet by McArdle. But more important, Gleick's confession (if true) includes a further possibility.

A Heartland insider could have written it. Maybe he described how Heartlanders really talk without public ears, maybe he sexed it up.
Although not beeing an official Heartland document, the word "fake" doesn't really fit.

And last but not least, maybe it is in fact a Heartland document.

I'm not able to add some probabilities to these scenarios (although the last one seems unlikely), but it shows, that's not so easy as it seems.


"The memo is false. And Steve Mosher began saying more than a week ago, before anyone connected Gleick with the theft, that Gleick's writing style matches the memo."
A good point, but really a proof? Again, there are other possibilities. Did you know, that Gleick contacted several times Heartland under his real name before "Gleick's trick"?
And remember, there was Gleick's name in the memo, would Mosher have identifiey Gleick as a suspect without that?

This sentence is one of the strangest one in the memo. Is Gleick the most important player in climate debate? Why his name?
It bears some logic, that possibly the Insider put it in as an appetizer for Gleick.


We can speculate more, but I'm afraid, we will never get the truth without the help of Heartland and Gleick. AFAIK Heartland hasn't sued PG so far (I checked yesterday the Heartland website). Hope they will do, but I'm not sure again.

Andreas

Georg Hoffmann said...

@Reiner
"It was a foolish action for a scientist, especially one who regularly engages with the public and critics."

For a scientist? What the hell I am supposed to be? Charly from "three angels for Charly", the late Buddha (the early one again appears to be too childish)? An old man in a Wim Wenders movie?

I've chosen to study physics just because my cousin did it before and I didnt know what to do else and now Nature tells me that I actually entered into a sort of Zen monastery. I want my years back, start all over again and just remain the foolish person I am.

Last week I've read the Economist on the presidential primaries. They said a couple of positive things about Mitt Romney. And then they said, ok he made some remarks about abortion, evolution and climate sciences that were just completely nuts, but this is what you have to do if you wanna be a republican candidate for presidency.

So, just repeat that with me: This guy is presenting himself for the most powerful, most public job in the world and the globe's probably best and certainly very serious political magazine, The Economist, says, ok, he just has to do the buffoon because that's how it is.

But little Peter Gleick who has choosen to work on fucking hydrology he has to walk over water, turn the other cheek whenever its possible and show the world that he belongs to a finer, more honorable, wiser part of the worlds population. He must walk over red hot stones and spend his kidneys whenever there is an occasion. Ah yes, and fairness and impartiality.

"Society rightly looks to scientists for fairness and impartiality. "

I never felt so horribly underpaid as after reading this article.

MikeR said...

@119 You probably didn't see all of McArdle's posts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
Most of my points came from her: The document reads like something from the imagination of pro-AGW activist, who believes that Heartland is evil and knows it. Those of us who know that we skeptics may be very stupid, but we're honestly stupid, we know the document isn't real. No, we don't talk like that. No one can believe the document unless they share Peter Gleick's dark view of skeptics. That's why so many pro-AGW blogs are busy claiming that it is all accurate: After all, we all really know that they're are out to stop teachers from teaching science, right? That phrase was posted all over the internet that day: HA! Vindicated! They really are like that!

As to Mosher, I do not think that the tiny mention of Gleick would have been enough by itself. Nor do I see why he would have confessed to (a) except that he was being accused of (b). The entire point of his (unbelievable) story is to explain why in the world he would have scanned the strategy memo into pdf a few days ago.

But yes, let's ask him for the physical memo. Anyone want to bet whether he still has it? Can anything think of a good explanation as to why he had to dispose of it?

Anonymous said...

@ BAM

Are you going to count all of WMC's interventions in the Wiki climate discussions? before and behind the curtains?
OK, Solomon wrote about 5'000 articles in Wikipedia altogether. A number which can easily be found in the article I have linked.
Do you suppose that a main part of these arcticles has been written on completely different fields? law? art & culture? chinese philosophy?

What would the exact number change on the fact that WMC has been banned from certain issues?

There must have been good reasons if you follow the discussions and the different arbitration proposals.

What's really interesting and what can be seen yet is the obvious co-operation between the members of the "team" and some of the Wiki contributors.
The Soon and Baliunas paper for instance found a warm and ready welcome.

The rest of your post as for my part is opinion talk. You still seem to have a problem with the existence of a worldwide MWP, asserting that "there was a LIA, there was a MWP, but the latter was likely not global".

OK, there's no harm in maintaining your viewpoint - but stop calling me a liar.

V. Lenzer

Hans von Storch said...

Folks, may I ask for a rule of expression: use the words "liar, to lie, lügen, Lügner" only when you want to imply that the person is knowingly and intentionally expressing something objectively wrong. Please be aware that this rule requires a rather deep insight, not only about what is objectively wrong but also what the person, you are talking about, intends to do. In general you will not be able to do so.

I guess Dr. Klöben and Herr Müller-Lüdenscheidt would suffice to say that something said by their opponent would be inaccurate or incorrect. These words spell out what you want to say, and people will not consider it an insult (in most cases). And insults, we should try to avoid, otherwise there is no joint sitting in the bath tub (sorry for the non-Germany, Dr. K and Herr M-L. find themselves unexpectedly in the same bath tub. A wonderful, very popular and for most Germans very funny sketch by Loriot.)

Please no more claims of "lying", no more calling "liar". Thanks.

Reiner Grundmann said...

The Nature article I linked above creates a false symmetry between climategate and Gleick's trick. With climategate we do not know if the data was stolen or obtained without breaking the law. Nature should know this.

It is not easy to find the right assessment for a journal which had "urged researchers to acknowledge that they are involved in a street fight over the communication of climate science." As the editorial asks "So would it now be hypocritical to condemn Peter Gleick for fighting dirty?"

Street fight is certainly a dangerous metaphor to begin with. There are no clear rules and violence is part of the game (Molotov cocktails, tear gas, rubber bullets...). So Nature needed to do some damage limitation lest it be seen enticing Gleick into his trickery or condoning it.

Stephen Schneider had a much better metaphor, climate science as a contact sport. Boxing, rugby, football all have clear rules, the competition is normally civil, but it can hurt at times.

Karl Kuhn said...

I have have a rather technical request: In my last statement, I made a positive remark on what was post #116 by the time. Now I see that a different post carries the #116 (has HvS deleted posts containing mudslinging?). Hm, that makes it difficult to reference to another post, if its number changes.

Can this somehow be fixed?

Hans von Storch said...

Karl Kuhn #127 - I am afraid I can not. Don't know how to do that - and it may be good if it is known that the editors can not change comments, only delete.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg
you say
"I've chosen to study physics just because my cousin did it before and I didnt know what to do else and now Nature tells me that I actually entered into a sort of Zen monastery."

I think you miss an important point in the sentence you quote which is "especially one who regularly engages with the public and critics."

Part of that job was to appear Zen like if you wish. It included to say that you fight big lobbies and powerful forces only with peer reviewed science. Only the truth will win against evil, etc.

Another part was Gleick's standing in the science community and society. He was part of Pantheon so to speak, being a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship (this is worth $500,000 over 5 years).

Lower ranked scientists may get away with misdemeanours -- so I am not sure what would have happened if you had hoaxed the HI (you would probably not be considered for higher rewards and prizes). But then Gleick did not intend this to be a hoax. It was dead serious.

Anonymous said...

V. Lenzer,

One problem starts with the claim "written". Many things he has done were removing stubs like "Naomi Orestes" (her name is Oreskes) and "Gorge Bush" (guess what is wrong with that. The 5000 number is the number of "edits", which ranges from adding a picture, correcting spelling errors, to indeed writing a whole article. But note that all changes in that article made by the same person at a later time are counted as additional edits. The number 5000 is deliberately used to inflate his supposed influence.

Moreover, the fact that Connolley is still topic banned from changing the biography of living persons is not what you started complaining about. The "good reasons" are, clearly, Connolley being not very politically correct when reacting to others, and because of ongoing edit wars on Wikipedia. You will find a lot of people banned, some permanently, for "edit wars".

Your claim that the Soon & Baliunas paper found "a warm and ready welcome" due to cooperation between members of the "team" and some of the Wiki contributors is unsupported by any evidence. So, go ahead, provide that evidence. Let's see if it is as good as Alex Harvey's evidence.

Finally, you claimed that Connolley had erased the LIA and MWP, and provided absolutely zero evidence for that. The very worst Connolley did was to refer what the IPCC report says. Gasp! Referring to a scientific review of the literature, it should be forbidden that an encyclopedia does so!

Bam

MikeR said...

Interesting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/peter-gleick-debate-invitation-email-thread/
Gleick invited to debate at Heartland, refused because they would not disclose their donors.

Anonymous said...

@ Reiner Grundmann

Simon Donner has an alternative approach of how to react as a scientist in a street fight, see the quote in #103. Full length text in his blog Maribor. True christian virtue, quite different than beating back and 2 Ave Maria.

"With climategate we do not know if the data was stolen or obtained without breaking the law."
That's what I often read in skeptic blogs, where a "whistle blower" seems to be a fact (of course without providing evidence) , but I fail to understand. Wikileaks had hard consequences for the source of the leak in the US. In Germany it would be a crime, too. Does in GB exist a special law protecting whistle blowers? If yes, is protection warranted if somebody publishes private mails?

Andreas

Anonymous said...

Does Heartland really claim the strategy paper being faked? The following article scrutinizes the Heartland press release and raises some interesting questions:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/22/heartland-memo-origin-questions/

PS:
Has Heartland contacted police? Havn't read anything up to now.

Andreas

MikeR said...

@Andreas (133), instead of going through that kind of tortuous parsing, focused on finding what you want to see, why not read the simple and clear statements Heartland has made from the first?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession
They consistently have called the memo "forged" and "faked", and suggested that Gleick forged it.
And again, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but perhaps I am closer to the mindset of skeptics than you are. The document cannot be genuine, because it sounds like it's written by someone who is not a skeptic. Pro-AGW people perhaps cannot see that, because the wrong parts don't grate on them as much. Imagine a pro-abortion organization like Planned Parenthood in America, writing a memo that uses the phrase "anti-life" instead of "pro-choice". Or vice versa for a pro-life group, calling themselves anti-choice. Can't happen.

eduardo said...

@122


Georg,
it is not a secret that the yard stick by which society measures the integrity of individuals or groups is not uniform. Clinton still enjoys considerable respect and trust by many people in the world. If the Pope had done the same as Clinton did in the Oval Office, I am pretty sure that that Pope would not enjoy any respect at all,
I do not know the reason why this occurs, but I guess that it depends on the expectations that society has on you. In the case of scientists, society expects them to be un-biased, tell the truth, work hard, etc, etc. The expectation that society places on a politician or even on a journalist are very different. If Peter Gleick had been a journalist, maybe he would be now a kind of a hero that was able to pluck secret documents from HI - a sort of Woodward in the case of Watergate. But Gleick happens to be a scientist, who acted rather like a journalist or a lobbyist. In the eyes of public opinion he cannot be trusted any more, because it has become clear that he has an agenda, and that he is able to cross some lines, which society considers to be red lines for a scientist, defending that agenda.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Georg 132
I recommend you read Fred Pearce on this (unless you dismiss him as a sceptic, too). He mentions various possibilities of how the emails could have been obtained without hacking. He even mentions the possibility that a CRU staff member may have left them unprotected on a server. There was an earlier episode where Phil Jones himself had left data accessible to outsiders, inadvertently.

Be that as it may, the damage in both cases is on one side mainly. The surprise caused by CRU mails was incomparably bigger than the HI documents. Plus there is a culprit in one case but not the other. Worse still, the culprit was chairing the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

Also have a look here

wflamme said...

@Andreas
"According to Peter Gleick, he was moved to impersonate a Heartland Institute board member by a memo he received in the mail, the details of which he wanted to verify."

Oh well, we all knew climate scientists don't have a free will and are moved only by 'the cause' - so no surprise here.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Eduardo
I agree with much of what you say. However, I don't think journalists would accept that Gleick's trick should be part of their practices. As Megan McArdle put it,

"Let's walk through the thought process:

You receive an anonymous memo in the mail purporting to be the secret climate strategy of the Heartland Institute. It is not printed on Heartland Institute letterhead, has no information identifying the supposed author or audience, contains weird locutions more typical of Heartland's opponents than of climate skeptics, and appears to have been written in a somewhat slapdash fashion. Do you:

A. Throw it in the trash

B. Reach out to like-minded friends to see how you might go about confirming its provenance

C. Tell no one, but risk a wire-fraud conviction, the destruction of your career, and a serious PR blow to your movement by impersonating a Heartland board member in order to obtain confidential documents.

As a journalist, I am in fact the semi-frequent recipient of documents promising amazing scoops, and depending on the circumstances, my answer is always "A" or "B", never "C"."

Reiner Grundmann said...

Sorry, meant to say Andreas 132

MikeR said...

Well, given that many of us expect that Gleick will eventually be revealed as the forger of the strategy memo, it's hard to see him ending up being compared to Woodward and Bernstein. More likely Dan Rather and the Killian documents. He hasn't finished doing damage to his movement, he just stopped in the middle.

sHx said...

...which may constitute "falsche Tatsachenaussagen", but not "Meinungsäusserungen"

I love German. Even though I don't understand a word of it.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Anthony Watts claims the moral high ground (and he seems to have a point):
He says he had "full and open access in Dr. Phil Jones Journal of Physical Research (JGR) author account, which showed all of his papers (including some not published yet) plus comments from reviewers" --but did not distribute the information. Instead, he informed Phil Jones and JGR so they could close the security loop.

I think this is an interesting comparison to those who like to defend Gleick on ethical grounds. Take George Monbiot for example, who says Gleick did the right thing and should not have apologized. According to Monbiot climate scientists are in a war and need to defend themselves... Listen here (15mins) to a short BBC debate between him and Richard Klein.

Friedhelm said...

Hans v. Storch #39

Connelley ist ein alter Bekannter, siehe z.B.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
Die Frage ist, wer sich heute mit gleichem Auftrag als Gatekeeper) im Wikipedia tummelt. (Hoffentlich nicht derselbe Connolley unter anderem Namen). Die Frage ist auch, wer solche Gatekeeper finanziert; es ist klar, dass sie mit dem "Editieren" vollzeit-beschäftigt sind. Leider kann man Wikipedia nur bei apolitischen Themen trauen!

Rob Dekker said...

MikeR #118 :
How do reason and facts and science stand a chance in this political argument funded by hundreds of millions of fossil fuel dollars." Did you read the documents, or the story on them? Heartland's budget is a few million dollars total. Even less of that is for climate change issues.

Mike, Heartland is just one of a few hundred (if not a few thousand) tax-exempt 501(c)(3) "charity" organizations pushing the libertarian political agenda, which includes removing any environmental regulations.
Regarding climate change, at the very minimum there are the 48 501(3)(c) organisations that John Mashey identified that are actively making political statements radically contrary to scientific findings, with a revenue total of some $330 million per year.

That is probably a big under-estimate of the amount of money going around, considering that many of these 48 organizations do not report their revenue (such as Monckton's SPPI).

Also, that does not include the wide spectrum of other influences, like the legal firms (of course, also 501(c)(3)) that are filing lawsuits against the EPA and government scientists, nor the influence of libertarians within the various Departments of the US, who, for example, can send criminal investigators to interrogate a scientist who simply published a peer-reviewed paper.

Neither does it quantify the amazing wide-open channel to become an 'expert' to testify in front of Congress if you have anything 'scientific' (no matter how wrong or twisted) to say against mainstream climate scientists. Soon and Baliunas, Monckton, Happer etc etc. all can testify to that (if they ever would).

Rob Dekker said...

HeartlandGate goes to a congressional committee hearing :

Congressman Calls For Hearing Into Heartland Institute Payments to Federal Employee Indur Goklany

http://www.desmogblog.com/congressman-calls-hearing-heartland-institute-payments-federal-employee-indur-goklany

I'm sure there will be more to come. I recall that was re-writing the K-12 climate change curriculum for the Heartland is employed by the Department of Energy.

Not to mention the violation of Heartland's 501(c)(3) "charity" status now that their political actions became apparent.

Any who is financing this mockery ? The Anonymous Donor provides 50 % of their entire budget, and gets to pick and choose the 'projects' he funds. Interesting that these were all 'Global Warming' projects, but he was not interested in funding Heartland's natural gas 'fracking' poject. So this wealthy individual with libertarian background is in coal or oil. Anyone want to guess ?

Alex Harvey said...

Bam, #130:

You are quite correct that I made a mistake about the Roy Spencer diff. The edit summary suggested the opposite and I then read the diff backwards. Sorry about that.

If you want the best example you might consider Lawrence Solomon's article "Who am I?".
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2010/02/13/who-am-i/

The article is a pretty fair of what happened as William Connolley and his supporters sought for several years to hide from the reader that Lawrence Solomon is a well-known Canadian environmentalist.

You can refer to the extraordinary discussions that occurred in the archived discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lawrence_Solomon/Archive_1

So when I hear from William Connolley, as I did the other day, that Peter Gleick is "a complete and utter twat of the highest order", as if he did something exceptionally unethical, I am afraid the irony is too much to bear.

People should not forget that Peter Gleick is just doing what so many others are doing, and most of those role models are doing it without any criticism. As I say, William Connolley is not the only one. I saw some extraordinary behaviour from other various professors inside Wikipedia.

wflamme said...

Alex, AFAIR that came from James Annan, not Connolley (although Connolley linked it).

Reiner Grundmann said...

Monbiot:
"I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society."
Guardian online 24 Feb

Roddy said...

Reiner, you need a bit of context to get what Monbiot is after there.

And start from the premise that he's a good soul.

He has a Marxist (?) picture of society that classes defend their interests, and the classes that concern him are the rich and the multi-national corporations. He would regard growing wealth inequalities as evidence that they are winning, for example, and describes a kleptocracy in action.

He is VERY pro disclosure, huge supporter of Freedom of Information, attacked CRU hard on these grounds.

He suspects that think-tanks and lobbying organisations, charities too, often exist in considerable part to further interests, and believes they should by law disclose their funding (whether left or right).

He's emotional and given to hyperbole, and would himself NEVER do anything like Gleick did. I suspect he's (wrongly) shoe-horning Gleick into some civil disobedience hero role.

Climate Audit have posted correspondence in which Gleick refuses the HI invitation to speak. It's perfectly civil, and he declines on the grounds that they don't disclose their funding (which they don't have to, of course).

Monbiot would believe that everyone should take that principled position, and so would admire Gleick for that stance.

Anonymous said...

@ BAM

I can't find new arguments in your post besides formal objections and belabouring on single words and figures.

Instead of "erasing" (the evidence of a worldwide MWP) one might call it attempting to discredit or to bringing into derision all other than the author's narrow view on the issue.

As the Wiki arbitrators say it in their general judgments ...

"WMC has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment"

"it's clear that WMC is behaving in a way consistent with someone who feels he protects the articles against a specific point of view"

"WMC has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view"

WMC was a member of RealClimate and he did edit entries in Wikipedia on climate and climate change.

This is not forbidden - but and like climategate and the Heartland case do - it is shedding a light on what's going on behind the curtains oft the global warming theatre we are witnessing.

To move forward: the interesting question is what does it all mean for science and communication, what are the impacts?

V. Lenzer

MikeR said...

@Rob Dekker 144: So if I understand you right, this billions of dollars anti-climate conspiracy includes every conservative or libertarian organization in the United States. In that case, I'm not surprised that you got such a high number. I'd also suggest that no one take such a suggestion seriously. Something like a half of Americans are conservative or libertarian, after all. We are not all a big conspiracy backed by oil money. That's just our general attitude towards politics and economics.

MikeR said...

Judith Curry: Why Target Heartland?
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/#more-7356
It seems to me that this goes to the heart of the post I just made: Gleick apparently believed that Heartland is an important part of this incredible massive billion-dollar conspiracy. Yet the documents show that their funding for climate issues is essentially trivial, and was cut considerably because they lost funding from one single anonymous donor. Doesn't this in itself show that the whole narrative of the massive conspiracy isn't true? The most important organization Gleick could find is really pretty tiny and inconsequential.

Reiner Grundmann said...

Roddy
Disclosure of funding is a noble principle and a good idea but neglects the much bigger problem of gaining access to public communication.
Suppose we know where every penny comes from and who the recipients are. What now? Does a specific income stream invalidate an argument? Should only people have a right to public appearance who are destitute?

I can see the class war logic transposed onto what Monbiot calls the climate war: he would like to see all claims makers (or warriors) colour coded so we can distinguish the good from the bad. And the income stream is the marker.

Besides, Monbiot does not applaud Gleick's refusal to appear at the HI event but his trickery.

Roddy said...

Reiner I agree with all of that, I was just adding context to Monbiot, who is an environmentalist I happen to admire, mainly because he doesn't die in the trenches for a lost argument; as examples he's anti UK solar power subsidies, anti biofuels, pro-nuclear - he tries to be pragmatic. So I listen to him.

And part of his pragmatism is the practical belief that people, groups, classes, are often essentially self-interested, so better to know their interests when debating than not. I agree you then get the 'playing the man not the ball' problem.

Anonymous said...

Alex, your link to solomon proves that Lawrence Solomon thinks he is a notable environmentalist. If I think I am the one and only truth, will you make sure it is added to my Wikipedia entry when it ever is made?

Your link to the Talk page is another "see!", without indicating what there is to see. You do suddenly change your smear to "William Connolley and supporters". The big evil Connolley has a following!

You also failed to provide any evidence that Connolley made the Idso-entries with the specific aim to add the "smears" of exxonsecrets. Again your link proved you wrong, and you still do not provide evidence that exxonsecrets contains "smears".

I'm done with you and your goalpot moving.

Bam

Hans von Storch said...

Bam, I appreciate that you got Belette to participate in this debate here. That is useful.

Bam, you address Alex directly using rather rough wording. Therefore, I may also address you in this frank way: What I find difficult to understand is why you, as well as Belette, seem to hardly have doubts when you present assertions. When you post, everything is clear, with people either good or bad people, Bush-like clear.

Actually, when thinking about the broad field, Belette seemingly was editing (Some seem to say as an "Owner"), a field with many elements contested - he seemed to have known what is right and what is wrong. Likely, he had some advisors, while others were considered unqualified. How did he know, who was right and who was unqualified?

This reminds me on Vahrenholt, the skeptic we discussed earlier. He also has no doubts, he knows, he knows better. Just like you and Belette. In many cases, alarmists and skeptics are the same in thinking, in methods, in being "right". They think that solving the scientific questions would solve the question of "right" policies.

Anonymous said...

V. Lenzer, "single words" are rather important. You yourself already weaken your claim that Connolley erased the MWP. That Connolley tried to discredit any information on the MWP, only following his narrow viewpoint, is a complete and utter crock. Connolley added information directly from the IPCC report, which is and was consistent with the science at that time. that "narrow viewpoint" thus points to the majority of paleoclimatologists!

The edit-warring on Wikipedia are well known, and have repeatedly let to people being banned, blocked, censored, and whatnot, just because they, as Connolley once said himself, "do not suffer fools gladly".

What all this shows for science and communication is that some people have a problem with the outcome of the science, and thus need to create as much FUD as possible. Not all scientists take such unwarranted FUD lightly, which is then gladly used by those who don't like the outcome of the science by pointing to the scientist and say "look how nasty he is, ergo...".

Bam

Reiner Grundmann said...

Speaking of wording, I find the choice of words used by Bam and Connolley remarkable. Here is a list from this thread alone to show how they address their interlocutors:

Bam:

complete and utter crock

you have indeed repeated lies about William Connolley.

Belette (AKA William Connolley):

I have most definitely called a number of fools and trolls fools and trolls. The crinkle-your-finger-while-drinking-tea brigade don't like that.

Yeah, but that is twaddle.

And that is utter bollocks

Are you a fool, or a troll?

Ah, you're a fool

Yes, you're right, it is indeed risible. As I've pointed out in the comments. Next time, do your homework.

Oh grief, not more ignorance. If you're clueless about wikipedia, have you considered not talking about it?


I see above all insults instead of arguments. And there is this tone of superiority which reminds me of some of the CRU emails when critical papers were dismissed as "pure crap" etc.

MikeR said...

I think a little imagination - and my own experience - will make it obvious what it would be like on wikipedia if there's a group of sneering people determined to shape a subject to suit themselves. It can certainly cause someone to drop the idea of writing there.
This is true whether or not what he wants to write is correct. In my case it happens I was correct and they were wrong (I think), but it doesn't matter. Bam's friends know they are right; it's irrelevant whether they actually are. They could just as easily be a team from the Heartland Institute. The point is, they control the page. And wikipedia doesn't like that, because it breaks what makes it wikipedia work.

Anonymous said...

@ Reiner

Gehen wir jetzt zu Charakterstudien über? Vorher Lob für Watts', jetzt Kritik an Connolleys Umgangsformen, ist auch ein wenig von oben herab.

Ok, ich zählte hier auch zu den Empfängern von WC Injurien, nehme es aber sportlich. Das ist eben William, und so ist auch sein Blog (ich erinnere mich noch an den Artikel mit der Überschrift "Werner Krauss is a tosser!"), da gibt es ganze Serien, wo Menschen, über die er berichtet, in Klassen eingeteilt werden (mit "fool" kam ich noch relativ gut weg). Ich find's witzig, ich mag direkte Ansprachen ohne viel drumrum, lese bei ihm deshalb ganz gerne. Muss nicht jeder mögen, klar.

Sie kritisieren einen "tone of superiority", welcher zweifellos vorhanden ist. Eines sollte Ihnen aber auch bewusst sein: WC ist wohl der einzige hier, der versteht, wie Wikipedia funktioniert.

Haben Sie mal versucht, selber nachzuzprüfen an einzelnen Beispielen, wie Änderungen bei Klimaartikeln zustande kamen und welche Rolle WC dabei spielte?

Ich hab's vor einiger Zeit getan, als die Diskussion um WC in den Skeptikerblogs tobte und bin kläglich gescheitert. Man wird nicht recht schlau. Das einzige, was mir aufgefallen ist, ist dass der Streit meistens darum ging, ob die Wikipediastandards und -regeln korrekt eingehalten worden sind. Um in ihrer Sprache zu sprechen: Mir ist auch aufgefallen, dass die postnormalen Verhältnisse der Klimadebatte sich auch in den Wikipediadiskussionen widerspiegelten. Es gibt da auch Skeptiker, die um ihre Deutungshoheit kämpfen (einen Aliasnamen erkannte ich wieder aus dem Curryblog), überrascht? Und ich meine auch verstanden zu haben, warum er seines Amtes enthoben worden ist, in ihrem letzten Beitrag nannten Sie den Grund praktisch schon selbst.

Ihnen mag sein Ton hier missfallen, aber Sie sollten anerkennen, dass er der einzige Fachmann für Wikipedia in diesem Thread ist. Und wenn er meint, dass jeder, der von "gatekeeping" spricht, einfach keine Ahnung hat, wie Wikipedia funktioniert, dann würde ich das sehr ernst nehmen.

PS:
Apropos Charakterstudien. Leider ist hier zum Thema Gleick und Heartland eine neuere Entwicklung völlig untergegangen:

Heartland hat einen Austausch von Emails zwischen dem HI und PG veröffentlicht. Nicht auf der eigenen Website, sondern bei WUWT (m.E. ebenfalls ein Kandidat für Charakterstudien).

Anlass des Austausches war ein Einladung des HI an PG, an einer Debatte teilzunehmen, es ging um den Disput zwischen PG und Taylor bei Forbes. Von Lakeley (NB: nicht von PG) werden im Austausch Themen aufgeworfen, z.B. das Budget von Heartland oder die Steuererklärung von HI (eines der später geleakten Dokumente).

Merken Sie etwas? Man fragte sich ja immer, was dieser Satz über Forbes und Gleick wohl im Memo verloren hatte. Jetzt ist klar: Wenn Gleick das Memo selbst verfasst hat und diesen Satz eingebaut hat, dann muss HI sofort klar gewesen sein, wer der Übeltäter ist. Dann hätte er genauso gut das Memo gleich mit Peter Gleick unterschreiben können.

McArdles Analysen sind ganz gut, wenngleich ich noch nicht überzeugt bin, ich sehe da noch andere Möglichkeiten, Lücken, die sie nicht untersucht. Aber dieser Email austauscht beweist, dass sie definitiv in einem Punkt irrt, nämlich hier:
Gleick's name had always seemed somewhat anomalous in the climate memo--I've never heard the climate skeptics mention him, though they do have a lot of very nasty stuff to say about folks like Michael Mann.
Wie gesagt, bei HI war sein Name sehr wohl ein Thema, gerade wegen seiner Aktivität bei Forbes wollte man ihn einladen.

Ich lade zum Lesen ein, es lohnt sich. Was waren die Absichten Lakeleys, ging es wirklich nur um eine Einladung? Zuletzt hört man desöfteren "it smells fishy", ich vernehme hier auch einen seltsamen Geruch, kann mir aber keinen Reim darauf machen.

Grüße
Andreas

Anonymous said...

Another example of WMC's brilliant prose and his behavior as a Wiki gatekeeper (not to mention some interesting psychological traits):

"note, BTW, how the poor dear septics don't even bother trying to edit the page any more, having been crushed so often by the Mailed Fist): "

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/does_anyone_care_about_theon.php

Rob Dekker said...

MikeR @Rob Dekker 144: So if I understand you right, this billions of dollars anti-climate conspiracy includes every conservative or libertarian organization in the United States.

No, Mike, you did not understand me right. In fact, all of the statements you made ("billions of dollars", "anti-climate conspiracy" and "every conservative or libertarian organization in the United States") were from you, and not from me.

Your response is called setting "strawman" arguments, and as you very well (should) know, is a logical fallacy. In other words, they do NOT add anything to the conversation, and in fact are typically set by people who have no facts to back up their argument, or have no argument at all.

So, if you have something constructive to add to the conversation, then please try again, this time without strawmans.

Thanks.

Alex Harvey said...

MikeR,

You write,

"They could just as easily be a team from the Heartland Institute."

Well, I reject this. There is no evidence outside the faked memo, that I am aware of, that any folk from Heartland have behaved in a manner comparable to that of some alarmists. In fact, it is not clear to me that they have done anything that should be regarded as "unethical" at all, although I may change my mind on this point.

As far as I can see, the worst allegations that have emerged against Heartland themselves are the "K-12 curriculum" issue and small salaries paid to a small number of skeptics to produce the NIPCC report. In the case of Craig Idso, it might be argued that it's not a small salary; okay.

I do not see how either of these allegations compares with what we have seen from the other side.

* On K-12 curriculum, does anyone deny that alarmists have also attempted to influence the curriculum in high schools in a way consistent with their beliefs? Does anyone deny that alarmists have attempted to scare children for the sake of implementation of their preferred policy? Is that morally okay? Do we all recall the 10:10 "no pressure" video with little children being blown up if they don't agree with climate change?

Go to google now, and type in "teaching children about climate change". One document I found is
http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm

In point #1 we see iconic Mann / IPCC TAR hockey stick, with a perflectly flat blade follow the curve of CO2 emissions. The LIA and MWP have indeed been erased. There is no mention that the warming caused up to about 1960 is thought to be primarily caused naturally.

Later the question is asked about why there is a controversy. Children in this course are told the only reason there is a controversy is that some poor communication and funding by the shadowy special interest groups.

Now did Heartland hope to correct some of this bias and replace with something more accurate? Or did they plan to teach that climate change is a hoax? I suspect, more likely, the former. Even if they believe that climate change is a hoax (and some of them presumably do), they would be stupid if they think they could have a school curriculum changed to say this. So, it seems more likely to me that they simply want to remove from the curriculum an inaccurate alarmist bias. If I am right about this, then is this in any way unethical? And if they do want to change the curriculum to teach that climate change is a hoax, then that would be a bit whacky, but then is it any worse than creationists wanting to teach creationism? It's not "unethical", although I guess it creates a problem for society. Because, they believe what they believe, presumably, in good faith.

Alex Harvey said...

(continued)

* On the salaries paid to Craig Idso, Fred Singer and the Australian Bob Carter (and tiny amounts paid to a few others), what to make of this? Craig Idso said that his funding is already declared inside the NIPCC report (I haven't checked but assume he is telling the truth). The question then becomes, do these scientists, through their funding, have a conflict of interest? I say, probably. Is a conflict of interest unethical? Not necessarily. (And if it is, it hardly even compares to the sort of conflict of interest in using Wikipedia to write the biographies of your personal enemies.) And how does this compare with recent discoveries of similar conflicts of interest within the IPCC? (e.g. scientists simultaneously working for Greenpeace, hydro energy companies, and so on). It appears to be far less dishonest than in the case of the IPCC. Everyone already knows that NIPCC is a skeptic organisation, it concedes this plainly, and it was not a secret that it received some funding from interest groups. As to exactly who gets what, that might be a bit unclear. But without the independent investigation of people like Steve McIntyre we would never have known about the extent to which these advocacy organisations had infiltrated the IPCC.

Alex Harvey said...

(continued)

Let's also compare how skeptics behave in Wikipedia. Bam above brought up the editor Lumidek, who I happen to know is in real life the Czech physicist and arch-climate change skeptic Luboš Motl.

In one way, Luboš has one thing in common with William Connolley: he runs a blog where he regularly attacks the people that he disagrees with. His writing is over the top, although I think most people know he's not entirely serious.

So let's have a look at what Luboš Motl has been doing in Wikipedia.

His contributions begin here, around the same time as William Connolley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Lumidek

Evidently, Luboš's primary motivation for joining the Wikipedia community has been to teach theoretical physics to the people of the world, and other subjects.

He has occasionally ventured into the climate change area, and has politely expressed unorthodox opinions, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=3715875

Let's look at this first clash with William Connolley:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_warm_period&diff=prev&oldid=3979759
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_warm_period&diff=prev&oldid=3980317
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medieval_warm_period&diff=prev&oldid=3983724
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=3983589

Who is biased there? It appears to me that Luboš was far more interested in neutrality, and willing to compromise, than Connolley and his supporters ever were.

And I challenge anyone to show me a professional skeptic scientist who has ever invaded Wikipedia for the purpose of taking over a page with their own bias. Only one side does that.

Rob Dekker said...

Alex,
You make a lot of good points, and I understand that this debate raging in the blogoshoere can be extremely confusing, from both sides, I would say.

I have experience with both Motl and with Connolley. For starters, after the Lindzen and Choi 2009 paper was hyped on Fox News as "the end of the AGW scam", Motl backed me up when I pointed out the blatant mistake of counting the Boltzmann radiation as a 'negative' climate feedback.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html

This finding actually led to a disagreement between Spencer and Lindzen, and Lindzen admitted his mistakes after Trenberth pointed them out in Trenberth et al 2010.
So much for "the end of the AGW scam"...

But Motl is a two-edged sword, since he easily resorts to ad-hominems when you point out the inconsistencies in his arguments. See the comment section in this post, where he calls Arctic sea ice decline "breathtakingly idiotic propagandistic proclamations ", calling names and claiming that I hold a "obsessive religion - which is as hostile and dangerous as the radical Islamism".

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/co2-and-ice-free-arctic-summer-2100.html

Regarding Connolley, anyone who thinks that he is a 'warmist', please let them talk to me. I have a $10,000 sea ice bet with him, where I come out as the 'warmist' and the 'alarmist'.

I think between all the accusations against the IPCC and the political rethoric from bloggers, and the far-out propaganda from the libertarian think tanks, and all the thousands of blog posts and millions of comments are really just confusing the issue.

The only way, at least as I see it, to figure out what is true, and what is nonsense, is to discuss scientific findings themselves.

So the question for everyone is : If you do not agree with the overall IPCC summary of some 18,000 scientific papers, then which scientific papers, ragardless of where they are published, or if they were even peer-reviewed, did you find most convincing to form an opinion opposing the IPCC conclusions ?

If you have some, then let's discuss them, right here, and right now.

Hans von Storch said...

All native English speakers - please use plain English language, not American slang - quite a few here on the Klimazwiebel are not native English speakers. I personally found some terms - e.g., twaddle - not in the vocabulary of my standard scientific English. What are "bullocks"?

Also Dr. Klöben and Herr Müller-Lüdenscheidt speak good, plain German.

Herzlichen Dank für die Rücksichtnahme auf die Tatsache, dass die meisten Menschen auf der Welt eben doch keine Amerikaner oder Engländer sind.

Alex Harvey said...

Dear Hans,

William is British and 'twaddle' and 'bollocks' are British slang. Twaddle is 'Trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense'; the literal meaning of 'bollocks' isn't suitable for publication; colloquial it also means 'nonsense'. :) I used 'whacky' also spelt 'wacky' apparently and it means, "Funny or amusing in a slightly odd or peculiar way: 'a wacky chase movie'", although I intended 'slightly crazy'. I said 'over the top' which means 'goes too far'. I think British English contains far more slang than American. ;-)

Werner Krauss said...

@all

Someone out there has the patience to give a short (chronological) summary what's debated here exactly? The issues at stake, the chronology of the debate, and what is at stake (or how they slowly drift from here to there)?

I would highly appreciate that (and no risk involved - klimazwiebel honors good intentions!).

Anonymous said...

@ Werner

Do you ask for informations about the Gleick or Conolley topic?

For the last I can give a quite short summary:
WC based his work at Wikipedia on mainstream science. One party seems to see therein a scandal, a kind of "gatekeeping". The other party thinks, that's exactly what everyone is supposed to do.


News about Gleick:

Yesterday Heartland released the email exchange, where PG impersonated a HI board member and phished some documents. Interesting development, because PG's phishing email didn't include information from the questioned strategy memo Gleick claims to have received before the documents.

Andreas

Alex Harvey said...

Rob Dekker,

Who am I to disagree with the IPCC? And who am I to disagree with Richard Lindzen and others?

You say there are 18,000 papers - I take it you haven't read all those papers yourself. And do you know how many papers formed the complete set of published papers that 18,000 were selected from? I wouldn't know whether 18,000 is a lot or a few.

I have read the WG1 AR4 report and more recently I have read the zero order drafts of the WG1 AR5 report. As I understand the arguments better, I find that the report gives an impression that the attribution argument is stronger than it really is. It does this by presenting true facts in a way that sometimes mislead the reader. I don't mean to suggest the intention is to mislead, but certainly, I found some of it misleading, when I understood it better.

One simple example is the use of the word 'anthropogenic'. The word is used in a variety of senses. It can be used as a paraphrase of 'anthropogenic global warming' - i.e. Co2 caused warming. But then, the same word is used to describe human aerosol emissions. 'Anthropogenic influence' may mean cooling in the stratosphere and even then it may mean either cooling caused by Co2 increases or cooling caused by ozone depleting substances. Even 'anthropogenic warming' might mean either warming caused by Co2 or warming caused by black carbon aerosols. Thus many lines of evidence are assembled showing an 'anthropogenic influence'. Throughout, this creates an impression - and I am sure even some scientists outside their area of expertise would be confused by this - that these piles of evidence show that atmospheric Co2 is causing the surface warming. And importantly, the fact that some of these lines of evidence - e.g. the stratospheric cooling - do not tell us anything about how much of the warming at the surface is being caused by Co2 is not anywhere explained to the reader.

Accordingly, I would love to read an IPCC report where the argument implicating Co2 influence is given in its raw form, unvarnished.

So asking about papers that the IPCC did or didn't ignore may be beside the point a bit.

Coming back to what I said, I am not qualified to have an opinion one way or the other. So like nearly everyone, it is vitally important that I can trust the scientists writing the reports.

Anonymous said...

@ Werner

"Someone out there has the patience to give a short (chronological) summary"

Everybody expected you to give one.

If not, maybe this will help ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVDx-8kWZo&feature=related


V. Lenzer

Alex Harvey said...

Dear Werner,

I will have a go at resolving the confusion of this bifurcating thread. Note I can't read German so I don't know what is written in German.

The thread was of course about Dr. Gleick's deception until in #38 V. Lenzer mentioned other examples of "cheating and lying in the name of a 'noble cause'".

One of V. Lenzer's examples was William Connolley's activities in Wikipedia. Hans said he did not know anything about this, and a few of us provided further details from divergent perspectives.

In #69, posting as 'Belette', William Connolley himself appeared to tell his side of the story. Another editor 'Bam' seems to be a friend of William's, and has defended William's actions.

Opinions range from Bam on one end of the spectrum, who regards William as righteous and largely blameless. Most people, it is said, simply fail to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Bam accuses Solomon of making it all up, and me of misrepresenting the situation.

At the other end of the spectrum is probably me, believing that what goes on inside Wikipedia, done constantly and without apology by a quite large group of anonymous activists, and mostly without even criticism, is much worse than this incident which may have been just a single lapse by a scientist who subsequently at least admitted it was wrong and foolish.

The discussion about Gleick has continued in parallel to some extent.

Hope that helps!

Reiner Grundmann said...

Coming back to question if Gleick acted ethically, here is a comment from today's Chicago Tribune:

"Gleick may have thought he could undercut Heartland and thereby advance the case for global warming. Instead, he fueled doubts about which side is right in this long-running debate.

That's a shame. Science relies on multiple layers of honesty. They include the honorably conducted gathering and analysis of facts, a perpetual quest for irrefutable evidence supporting conclusions — and trust that everyone is acting with integrity.

When scientific truth becomes sufficiently compelling, it matters little what the critics or skeptics say. It doesn't matter if everyone doesn't believe. Doubters cannot make the Earth flat.

But stunts such as Gleick's — this effort to sully opponents with dishonest tactics — undercuts scientists around the world as they marshal evidence to convince an increasingly skeptical public about the dangers of global warming."

Reiner Grundmann said...

Auch die taz von heute findet, dass Gleick dreckige Tricks benutzt hat. Etwas verwunderlich ist aber der Satz "Damit hat nun auch ein seriöser US-Wissenschaftler im Kampf um die Deutungsmacht im Klimakrieg zu "dreckigen Tricks" gegriffen, die bisher den Skeptikern vorbehalten waren."

Ob der taz climategate entgangen ist? Ich habe die Kommentare der taz damals nicht gelesen, kann mir aber kaum vorstellen, dass sie das alles in Ordnung fand.

Schaut man sich die veroeffentlichte Meinung an, so bleibt George Monbiot allein auf weiter Flur mit seinem trotzigen "Das hat er gut gemacht!". Ob Georg Hofmann ihm darin immer noch folgt?

Anonymous said...

Judith Curry asks "Why target Heartland?" and publishes an Email from Joseph Bast, President of Heartland Institute ...

<a href=“http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland"

Her reflections read ...

"With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered. Okay, maybe the HI are actually the baddest guys in town from the perspective of the alarmists. The irony of Gleick committing professional seppuku over getting information about stuff that is either generally known or suspected or regarded as no big deal. When all he had to do was ask Joseph Bast some questions, and he would have told him all sorts of things (just not the names of the donors, which aren’t all that interesting anyways.)

Richard S.J. Tol weighs in ...

"Who does most damage to the climate movement? Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, Peter Gleick, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri (not necessarily in that order)"

V. Lenzer

Werner Krauss said...

Thanks, Andreas and Alex Harvey! Great service! (I am on travel and don't have much time to follow the comments at length).

Anonymous said...

This comment is in response to Alex Harvey response to Rob Dekker, currently numbered 169.

Alex, I think you confuse with your musings on the term anthropogenic. Online dictionaries simply define "anthropogenic" as "caused by humans".

So the Anthropogenic in AGW stands for that part of observed warming caused by humans.

In fact, the discussion has been confused by the persistent use of the term AGW to represent the potentially catastrophic warming caused by human emissions of CO2, but not other human causes.

Actually, the term AGW properly applied would include all of the land-use impacts on local and regional climate. But it doesn't. And it is very likely that these land-use impacts (refer to Roger Pielke Sr) outweigh the warming coming from anthropogenic CO2. And in any case, cannot be separated. Which suggests just how complex the issue is.

MikeR said...

@Rob Dekker (#160)
"No, Mike, you did not understand me right. In fact, all of the statements you made ("billions of dollars", "anti-climate conspiracy" and "every conservative or libertarian organization in the United States") were from you, and not from me."
Of course they were from me. I didn't claim you said them, I claimed that that was what you were saying. It seems to me that you were presenting a link with a whole lot of organizations that are not really focused on climate, but are simply liberatarian or conservative. Given their bent, many of them may take an anti-AGW position, and may even sometimes do something about that position. That is all understandable, and in America at least those are fairly popular positions. Not a majority, I think, but not far short.

All of that is a far cry from your web of organizations with "hundreds of millions of fossil fuel dollars." I see no evidence for any web, any real connection between these organizations aside from their general agreement politically [and except for a chart where people drew some lines connecting them], any hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to this cause, or any particular fossil fuel connection. That, I think, is the same imaginary conspiracy theory that probably sent Peter Gleick off on his quest against Heartland.

The truth is so much simpler than that. The United States is still a pretty conservative place, at least half of it. That means it is pretty suspicious of scientific theories that push in the direction of things like massive carbon taxes. Any advocate of that has quite a uphill battle to fight. They are also pretty quick to believe the worst of people like Peter Gleick who step out of line, since they start off not liking what he has to say. No conspiracy is needed.

Alex Harvey said...

Anon, #169:

I am well aware of what the word means, but in a theory called "anthropogenic global warming", where we all understand "anthropogenic" as a paraphrase for "caused by greenhouse gases", one would think some care would be taken to distinguish usage of "anthropogenic" in the ordinary sense from this more specific sense.

I am also aware of Roger Pielke Sr's views, although it seems that most regard the albedo forcing from land use changes as very minor compared to the radiative forcing from CO2 and the water vapour and cloud feedbacks.

But look, if the IPCC wants to talk about -all- anthropogenic effects, why stop with changes that affect aspects of temperature and precipitation? We could talk about anthropogenic effects on koala populations in my state of New South Wales. We could talk about pollution in our water.

Clearly, the intent of the detection and attribution chapter is to attribute the cause of global warming - not to talk about observations of human-caused changes in the environment in general. So I find it strange that so many words are devoted to observations of 'anthropogenic influence' - e.g. stratospheric cooling - that do not help to explain what has caused the warming at the surface (or in the oceans for that matter).

Anonymous said...

Alex Harvey. Re your #178. When you say "caused by greenhouse gases" are you including water vapor? I thought not. But water vapor is a greenhouse gas, is it not?

And also, your characterisation of RPSr's views on land-use as being limited to albedo forcing from land-use changes is not actually fair. Spend some time at RPSr's site and you will see that he includes in land-use effects a whole panopaly including deforestation, urbanisation, industrial monoculture agriculture, draining of swamps, and a whole lot of other practices that modify local and regional climate. Think US Dust Bowl of the 1930s, desertification in various places eg Gobi desert encroaching on Beijing, Ural Sea etc etc.

On the other hand, I probably agree with your other points.

Except, I don't think we really know what caused the observed warming up until 1998. Clearly natural factors are at play, as are land use factors (at least on a local and regional basis) and how much is really due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions??

This story has a way to go yet.

Alex Harvey said...

Anon, #179:

Well, the IPCC regards changes in water vapour (and perhaps more controversially, clouds too) as 'feedbacks' rather than 'forcings'. So 'anthropogenic global warming' is supposed to mean 'surface warming caused by the radiative effect of man-made emissions of CO2, and to a lesser extent CH4, N2O and various CFCs'.

On Pielke, I am aware of Pielke's views (I actually am very interested in Pielke's writings). I don't mean to say I think he is wrong, but clearly the IPCC folk don't take him seriously. So it is beside the point to say that Pielke might be right or to point to other possible causes of warming.

Rob Dekker said...

MikeR,
There are 1.4 million 501(c) charity organizations in the US.

If your statement is correct that the "liberatarian or conservative" who "Given their bent, many of them may take an anti-AGW position" and if they are "Not a majority, I think, but not far short", then by blunt statistics, one may assume that there may be some 700,000 501(c)'s that take "the anti-AGW position", and thus you may be right that there are "billions" of dollars supporting that opinion.

Rob Dekker said...

With so much money behind 'libertarian' opinion and news media influence, I am still wondering how the scientific facts summarized by the IPCC, with an annual budget of some $ 10 million can possibly make any difference for public opinion.

Rob Dekker said...

Anonymous # 176 :
And it is very likely that these land-use impacts (refer to Roger Pielke Sr) outweigh the warming coming from anthropogenic CO2.

Please present iRoger Pielke's scientific paper on that issue, since numerous studies show that land-use impacts are minor compared to CO2 forcing :

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-5-3.html

Anonymous said...

@ Rob Dekker

"opinions opposing the IPCC conclusions"

Besides opinions there are real world observations contradicting the IPCC’s scenarios on temperature, sea level rise, precipitation, winter snow, deserts, Malaria, tropical storms, climate refugees, Himalaja glaciers etc.

But you asked for opionions. Here’s a fiew out of hundreds ...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case#.T0eUhlmYO74.email

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/12/please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/yet-another-incorrect-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increase

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipcc-statement-on-trends-in-disaster.html

Rrob Dekker said...

Now that Indur Goklany, Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Interior will be questioned in a House Committee hearing for being payed to write for the Heartland Institute, what are we going to do about the guy who the Heartland planned to pay to write scientific misinformation and outright false statement in the K-12 curriculum ?

This would not be the first time the Heartland (again, payed by the Anonymous Donor) tries to push scientific mis-information into the educational system.

One of the best known Heartland incursions into the schoolyard occurred in 2008, when the institute mailed teaching materials to 11,250 schools in Canada. In 2009, Science derided Heartland for sending copies of "The Skeptic’s Handbook" to 14,000 US school board officials. Heartland's "Environment and Climate New" mocked one school board president for his refusal to use it.

The question is, how much longer will the we allow industrial propaganda, unsustained by scientific findings, to be tought to our children ?

Reiner Grundmann said...

If you want to see how different sources influence public opinion you should study the mass media. We had several exchanges (with literature suggestions) here on Klimaziwebel.

Alex Harvey said...

Rob Dekker,

Sorry what is the budget of the NIPCC? I didn't add up the numbers. Are you saying it's greater than $10 million per year? But of course, you didn't include all the funding of the actual research that the IPCC reviews. So in fact, the money invested into those promoting action on climate change and research sympathetic to the consensus position is indeed in the order of billions, right? Whereas those researching things contrary to the IPCC, e.g. the Svensmark predicament, find they can't get funding at all to do their research.

So can you honestly, with your hand on your heart, tell me you see skeptics getting more funding than the rest of scientists?

Do you believe that skeptics should be completely starved of funding to stop them publishing any research at all? Is it true that what you really want is for them to be completely silenced?

Anonymous said...

@ Rob

I'm not worried about Heartland's plans for K12-curriculum any more. So let Dr. Woijeck do his work on modules (I wonder if he will ever start), the important difference is, that people will know it's a Heartland product. So schools and teachers are able to make their own rational decisions.

Is Heartland a "big player" or do we overestimate its influence? Revkin posted an interesting cartoon:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-other-false-balance-in-the-climate-fight/

Andreas

Karl Kuhn said...

just see this lengthy report, which summarizes the PR budgets of both camps for the US, specifically the cap-and-trade proposal.

http://climateshiftproject.org/report/climate-shift-clear-vision-for-the-next-decade-of-public-debate/#climate-change-advocacy-revenues-spending-and-activities-intro

This is the US, where public opinion is split. In Europe, you can safely expect the greens to be much stronger as the sceptics.

Anonymous said...

We are witnessing the end of the „occupy climate science“ movement. It has lost the PR-battle and Gleick knew that well when he planned his act of desperation.

It’s neither the conservative political opponents nor „big oil“ who have beaten the green activists in the fight for public trust, they did it themselves by exaggerating the catastrophe scenarios and overdoing the cause.

But – and beyond the public controversy on climate issues and longtime before Kopenhagen and Climategate - an allergic reaction could be observed in the academic milieus.

It started in the fields of paleoclimatology and climate history where at last some scientists held up a defensive line against the IPCC’s consensus train. They have been discredited in almost every sense of the word, often enough not by arguments but by ad hominem attacks.

Again and despite some clear warnings this was another symptom of overdoing the case.
At this point many other scientists started to rethink their positions.

Today science seems to be on the road to recovery. A majority of climate scientists admits that there are uncertainties, that consensus is a myth and that a lot of research needs to be done for a better understanding of the climate system.

This recovery, sort of a self-healing process, is widely ignored by the media and the public opinion – but it’s real and neither the Heartland Institute, Peter Gleick, the IPCC, Al Gore or who ever are going to stop it.

V. Lenzer

MikeR said...

@Rob Dekker. Rob, you do understand that the other half of the United States is liberal? And are just as likely to support carbon taxes and pro-AGW teaching in schools and so forth, as the Heartland types are to oppose them? And are just as likely to get support from George Soros as Heartland is to get from the Kochs (which they apparently don't, at least for climate issues)?

But again, all of this is just conspiracy theories. Most of those charity organizations have nothing whatever to do with climate issues. Most non-profits are doing other things. If they are into politics, climate may be at the very bottom of their agendas if at all. It makes no sense to add up their total assets and then start talking about hundreds of millions or zillions of dollars in a massive PR campaign to defeat the IPCC.

"If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Gleick's view of politics may not have much to do with mine.

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 1/8

Einige Erfahrungen aus aufgeregten Kontroversen, die zuletzt wieder beispielsweise über die "'Wissenschaften'","Ziele", "Mittel", "Offenheit" und "Transparenz" des "öffentlichen" IPCC's oder anderer Organisationen geführt wurden und werden, konnten bereits an einem Beispiel eines bekannten "Vorgängermodells" gesammelt werden: In (beziehungsweise zu) dem Weishauptschen Illuminatenorden[0] führten die Mitglieder (beziehungsweise Außenstehende) schon zu Zeiten der „anthropologischen Wende“[1] ähnliche, zum Teil gut dokumentierte[2] aber kaum geschichtsphilosophisch ausgewertete[3], Privatdebatten[4].

_____________

Bis hierher mein Kommentar zu den Ereignissen. Ich möchte besonders noch zwei, drei bescheidene Fragen anschließen, die jedoch ziemlich themenfern sind: So weit ich sehe, quantum est, quod nescimus, sind noch einige Unklarheiten vorhanden. Ein paar Fragen sind für mich hier momentan besonders von Interesse:

Welche Konsequenzen für den Orden folgten aus dem Plan zu einer autarken Illuminaten-(De-)Institutionalisierung[5]?

Und genauer:

Wurde etwas aus dem Plan der Illuminaten, eine Art geheime Klima-Agentur/Klima-Institut[6] zu schaffen, und wenn Ja, Wo ("Deutschland"?), Wie, und durch Wen wurde die Arbeit organisiert?

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 2/8<

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 2/8

Fußnote [0]: Zu den Illuminaten siehe auch den weiteren Haupttext oben oder beispielsweise allgemein in der Klimazwiebel. Die Illuminaten wurden schon vor über zweihundert Jahren von ihren Gegnern und Außenstehenden für fehlende Offenheit und – im heutigen Jargon – mangelnde Transparenz hart kritisiert (Vergleiche etwa bereits Adam Weißhaupts Schriften..., in denen er auf die öffentlich bekannt gewordenen "Skandale" des Ordens mit der klaren Absicht, sie als nicht gerechtfertigte Konstruktionen darzustellen, Bezug nimmt.). Der *zumindest offiziell* nur kurzzeitig aktive Orden, der hinsichtlich seiner Führungsstruktur und Erziehungsmittel von Beobachtern oft als "totalitär" bezeichnet wird (vergleiche etwa Eberhard Schmitt im Vorwort zu Manfred Agethen (1984): Geheimbund und Utopie, Seite 15), fertigte während seines kurzen Bestehens (1776-1785/1993) vor allem Dokumente über seine Mitmenschen an (vergleiche unten Fußnote 6; vergleiche auch W. Daniel Wilson: Geheimräte gegen Geheimbünde (1991), derselbe: Unterirdische Gänge (1999), derselbe Das Goethe Tabu (1999); siehe auch einen Brief Weishaupts an seinen Ordensbruder Franz Xaver Zwack vom 10. März 1778, in dem Weishaupt mitteilt, was in der „gelehrten Akademie“ des Illuminatenordens im Speziellen getrieben werden soll (veröffentlicht in Reinhard Markner et al. (2005): Die Korrespondenz des Illuminatenordens, Seite 36): „in specie mach ich darinnen jeden zum Spion des andern, und aller.“ Vergleiche auch beispielsweise Eberhard Schmitts Beschreibung der illuminatischen Tätigkeit als „penetrante Bespitzelung“ (siehe Agethen (1984), Seite 14)), dokumentierte aber auch Klimageschehen und Anderes. Mit wenigen, zum Teil unwesentlichen Einschränkungen, können die Ziele und Mittel des Illuminatenordens in vielen Punkten als Modell bei der Einführung und Umsetzung des IPCC's Pate gestanden haben.

Ein Vergleich zwischen dem IPCC und den Illuminaten ist nur mit gewissen Einschränkungen möglich: der als Geheimbund – und durch die fast ausschließliche Führung durch Weishaupt als Privatmann – strukturierte Orden war in dieser Hinsicht grundsätzlich anders angelegt als der/das IPCC, der/das den Anspruch erhebt, ein herausragendes Beispiel für Offenheit und Transparenz zu sein. Ein weiterer Unterschied besteht darin, dass der Orden im Gegensatz zum IPCC nicht nur unter anderem das Dokumentieren und/oder Analysieren von Klimaveränderungen bezweckte, sondern auch das Forschen. Der Orden zur "Vervollkommnung" verstand sich als eine Akademie, in der nicht nur akademisch gelehrt, sondern auch praktisch gearbeitet wurde (vergleiche Jan Rachold (1984): Die Illuminaten, Seite 14); während Lehre und Forschung nicht zu den Aufgaben des IPCC's gehören, sollte der Orden an sich eine Forschungs- und Bildungsinstitution sein (vergleiche Peggy Pawlowski (2004): Der Beitrag Johann Adam Weishaupts zur Pädagogik des Illuminatismus, Seite 118). Die (Erziehungs-)Institute der Illuminaten waren im Wesentlichen auf Stifter und Mäzene angewiesen (vergleiche im Allgemeinen Agethen 1984, Seite 169; vergleiche im Speziellen Markner 2005, Brief von Adolf Knigge an Weishaupt (15-22. Juni 1781), Seite 325). Außerdem kann der Eindruck gewonnen werden, dass die Illuminaten ungleich mehr Arbeit darauf verwendeten, die Menschheit zu beruhigen, als der/das IPCC.

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 3/8<

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 3/8

Fortsetzung von Fußnote [0]: Einige Parallelen zwischen beiden Organisationen lassen sich ziehen. Die Illuminaten verkörperten zwar nur eine unter vielen weiteren ebenso um- wie zerstrittenen, ((so genannten) wissenschaftlichen) Organisationen. Aber mit den Illuminaten entstand weltweit eine der ersten Organisationen, die, beziehungsweise deren Führungsebenen, explizit die Untersuchungen des Klimas und des menschlichen Einflusses auf selbiges zur Agenda erhoben; ihr Fazit – falls es so bei einer Versuchsdauer von unter zehn Jahren genannt werden kann – lautete: Menschen verursachen einen (stetig positiver werdenden!) Klimawandel (Ich wäre für den Nachweis einer vor-illuminatischen Organisation, die einen menschengemachten Klimawandel postulierte, zu Dank verbunden (vergleiche auch dort #48 und #49).). Auch als die möglicherweise wieder weltweit erste Organisation zielte der elitaristische Geheimbund unter anderem wie der/das IPCC darauf ab, institutionell die aussichtsreichsten Fachleute aus allen relevanten Wissenschaften – zumindest bei den Illuminaten vor allem aus den eigenen Reihen oder in Hinsicht auf illuminatische Ziele – zu identifizieren und zum "Zweck", der "Perfektionierung", zu vernetzen. Eine Anlehnung an "meritokratische" Strukturen wird dieser wie jener Organisation attestiert (Zu den Illuminaten vergleiche etwa Eberhard Schmitt (Agethen 1984), Seite 15: Der Geheimbund tendierte zu einer „'Meritokratie' gemischt-ständischer Eliten“ (Zu "Meritokratie" oder Elitarismus und zu Eliten allgemein siehe hier).). Quasi unisono zählten seit Beginn beide Organisationen, der Illuminatenorden und der/das IPCC, die Evaluierung von Informationen, Weltverbesserung, Perfektionierung und vieles mehr zu ihren Zielen, zu ihrem übergeordneten "Zweck", dem Grund ("the cause") (wobei im Fall der Illuminaten besonders die Wissensschaffung ein wichtiges Ziel war).

Ein langfristiges Ziel beider Organisationen bestand von Anfang an darin, "pädagogisch wertvolles" Handeln einzuleiten. Doch obwohl die dazu notwendige Vertrauensbildung von Beginn an ein viel diskutiertes Planziel beider Organisationen war, riefen ihre "Pläne" damals wie heute auch starkes Misstrauen und politische Reaktionen hervor – die Zeit der Illuminaten fällt zusammen mit der Verbreitung der Reformisten, dem Aufkeimen des Progressivismus', des Liberalismus', der „Geburt des Konservativismus“. Beiden Organisationen wurde mehr oder weniger deutlich die Absicht unterstellt, einen „Marsch durch die Institutionen“ geplant zu haben (was an Karl Marx erinnert) (Im Falle der Illuminaten vergleiche zum Beispiel Agethen 1984 (Seiten 11, 13 und 15).). Besonders ein Vorwurf, der erneut beide Einrichtungen traf, wiegt schwer: „Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel“; obwohl diese angeblich jesuitische Methode weder in den Schriften der Illuminaten noch des IPCC's (und auch nicht bei den jesuitischen Schriften) so steht, wurde beiden (beziehungsweise allen dreien) eine Vorgehensweise nach dieser Maxime nachgesagt. Und hüben wie drüben wären die Mitarbeiter nur „Mittel zum Zweck“. Der/das IPCC und die Illuminaten fungierten quasi seit Beginn an den Schnittstellen zur politischen Einflussnahme. Beiden Organisationen wurde seit jeher das Mittel des "Politisierens" vorgeworfen. Für die Ziele beider Organisationen fanden sich Philantropen, die die Organisationen unterstützten.

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 4/8<

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 4/8

Fortsetzung von Fußnote [0]: Mitglieder beider Institutionen haben durchblicken lassen, dass sie sich ein möglichst diskretes Vorgehen zum Erreichen ihrer Ziele wünschten. Innere wie äußere Umstände trugen dazu bei, dass der Versuch Weishaupts', mittels dieses Geheimordens eine allgemeine “Vervollkommnung“ zu ermöglichen, vielerorts ein sehr baldiges Ende fand.
Nach Weishaupts Ansicht, die oft als utopisch bezeichnet wird (vergleiche etwa Agethen: Geheimbund und Utopie), bewirke die zunehmende Industrialisierung und eine Vergrößerung der Zahl der Erdbewohner – die unter Leitung des Ordens beziehungsweise unter Führung des so genannten Generals Weishaupt stehen – eine Verbesserung aller Umstände.

Weishaupts nur schemenhaften „klimato- bzw. metereologischen“ Kenntnisse und seine prägende Vormachtstellung (Weishaupt wurde kaum in seiner Ordens-"Macht" begrenzt!) führten dazu, dass der menschliche Einfluss auf seine Umgebung im Allgemeinen und auf das Klima im Besonderen überschätzt beziehungsweise nur oberflächlich beschrieben oder "generalisierend" analysiert wurde (vergleiche den "Philosophengrad" der Illuminaten). Klima ist bei Weishaupt nicht Zweck, sondern nur Mittel.

Fußnote [1]: „Eine Hauptlinie des Denkens in der anthropologischen Wende tendiert dazu, die civil society als institutionsfreie bürgerliche Gesellschaft vorwegzunehmen und diese Gesellschaft bzw. ihre bisherige und zukünftige Geschichte als autoregulierendes System zu begreifen bzw. zu setzen [Siehe Vorwort von Monika Neugebauer-Wölk in Markner et al. (2005), Seite VII; unsere Fettschrift].“

Fußnote [2]: Hier von mir nur allgemein zur internen Dokumentation: Das Informations- und Dokumentationswesen des Ordens beruhte auf einem Netzwerk von in der Regel „unbekannten Oberen“. Die Mitglieder trafen sich bei exklusiven Versammlungen und/oder kommunizierten mittels zirkulierender Briefe, die versiegelt und teilweise verschlüsselt wurden. Die von den Mitgliedern anzufertigenden und regelmäßig zu versendenden Monatshefte, die Quibus licet, beanspruchten einen wesentlichen Zeitanteil der Ordensarbeit. Sie dienten zusammen mit den conduite-Tabellen, „Tabellen, die als ,statistisches' Instrumentarium zur Erfassung von Daten zu den einzelnen Mitgliedern verwendet wurden“ (Pawlowski 2004, Seite 7), den “Oberen“ zur Beurteilung der Erfolgsaussichten. (Durch die vielen Tabellen, die von den Mitgliedern geführt wurden, und durch die Quibus licet, erinnert die Struktur der Illuminaten an ein stringent angewendetes Quality Management System; Siehe auch den Brief Weishaupt an Zwack vom 2. April 1781 (Markner 2005, Seite 271): „Und vor allem, dass die Tabellen eingeführt werden. Denn sie werden es selbst noch einsehen, sie sind das Fundament von allem. Was wollen sie, oder ein anderer Oberer gründliche Verfügungen treffen, wenn sie die Quantität und Qualität ihrer Leute nicht kennen?“ Vergleiche zum Quantifizieren und Qualifizieren auch Pawlowski 2004, Seite 147.

Fußnote [3]: Agethen (1984, Seite 112) meint zum Beispiel: „Das eigentlich Wichtige an der illuminatischen Geschichtsphilosophie ist das Postulat einer im Geheimen organisierten Bildungs- und Wissenschaftselite als eines konstitutiven Bestandteils im göttlichen Heilsplan und damit als unabdingbar für politischen und gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt auf christlicher Grundlage.“

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 5/8<

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 5/8

Fußnote [4]: Für den Einfluss durch Mittel von Privatpersonen auf die Wissenschaften und die Regierung fand der Lehrer, Theologe (Pastor), Philosoph, Dichter und Denker Johann Gottfried Herder (siehe zu Herder zum Beispiel allgemein in der Klimazwiebel), ein späterer Illuminat, positive Worte. In Herders von der Berliner Akademie 1780 zur Siegerin gekürten Dissertation zur Preisfrage Quelle a été l'influence du Gouvernement sur les Lettres chez les nations où elles ont fleuri? Et quelle a été l'influence des Lettres sur le Goevernement? schrieb er unter dem Titel Vom Einfluss der Regierung auf die Wissenschaften, und der Wissenschaften auf die Regierung leicht übertreibend (siehe Herder, Sämtliche Werke (herausgegeben von Bernhard Suphan 1893), Band IX, Seiten 307-408, 351; Hervorhebungen im Original):

„Sobald also die Religionsstreitigkeiten und Wortkritik abgährte, kam der Physischmathematische Geist empor. Die ersten Erfindungen und Versuche waren Unternehmungen von Privatpersonen: denn das Genie ist bestimmt, sich immer selbst seinen Weg zu bahnen. Baco's Atlantis fand beim sophistischen König Jacob kein Gehör; er selbst stand als Canzler und nicht als Philosoph in Betrachtung. Cartesius war aus seinem Vaterlande verbannet: Copernikus entdeckte sein Himmelssystem erst am Tage seines Todes und Galiläi mußte wegen seinen Himmelsentdeckungen Ketten tragen. Es ist bekannt, daß Harvei wegen seiner Erfindung verklagt ward, und wie lange hat Newtons System kämpfen müssen, ehe es Zutritt in Gallien fand! Ueberhaupt ist's der Regierung vielleicht nicht zuzumuthen, daß sie sich der Wissenschaft in ihrer Empfängniß und Geburt annehme; genug, daß sie das gesunde, durch Mutterkraft geborne Kind nur aufnehme, erziehe und zu ihrem Dienst verwende. Als die Erfindungen vollbracht waren, entstanden Akademien und Societäten: und auch von diesen waren die ersten beinahe das Werk von Privatpersonen.“

Schon zu Beginn seiner schriftstellerischen Tätigkeiten hatte Herder sich auch mit Klimathemen beschäftigt (Seine Theorien etwa von 1765 (Herders Fragmente einer Abhandlung über die Ode, Suphan 1899. Band XXXII, S. 63f) zur morgenländischen Sprache in Zusammenhang mit dem orientalischen Klima (vergleiche auch hier) hatte Herder bekanntlich unter anderen von Johann Joachim Winckelmann (vergleiche Arnold E. Berger (1903): Der junge Herder und Winckelmann, Seite ...) In Herders oben erwähnten Schrift, Vom Einfluss der Regierung..., verknüpft er im ersten Kapitel schon in den ersten beiden Absätzen das Klima mit der Antwort (siehe Suphan 1893, Band IX, Seite 311, Erste Frage. In wie fern und auf welche Art hat die Regierung auf Wissenschaften gewirkt, bei den Völkern, wo diese blühten?):

„Es ist ausgemacht, daß nicht alle Wissenschaften zu jeder Zeit, unter jedem Volk und Clima geblühet haben: nur hie und da und jetzt und dann, und meistens immer nur auf kurze Zeit ward ihr edelster Geist sichtbar. Das Licht der Wissenschaften hat nur einen schmalen Streif der Erde und auch ihn nur Farben- und Periodenweise berühret.

Woher nur diese Seltenheit und schnelle Abwechslung? Durchs Clima? Die Länder, wo die Wissenschaften blühten und verblühten, veränderten ihr Clima nicht, oder wenig: […] Kurz, warum wollen wir theilen, was die Natur verband? Clima mag immer das Erdreich sein, in dem der Same der Wissenschaft wächst, wo er hie und da besser gedeihet: Nationalcharakter mag die Art des Samens näher bestimmen, der in solcher und solcher Gestalt hie und da vorkommt.“

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 6/8<

Anonymous said...

Teil 6/8

Fortsetzung von Fußnote [4]: Herder verweist im Folgenden in einigen Unterkapiteln (Vom Einfluß des väterlichen Regiments auf den Keim der Wissenschaften. und Vom Einfluß freier Gesetzgebungen auf Wissenschaften und Künste.) weiter auf das Klima. Im Schlusskapitel (Allgemeine Betrachtungen von Veränderung der Wissenschaften, nachdem sich die Regierungen verändert.) zur ersten Frage (siehe oben) greift er im letzten Absatz sowohl auf den Nationalcharakter als auch auf das Klima zurück, Begriffe, die er in der Einleitung (siehe oben) zu der Wirkung der Regierung auf die Wissenschaft berücksichtigte (siehe Suphan 1893, Band IX, Seite 376 (Hervorhebungen im Original)):

„Daß die Natur nie ersterbe, kann man sicher annehmen. Daß sie zu allen Zeiten, auch unter verschiedenen Völkern und Nationalcharaktern edle Keime wecke, ist ebenso gewiß und oft in den größten Mißbräuchen bewiesen. Nur daß diese Keime oft keine gute Stelle finden, daß es an Zuständen fehlt: jetze dieses, jetze ein anderes Talent zu üben, ihm Würksamkeit und Wettstreit zu verschaffen – nur daß, dünkt mich, (Clima und Nationalcharakter nicht ausgeschlossen) macht den größten Unterschied der Wissenschaften und Zeiten.

In einem langen Brief Knigges an Weishaupt vom 11. Januar 1781 werden die "Einflüsse", wenn auch etwas kryptisch, in römisch VIII, Punkt 13, ähnlich zusammengefasst (vergleiche Markner 2005, Seiten 200-211, 206):

„Woher kömmt der National-Character? Von ihrer Organisation, Einfluß des Clima darauf.“ (sic!)

Knigge versucht im obigen Brief auch zu beschreiben, wie er sich die Maschine vorstellt, von der er an anderer Stelle in einem Brief an Weishaupt am 10. August. 1781 (mit einem noch nicht recht rezipierten Zitat) schreibt (vergleiche Markner 2005, Seite 255):

„Die Menschen sind wahrhaftig nur Maschienen.“ (sic!)

Das letzte Zitat findet sich bei einem späten Freund Herders, Jean Paul, in abgewandelter Form 1785 in einem Titel wieder (Paul, Sämmtliche Werke (Herausgeber: Eduard Behrend (1932)), hisorisch-kritische Ausgabe, 2. Abteilung Nachlaß, 2. Band, Ausgearbeitete Schriften 1783-1785, Seiten 439-441):

Menschen sind Maschinen der Engel

Unter dieser Überschrift erzählt der junge Jean Paul eine kurze, skurrile Satire, die mit folgenden Hinweis endet:

„Vor einigen Jahren wurde von H. Changeux in Paris (Magazin des Buch- und Kunsthandels 12 St. 1780) der sogenante Barometrograph erfunden, der die Veränderungen der Schwere der Luft nicht blos wie ein gewöhnliches Barometer angiebt, sondern sie auch auf eine Woche lang Tag und Nacht aufschreibet : diese Maschine sol, wie es nur zu deutlich scheint, die Gelehrten brodlos und entbehrlich machen, die bisher die Buchhalter der Atmosphäre waren und von iedem Tage eine Biographie ausfertigten. Ich glaube aber schwerlich ‹wol nicht›, daß der Barometrograph des Changeux den Barometrograph der Engel ‹die Gelehrten› verdrängt. Denn diese Barometrographen, die sich von den Engeln herschreiben, — die Gelehrten — sind viel besser. Die Maschine des Ch. führet über die Veränderungen der Luft das Protokol nur 8 Tage lange; die Maschinen der Engel hingegen sezen diese Niederschriften so lange, als sie zusammengefügt verbleiben, fort und man hat Gelehrte aufzuweisen, die noch im achtzigsten Jahre d(em) Barometer nachschrieben. Dazu geben die Gelehrten — welches die [Maschinen des Ch.] offenbar nicht können — die Wetterbeobachtungen hernach in den Druk...

namenlos

>Siehe weiter unten Teil 7/8<

Anonymous said...

Cursing "The Cause"? – oder: Zweckbestimmung am Modell der Illuminaten (Version Februar 2012)

Teil 7/8 und vorerst letzter Teil

Fortsetzung von Fußnote [4]: „Die Maschinen der Erde müssen fast alzeit den Maschinen der Engel den Vorrang lassen und man thut ienen nicht zu viel, wenn man behauptet, daß sie, so wie die Schönheiten der Erde nach Plato blosse Abdrükke der Schönheiten im Himmel sind, blosse Nachahmungen und schwache Kopien der Maschinen sind, die die Engel erdacht : ienes Frauenzimmer ‹Maschine› z.B., das Klavier ‹spielt›, ist höchstens eine glükliche Kopie der weiblichen Maschinen, die das Klavier schlagen und die Töne mit Bewegungen begleiten, die offenbar Rührung zu verrathen scheinen [:Jean Paul; siehe weiter oben].“

Fußnote [5]: Zum illuminatischen Versuch, eine autarke Institution, die unter Umständen andere (Erziehungs-)Institutionen unterwandert, vergleiche Pawlowski (2004), Seiten 114 und 118.

Fußnote [6]: „Neben empirisch-statistischen Übungen wie dem Anlegen von Klimatabellen oder dem Erstellen von Geburts- und Sterberegistern soll v.a. die Beobachtung und Analyse des Nebenmenschen betrieben werden – gleichsam als Fundament jeglichen wissenschaftlichen Analysierens überhaupt [siehe Agethen 1984, Seite 150].“

namenlos

Anonymous said...

Illuminaten
????????!!!!!!!

Des Rätsels Lösung: offenbar hat der "Honigmann" zugeschlagen ...

http://derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/ziel-der-illuminaten-schaffung-einer-neuen-gehorsamen-menschenart-die-durch-patent-den-nwo-korporationen-gehort

Was immer er geraucht hat, es kann nicht legal sein.

V. Lenzer

Rob Dekker said...

MikeR : Rob, you do understand that the other half of the United States is liberal? And are just as likely to support carbon taxes and pro-AGW teaching in schools and so forth, as the Heartland types are to oppose them?

Liberals and conservatives have different opinions on many issues, including AGW, and that is fine. That's what politics is about.

But science is not a democracy.

What makes the Heartland types different from other 'educational and reseach' institutions is that they deliberatly and consistently use and create verifiably false or misleading or cherry-picked scientific information, and present that as 'science' into the political debate, the media, and also into the classroom.

In short, they are a tax-exempt PR firm that you can hire to spread lies that sustain your industrial interests.

Yes Hans, I read your definition for 'lying' and 'lies', and in this case, I think that is verifiably an accurate description of many of the Heartland's statements.

I don't know of ANY liberal (let alone a 'research and educational') organization that even comes close to the Heartlands disrespect for science and factual information (and even actively engages in intimidation against scientists and those opposing their mis-information). Please let me know if you know one.

And they are not the only ones. Mashey counted 48 501(c)(3)s spread the most effective mis-information on climate change to please their (anonymous) clients. At that is at least $ 330 million annually.

Free market mechanisms are good in increasing effectiveness and efficiency in providing any product, including selling lies, mis-information and 'doubt'.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 272   Newer› Newest»