Cue the “abyss staring back” and “ends justify the means” soul-searching on the case of HuffPo’s Peter Gleick admitting to less than forthright methods to obtaining the right’s game plan on pushing climate change denial in schools.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Of course, pearls a-clutch’d at the Gray Lady, Andrew Revkin:
One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).
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.
Let’s keep in mind that the far broader tragedy is that the lack of “rational public debate” with the climate change denial side existed for years before Gleick, with a massive, multi-billion dollar effort to convince the world that setting the place on fire is fine and that science itself is suspect. As bad as Gleick’s admitted actions are, he’ll face the consequences for it. He’s owned up to what he’s done and is now presumably ready to deal with the results of his actions.
That’s far more than I can say for the folks who are trying to push ignorance and cynicism as “critical thinking in the classroom.” Sadly, the result of this will be the right yelling PETER GLEICK ARGUMENT OVER WE WIN as victory shorthand at every climatologist, published paper, data compilation, graph, chart, scientific conference, public testimony and collected journal showing of the slow demise of our environment, so in that respect Revkin is at least somewhat correct.
The effort to paint Gleick’s misconduct as ultimately damning the entire preponderance of evidence in favor of man-made climate change will be overwhelming in the days and months ahead. What Gleick did does not “call into question the validity of the science” no matter how badly the deniers want to think it magically does, any more than the “Climategate” emails did last year. Resistance to such an effort has to begin here and now. Journalists who should know better however will probably not be able to resist the temptation. What Gleick did was wrong, but it doesn’t make the deniers right.
[UPDATE] Tbogg nails it.You can’t have a”rational public debate” with people whose whole reason for existence is to obfuscate the truth by paying big bucks to scientist/whores for whom ‘scientific inquiry’ means first posing the question “How much does it pay?” to be followed (after a brief period of haggling) with “What do you want it to say?”. From there corporate fronts like the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation take the scientific 3-card monte game that has been handed to them and they round the edges, smooth out the rough spots, couch the language and cherry-pick the most easily digestible nuggets of bullshit which they dole out on 3×5 cards to Fox News, English tabloids, and an assortment of conservative bloggers and lesser whores who are paid to appear objective and thoughtful. What completes this Puke Funnel Circle Of Life is for national writers (like, for example: Andrew Revkin) to write very concerned why-can’t-we-all-get-along columns bemoaning the fact that, even though we know the world is round, there are those who believe otherwise and, in all fairness and with all due respect, their voices must be not only heard but given equal weight.
My mistake is once again making a rational argument designed for rational actors, when the denier side is just there to take any and all “rational” anything and club it to death like a case of baby seals, grunt loudly, and demand that their rights for clubbing baby seals are being infringed upon. They’re not here to rationally discuss anything, they’re here to bury it under a mountain of manure, dump thermite on it, and dance around the flames while making shadow puppets on the teevee box.
Villago Delenda Est
Naturally, the misconduct by the deniers is ignored in all this.
One set of standards for one side, a total lack of standards for the other.
Butch
Revkin, per TBogg, is apparently one of Heartland’s favorite go-to guys.
butler
Um… so what? What’s the scandal? He didn’t give it the Breitbart treatment by faking or editing anything. He didn’t steal anything or hack a server.
If they were willing to freely send information out to someone via email what’s the problem? If they are a supposedly scientific outfit, why all the secrecy?
I mean… what the fuck?!?
c u n d gulag
Maybe people will realize there’s a problem when they’re told they should wear sun-block to march in NY’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
No, I shouldn’t have suggested that – it would be shrill.
And no, the MSM won’t resist the temptation to side with the Conservatives on this one.
“ZOMG! HE LIED AND CHEATED!”
And so, MILLIONS of cases of lying and cheating by the right are easily topped by ONE case from the left.
Move along. Nothing to see here…
Jennifer
Um, I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that Gleick did anything wrong.
The materials sent to him presumably would have been sent to anyone making a similar request who wasn’t an already-known detractor of Heartland. It’s not like he broke into an office and pilfered top-secret documents, or hacked into anyone’s email (as the climate change deniers have done themselves); he asked for materials by posing to be someone other than who he is. He could have just as easily enlisted a friend to ask for the materials; would that have been beyond the pale? Of course not, because obviously these were materials that Heartland was willing to share with just about anyone without prior vetting.
Tom Levenson
Just rescheduled my very slight post so as not to step on this one or Kay’s below.
Comrade Carter
Agreed, it’s hard for me to think of anything Gleick did wrong… And, in comparison to the hacked East Anglia thing, which led to months and months unto years of debate OVER NOTHING…
Fuck ’em.
Nemesis
Wait, the dude did not alter the docs in any way. His methods for obtaining the docs is not the issue.
When we bust the climate denail fuckers with real data, their own data, they cry and whine.
When we are subject to their lies and out of context framing of climate science, we are supposed to calmly accept the bullshit and move on.
What wrong with this picture? The story IS the deniers docs. Nothing more.
J
I’m hard put to see what’s wrong with what Gleick did either.
Soonergrunt
As Butch noted, the Heartland Institute considers Andrew Revkin to be one of theirs:
Funny how Mr. Revken has never acknowledged that fact. I would ask him if he has ever taken any money from HI, but javascript doesn’t work on my work computer, and so I can’t put the question into comments on his little pearl-clutching screed.
Tim F.
Hmm. One fake in the middle of a bunch of real documents that would be news if you never had the fake one. Leaked to someone whom the leak ‘victim’ wants to discredit. Ultimately it hurts the person who received the leak and nullifies reporting on the original scandal.
Ring a bell?
scav
@Tom Levenson: whew, was a bit disoriented there.
Satanicpanic
What is up with Revkin? I thought he was one of the good guys, but it seems like in recent years he’s been infected with “both sides do it.” Asshole. I don’t really see what the problem is with Gleick either.
Schlemizel
Odd, I went looking for Mr. Revkin’s kvetching about the email hacking and careful editing of said emails to make a case that wasn’t there. I can find this fretting on neither case. Maybe I’m just not searching well enough.
Sophia
I’d like to see more details on this:
As stated, I don’t see what is obviously wrong about this. If this is a case of identity theft, well, I wish someone would come right out and say it.
IM
All I see is an act of investigative journalism.
Linda Featheringill
Several pessimistic people, including me, think that it’s too late anyway and the tipping point [related to Arctic ice] is already at hand or mighty damn nigh.
If we gloomy-Gus types are correct, it doesn’t matter what Gleick does now. Or what Heartland does now, either.
Could we have stopped the meltdown or at least slowed it down a lot? We’ll never know.
At any rate, perhaps we would do better to save our energy for coping with the changes ahead.
Tom Levenson
@Soonergrunt: Not exactly. Here’s Revkin on that point:
SpotWeld
Maybe I’m just used to seeing this from one side and have my own in-built bias, but does it seem like deniers seem to get a un-earned amount of credit on the topic of global warming.
Time and time again I see a scientist, and expert, someone who can go though all the tedious dull piles of data and show how and why what is being said is backed by solid evidence. Then the news moderator just sort of shrugs and turns to the other guy and just lets him jabber on without any expectation of supporting data.
I just can’t help but think of a news segment where Bill Nye backed away from making the (incorrect) statement that a hurricane could be linked to global warming.
Nye attempted to educate by laying out how data is collected over a long period to determine climate patterns, and how a single storm is not really strong evidence in itself.
And the moderator just sort of shrugged and just sort of declared it boring.
Punchy
If this doesn’t cause a mass resignation at the Onion, nothing will. Honestly, they’ve lost their relevance when reality has lapped the most outrageous thing they could dream up.
Just….WOW.
Lee
I’m glad I’m not the only person who thought he did nothing wrong.
I guess I can see if it is an issue if the person he claimed to be was Obama or Bill Gates or something like that.
But if it was “I’m Joe Blow from Kansas and want to donate to Heartland. What do you do?”. Hell I’d do the same thing for him if he had asked.
Guster
WTF? He requested documents from an entity he was investigating using a fake name? Asshole. Doesn’t he know that the way you engage in investigative journalism is to call the PR department and ask for press releases?
I’d spring to his defense, but what’s he apologizing for? It’s bullshit.
Rick Massimo
Nope. It’s all over. The same process by which George W. Bush’s draft-dodging, cocaine-using, service-deserting past could never be asked about or looked into again, is under way here.
What’s going to be awesome is watching a right-wing mouthpiece explain how what Gleick did was just as bad as what James O’Keefe does, and if (big if) someone asks him “Does that mean we should listen to the next thing James O’Keefe says?” He’ll explain why we should. And the Media Star who is paid millions of dollars to referee this political discussion will say nothing.
Roger Moore
@IM:
Against a well funded right wing group. Investigating poor or left-wing groups is fine, no matter what illegal, immoral, or deceptive practices you use in getting and manipulating your information. (See: O’Keefe, James) Exposing the lies of a well connected right-wing group is dirty pool, no matter how scrupulously you obtain your information.
Zandar
This entire story made me throw things at my monitors on at least two separate occasions this morning.
I’m sure we’ll have A Serious Centrist call for Glieck’s public flogging before the week is out, because it’s irresponsible not to speculate if all science is now false.
Steve
The less we talk about the revelations in the Heartland documents, and the more we talk about how the documents were obtained and whether one fake document got included with a bunch of admittedly real ones, the more we deserve to lose the debate.
The East Anglia emails were apparently hacked right off someone’s server and nobody even cares. This does not mean we ought to resort to hacking in return, but it does suggest that it would be silly to engage in hand-wringing at this point.
Schlemizel
@Linda Featheringill:
Yup, put me in the ‘its way too late’ category. Recent work has shown that eras of climate change have happened very rapidly once they reached a certain point. The planet is trying to self-correct and it will do so. The question is: can human life make the cut or are we joining the dinosaurs?
A very hard rain is about to fall and it could easily start in my lifetime. These fools are killing us.
noabsolutes
…I don’t see anything that Gleick did wrong, and he shouldn’t have apologized. People give fake names to be on mailing lists *all the time*. Did he sign an affidavit? Is anybody taking him to court? Is there even a little bit of latitude given to someone pursuing a journalistic investigation? I’m just not clear on why you can’t lie about your name and still enjoy freedom of the press, but you can lie about the planet, defraud consumers, defame the scientific community and other publications, conceal–and lie about– your funding sources, and claim free speech as a pretext.
handsmile
Last week Nina Federoff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, addressed members at its annual meeting.
Napoleon
Count me in the group that doesn’t think Gleick did anything wrong, and I have posted a comment to Revkin’s post to that effect (and you should too).
scav
Don’t forget the shrill howls arising from News International in the UK (and increasingly other journalism companies) over protecting exactly these practices (blagging, hacking, outright bribery of govt officials) all in the name of the public interest up to and including hacking email of govt agents trying to find the location of informants on the provisional IRA. And this is what they’ve confessed to. Won’t link the generalized shrieking, that’s easily found at both Crooks and Liars (usually on Fridays) and the inevitable Guard.
Comrade Mary
@handsmile: Don’t read the fucking comments.
beergoggles
Sigh, when will they learn – apologizing is a sign of weakness and the moment Gleick did it, he turned the conversation from Denialism Scandal to himself.
WyldPirate
Put me in the camp with others that don’t think Gleick did anything terribly egregious. It doesn’t seem too much worse than an undercover or hidden camera investigative report.
On the deniers thinking they are right because of Gleick’s method, I’m afraid you’re giving them too much credit for being rational beings. Much like the Catholic Church during the times of Galileo or after Darwin published On the Origins of Species, the global-warming evidence shatters these people’s world-view. In turn, the will do almost anything to sustain their denial of the facts and evidence.
terraformer
One is reminded of the Dan Rather controversy.
Focus on the viability of the method, and not the underlying truth that was revealed, etc. Same as it ever was. Damn I’m tired of this.
MTiffany
@SpotWeld:
“Absolutely, as we here at Channel 5 make every effort to give dissenting opinions a fair hearing. Next up on Eye on Springfield, we interview Springfield’s own genius polymath, Dr. Ornery Taintz: lawyer, dentist, and now a mathematician; who’s rocked the world of math with her discovery that two plus two equals five! I’m Kent Brockman, we’ll be right back after a few words from our sponsors, The Heartland Institute, ‘How can global warming be real if it still snows in winter,’ and The Discovery Institute ‘The fact that so many animals taste like chicken doesn’t mean the Intelligent Designer isn’t that smart, just really, really lazy.”
Rathskeller
What the fuck. Is this non-controversy really happening?
LGRooney
Interesting. I hadn’t thought about the connection earlier.
So, the progeny of those who did something to gain their wealth have spent the last 30 years or so rolling back the system that worked best for nearly everyone, including them if one wants to do some forward looking, consolidating their already advantageous positions and making sure no one asks what the hell they did to deserve their places other than being born into the right families. They have managed to dupe so many fellow shallow-thinking humans to their cause that it is problematic to call them fringe, which they most certainly would be in more intelligent times.
And now, their consolidation is nearly complete, i.e., they have concentrated the wealth in their hands, recruited a willing army, and now own the propaganda mills with which they can continue, if not further, their cause of disenfranchisement and eventual near-enslavement of those not well-born (or those deemed traitorous).
That’s what sucks about apartment living. Nowhere to store one’s pitchforks!!
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
@Punchy: Not sure why the Girl Scouts have suddenly become a punching bag of the right, but the wingnuts have been after them in full force for a few months now.
I tripled my order of the cookies.
Jennifer
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity: Because they’re Girl Scouts. They have vaginas. In other words, fair game for the right.
slag
If this guy’s actions were such a violation of the media’s professional conduct rules that he’s deserving of excommunication, I say the professional conduct rules are in need of some serious revision. As others have said, had he manipulated evidence or lied about the evidence, I wouldn’t be at all sympathetic. His means of obtaining the evidence don’t appear to be illegal or even egregiously harmful in many given real world circumstances.
Why are these media people so self-circumscribed in how they do their jobs? Do they just need excuses for failure or what?
Jennifer
Revkin also says he won’t “speculate on the legal aspects” of Gleick having obtained the documents in the way he did.
“Legal aspects”? WTF? He asked for some stuff, and they gave it to him without asking for a pinky-swear. Hard to see where they would have any kind of case here.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
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.
And where was the NYT when a rational public debate was needed about going to war in Iraq?
They’re throwing stones from a glass tower.
~
Schlemizel
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity:
Because they refuse to be bigots. IF they would just ban certain people the wingnuts would buy cookies again
PeakVT
@Rathskeller: Yes, because it’s a small, irrelevant issue that distracts from the real issue.
gnomedad
The right is really good at formulating honor codes … for their opponents.
Rawk Chawk
Oh fucking PLEASE.
What the fuck is this guy apologizing for? Doing Journalism?
Good on him for being mildly deceptive in the pursuit of accurate information. So he used a fucking fake name oh my god so fucking what?
Lord, it is so frustrating how lefties bow and scrape and apologize at the slightest accusation of unseemliness, whatever the fuck that is in this day and age.
So to summarize: U.S. media goes ape shit because Huffpo guy used a fake name, ignores Bush and Cheney massive deception to massive war.
Makes sense.
CapedJA
So, James O’Keefe lies and uses everything shady he can think of to make dull sticks look like smoking guns and it ruins entire organizations.
Gleick, on the other hand, makes what is effectually a prank call, and he is the bad guy despite finding a smoking cannon?
MTiffany
The Heartland Insipidtoot is mentioned here, also too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
@handsmile: This country hates science. Always did. The only respite from the religious right’s war on science and education (now a generalized right-wing war on science and education, thanks to the co-opting of the right wing by the evangelical movement) this nation’s ever had was during the cold war, when the nation had an perceived existential threat.
My parents were taught the biblical creation myth as fact when they were in high school. I expect the same thing for my grandchildren.
Nutella
@Punchy:
TPM could use a little help in the journalistic standards department. They illustrate a story about Girl Scouts with a picture of a Boy Scout.
Amir Khalid
As a former journo, I quite understand Peter Gleick’s scruples about misrepresenting his identity. He clearly believes that a journalist should be as truthful when gathering information as when disseminating it. (Such a moral position doesn’t rule out undercover reporting altogether, but restricts it to when the importance of the story, or the risk to innocent parties, outweighs the ethical cost.) But I’m curious as to why he thought he needed to do it in this case, if — as Jennifer notes — the Heartland Institute was prepared to give those documents out to anyone who asked. I do get why Gleick is uncomfortable with his actions here, but I don’t think the Heartland Institute suffered any harm.
Roger Moore
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity:
Because the Girl Scouts don’t follow wingnut attitudes toward gender issues. IIRC, the big issue was that they accept transgender kids who present as female. My impression is that they also refuse to hate on lesbians. That’s in direct contrast to the Boy Scouts, who have fought hard in court to protect their right to hate on teh ghey.
@Jennifer:
Again, my impression is that the biggest wingnut freakout came because one or two of them don’t have vaginas but were let in anyway. If there’s one thing that freaks out wingnuts more than vaginas or gays, its transgendered people.
Waynski
I’m with almost everyone here on this. I don’t see what he did wrong. It’s not exactly the Pentagon Papers, which the Times published and defended.
Amir Khalid
@Amir Khalid:
And, having just read Andrew Revkin’s blog post, I am mystified by Revkin’s high dudgeon. It is not evidence against the Heartland Institute, i.e. the documents, that Gleick misrepresented, but his identity.
ETA: The Heartland Institute threat of a lawsuit, over the secrecy of documents it was happy to give out to anyone who asked, strikes me as mere bluster.
feebog
I’m with the majority here, I read the article, and then Gleick’s apology and had a WTF moment. As Jennifer pointed out upthread, he could have had a friend order the material and there would be no ethical problem at all. Frankly, ordering the material under another name does not seem to me to cross any ethical line.
This is another case of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Gleick and HuffPo should have given Heartland a big FU and moved on.
Aaron Baker
I’m not convinced Gleick was guilty of any misconduct. Lying to scumbags to get important information from them is, for example, a time-honored (and frequently successful) tactic in criminal investigation. I had always assumed that some amount of deception was part of the journalistic toolkit for getting information as well. Was I wrong all these years?
kerFuFFler
What chaps my hide is that so little attention was paid to the climate study carried out by Muller, a global warming skeptic and physicist. “A massively scaled study funded (in part) by the Koch Brothers and overseen by a skeptical physicist has concluded that global warming is real.”
Since science and evidence cannot support their denialism their only recourse is to focus on distractions and attempts to discredit the voices of reason.
I don’t think Gleick did anything wrong. It’s called investigative journalism.
Fwiffo
It’s still not clear to me that he did anything wrong at all. What is alleged to be unethical here?
I mean, the deniers engaged in actual criminal acts hacking into university servers to steal information, which they still try to use to engage in bullshit arguments. Even though the information didn’t actually show any wrongdoing, the fact that it was obtained illegally didn’t somehow taint the data to the point of excluding it from public consumption.
Jewish Steel
Gleick will have to return his Civility In Discourse award. Shame.
Aaron Baker
Since Amir Khalid (see post 54) seems to know what he’s talking about, I would ask him, if there is such a thing as undercover journalism (which must mean “lying about who you are to get information”), and it’s considered acceptable conduct, what about Gleick’s actions should make anyone uncomfortable? I’m not saying this to be snarky; I’m genuinely curious.
Suffern ACE
@WyldPirate: What he did, I think, to “set back the rational discussion” was produce a document that named names of journalists who the Heartland Institutue thought it was important to influence. Otherwise I am not certain what information he was supposed to scrub.
scav
@Aaron Baker: yes, there is and it’s being argued about a lot in the UK with the e-mail / phone-message / blagging / etc scandal. As you might guess, there’s generally a public interest defense for such behaviors and it’s entirely unclear where to draw the line (some drawing it at the if-the-public-is-interested,-we can-do-it but I’m editorializing here so ignore me). But you can see the battle-lines of the argument being fought over real-time there.
Amir Khalid
@Aaron Baker:
Oh yes, there is such a thing. Scav’s explanation #65 seems quite complete to me, and I don’t think I need to add to it.
Amir Khalid
@Amir Khalid #66:
Beyond saying that digging into the private lives of the famous, or of those thrust into the public spotlight by fate, out of prurience, News International style, comes nowhere near an adequate justification.
scav
@Amir Khalid: It is hard not to chew through iron bars listening to some of the lines of defense they put up, ins’t it? I am somewhat reassured I’m not entirely insane by your not smashing me to the 4-winds. Oh, and so far, Shackled and Drawn (click fast) is the best new Springsteen I’ve heard.
wrb
@Jennifer:
Gleik did do something wrong.
He apologized.
El Cid
You mustn’t expose outright liars consciously coordinating their deception by any means other than the most upfront, tender, and vulnerable methods, else it means you’re just on their level and that their openly and consciously coordinated lies are now all correct.
No war was ever won by people who got information secretly from the enemy. They asked nicely.
This is why police never have undercover agents who pretend to be bad guys, because it would bring the cops down to the bad guys’ level.
And it’s terribe for me to even mention those two analogies, because then it sounds like I’m saying that all conservatives are wartime enemies or mafia criminals who need to be killed or locked up, when nothing is further from the truth.
Actually, many things are further from the truth, as it’s true that the country and the history of civilization would be much, much better off and more developed if only a comparatively tiny number of conservatives were killed or locked up.
But no one should ever let themselves sound like extremists.
wrb
@Linda Featheringill:
I consider the melt one of the more minor consequences. Sure, some people will have to move but the proportion of of land lost to the total won’t be huge. We will get a nice American Mediterranean where Chico, Sacramento and Fresno used to be, with Vallejo the Gibraltar.
Desertification and ocean acidification look to be scary though.
El Cid
@wrb: One potential consequence of Arctic ice meltdown is the influx of cold freshwater into the North Atlantic and disrupting the currents (both short-term surface and possibly long-term deep ocean) such as the Gulf Stream, and altering the climate of the areas whose basic weather is set by them.
I.e., the Gulf Stream slows or stops, and then the heat built up in the Gulf of Mexico (I’m sorry, the BP Gulf of Freedom Fries) stays there, bringing wonderfully and intriguingly powerful storm systems and warmer climates to the already hot equator, and the heat no longer is carried to Northern Europe, thus giving Western Europe the Scandinavian climates its latitude would ordinarily suggest.
This very well could happen, and could happen quite quickly. No one knows. There’s enough new meltwater in the Arctic Ocean that it could dump into the North Atlantic quickly enough, altering the global climate within months.
On the other hand, not letting or encouraging this to happen might raise some guy’s taxes, and maybe higher gas prices, so, it’s worth risking.
pseudonymous in nc
Gleick decided that it wasn’t worth taking a knife to a gunfight any more: it’s disinformationist corporate bastards like Heartland who decided to take this into the domain of he-said/she-said.
Fuck apologies. He didn’t hack the fuckers. That’ll be up to Anonymous and its collective ADHD brain.
MTiffany
I’ll frown upon Gleick using the enemy’s tactics against them in pursuit of the truth just as soon as the hyperbocrites at PuffHo start publicly calling for the head of James fucking O’Keefe.
sherparick
Likewise the Daily Caller tries to do a hatchet job on Media Matters and David Brock, chock full of anonymous sources, and they get on CNN and boast about it. Really, we are fighting the forces of Satan with one hand tied behind our back.
wrb
@El Cid:
Yes, I’d read that, but forgotten it.
My point was that consequences that seem to concern people less are likely to be far worse than those from simple sea level rise.
For example, many say that the bread basket will just move north. However to the north
a) the soil was scraped off in the last glaciation
b) it is still fucking dark half the year, regardless of temperature.
You’ve given me hope though. Wonderfully and intriguingly powerful storm systems can turn the windmills that power the grow lights with which we’ll cover Canada.
scav
@wrb: Nobody expect the deep ocean currents to matter! And simple hours of sunlight? ha! You’d think reality was complex or something.
Brachiator
@Jennifer:
Agreed. Gleick committed an act of journalism.
We need more of this.
Howlin Wolfe
@Comrade Carter: The East Anglia email scandal . . . why didn’t the village idiots get all hysterical about that, and wail about climate denialists’ credibility? Oh, that’s right, it’s okay if you’re a wingnut.
RalfW
For fukity-fuck’s sake, obtaining incriminating documents under an assumed name is not “crediblity-destroying” for anyone but the most limpid and moronic tote-bagger. To whit I guess Andrew Revkin has nominated himself as idiot-bagger in chief.
Aaron Baker
scav & Amir Khalid:
thank you for the input.
Buggy Ding Dong
What soul searching? Who gives a shit? 60 Minutes and other investigative sting shows made their bones using deception to get information that otherwise would not be forthcoming.
I wish the NY Times would soul-search over their Whitewater and Vince Foster coverage.
In short: fuck them.
slag
@RalfW:
Ha! Maybe if we reframe Gleick’s action in more tote-bag-friendly terms, these people will hoist themselves up off their fainting couches long enough to catch a glimpse of a bigger picture here. In that respect, Gleick didn’t obtain incriminating documents under “an assumed name”, he obtained incriminating documents by employing a “nom d’assume”. Very clever, Monsieur Gleick! Very clever.
Donut
I’m certain someone has already asked this question, and I’m late the thread – but what is the fucking problem here? It’s okay for cops to deceive when they investigate, but not journalists or writers? The fuck kind of standard is this? Assholes like Revkin get their smelling salts out and position the fainting couch, but the real fucking crime is the Heartland Institute’s deliberate lies. Gawd, I fucking get so tired of these assholes.