As I sat down to read the latest gossip before doing something more useful, little did I realise that today would reveal the story that is the final nail in the Global warming scandal.
Deniergate started when someone released a number of documents of which some appear to be genuine Heartland Documents and one clearly isn’t (and there’s no way a professional organisation would produce something like that).
Like climategate there has been a scandal, there may even have been some law breaking (but what was the release of the UEA emails?) But the real scandal is that so many journalists from the Guardian to the Black Propaganda at the BBC were ready and willing to print this story without checking the facts.
Black even went as far as to overtly attempt to stir this up into a “deniergate” – attempting to suggest that the “deniers” had been shown to have been denying, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything these documents show a rather modest lobby organisation, which has major interests in lobbying for tobacco, and quite small interests lobbying against global warming WITH NO APPARENT OIL MONEY.
Even the UEA has more money than the Heartland institute. No doubt WWF, Greenpeace, most big oil companies (who are all into wind up to their armpits), the IPCC … I even read that the government is spending some 300million in the UK alone supporting global warming “research” aka propaganda.
Indeed, perhaps the most embarrassing fact is the Micro$oft who have made quite a thing of their “green” credentials have been funding the Heartland institute.
So, where is the scandal? The real scandal is the poor quality journalism pushing black propaganda and trying to label a whole group of people who are sceptical of this poor quality journalism as [holocaust] “deniers”.
This is what “deniergate” means. It is the scandalous behaviour of overtly eco-zealot and biased journalists in organisations like the BBC (where they have a legal requirement to be impartial and report honestly). It is the way they have consistently and intentionally taken every scrap of junk supporting their view and pumped it up into the most enormous lie … without a hint of reprimand from those who are supposed to ensure they act honestly and impartially.
Deniergate is the scandal of a group of journalists who have pushed this label “denier” using every bit of black propaganda to hand … who have finally been caught out for their poor quality journalism pushing fraudulent documents in support their pathetic politics against the whole raft of evidence. Evidence that cannot be denied. Evidence that clearly shows e.g. that extreme weather events are not increasing, or that global temperatures have not increased this decade, or more importantly climate scientists have been just as bad at predicting impending global warming as they were at predicting impending global cooling.
Addendum
I was struck by this comment on bishop hill which I think deserves highlighting:
- We await confirmation.
- It is not important enough to report on.
- The emails were stolen and we don’t report on such matters in this way.
With FakeGate we had;
- Stuff confirmation
- This of huge importance we have to report
- So what if the documents were stolen, and
- So what if they are fake.
You are dealing with institutional and ideological bias at the Guardian and the BBC. Lies matter to these people.
I can’t believe the bare-faced hypocracy over the ‘stolen’ nature of the documents. Back in 2009 when they were trumpeting Climategate, Heartland said:
The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.
So no problem there with the illegal way the documents were obtained.
Now, consider that the Heartland documents were NOT stolen or hacked, but were released by a whistleblower from within, presumably a disgruntled employee sickened by the duplicity of their employer. What hypocracy to countenance the UEA server hack and then wax furious about the naughty naughty people who dared to release and disseminate Heartlanad’s private documents.
The [snip] set the tone with the UEA thefts, but they really don’t like it when they get their own back, do they? Well, get used to it. Tens of thousands of good people are sick of the denial conspiracy, and it looks like the gloves might be coming off.
Scots Renewables, you obviously are unaware that someone sent an email to the institute posing as a director asking for the board papers to be resent.
From this it would appear there is clear proof of obtaining documents by deception. It is also widely accepted by sceptics and none sceptics that one paper was forged.
Finally, there is nothing in these papers which would amount to a public interest for their publication. The lobbyist were doing what you expect lobbyists to do.
About the only news from this is that BIG OIL is not funding them as has been claimed.
Here is some relevant clauses from the PCC
1 Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
*Privacy i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
SR, you don’t know it was an employee. Heartland claims it was someone pretending to be someone else and tricking an employee into sending out the documents (bar one forgery). I accept that the same could apply to Climategate and have never got that worked up by those who claim it was a hack. We won’t know till we know.
As for hypocrisy, why not, it seems to be all the rage these days. If Al Gore, Hansen and Richard Branson are back from their fossil fuelled trips to see the South Pole melt, you could ask them about it. Personally I’m only sad that Anthony Watts’ new project got smeared. Those sorts of things don’t come cheap and let’s face it, the warmist camp has the rest of the money stitched up tight. Presenting data in a more user friendly form is a GOOD thing. Period.
I can never work out why greens, anti capitalists, anti nukes, left wingers, warmists, etc think that only people who believe their side are genuine/nice and those who support the other viewpoints must be deluded, corrupted, evil or mad. Why can’t you guys just accept that not everybody thinks the way you do? While I have no doubt oil companies and big businesses don’t have my best interests at heart, equally I don’t think they’re out to destroy the world. The ‘good’ side however is quite determined to destroy the subjects of their ire. That makes them a lot of enemies because they want to destroy modern affluence and most of us have come to like it.
As for the amounts of money involved, boy, how embarrassingly small (especially as the money is for many more lobbying issues than AGW).
Come on Scottish Renewables, aren’t you bemused that despite the humungous sums spent pushing CAGW and the piddly small sums spent on scepticism, your side is losing ground? Consider those subjects that AGW scepticism are compared with – tobacco cancer link, AIDS/HIV, flat Earth, creationism, etc. All of these show declining support amongst the educated masses, whereas AGW doubts continue to grow. There’s a good reason. The change is not coming because of Heartland, GWPF, Mark Morano, Fox or the Koch brothers (who the Heck are they anyway?) it’s due to the weakness of the arguments on your side.
Instead of gloating over a few emails, warmists should be demanding that their own house be put in order. After all, you guys keep telling us that we only have a few days/weeks/months/years to cut CO2. A good start would be to recognise that sceptics don’t ‘undermine’ climate science, they merely point out where climate science undermines itself. Some may say that that is a nefarious activity, others wonder why they weren’t told in the first place.
What a desperate article.
It is simply jaw-dropping that some people will actualy try to DEFEND these ruthless self-centred barefaced liars.
[That is completely unfounded libel and I would appreciate it if you commit libel on your own website]
Too late chum. Of course none of this is news to anyone who has been closely involved in countering the attacks on climate science but now the whole world knows to what depths the denial industry is prepared to sink to protect their profits.
About time too.
“ruthless self-centred barefaced liars” – you see, there you go making judgements on people without knowing them. I’ll confess, I do the same about your side. I assume that while you passionately believe in your cause, you’re doing precious little about your own carbon footprint. I think it’s called pigeon holing.
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you think capitalism is bad, that mankind is something of a planetary virus and that despite benefiting from hundreds of years of fossil fuelled, capitalistic, semi peaceful society, you are quite prepared to throw all that out because of a perception of catastrophe and evil. Actually I assume you want somebody else to throw it out while maintaining your current lifestyle. I might even imagine that you’ve got vanity solar panels on the roof, brag about how much you recycle and eat organic food, all of which do precious little to cut CO2 and to some extent increase emissions.
Aren’t we naughty to assume stuff about other people?
What a laugh! After all this time, and with no expense spared on investigation, Cambridge police have failed to find a hacker. The best forensic studies on line suggest that the “climategate” releases are down to a whistleblower. Whisteblowing is protected by law. All the e-mails have been acknowledged by UEA as genuine.
On the other hand the heartland theft is known to have been achieved by identity theft and the document the warmistas are getting heated about is a forgery..
You loonies should do a bit of research before you start dribbling on the keyboard
In fact we know the Heartland documents were stolen by a fraudster using a fake email address to pose as a Heartland board member – blatantly illegal in any jurisdiction.
The source of the Climategate emails however in still unknown. It could have been a disillusioned insider or a hacker – either of whom might be able to claim a public interest defence since the documents were public property. What we do know is that the emails were not obtained by fraud.
You seem to be totally ignorant of law as well as ethics.
Another possibility is that they simply lost them. Perhaps a staff member took them home to work on, and they lost the USB stick.
However, we should also remember that it hasn’t been proven they were not obtained illegally, so in that respect we should treat them similarly.
The real test comes down to public interest for their release … and the information commissioner’s ruling that the law was broken unquestionably shows a public interest in their publication (at least in part)
What we do know is that the emails were not obtained by fraud.
The difference between hacking – gaining unauthorised access to a computer system to steal documents – and fraud – trickig someone into sending you some documents – is hair splitting of the finest order.
It seems strange to condone one and condemn the other.