FakeGate: It's What They Do

Guest Post by Chris Horner

I don’t know if you recall this, but, following FakeGate’s trajectory and the pretense in certain quarters that Gleick was operating somehow in a zone of exclusion for his movement — farcically absurd upon even a moment’s scrutiny of those other quarters — I was reminded of the reality that Greenpeace made a practice of taking peoples’ trash, on a regular (in my case, and the case of then-White House aide Phil Cooney, weekly) basis.

I first learned of it when they were shopping the offal-stained bits and pieces around the Washington press corps, then affirmed it later and had some fun with them. Washington Post, National Journal and Roll Call, to my knowledge, passed on the non-story, so Greenpeace got creative, and enlisted the help of David Adam, then with the Guardian. In Gleick-like style he mocked up a story around my trash, without calling me, cobbling together snippets from unrelated emails to tell a story they wanted to tell. Without quite telling the whole story, of course.

It’s how they roll.

And so with this experience I opened Red Hot Lies, whose full title surely resonates: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.

Greenpeace Steals My Trash

It was spring. Young men’s hearts turned to fancy. And Greenpeace started stealing my trash.

I noticed that my garbage was getting collected much more efficiently than normal—and at about midnight. I also noticed that soon, private memos of mine were showing up in the media, revealing a secret cabal I orchestrated from my basement. At least, that’s how London’s left-wing Guardian wrote the story, cobbled together from unrelated, offal-smeared notes plucked from my refuse and promptly handed over to them. If I ever questioned the hippies’ dedication to their cause, no more: in those summer months of mystery trash disappearance I had rededicated myself to strict obeisance of local requirements to collect the weekly out- put of my two large breed dogs.

“You too!?” howled the amused wife of a White House aide when we realized we were experiencing the same, selectively hyper-efficient, midnight garbage service. Apparently Greenpeace was just certain that her husband, who in fact hardly spoke to me, was part of my cabal.

Soon, European Greenpeace franchises were issuing press releases in German about who had lunch with me in Brussels, and spinning phony tales to Spanish newspapers of secret meetings I supposedly had with pretty much anyone they found problematic.

I had arrived. If they would spend so much energy to beat me up, I must be important, right?

But I soon learned from others that this is standard operating procedure for the global warming industry—and they often do much worse things. They have ruined careers, blacklisted scientists, knowingly spread lies about dissenters, called for the imprisonment of skeptics, and used government pressure to cut off rivals’ funding. One associate has had the lug nuts on his tires secretly loosened when his rejection of climate orthodoxy became public.

Which got me thinking: shouldn’t the public know about this? Are these tactics consistent with the environmentalists’ image as philanthropic, self-sacrificing, earth-lovers? Doesn’t their desperation reflect a fundamental weakness in the truth of their arguments and the soundness of their proposals? Wouldn’t the media expose such tactics by the other side?

Isn’t it relevant to the debate about global warming—what to do about global warming—that the alarmist side engages in this systematic campaign consisting of intimidation and threats, wheels falling off cars, abuses being inflicted on schoolchildren, demands of censorship, revising history, and telling flat-out lies?

Well, yes. People should know. And now they will.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DirkH
February 21, 2012 11:02 pm

Head Hunter says:
February 21, 2012 at 7:19 pm
“Ah, I didn’t know that word is a dirty word here. Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. I will avoid it.
It does not change the fact that Gleick deserves a medal for his tenaciousness and mendacity. Something along the lines of the way that children say “thank you” for the 1000 mile trip to the Magic Kingdom seems appropriate to me.”
I would thank him already. Life would be so much boringerer without the incredibly stupid stunts the warmists do to save their sinking movement. Free entertainment; guess the forger.

jorgekafkazar
February 21, 2012 11:04 pm

DirkH says: “Video, apparently a month ago, Peter Gleick…talks about pretty much everything we later find in the forged memo.
From the video: “All of these things weave together into a remarkable story…” This would appear a bit of a Freudian slip, given that Gleick wove a remarkable “story” that turned out to be merely a tangled web. Was he already planning his little faux memo as early as a month ago? This video may merit further study along those lines, but at this point Gleick’s posturing and pretense are making me a bit ill.

Shevva
February 22, 2012 1:42 am

I watched the South Park episodes where they become Super Heros called ‘Coon and Friends’.
The Warmists kinda remind me of Cartman from these espisodes because although he teams up with the most evil thing in the Universe he’s still doing it for the ‘Good’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon_2:_Hindsight

February 22, 2012 2:05 am

Had some not so nice experiences with Greenpeace some years ago. At that time working in a large chlorine/VCM/PVC factory, attacked by Greenpeace (according to them, chlorine is invented by the devil…). With a few friends, all working in different chlorine/PVC factories we founded a group called the “Chlorophiles” to counteract: everywhere they had an action against chlorine/PVC, we were there too with our message. That did annoy them very much, as they were not used to have any counteractions: they like to be alone for the media with only their message.
We published a work in several languages “the Hidden Side of Greenpeace”, with over 160 quotes from different media and personalities. No problem in Belgium or The Netherlands, as long as you quote exactly as was written/said and don’t do that out of context. Then still the original author is responsible for what is quoted. Big problem in Germany (the essay was spread in German too): the laws there – intended to prevent holocaust denial – say that even if you correctly quote, you are expected to agree with what is quoted and you have to prove yourself that what you quote is right.
Then we were called by a “friendly” journalist from Germany asking who has written that essay. I didn’t answer that question (several had searched for the quotes), but as obliged in Belgium and The Netherlands, my name was printed as editor (the editor here must be a real person, not a firm or organisation). One week later, I received a personal indictment from the court in Hamburg, Germany with 15 complaints from Greenpeace e.V.. Seems that there is an athorney there who only works for Greenpeace to sue anybody of the media who writes something they don’t like…
In short, it took several years and lots of money to pay the lawyer we had in Hamburg, but we had a clever one, who digged quite deep in the Greenpeace organisation. The endresult is that we lost 8 points and did win 7 points, of which a few interesting ones. See further:
http://www.ping.be/chlorophiles/en/cases/en_gp_ham.html
If they can’t win in a debate, make the life of your opponents as difficult as possible…

Colin Porter
February 22, 2012 5:53 am

Have you heard of the Leveson enquiry in the UK into Media Ethics?
Much of the impetus for this enquiry has come from investigations by the holier than thou Guardian newspaper who have been at pains to point to the gutter tactics of our tabloid press, resulting in our biggest Sunday paper being closed down by its owner, Rupert Murdoch.
If you had any substantial evidence of the involvment of the Guardian in the circumstances you describe, there would be many in England, especially editors of other newspapers who would love you to contact the chairman of the enquiry to dish the dirt on these people.

February 22, 2012 6:52 am

Ken Hall says in part at February 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm:
> Simply put, if you are telling the truth, you do not need to use fake
> documents and revert to deception to win the debate.
I remember when the other side was resorting to the Beck study and confusing
tonnage of CO2 with tonnage of carbon, as was done in the “Great Global
Warming Swindle” movie.
Back when the side opposing existence of AGW was resorting to this, I was
strongly on the side favoring existence of AGW, and that AGW existed to the
extent claimed by louder voices claiming that it exists.
More recently, the side favoring less existence of AGW made a lot of hay from
“juicy gossip”, and I went for science, analyzing data. At that point, I started
favoring UEA version of HadCRUT3 (annual figures) over GISS due to better
correlation with the UAH and RSS satellite-based indices, and more-showing of
a natural cycle (which may be temporary) having a period around 62 years.
And, more recently still, that during the time HadCRUT3 showed this cycle, it also
showed up in data on solar activity.
And now, someone on the side favoring more existence of AGW is being
strongly accused of producing “juicy gossip” sort of stuff, and such stuff
apparently from that side surely was produced.
Juicy gossip does not move me as much as data and analyses of data.
Next-worst for me is when one side explains why one weather station or a few of
them are “off” – always in the same direction – that makes me suspect
cherrypicking. I am more receptive to analyses on continental scale as to
contamination of temperature indices by weather stations contaminated by
growth of urban heat islands.

Hugh K
February 22, 2012 11:20 am

DirkH says: February 21, 2012
Thanks for the video Dirk. Although I couldn’t make it past the 3:30 mark before my internal BS meter activated the pause button, I now understand how Gleick rose to such lofty status in the CAGW herd intoxicated with the lofty smoke from sparkling thuribles – lacking a golden tongue is not one his shortcomings. Which does explain why he would rather pontificate to the congregation than debate the heretics. Although i’m not sure that attribute will serve the martyr well should he be exiled to D block.

Alan Bates
February 22, 2012 12:26 pm

On principle, anything that has my name and/or address gets shredded with a “Which?” Best Buy shredder. The shreddings are stored in my house and added gradually to my compost heaps. And I have nothing to hide, other than reading (amongst others) WUWT, Climate Audit, No Frakking Consensus and Bishop Hill. None of which are illegal (yet?).

RockyRoad
February 22, 2012 1:15 pm

Third Party says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm

You know what they say about Climate models – GIGO.

Then it hit me:
Gleick (was) In, Gleick’s (now) Out.
How appropriate. 😉

David, UK
February 22, 2012 2:24 pm

Third Party says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm
You know what they say about Climate models – GIGO.

Or as I prefer: BIBO.

Sharpshooter
February 23, 2012 12:17 am

Have some sympathy for the guy; [snip – a bit over the top, we don’t know this about Dr. Gleick -Anthony]

Dr Burns
February 23, 2012 10:03 pm

>>Chris,
>>Your book claims “Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics?”
>>What is the basis for this statement ?
>>Can you point us at a survey to substantiate this claim ?
No response I see. Does this mean the statement was faked ?

R Kcin
February 24, 2012 10:32 am

Third Party says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm
You know what they say about Climate models – GIGO.
—————————————————————————————
as in Garbage In Gospel Out?

cb
February 29, 2012 1:43 am

Olson
“(or Good Works in the protestant catechism)”
I am almost rendered speechless: do you truly have no idea what ‘justification by faith alone’ means?! Your error is so great that it must surely be born from willful disregard.

navytech
February 29, 2012 12:24 pm

amy-gaffigan misses the point entirely. It is not, as she says: “But like the suicide bombers, these actions will make the public generalize it and blame the whole of Greenpeace rather than the specific individuals who are being asses.”
It is rather the actions of the whole who not only refuse to condone the excesses of their more insane members, but instead publicly make excuses for them, and even cheer them. The actions of the many speak far louder than the insane deeds of a few. This reveals the rot that goes to the very core of these groups.

navytech
February 29, 2012 12:29 pm

CONDEMN not condone.