Print Friendly

As a scientist, I have tried to encourage publication with evidence.  If properly caste, reviewers should be able to repeat, test, evaluate, improve, or deny on their own.  While I have found many contrary and significant observational items of evidence refuting the hypotheses of singular  human causality and its hypothetical negative effects, I presumed the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) were playing by similar ethics.  Therefore, I provide my observational facts in contrast.  Then came Climategate.  I commented that it was a sad day for science, but we needed to sort it out rationally.  The really sad part is the revelation had to come from shameful means: electronic hacking.  But, no mia culpa about hiding data by the AGW scientists, although they obviously did.

Now we have an elevation of the issue with Fakegate, the blatant attack on the  Heartland Institute (HI). Do two wrongs make a right?  They shouldn’t.  But, these two wrongs are exposing similar tactics in the AGW realm.  In the first situation, we have clandestine attempts to discredit fellow scientists and hide confounding data.   In the second, we have outright, open, and likely criminal intent with forethought to malign and libel an opposing organization and its sponsors, personnel and supporters through identity theft and forgery.  The perpetrator, Peter Gleick, a claimed ethicist, has now admitted that his reason was frustration that the HI messages seem stronger than his and he is losing credibility.

What a way to further destroy one’s credibility.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Reader
  • LinkedIn

2 comments to FakeGate

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>