#28c Using the Heartland/Gleick story to teach critical thinking : The Irrational World Blog by Stew Green

#28c Using the Heartland/Gleick story to teach critical thinking
Page 4

Did the Green Activist Media Correct their story ?

- While skeptic blogs posted the new story 10 times more green posts were still appearing reposting the old NCSE fundraiser PR, implying we have to support NCSE “Climate-Science” education campaign as if it was being done in reaction to stop the evil anti-science Heartland brainwashing your children, when in fact NCSE’s campaign came first.
- DoubtfulNews continued a few days later with a NCSE fundraising post even after PG had confessed. It's very strange she repeated the part of the story criticising Heartland, but omitted to say that the man in trouble over the Heartland story was the head of the NCSE climate science program but had just been fired in light of his misconduct.
- Some people referred to the NCSE program as indoctrination, and indeed if they were successful in keeping opposing views like Heartland's from being mentioned in schools ..that's what it would have been.
- just like some one already organised in Australia

Why Was the Story Published in Such A strange Way ?
- Why do you think Peter Gleick chose to publicise the story in the way he did ?
- PG claims he did not fake the Strategy Document, rather he received it anonymously in the post. It's contents made him so angry he decided he would check the facts before publishing it. That's why he came up with the phishing scam. Why didn't he pass it onto his journalist friends for checking ? Why did he at no stage just ask for the document with that title ? If you had successfully obtained others it would have been as easy.
- If you uncovered information of some program that you disagreed with what would you have done ? Say someone sends you a secret memo saying a SIG wants to dissuade math teachers from teaching maths, what would you do ? Would you keep it all to yourself & then try to hack into that organisation yourself, especially if you are friends with a lot of journalists ? PG also has a lot of friends who are politicians, wouldn't you have maybe told one of them? Would you as PG claims he did send copies to 15 different journalists & omit to say that you received the Strategy Document anonymously therefore leading people to believe it's genuine ?
-. If someone were seeking the truth wouldn't you first gather your evidence & then confront them on camera ? Especially if you had already been talking with them and had been invited to speak at one of their events so you can be sure to be able to speak to them direct.
- Seems to me the operation was like an orchestrated campaign & more about impact than the truth. Despite the emotional language in all the news posts, what have Heartland done wrong ? Have they broken the law ?
- It's akin to what the British press do to someone they disagree with or have fallen out with : MONSTERING.
- It seems quite common for journalists to write a story without consulting the other side & then phone them 30 minutes before publication & leave an answering machine message. I don't understand why, but I under certain circumstances a powerful body might be able to get a story stopped, however I doubt whether in these days of the internet any story in the public interest can be truly suppressed for long.
- Why did all the Green news media rush to publish it without obtaining any corroborating evidence * ? Do they have a culture of publishing without checking stories which confirm their own dogma.
- Or is it publish quickly & don't let the facts get in the way of a good story .. or maybe both reasons.
- Why did all the green media announce it as a leak ? PG's initial press release was titled "from Heartland Insider" ..It seems they accepted that at face value so used the word leak instead of a neutral phrase (e.g. "documents have come to light")
* (BBCNews is supposed to have a rule that it does not publish stories without making secondary checks or seeking out corroborating evidence)

PART IV - Who is Preventing Debate ?
Heartland prove PG had just refused Invitation to Debate
- In his confession Gleick asserted that “a rational public debate is desperately needed” and that there were “ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate.”
- You might like to analyse that sentence, phrase by phrase & decide which side it applies to.
- Especially since the next thing was Heartland published the email thread with Dr. Gleick, showing they were in discussion the day before he phished the genuine documents. They show he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration. Yet his side say Heartland want to close down the debate !
- I have recently noticed a phenomenon whereby some of the people who protest most strongly against a behaviour, seem to do it to cover up that they themselves are the worst perpetrators of that behaviour. e.g. People shouting "racist ", actually behave in a racist way themselves. e.g. People who say "you can't trust them they are all liars", are actually liars "people who would presume to lecture others about ethics, are often NOT the most ethical people" etc.

Many Green Blogs Discredit Themselves - by saying "it's OK to lie for the cause"
- When the confession happened. Some green blogs did say such practices are not acceptable, that you can't use deception in campaigning & expect people not to think that you have used deception in your science results.
- One of the people who posted the original story New York Times Eco-Blogger Andrew Revkin corrected his story.
- But the usual suspects The Green/left commentators like Naomi Klein, George Monbiot etc. and the environment sections of the left wing media (BBC, Guardian etc. ) responded in an extraordinary way by basically saying "it's OK to lie for the cause"
- JoNova responded to Monbiot -'Steal things and be a “democratic” hero? It's just another way to silence debate. '
- It's noticeable that pro-warmist scientist Richard Betts came out strongly protesting on George Monbiot's Blog against what Monbiot said.
- JoNova lists some people saying it's OK to lie for the cause
- One guy had a theory PG was set up by Heartland .... did they fax him a faked document when they realised he was phishing, thinking he was so stupid he would publish it without checking ? what do you reckon ?
- A better list A better list Who take news at face value if it supports their dogma
Why Doesn't Gleick prove he's not a faker ?

- If the green media believe PG's story then why haven't they published " the “anonymous letter” he received: Where was the envelope postmarked? Do you still have the envelope? Was there a cover letter?
- Peter Gleick claims he did not fake the Strategy Document, rather he received it anonymously in the post. It's contents made him so angry he decided he would check the facts before publishing it. That's why he came up with the phishing scam. Why didn't he pass it onto his journalist friends for checking ? Why did he at no stage just ask for the document with that title ?
- If Peter Gleick is telling the truth the longer the story continues the more he is defamed so why haven't his side published the “anonymous letter” with the postmark which will prove he was misled ? Heartland seem to be publishing everything.

INDEX for Gleick/Heartland Deconstruction

<-- PREVIOUS PC HOME BLOG INDEX note/comments NEXT -->