Quote of the week – Andrew Bolt nails "Fakegate"

This short post by Bolt really says it all:

If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?

The problem with the great international conspiracy of climate sceptics is that it’s so small and innocent that a disappointed warmist who steals documents from the Heartland Institute finds they must fake the main one to get media attention.

Sounds a bit like their tree-ring research.

Yes, says JoNova, let’s please look at who’s funding who in the climate zoo.

==============================================================

From my perspective, it looks like an act of desperation on the part of DeSmog blog:

Source: Alexa analysis

Meet the man, assistant DeSmogger Brendan De Melle, who took a whole hour to get the documents online from the time received. Speed is more important than fact checking in journo-lism I suppose.

An entire hour. No rush to judgement by this guy.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

yup if I was in charge of the investigation as to who did what to get that email I know where I would start.

RockyRoad

Maybe DeSmog should try adding porn to their site to drive up traffic–their brand of “climate science” certainly isn’t working.

Rose

LOL

I do really appreciate the photograph of Mr. De Melle.
With a suitable degree of enlargement, I can’t think of anything better to line the floor of a birdcage, [snip OK a bit over the top]

John F. Hultquist

That blue curve – That’s from a Livingston & Penn paper, I think. Showing there will be a disappearing act about the middle of 2013.

DaveG

These guys can’t do anything right. They are up to their necks and going down fast.

crosspatch

It’s just pure desperation. They are flailing, they are losing, the numbers aren’t going their way, they have to do something, there are BILLIONS at stake and, besides, they still want to go to those fancy cocktail parties where people fawn all over them.

De Melle’s head is too.full of hair for him to be a proper climate scientist or journalist, although the goatee is on the right path.

Allan MacRae

I repeat:
You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.
The warming alarmists have a near-perfect negative predictive track record – every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.
I wrote the following some weeks ago, not for the first time, and am doing pretty well so far.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/briggs-schools-the-bad-astronomer-on-statistics/#more-55764
Finally Kevin+37, you have demonstrated a near-perfect track record of negative predictive skill – not one of your scary predictions has materialized! Should we then, statistically, disbelieve everything you predict? It appears we should.

At 10:26 PM on 16 Feburary, Allan MacRae had recapitulated:

You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.

While it’s not an absolutely reliable surmise, I have to agree that it’s a generally useful basis upon which to approach the catastrophist caterwaulings of las warmistas.
As Reagan’s speechwriter quoted the old Russian proverb (“doveryai, no proveryai”) when the subject of strategic arms talks was before the public, with these charlatans’ perpetual duplicity and error, their persistently untrustworthy character is a phenomenon which should most assuredly be considered a default property, but their statements must always be subjected to verification instead of being dismissed out of hand.
They’re skilled liars, remember. Any such critter learns that one of the best ways to tell a lie is to retail just enough of the truth in precisely the right way to lead the listener to a blatantly false conclusion.

DirkH

Allan MacRae says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm
“I repeat:
You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”
But it’s amusing to track their shenanigans. Every time I think Climate Politics is becoming boring something outrageous happens, as in, I couldn’t have imagined something that stupid (again).
Go to the Smoggers and you find comments like these right now… well, a few.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm

Tim Ball

In a 27 September 2007 email leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Richard Littlemore, a senior propagandist for Desmogblog, is looking for material to fend off challenges about global temperatures not increasing. He writes; “I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science.”)
With this latest debacle it appears they are not much about PR either.
Desmogblog was set up by James Hoggan who is also Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
and owner of a large PR company. http://www.hoggan.com/

TerryS

Journalists, and I am including Brendan De Melle in this, have a duty to protect their sources. This protection should only extend to a source who does not deliberately lie and forge documents. The moment Brendan’s source provided him with fake documents (s)he lost the right to have their identity protected. Brenden De Melle should now release all information he has regarding his source.

Bruce

Why is it that tree huggers always look like they’ve just been molested by a hardy oak?

Tim;
“we’re all about PR, not about science” is the crux. But in this case, I’d suggest the ‘R’ stands for “Robbery”, not “Relations”!

Adam Gallon

Interesting point raised by one of Lucia’s commentators.
“TerryS (Comment #89910)
February 16th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/#comment-89910

Scottish Sceptic

If the Heartland Institute do not initiate legal action against the BBC and Guardian in the UK, then … well they have to. It was such a blatant smearing using patently false evidence.
Junk sources = junk journalism = junk propaganda.
There will always be idiots who will dream up the next junk source, so the week link in the chain is the junk journalists who print from these junk sources.

Another Ian

Doesn’t WWF stand for
“Waiting for the Wheels to Fall off”?

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

Brendan…another smoking the dijereedooooo type hippy who thinks the world runs on disaster movie physics

James
Alec J

With the Leveson Inquiry into UK Press Standards currently in full swing, could someone get them to consider this shoddy “journalism”? Haven’t been following it too closely myself.
As the Grauniad are trying to set themselves up as being whiter than white in terms of their own standards, the words “petard”, “own”, and “hoist” come to mind….

A Lovell

“DirkH says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm‘”
There is, among the hilarious lies, one nugget of truth:-
“I think the British nation has never been faced with a tragedy like this fellow [Blair].” – Baghdad Bob
“Tim Ball says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm
In a 27 September 2007 email leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Richard Littlemore, a senior propagandist for Desmogblog, is looking for material to fend off challenges about global temperatures not increasing. He writes; “I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science.”)”
They. Have. NO. Shame……………

Less like Fakegate, more like Failgate.

cui bono

This turned into one of those moments where, when the robber open the case with the million dollars, he’s covered with exploding red dye. Gotcha!
Or even better, where the good ordinary citizens arrange for the same thing and help out:

Covered with red dye this time round:
Bloggers who were so entranced by the prospect of dirt on the sceptics that they didn’t check a single thing: DeSmogBlog, Romm, etc.
MSM journos who parroted it without checking a single thing: NYT, Guardian, BBC, etc.
I lodged an official complaint with the BBC re Black. Meh, knowing the BBC.
Next time they try anything like this, it’ll be more like the terrorist who threw the grenade, only to have it hit something, bounce back, and blow his legs off. 🙂

tty

“Curiously, the XMP toolkit used to generate the fake pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
The XMP toolkit used to create one of the elements of desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf was:
“Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26 ”
I am not drawing any conclusions about this, just pointing out the coincidence”
It doesn’t mean anything much, that is a release date, not an installation date.Only that DeSmogBlog probably uses the same scanner driver routine as the faker.

Old Forge

“Waiting for the Wheels to Fall off”?
That’s WW F Off, surely?

DonShock

This reminds me of the fake documents used by Dan Rather to “prove” that George Bush faked his military service. The NYT headline on that story,[url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E1DE1E30F936A2575AC0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=all]”Fake but Accurate”[/url], seems to be what the warmists are trying to push with this fake spin on innocuous business expenses.

Beesaman

The story has vanished from the main BBC science/enviro page and even Mr Black has buried it with an unusual flurry of ‘other’ news on his BBC blog.

cui bono
Jane Coles

“why fake the evidence?”
The unknown ProtaGonist (‘PG’, henceforth) has been reading Mitnick as he flies around the country. Eureka! He will do a Kevin on the crazies at Heartland. He notifies DeSmog that he will soon have the ultimate scoop, one that will destroy denial forever. DeSmog, in turn, alerts Blackshirt, Hackman and others about the existence of amazing stuff that will shortly be delivered to them. PG does his Kevin (successfully! how did that happen?) and begins to read. There’s nothing there. It’s all as dull as ditchwater. What to do? PG’s reputation and even that of DeSmog itself is at risk. Then PG has another eureka moment. He recalls that Democrat operatives had searched long and hard for the Vietnam era military records that they knew would discredit Bush. But they couldn’t be found in time. So necessity became the mother of invention. It wouldn’t be ‘fakery’ or ‘forgery’ — it would merely be ‘reconstruction’. They had even used a fax machine to enhance authenticity!

Pete H

You know. old Gandhi really nailed it…“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Only one phase to go now 😉

Scottish Sceptic

Andrew Montford at Bishop hill has done a great job showing where the BBC have broken their editorial guidelines.
All that is missing is a comparison between the way the BBC dealt with the Heartland Docs which show nothing more than lobbyists being paid by commercial companies (NOT OIL) to lobby, whereas climategate shows publicly paid people hiding information breaching FOI law and generally requiring detailed investigation by numerous people.
One was repressed by the BBC, the other was rushed out without verification.

“If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?”
Well, it’s the same folks who are using false information, manipulated and misleading data, and distorted science.
Like the scorpion – it is what they do.
Just as with skeptics: we question and analyze = it is what we do.

Alex the skeptic

The warmists may claim that the documents were genuine…. genuine fakes.

Allan MacRae

There are lies, damned lies, and global warmists !

Scottish Sceptic

For information this is the response I got to my complaint to the BBC:
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your email. I’m afraid you are bang off the mark… I have
never said I have a “God-given right”, or any such thing. Can you find a
single example of me writing this to you?
You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. The one
Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other
seven. I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so – ergo, they are real.
Bias, Mike, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I’m afraid in your
case, it may be blinding you to one unfortunate reality of the “climate
sceptic” movement – that some of it is co-ordinated to protect vested
interests. As independent, objective journalists, it is our job to
report on this as much as on any other aspect of the issue.
Best regards,
Richard Black

Richard Black BBC dismisses claims he rushed to keyboard before checking.
See latest post on Bishop Hill.
This is such a clear cut breach of the BBC guidelines, that we must do all we can to bring this to the attention of anyone and everyone who can do something.
I have already written to the Home Secretary (whose department I believe it is), the head of the BBC and my MP.
And (as usual) I made a complaint to the BBC and (as usual) got a dismissive reply:
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your email. I’m afraid you are bang off the mark… I have
never said I have a “God-given right”, or any such thing. Can you find a
single example of me writing this to you?
You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. The one
Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other
seven. I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so – ergo, they are real.
Bias, Mike, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I’m afraid in your
case, it may be blinding you to one unfortunate reality of the “climate
sceptic” movement – that some of it is co-ordinated to protect vested
interests. As independent, objective journalists, it is our job to
report on this as much as on any other aspect of the issue.
Best regards,
Richard Black
Feb 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler

Beesaman

Of course the warmists are not desperate to protect ‘vested interests’ or even indeed political interests. Interests that have nothing to do with the environment and rather more to do with social and eonomic power. Black is a hypocrite as he has never investigated Warmist funding and probably never will.
BBC = Basically Braindead on Climate

here’s a hypothesis: [SNIP: That is not a hypothesis, it is very close to being an accusation with nothing in the way of evidence. Please don’t do that. -REP].

More Soylent Green!

Why use legal stonewalls to hide emails, data and relevant documents if Mann and the other warmers are right?

cui bono

Scottish Sceptic says (February 17, 2012 at 6:13 am)
—————————
Mr. Black is at least consistent in his replies:
Thanks for your email. I am afraid your capacity to read my actions from
a distance is not as great as you think – you have no way of knowing
what attempts I made to establish the veracity of the Heartland
documents before publication. Furthermore, however Anthony Watts might
interpret my comment about him, it’s not a slur – it’s just not. I’ve
said what the project was going to do, and why in the big picture it’s
meaningless given the science we have.
You should have a good think about who the lobbyists in this story
really are – it ain’t me.
Best regards,
Richard Black

Nick Shaw

Is it just me or are the scale numbers on the left side of the traffic chart upside down?
[REPLY: No, that’s rank, not hits. The bigger the number, the lower the rank. Desmog has a much lower ranking than WUWT. -REP]

Jimbo

If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?

or
If the sceptics were a well funded denialist machine, why would Anthony request funding from the relatively poorly funded Heartland Institute. Why not call Exxon or BP, just like the the crew at CRU and Stanford ($100,000,000)?

Jimbo

Richard Black of the BBC has been a bad boy. It’s a pitty he wasn’t so quick off the mark with Climategate. He is an utter embarrassment to the journalistic profession – and he got a right kicking over at the comments section of his very bias nonsense.

Richard Black’s article about the Heartland documents is one of many that are now being closely scrutinised to see whether they comply with normal journalistic practice. In particular, as I pointed out the other day, Black’s article appears to have been published after the Heartland Institute issued its notice that one of the documents was a fake.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/17/richard-black-and-the-bbc-guidelines.html

cui bono

Jimbo says:
——-
Never mind Exxon! Reuters, today: “Italian police seize $6 trillion of fake U.S. T-bonds”.
Mmmm. Six…trillion..dollars. 🙂 That could have put sceptic funding on a par with the alarmists!
I wonder how they hoped to spend it? Not in the same shop, presumably….

Steve S

I just checked the smogblog, or whatever it is they call themselves. They’ve decided to double down, and offer up lots of name calling, and moral equivalence by way of argument. They do extend an olive branch though, in that they’re willing to admit the one doc was fake as soon as someone proves it wasn’t written by Heartland. Heh.

Kaboom

A search of SmogBlog’s offices and email accounts to pick up the trail of the identity fraudster should be the first step in proving the claim by Heartland that the document is a fake.

These liberal types all speak for the future generations of people and paramecium. Their self-righteousness dictates that it is their DUTY to mis-represent. Didn’t ALGore say that “they” needed to hype-up the bad news concerning CAGW in order to get “The Word” out?

Scottish Sceptic

cui bono says: February 17, 2012 at 7:07 am
Well done for making the complaint, and very interesting to read the reply.