Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:07 pm

While Stuperviter is a disgrace to this forum, Mark Steyn just released a book on Michael Mann " A Disgrace to his Profession". The book is a compendium of criticisms about Mann and his ethics by his fellow scientists, and they crackdown on Mann!

Image

Image




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/a ... rofession/
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:40 pm

It is NO big surprise to climate skeptics but a new study finds

according to a paper published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Wikipedia entries on politically controversial scientific topics can be unreliable due to information sabotage.

'''users are urged to cast a critical eye on Wikipedia source material, which is found at the bottom of each entry


http://phys.org/news/2015-08-wikipedia- ... =item-menu

This sabotage was well known by skeptics as Wikipedia co-founder and Michael Mann's RealClimate Cofounder was observed to sabotage all sekptical climate posts. Finally the Wiki board intervened if only momentarily

"In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/w ... wikipedia/

Only a fool or a troll would trust Wiki climate info!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:30 pm

JIm Steele wrote:It is NO big surprise to climate skeptics but a new study finds

according to a paper published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Wikipedia entries on politically controversial scientific topics can be unreliable due to information sabotage.

'''users are urged to cast a critical eye on Wikipedia source material, which is found at the bottom of each entry


http://phys.org/news/2015-08-wikipedia- ... =item-menu

This sabotage was well known by skeptics as Wikipedia co-founder and Michael Mann's RealClimate Cofounder was observed to sabotage all sekptical climate posts. Finally the Wiki board intervened if only momentarily

"In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/w ... wikipedia/

Only a fool or a troll would trust Wiki climate info!


Jim Steele is back from his forced vacations because supervitor was checking out all the misrepresentations and deceptions he was posting on the forum. Let's see what he brings up right now:

It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour, but he forgets he's the one with the world view upside down. The problem is the other way around, it's the denialist movement that tries to cast doubt on settled science.
Wikipedia is already, by philosophy, on the side of science.

Let's quote:
Likens explains, "In the scientific community, acid rain is not a controversial topic. Its mechanics have been well understood for decades. Yet, despite having 'semi-protected' status to prevent anonymous changes, Wikipedia's acid rain entry receives near-daily edits, some of which result in egregious errors and a distortion of consensus science."


Yep. Jimmy is at it again (he's against the consensus, remember?). We understand, his aim is, as usual, tries to cast doubt on the reliable source we, the people, have for information, using his "team" own wrong-doings. Is doubt casted? Of course not, he also forgets that this is an old issue, and that Wikipedia has worked through it. He misses the conclusion of the study he links to:


The author's note that as Wikipedia matures, there is evidence that the breadth of its scientific content is increasingly based on source material from established scientific journals. They also note that Wikipedia employs algorithms to help identify and correct blatantly malicious edits


Second, the study is weak in my view. It uses as measurement for "having problems", the number of edits on a given time. But comparing, at least in the global warming case, evolving science with science that we already have all the answers. Of course the global warming page would have more edits than the "standard model in physics", no new science is done on that.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:33 pm

Ohh, apologies for the lack of courtesy. Welcome back, Jimmy.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:04 pm

It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.

Here's a hint. He obtained some documents by assmuning the identity of one of the board members and getting their mail redirected. OK? He admitted to that because he got caught. Now, how did he get caught? By the writing style of legit documents from Heartland? No! He got caught because he played up his own importance in the forged document, and his writing style peculiarities stood out. So he admits to obtaining the documents illicitly and denies the forgery.

But the forged document is how he was pinpointed as the author! Because it sings "Peter Gleick wrote this". That's how he got caught.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:25 pm

SweetPea wrote:
It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.


Hehehe, you're saying but you're not showing anything, Sweetpea. To me it seems just an example of someone trying to boster his own importance and got caught. People being people, laughable, right, but hardly distinctive of "the dirty science" or even related with the issue of Wikipedia's reliability.

On the issue and from the blog post Jim shared with us, this is Watts view on it and wiki's editorial policy changes, as far as 2010:

Personally, I’m encouraged by some of the recent changes brought to my attention by Peter Tillman, an editor who left a comment here.

Perhaps we no longer need to disengage from Wikipedia, but rather engage it and work to make it better.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:36 pm

supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.


Hehehe, you're saying but you're not showing anything, Sweetpea. To me it seems just an example of someone trying to boster his own importance and got caught.
No, his puffing up his own importance was how he got caught.
People being people, laughable, right
You don't think assuming another person's identity in order to redirect their mail in an effort to cause harm, is a crime?

but hardly distinctive of "the dirty science" or even related with the issue of Wikipedia's reliability.
Distinctive of the dirty science, also related to wiki alarmist activism editing, Amazon trolling, and of course it's related to human faults.
The dirty science ethics lecturer at work
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:52 pm

SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.


Hehehe, you're saying but you're not showing anything, Sweetpea. To me it seems just an example of someone trying to boster his own importance and got caught.
No, his puffing up his own importance was how he got caught.
People being people, laughable, right
You don't think assuming another person's identity in order to redirect their mail in an effort to cause harm, is a crime?

It is what it is. Wikipedia describes the incident. From what I understood the Institute claimed a document had been forged, he denied it, but apologized for the incident, was suspended and later forgiven (reinstated). Like I said, stuff like that happens, he now has a stain on his career and permanently on his wiki page. How does this affects wiki reliability?

but hardly distinctive of "the dirty science" or even related with the issue of Wikipedia's reliability.
Distinctive of the dirty science, also related to wiki alarmist activism editing, Amazon trolling, and of course it's related to human faults.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:05 pm

supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.


Hehehe, you're saying but you're not showing anything, Sweetpea. To me it seems just an example of someone trying to boster his own importance and got caught.
No, his puffing up his own importance was how he got caught.
People being people, laughable, right
You don't think assuming another person's identity in order to redirect their mail in an effort to cause harm, is a crime?

It is what it is. Wikipedia describes the incident.
Hardly. You get a whitewash version.

From what I understood the Institute claimed a document had been forged, he denied it, but apologized for the incident, was suspended and later forgiven (reinstated).
He deineid forging the extra document that was damning. But how do you account for his being caught because of the forged document contents, if he didn't forge it?

Like I said, stuff like that happens
I consider it to be an aberration from decent human behaviour, a low in ethics, and a crime.


How does this affects wiki reliability?
It shows just one example of how dirty science scientists ARE involved in all kinds of illicit actions and their coverup, not to mention trolling public sites to put in false information. Do you think wiki is exempt? It has been a main target of their efforts.
How does wiki explain how it was pinned on him and his confession to the illicit obtaining of the OTHER documents because of this evidence of his writing style in the document, and yet he had nothing to do with forging the forged document?

Let's examine his excuse-making! He says it was mailed to him by person(s) unknown, right?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:29 pm

SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
It's a study on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to politically charged edits on scientific topics that have political consequences. He tries to present it as if it's the scientists that troll Wikipedia in order to change the pages in their favour
NO, Super, it's an already proven fact, Supervitor. Scientists and supporters do it. The dirty science guys even go to Amazon to insert critiques on books they haven't read. :lol: Time to catch up.
Example: Peter Gleick, scientist, former American Geophysical Union ethics chairman and ethics lecturer, the one who stole an identity to get Heartland documents, and upon finding nothing, forged a page to circulate. He also comments on a book he didn't read. There isn't much that they wouldn't do.
He got caught because he forged commentary about himself, as if from skeptics, and he couldn't resist puffing up his own importance, to make as though he was the biggest concern of skeptics, as if they plot against his influence, him being enemy #1 - when in fact he wasn't even on the horizon. Delusional stuff, the ethics, the pits.
Just desperate, power hungry looooooooosers.

I urge you to go to your favourite sources and find the countering argument. Then we can lead you to understanding of what goes on by showing how ridiculous, how unbelievably stupid, how logic-defying their counter is. But if you read only your favourites, you wouldn't see it.


Hehehe, you're saying but you're not showing anything, Sweetpea. To me it seems just an example of someone trying to boster his own importance and got caught.
No, his puffing up his own importance was how he got caught.
People being people, laughable, right
You don't think assuming another person's identity in order to redirect their mail in an effort to cause harm, is a crime?

It is what it is. Wikipedia describes the incident.
Hardly. You get a whitewash version.

It's adjusted, I feel. A big chunk of the page is about the incident.
From what I understood the Institute claimed a document had been forged, he denied it, but apologized for the incident, was suspended and later forgiven (reinstated).
He deineid forging the extra document that was damning. But how do you account for his being caught because of the forged document contents, if he didn't forge it?

I don't claim he didn't, I just say wiki described what happened. If I had to guess, I would say he probably did. People do that kind of stuff.
Like I said, stuff like that happens
Crimes happen in The Cause ( promoting the dirty science)

Hmmmm
How does this affects wiki reliability?
It shows just one example of how dirty science scientists ARE involved in all kinds of illicit actions and their coverup, not to mention trolling public sites to put in false information. Do you think wiki is exempt? It has been a main target of their efforts.

I don't think there's a collective effort from climate scientists to put in false information, you haven't shown that. Illicit activities is a general phenomenum practiced by people. I think Wikipedia has made major advancements, mainly because of anti-science edits, mainly demanding proper sourcing and editorial revision.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:38 pm

I consider it to be an aberration from decent human behaviour, a low in ethics, and a crime

I agree with you on that, just don't know about the crime, that's a legal definition.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:43 pm

How does wiki explain how it was pinned on him and his confession to the illicit obtaining of the OTHER documents because of this evidence of his writing style in the document, and yet he had nothing to do with forging the forged document?

Let's examine his excuse-making! He says it was mailed to him by person(s) unknown, right?

It feels we're delving into too much detail. I don't mind assuming he's guilty and probably lied.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:57 pm

supervitor wrote:
How does wiki explain how it was pinned on him and his confession to the illicit obtaining of the OTHER documents because of this evidence of his writing style in the document, and yet he had nothing to do with forging the forged document?

Let's examine his excuse-making! He says it was mailed to him by person(s) unknown, right?

It feels we're delving into too much detail. I don't mind assuming he's guilty and probably lied.


Good assumption. What does wiki say about the forging incident?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:12 pm

SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
How does wiki explain how it was pinned on him and his confession to the illicit obtaining of the OTHER documents because of this evidence of his writing style in the document, and yet he had nothing to do with forging the forged document?

Let's examine his excuse-making! He says it was mailed to him by person(s) unknown, right?

It feels we're delving into too much detail. I don't mind assuming he's guilty and probably lied.


Good assumption. What does wiki say about the forging incident?

I told you, it describes: The forging document claim from the Institute, the denial, apologies, suspension and later reinstatement of the guy

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:17 pm

supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:
How does wiki explain how it was pinned on him and his confession to the illicit obtaining of the OTHER documents because of this evidence of his writing style in the document, and yet he had nothing to do with forging the forged document?

Let's examine his excuse-making! He says it was mailed to him by person(s) unknown, right?

It feels we're delving into too much detail. I don't mind assuming he's guilty and probably lied.


Good assumption. What does wiki say about the forging incident?

I told you, it describes: The forging document claim from the Institute, the denial, apologies, suspension and later reinstatement of the guy
Yes, and does it touch on what was forged?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:17 pm

Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page 'Strategy Memo', had been forged.[43] Gleick denied forging the document. Gleick described his actions as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case" and "offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected".

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:21 pm

It seems it calls it a strategy memo.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:22 pm

It was all the damning statements. So wiki leaves it as the other activists like to leave it. The damning statements in circulation, unclear as to what was forged, and Gleick in the clear on that issue. What investigation took place? His own institute which he founded and headed, did what to investigate the incident?
What did AGU do about their Ethics and Standards Chairman's behaviour?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:27 pm

It also mentions the confession of using another person's name:
had "solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name".

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:35 pm

SweetPea wrote:It was all the damning statements. So wiki leaves it as the other activists like to leave it. The damning statements in circulation, unclear as to what was forged, and Gleick in the clear on that issue. What investigation took place? His own institute which he founded and headed, did what to investigate the incident?
What did AGU do about their Ethics and Standards Chairman's behaviour?

So, we have different sensitivities about the punishment and importance. I feel it's ok to be treated locally and that if it's court matter it should be handled by them, you are not satisfied with the outcome. I agree with you that's not decent behaviour, but prefer to give importance to other issues than the ethics chairman of the AGU behaviour.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:49 pm

supervitor wrote:
SweetPea wrote:It was all the damning statements. So wiki leaves it as the other activists like to leave it. The damning statements in circulation, unclear as to what was forged, and Gleick in the clear on that issue. What investigation took place? His own institute which he founded and headed, did what to investigate the incident?
What did AGU do about their Ethics and Standards Chairman's behaviour?

So, we have different sensitivities about the punishment and importance. I feel it's ok to be treated locally and that if it's court matter it should be handled by them, you are not satisfied with the outcome. I agree with you that's not decent behaviour, but prefer to give importance to other issues than the ethics chairman of the AGU behaviour.

wiki leaves out pertinent information. That's what we were discussing.
And the scientific society treated their Ethics and Standards Chairman, how?
By honouring him right away as a feature speaker.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:52 pm

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5
The liar lies about a book he didn't read.
He was a busy little alarmist scientist- this was just before he got caught.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:03 pm

I followed the source for the investigation from his institute, on Wikipedia, Sweetpea. It's a the guardian article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... and-expose

They are very clear in saying, like you're claiming, that the investigation of the Pacific Institute is not clear, publicly available. I got there through the Wikipedia article and so anyone wanting to know the specifics can

But the Institute offered no further information on the findings of the investigation, or any evidence to support the claim of having conducted a fully independent investigation. It gave no further explanation for its decision to reject Heartland's charges that Gleick had faked a document.

Nancy Ross, a spokesperson for the Pacific Institute, said the review would not be released because it was a confidential personnel matter.


The article also gives some context to what he did, an expose to the Heartland Institute, some kind of ultra conservative think thank:

But the organisation has taken a big hit since Gleick's revelations – although much of the damage was done by its own combattive response to the sting.


So maybe he's some kind of Edward Snowden type of hero? None of that is refered on wiki also.

The HI is also happy that he's back at his job, at least publicly:

But it added: "We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute's ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity."

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:09 pm

What I mean is that Wikipedia don't aim to have all information (in fact they've been reducing the size of the articles, I've noticed that), but allows you to get there by demanding credible and available sources

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:23 pm

SweetPea wrote:http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5
The liar lies about a book he didn't read.
He was a busy little alarmist scientist- this was just before he got caught.

There was a funny comment there about chocolate.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:31 pm

supervitor wrote:Ohh, apologies for the lack of courtesy. Welcome back, Jimmy.


HeheHe, Schizo Stuperviter now imagines he is the forum host and greeter. :lol: :lol: :lol:
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:34 pm

Do you want to delve into what it was exposed?

The Institute, in its prepared statement, said: "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute."
(...)
The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland's donors' list – which it had kept private – as well as a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools. The ultra-conservative organisation immediately moved to capitalise on the media exposure, setting up a website which it called "Fakegate" and using Gleick's image to sell $22.49 coffee mugs.

But when Heartland promoted the climate conference by taking out a billboard comparing believers in climate change to psychopaths like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, a run in donors, which had been relatively modest immediately after Gleick's exposé, spiked dramatically. Two board members resigned, almost all of those based in its Washington DC office quit, and a number of Heartland allies publicly chided the organisation and dropped out of last month's conference.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:36 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
supervitor wrote:Ohh, apologies for the lack of courtesy. Welcome back, Jimmy.


HeheHe, Schizo Stuperviter now imagines he is the forum host and greeter. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just to you, dear jimmy. I had missed you since you announced you needed a break from me :)

But my real greeting was the post before that one..

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:07 am

supervitor wrote:Do you want to delve into what it was exposed?

The Institute, in its prepared statement, said: "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute."




Gleick's organzation supports the completely ridiculous lies that Gleick made! But that's not what I asked about.
What kind of investigation was it? It wasn't. A justification statement was made up by GLeick's organization. That's all.

The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland's donors' list – which it had kept private
It exposed the donor list. Exactly He wanted to do damage with by illegal means, and he did.
as well as [b]a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
Gleick's institute made that claim, like Gleick made up the other lies. That's not something an investigation found about Gleick's actions. That's putting out more lies in order to justify what Gleick did.

The ultra-conservative organisation immediately moved to capitalise on the media exposure, setting up a website which it called "Fakegate" and using Gleick's image to sell $22.49 coffee mugs.

But when Heartland promoted the climate conference by taking out a billboard comparing believers in climate change to psychopaths like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, a run in donors, which had been relatively modest immediately after Gleick's exposé, spiked dramatically. Two board members resigned, almost all of those based in its Washington DC office quit, and a number of Heartland allies publicly chided the organisation and dropped out of last month's conference.

Not an investigation into Gleick's misbehaviour - a post-hoc justification for Gleick's behaviour.
Other organizations that support alramism have presented repulsive suggestions - and they get funding and praise. But none of that changes what Gleick did, and the fact that the story is presented to you by wiki in a light that does not expose the facts, rather it admits what had to be admitted, misdirects attention away from what actually happened, glosses over to Gleick being accepted back.
He was cleared by "investigation". Right. Haw haw.

Super, you already can tell that the Gleick excuses were lies, but you accept wiki's spin, misdirection and half information.

I got there through the Wikipedia article and so anyone wanting to know the specifics can

But you have to follow up, what wiki presented misleads by calling it an "investigation" without saying it was Gleick minions "investigating( justifying ) Gleick, and that he was reinstated.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:21 am

SweetPea wrote:
supervitor wrote:Do you want to delve into what it was exposed?

The Institute, in its prepared statement, said: "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute."




Gleick's organzation supports the completely ridiculous lies that Gleick made! But that's not what I asked about.
What kind of investigation was it? It wasn't. A justification statement was made up by GLeick's organization. That's all.

Ok, they only refer the name of the outside organisation, they haven't released the investigation.
The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland's donors' list – which it had kept private
It exposed the donor list. Exactly He wanted to do damage with by illegal means, and he did.

I'm for transparency. Not shocked by the exposure, I feel support for meaningful think thanks should be forcefully disclose by law. If they don't want be seen as giving money to radicals, maybe they shouldn't give it.



as well as [b]a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
Gleick's institute made that claim, like Gleick made up the other lies. That's not something an investigation found about Gleick's actions. That's putting out more lies in order to justify what Gleick did.

This is from the guardian, they say it's corroborated by the documents released. I don't think they would print it if they hadn't verify it. (read the 'as well')


The ultra-conservative organisation immediately moved to capitalise on the media exposure, setting up a website which it called "Fakegate" and using Gleick's image to sell $22.49 coffee mugs.

But when Heartland promoted the climate conference by taking out a billboard comparing believers in climate change to psychopaths like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, a run in donors, which had been relatively modest immediately after Gleick's exposé, spiked dramatically. Two board members resigned, almost all of those based in its Washington DC office quit, and a number of Heartland allies publicly chided the organisation and dropped out of last month's conference.

Not an investigation into Gleick's misbehaviour - a post-hoc justification for Gleick's behaviour.
Other organizations that support alramism have presented repulsive suggestions - and they get funding and praise. But none of that changes what Gleick did, and the fact that the story is presented to you by wiki in a light that does not expose the facts, rather it admits what had to be admitted, misdirects attention away from what actually happened, glosses over to Gleick being accepted back.
He was cleared by "investigation". Right. Haw haw.

Super, you already can tell that the Gleick excuses were lies, but you accept wiki's spin, misdirection and half information.

I don't qualify it like that. I say it's not up to your standards of completedness. They could have said the investigation was not released to the public, like it's on the guardian, by I could argue they didn't mentioned anything about what could have been his motivations, exposing the wrong-doing of the Heartland Institute. That would put him on a good light, like snowden or if you don't like that metaphor, the "emailgate hackers". They are heroes, right?

Point is that they, like any encyclopedia have to make editorial choices about what goes in. I feel it's appropriate.
I got there through the Wikipedia article and so anyone wanting to know the specifics can

But you have to follow up, what wiki presented misleads by calling it an "investigation" without saying it was Gleick minions "investigating( justifying ) Gleick, and that he was reinstated.
[/quote]
That hasn't been established. All we have is the name of the outside organisation that did the investigation. Either way, one can follow up, if one wants more details. They have to stop somewhere.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:06 am

I'm for transparency. Not shocked by the exposure, I feel support for meaningful think thanks should be forcefully disclose by law. If they don't want be seen as giving money to radicals, maybe they shouldn't give it.

Well, it's just not the case, and that goes for both sides. And what was the exposure ? Nothing much of interest. A tiny budget.

Gleick made stuff up.



as well as [b]a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
Gleick's institute made that claim, like Gleick made up the other lies. That's not something an investigation found about Gleick's actions. That's putting out more lies in order to justify what Gleick did.

This is from the guardian, they say it's corroborated by the documents released. I don't think they would print it if they hadn't verify it. (read the 'as well')
You think wrong. They fed you {!#%@} and you swallowed.
Guardian wrote:The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland's donors' list – which it had kept private – as well as a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
""The documents released by Gleick" doesn't mean it was corroborated by Heartland documents. The strategy document was Gleick's, remember. So you get duped by the Guardian.


Super, you already can tell that the Gleick excuses were lies, but you accept wiki's spin, misdirection and half information.

I don't qualify it like that. I say it's not up to your standards of completedness.
And you'd never know what happened if you rely on wiki. It's partial info, neglecting to tell you vital info so that you could understand what went on.

They could have said the investigation was not released to the public, like it's on the guardian, by I could argue they didn't mentioned anything about what could have been his motivations, exposing the wrong-doing of the Heartland Institute.
WHAT wrongdoings? There were none. That's why the forged damning document. You've been had.

A journalist symapthetic to the warmist cause relates her involvement:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... es/253395/

While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending...
Check. The Guardian
... , to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

But not a full understanding of those documents, because the memo made curious errors. Most notably, it claimed that the Koch foundation had given $200,000 in 2011, when the actual number was $25,000 ($200,000 is what Heartland's fundraising document indicates they hoped to get in 2012)--and since that money was donated for Health Care News, Heartland's health care newsletter, it's hard to see why it would show up in the climate strategy document, rather than, say, a document about their health care strategy. Given other anomalies surrounding the document, it seemed to me very likely that whoever had phished the authenticated board package had been disappointed by the lack of sizeable contributions from Big Oil and the Kochs, and so had written the memo to make sure that the documents told a nice, neat story about corruption and secrecy, rather than a boring, equivocal story about an issue advocacy organization with a spot of budget trouble.

But it doesn't matter what the truth is. The made-up story is what remains in your mind as true, due to depending on sources such as wiki and The Guardian.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:06 am

SweetPea wrote:
I'm for transparency. Not shocked by the exposure, I feel support for meaningful think thanks should be forcefully disclose by law. If they don't want be seen as giving money to radicals, maybe they shouldn't give it.

Well, it's just not the case, and that goes for both sides. And what was the exposure ? Nothing much of interest. A tiny budget.

Gleick made stuff up.


What matters now is what has been made up. And what the exposure was. It doesn't seem nothing from where I stand.


as well as [b]a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
Gleick's institute made that claim, like Gleick made up the other lies. That's not something an investigation found about Gleick's actions. That's putting out more lies in order to justify what Gleick did.

This is from the guardian, they say it's corroborated by the documents released. I don't think they would print it if they hadn't verify it. (read the 'as well')
You think wrong. They fed you {!#%@} and you swallowed.

We'll see. The Guardian is a serious newspaper
Guardian wrote:The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland's donors' list – which it had kept private – as well as a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.
""The documents released by Gleick" doesn't mean it was corroborated by Heartland documents. The strategy document was Gleick's, remember. So you get duped by the Guardian.

Then we should go deeper. 2 page Strategy document doesn't mean "plan to fool children". It certainly is not enough for me to think the the guardian was careless enough to make a misleading sentence. We need to check what was forged. Or better yet, what wasn't forged, like the plan to dupe children..


Super, you already can tell that the Gleick excuses were lies, but you accept wiki's spin, misdirection and half information.

I don't qualify it like that. I say it's not up to your standards of completedness.
And you'd never know what happened if you rely on wiki. It's partial info, neglecting to tell you vital info so that you could understand what went on.

They could have said the investigation was not released to the public, like it's on the guardian, by I could argue they didn't mentioned anything about what could have been his motivations, exposing the wrong-doing of the Heartland Institute.
WHAT wrongdoings? There were none. That's why the forged damning document. You've been had.

We have the the guardian article so far, showing the wrongdoings. You think they are fooling us with "the plan", I don't think so. Let's look into it.
A journalist symapthetic to the warmist cause relates her involvement:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... es/253395/


I haven't read her as very sympathetic, it's an opinion piece on the Atlantic, after all. But she did allow us to reach the truth, I'll give her that.


While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending...
Check. The Guardian
... , to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

But not a full understanding of those documents, because the memo made curious errors. Most notably, it claimed that the Koch foundation had given $200,000 in 2011, when the actual number was $25,000 ($200,000 is what Heartland's fundraising document indicates they hoped to get in 2012)--and since that money was donated for Health Care News, Heartland's health care newsletter, it's hard to see why it would show up in the climate strategy document, rather than, say, a document about their health care strategy. Given other anomalies surrounding the document, it seemed to me very likely that whoever had phished the authenticated board package had been disappointed by the lack of sizeable contributions from Big Oil and the Kochs, and so had written the memo to make sure that the documents told a nice, neat story about corruption and secrecy, rather than a boring, equivocal story about an issue advocacy organization with a spot of budget trouble.

But it doesn't matter what the truth is. The made-up story is what remains in your mind as true, due to depending on sources such as wiki and The Guardian.

Now it matters. Your case stands now on the plan to dupe children being made up. I trust they were accurate and not misleading. Shall we check this?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:23 am

So, through the link from the Atlantic, I got here:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/1 ... te-revkin/

It's the documents, the first page showed is "the plan to fool children", a page 18 of something, so not part of a 2 page Strategy Memo.

All is there, including the 5000 dollars per module to be paid the author of the deceptions.

Later on is confirmed the veracity of that document, by the Heartland Institute:

UPDATE: I have updated this post. Heartland has not yet denied the authenticity of any of the excerpts now quoted here, saying only that their authenticity “has not been confirmed” and claiming that another document distributed to the press was a fake.


So, was I duped by the Guardian or did I ok for trusting their prestige that it had been verified?

Isn't what was exposed an aberration from decent human behaviour, a low in ethics, a fraud in the making?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:57 pm

Which temperature data set supports alarmists and which supports skeptics. Choose your data set and compare. Are some fraudulent?

Image

graph from Bob Tisdale and WUWT

The two satelllite data sets (UAH and RSS) offer more complete coverage and other then quality control adjustments the temperatures are not homogenized. Furthermore the satellite data is in good agreement despite the UAH scientists being skeptics and the RSS scientists be war mists.

In contrast the GISS, Hadcrut, NCEI data sets are controlled by warmists, offer less coverage, and in addition to quality control adjustments the data are heavily homogenized. That has resulted in changing the maximum temperatures at Death Valley from cooling since the 30s to a warming trend. Is that why their data looks so different from the satellite data.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... =648&h=220
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:29 pm

supervitor wrote:So, through the link from the Atlantic, I got here:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/1 ... te-revkin/

It's the documents, the first page showed is "the plan to fool children", a page 18 of something, so not part of a 2 page Strategy Memo.

All is there, including the 5000 dollars per module to be paid the author of the deceptions.

Later on is confirmed the veracity of that document, by the Heartland Institute:

UPDATE: I have updated this post. Heartland has not yet denied the authenticity of any of the excerpts now quoted here, saying only that their authenticity “has not been confirmed” and claiming that another document distributed to the press was a fake.


So, was I duped by the Guardian or did I ok for trusting their prestige that it had been verified?
You were duped. Where do you read about a plan to "dupe children" and pay for "deceptions".
Those are, in fact, only the words of your untrustworthy sources.

"the plan to fool children", a page 18 of something
NO, you swallowed the lies wholesale. There is no "Plan to fool children" page. :lol: Joe Romm must think he's a master at plans to dupe adults - it worked.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:03 pm

Follow the link, Sweety, it's one of the documents released to the press

Image

H. Global warming curriculum for K12 schools

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by supervitor » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:16 pm

This is Romm's reputation segment on his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

In 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies".[99][100] In 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America", quoting journalist David Roberts as follows: "Joe combines two qualities you don't often find together. A deep knowledge of technology, policy and science along with genuine moral passion."[4] Former Houston, Texas mayor Bill White called Romm "the nation’s leading expert on energy efficiency."[101] U.S. News & World Report featured Romm as one of eight "key players" who were "Driving Public Policy in Washington", calling Romm an "oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings".[90] Time magazine named Romm one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)", writing, "He combines ... intellect with a strong sense of moral outrage. He also possesses a Jon Stewart-like quality for pointing out the absurdity of his opponents."[5] Time named his blog as one of the "Top 15 Green Websites", and Technorati ranked it as the leading "Green site" in 2009.[102] The same year, Thomas L. Friedman, in The New York Times, called Climate Progress "the indispensable blog".[7]

In 2010, Time included Romm's blog in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010"[8] and one of the "Top Five Blogs TIME Writers Read Daily".[103] The same year, TreeHugger named Romm's blog the "Best Politics Website", adding, "this is the art of blogging at its best".[104] The UK's The Guardian ranked Climate Progress at the top of its list of blogs in its "Top 50 Twitter climate accounts to follow".[105] Reviewing Romm's 2010 book Straight Up, Bill McKibben wrote that Romm "knows his climate science ... [and] has been a persuasive voice for the most important truth about global warming: that it is a far worse problem than either politicians or the general public understand. ... Romm has been consistent in insisting that we have much of the technology necessary to at least begin tackling the problem." He called Romm "a tireless foil to the 'right-wing disinformation machine' that has tried – with great success ... to delay action by confusing and disheartening Americans about global warming. ... It requires a thick skin to take on the daily task of dealing with the disinformers, but Romm has the taste for this kind of blood sport, and the talent as well."[106] In 2011, The New York Times called Romm "one of the country’s most influential writers on climate change".[107] In 2012, Planetsave wrote that Romm is "considered the world’s best blogger on climate science, and politics related to it."[108]


Now, are you going to argue he risked his reputation and forged that document? Why has Heartland confirmed the forged one is another document?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:42 pm

supervitor wrote:Follow the link, Sweety, it's one of the documents released to the press

Image

H. Global warming curriculum for K12 schools
Again, there is no "Plan to dupe children" page. You've been duped. Read the page.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:47 pm

supervitor wrote:This is Romm's reputation segment on his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

In 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies".[99][100] In 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America", quoting journalist David Roberts as follows: "Joe combines two qualities you don't often find together. A deep knowledge of technology, policy and science along with genuine moral passion."[4] Former Houston, Texas mayor Bill White called Romm "the nation’s leading expert on energy efficiency."[101] U.S. News & World Report featured Romm as one of eight "key players" who were "Driving Public Policy in Washington", calling Romm an "oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings".[90] Time magazine named Romm one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)", writing, "He combines ... intellect with a strong sense of moral outrage. He also possesses a Jon Stewart-like quality for pointing out the absurdity of his opponents."[5] Time named his blog as one of the "Top 15 Green Websites", and Technorati ranked it as the leading "Green site" in 2009.[102] The same year, Thomas L. Friedman, in The New York Times, called Climate Progress "the indispensable blog".[7]

In 2010, Time included Romm's blog in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010"[8] and one of the "Top Five Blogs TIME Writers Read Daily".[103] The same year, TreeHugger named Romm's blog the "Best Politics Website", adding, "this is the art of blogging at its best".[104] The UK's The Guardian ranked Climate Progress at the top of its list of blogs in its "Top 50 Twitter climate accounts to follow".[105] Reviewing Romm's 2010 book Straight Up, Bill McKibben wrote that Romm "knows his climate science ... [and] has been a persuasive voice for the most important truth about global warming: that it is a far worse problem than either politicians or the general public understand. ... Romm has been consistent in insisting that we have much of the technology necessary to at least begin tackling the problem." He called Romm "a tireless foil to the 'right-wing disinformation machine' that has tried – with great success ... to delay action by confusing and disheartening Americans about global warming. ... It requires a thick skin to take on the daily task of dealing with the disinformers, but Romm has the taste for this kind of blood sport, and the talent as well."[106] In 2011, The New York Times called Romm "one of the country’s most influential writers on climate change".[107] In 2012, Planetsave wrote that Romm is "considered the world’s best blogger on climate science, and politics related to it."[108]


Now, are you going to argue he risked his reputation and forged that document? Why has Heartland confirmed the forged one is another document?


Hehe, you're using wiki to tell us about Joe Romm. Romm is an ass. HIs blog carried a post screaming that global warming was melting streetlamps. It was a fire underneath the street lamp in a dumpster that melted half of the streetlamp cover. What kind of physicist would let that be posted on his site? How could it be even possible? What idiocy. And that's when he's not deliberately misleading.

That being said, it's false that there is any page on "Plan to fool the children". You've been had, Super.
I'll show you some Joe Ramm stupidity if you like. Any high school student in sciences should be able to see how goofy his wild-ass analyses are. But the point is that here you've been deceived by reading Joe Romm.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:08 pm

I can repeat for you something I said a few posts up.
Supervitor wrote:"the plan to fool children", a page 18 of something

"Those are, in fact, only the words of your untrustworthy sources."
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;