David and Goliath: Fakegate edition

Steven Hayward, from the American Enterprise Institute, makes a good point.

Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise to the level of David and Goliath. Heartland is more like a David fighting a hundred Goliaths. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the forehead.

On that point also see Marlo Lewis – note the sarcasm.

Yep, it’s the small underfunded band of free market think tanks who are stifling the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences and their numerous brethren overseas, the European Environment Agency, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the EPA, NRDC, Greenpeace, etc. etc.

(HT: Anthony Watts)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to David and Goliath: Fakegate edition

  1. jupes

    Anyone who still believes this tripe need to ask themselves a few questions:

    Why was a fake document used to smear the Heartland Institute?

    Why did the UEA CRU need to fake evidence as revealed in the climategate emails?

    Why did the UEA CRU keep evidence from skeptics?

    Why does the IPCC use grey literature?

    Why does the IPCC have members of Greenpeace and WWF as its authors?

    Why do those who “believe in the cause” refer to CO2 as “carbon” or “carbon pollution”?

    Why won’t Al Gore debate Lord Monkton, or indeed any skeptic?

    Why was it hotter in 1998 than any year since despite the amount of man made CO2 increasing each year?

  2. brc

    The whole episode is a riot.

    The one meme left over for the climate catastrophists was the ‘funded by big oil’ and/ or ‘well organised and well funded climate disinformation organisations’. As the model forecasts and dire predictions all failed to come to pass, they still insisted they were the little guys fighting the big industry ‘denial’ machine.

    So one of the hippies-in-chief puts his salad down for 5 minutes, commits a criminal act (probably) creates a forgery to spice it up, and then releases it to a gleeful set of followers, who then paste up the financial report and fake strategy document for the world to see just how the Heartland Institute is at the core of the ‘well organised and well funded climate disinformation industry’.

    In doing so, the clueless hippy scores a dramatic own-goal by confirming that truth and honesty aren’t part of the operating procedure, and the facts that he does release show that, really, they are pitifully funded and financed, which is what people have been saying all along. Even the evil Koch brothers chose to finance other priorities over climate science.

    In the universe of own goals and the removal of ones feet through unintentional downwards pointing firearm discharge, it’s certainly a top runner.

    The worst thing is, that this Gleick guy will be back out fighting the good fight within 12 months. There’s just not enough depth in the bearded weirdos troops to let a frontline soldier sit it out.

  3. Jim Rose

    The belief in equal time for both sides, tolerance of dissent and speaking truth to power loses it appeal when those who were championing these ideas when out of power get into power.

    Was not the role of the ABC to put forward ideas that did not get an airing elsewhere? Not so now. Public funding of dissent is a fickle thing

    See http://volokh.com/2012/02/23/baptists-and-bootleggers/ for a nice discussion of funding the Baptists by the bootleggers in the USA, and in particular, an alliance between leading environmental groups and the natural gas industry to advocate for the elimination of one of natural gas’s leading competitors:

    There were US$26.1 in donations to the sierra club from one shale gas group – subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy – over 4 years; the Sierra Club has since dropped out of these lucrative arrangements because the natural gas industry has started using hydraulic fracking.

    Heartland received a grand total of $676,500 from Exxon between 1998-2006 and $200,000 from the Koch Foundation in 2011. If that amount makes Heartland a “front group for big oil and energy,” what does $26 million make the Sierra Club for natural gas?

  4. entropy

    of course big oil funds AGW research. The reasons are multiple, ranging from sad theories that they will not be picked on (tragically stupid) as they are part of the ‘team’ to the more fundamental, that they are first and foremost energy companies. Anything that helps to diversify their sources of energy, ensuring they can keep on producing energy, is good.

  5. Ellen of Tasmania

    They spent their whole lives fighting against ‘the establishment’. They are the establishment now.

    And they don’t like rebels.

  6. Jim Rose

    Ellen of Tasmania, nothing new

    Calls for religious tolerance in the protestant reformation were made by dissenting sects, and these principles were quickly forgotten after they won power.

    Many protestant dissenters fled to the new world in the Americas founding new colonies premised on religious freedom except for Catholics.

    Revolutionaries are famous for not wanting to turn over power. It is called the second turnover in the political science literature and is central to the consolidation of democracy.

    In this regard I recommend, Grossman, Herschel I, 1999. “Kleptocracy and Revolutions,” Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 51(2), pages 267-83, April:

    The paper develops an economic theory of revolutions as manifestations of Kleptocratic rivalry.

    Unsurprisingly, some of those who suffered for the cause, in exile or underground, now feel they deserve their just rewards: good salaries, nice cars, patronage, and perks.

  7. blogstrop

    From Richard Lindzen’s address at Westminster: link is http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    Where do we go from here?
    Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my
    personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand
    how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate
    as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface
    temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2
    levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of
    theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along
    these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been
    possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was
    thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity
    independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2
    (a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is
    readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.

  8. jupes

    …my personal hope is that we will return to normative science…

    Yes. But it will take years, or even decades before scientists are trusted again.

    They need to denounce these imposters. Loudly.

  9. Gab

    Hilarious. Climate alarmism has not only jumped the shark, it has done so with a front double pike full twist.

    Global warming is shrinking humanity. Perhaps it’s because we need to stoop to avoid those lowering clouds caused by – you guessed it! – global warming.

  10. kae

    The truly tragic thing about the CAGW scare/scam is that people couldn’t deduce that it was a scare/scam.

    Even more concerning is that, no matter what happens now to discredit CAGW, there are people who will always believe that CO2 is a pollutant and that it will end the world as we know it if we don’t “do something about it”.

    It’s a bit like 9/11 troofers. They’ll never be convinced that planes were hijacked by islamists and flown into the WTC, Pentagon & a field.

  11. Winston Smith

    kae, also like the moon landings and the Mars rovers.

    Some people wrap themselves in their conspiracy theories just to keep warm.

    Ps: did you get the seeds? My Desert Rose is flowering very nicely.

Comments are closed.