Sunday, February 26, 2012

The puke funnel

The churnalists are playing ping pong with Peter Gliek.  TBogg, who has some handsome hounds, describes this in terms of the push to the Iraq war

You may be aware of the term “puke funnel” which is used to describe either a well-orchestrated right-wing campaign to smear and discredit people or, depending upon the topic, to create a new and improved reality more amenable to the instigators’ needs. A classic example is how Ahmad Chalabi plied Judith Miller with access and lies about WMD’s in Iraq which Miller unquestioningly reported, only to have Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice cite her reporting as further evidence for the need to go to war.
and you remember how well that turned out.  Well now
You can see the same forces at work in the matter of Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute papers as the people who support the institute unleash their yappy attack dogs on Gleick in order to deflect from the fact that Heartland is a corporate front group for companies who see the world as their ashtray. Earlier in the week you had I’m-not-angry, I’m-just-very-disappointed Andrew Revkin at the NYT (is gullibility a feature or a bug at the Times?…discuss) display his Miller-esque knack for being manipulated while over at The Atlantic our gal Megan McArdle was putting in a serious amount of work (as noted by DougJ) arriving at the conclusion that the disputed memo must be fake because…well, she has mad forensic skillz so just shut up
 T points out that every puke funnel needs a self reinforcing daisy chain, the full Santorum as it were being passed about madly in a single Koch Industries funded chain letter
In the meantime, her work for the Kochs is done here. The circle of life is complete. The check is in the mail. This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whisper campaign…

30 comments:

NnN said...

I am leaning towards the idea that fossil fuel interests have almost entirely backed off funding these think-tanks and institutes.

They don't need to anymore, their interests are being promoted for free by right wing ideologues and it's easier for them to not associate.

I bet for example that "anonymous donor" and the mystery GWPF funder (same person perhaps?) will turn out to be a right-wing ideologue throwing money at an obsession rather than there being a corporate operation behind it.

rumleyfips said...

I don't read Revkin; I find his stuff incomprehensable.

I also let my subscription to the Atlantic run out. They have stopped using prose and now just hit the keyboard at random.

Do others ignor this babble?

John McManus

Anonymous said...

Peter Glieck, chairman of an ethics board, commits a felony and Eli goes on a rant about HI!

Are you saying the memo is real?

Eli you have jumped the shark!




Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

You missed the self-proclaimed "auditor" in one of his most egregious examples of chumming ever. Its like grade 6 all over again over there. Don't worry Steve, karma is a bitch.

joenonymous

Martin Vermeer said...

> Peter Glieck, chairman of an ethics board, commits a felony and Eli goes on a rant about HI!

Gleick. As with any felony, the interesting thing is the question of motive. So what did he obtain, and was it worth it? Aren't you curious?

> Are you saying the memo is real?

The factual contents appear to be real enough... did you check? Again, where is your curiosity?

As we speak, thanks to this incident and in what may well be Peter Gleick's legacy, a motley bunch of journalists and bloggers are tripping over each other digging through the massive corpus of Heartland's intentionally public writings, turning up the most outrageous things. The stuff they've been pushing publicly over the years is every bit as damning as anything they would prefer to keep secret. Some of us knew this already, but Celery Eater, as other so-called 'skeptics', remains singularly uncurious...

Lars Karlsson said...

I strongly recommend everybody to read the link that Martin Vermeer gives about. It concerns Heartland's teaching material.

Strong stuff, headvise on!

Anonymous said...

@Martin Vermeer

you're a moron if you believe the fake memo is real. Also, I read your link, it was very scary.

Students know the different atmospheric gases that absorb the Earth’s thermal radiation and the mechanism and significance of the greenhouse effect.
The students will learn how the earth’s temperature is highly variable and that it has been stable or declining in recent years while carbon dioxide continues to increase.
The student’s will learn that temperature precedes change’s in carbon dioxide, not the other way around as previously thought.
The students will learn that when all of the emerging science is considered, man-caused global warming is not a forgone conclusion agreed upon by all scientists. There is great debate within the scientific community.
Also in lesson one:

Massive Data Fraud in NOAA and NASA: […] The data used by NOAA and NASA is shown to have excluded temperature data from northern latitudes and high elevations since 1980 which automatically shows greatly increased temperatures that supposedly shows great man-caused global warming. Also discusses Britain’s Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) massive data manipulation called Climategate.

Oh really? Does systematic libel of scientific organisations really belong in the classroom?

All of the above is true, Vermeer. You're just a far left whacko whose God is a tree.

Anonymous said...

@celery eater

Eli has nothing. He's a typical professor. He has all the theoretical answers but luckily he's never been put in a decision making position in the real world. The teacher's union is a perfect place for his mediocrity to stagnate.

Anonymous said...

@Martin,

Yes I have read all the HI "obtained" documents and I yawn at the paltry ~$4 million budget.

So the ends justify the means? BTW, motive does not determine whether a crime was committed or not.


Another clue as to what climate scientists and those that support their actions, no matter what, are really like. Lying crimminals with personal vendettas as their guiding line.


Gavin Schmidt has been the only sane voice in all of this, everyone else has jumped the shark.


For years I have pointed out the errors in the AGW communication/public relations plan. Here is another example. Peter Glieck not only commited a crime he made it impossible for the IRS to look into HI as John Mashey (crazy over the top nut he is) wants and has requested via complaints. btw john great time investment in the Wegman affair, I am sure his wrist is still smarting from the thousands of hours you poured into that effort. lol


You guys crack me up.




Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Celery Eater, the Discovery Institute has a budget of about the same magnitude as Heartland, and has managed to repeatedly mobilise attempts to get creationism...errr...intelligent design as a topic in school. And it has some temporary wins in that field, too.

That's in an area of science where accepting something does not have any financial implications or even requires you to change your life.

Marco

toto said...

Well, personally, I found McArdle's commentary rather level-headed and quite convincing. That doesn't mean she's necessarily right, but if all he (and you) can come up with is to call her a Koch stooge, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

(Hell, at least you could credit her for the "Batman villain secret lair" line)

btw john great time investment in the Wegman affair, I am sure his wrist is still smarting

A question about W: did he or did he not lose any chance at future federal funding?

Anonymous said...

Marco,

Thanks for the information. I looked up the discovery institute and read that their temporary wins were indeed abject failures, the system works.

Kanasas evolution hearings 2005-2007, but ultimately lost in 2007.

Santorum Ammendment to NCLB, lost.


Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District. 2004 thet had parallel IDcourseware. 2005 goes to trial. Plaintiffs prevail in removing ID even though OMG a Bush appointed judge presided over the case.


The system works. Advocating for government control over speech is very dangerous.

Breaking the law to violates people's privacy is something we should be shocked and horrified as even thinking on it being a plausible way to seek the truth.


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Innovator and leader in our post-corruption society Stratfor takes a cue from Heartland:

"In a statement, Stratfor said that some of the e-mails being published “may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic.”

“We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them,” the statement said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/technology/wikileaks-publishes-intelligence-firm-e-mails.html?hp

Leaks include such gems as Goldman Sachs creating a special fund named "StratCap" designed to exploit Stratfor's gleanings (unspecified whether by means fair or foul).

J Bowers said...

"Another clue as to what climate scientists and those that support their actions, no matter what, are really like. Lying crimminals with personal vendettas as their guiding line."

Nicely illustrating how it works: accuse the other side of the fouls your own team commits.

Anonymous said...

Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap
-- Horatio's reversification of AC/DC

If you got some warming and you want it gone
But you ain't got the stats
It keeps naggin' at you night 'n' day
Enough to drive you bats
Pick the cherries, in the series
To make a flat-line trend
For a fee, I'm happy to be
Your pseudo-skeptic man, hey


Dirty deeds done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap
Oily deeds and they're done dirt cheap, yeah
Gassy deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Coaly deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap
Short term trends
Graphicide
E 'N' E
Done dirt cheap
Ooo, Exxon-ties
Contracts
High Doltage
Done dirt cheap, yeaaah

Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap
Oily deeds, coaly deeds, gassy deeds, done dirt cheap

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for the information. I looked up the discovery institute and read that their temporary wins were indeed abject failures, the system works.
...
The system works."

Louisiana Academic Freedom Act 2008 is now enshrining the DI's efforts into law there. New bills still pop up all the time, recently in Indiana. They take up valuable time and legislative effort for absolutely no gain and exist as political tools for politicians to use in elections, promulgating their anti-science to the voting base and reinforcing superstitious nonsense over science. The act of defeating the anti-evolutionists in Dover cost the district over a million dollars it could have put to use educating children.
"Teach the Controversy" has moved indisputably from wild-eyed Creationist bill writers into the Heartland Foundation's materials and campaigns, hence their $200K commissioning of Wojick to create supplementary educational materials that teach the "controversy" of AGW even in areas where there is no scientific controversy. This is apparent even in the documents that are not in dispute, such as the Fundraising Plan. It is a direct line from anti-evolution programs that have seen some success to anti-AGW programs that hope for success.

Anonymous said...

@J Bowers,

So Peter Gleick is on my side?


Hmm news to me.


Justice would be served if his future view from home included bars.



Celery Eater

ligne said...

Anonymous at 27/2/12 7:18 AM:

"All of the above is true, Vermeer. You're just a far left whacko whose God is a tree."

no, most of the above is complete and utter bollocks. and either know this to be the case (in which case they're liars), or they're staggeringly ignorant (in which case they have no place producing teaching materials)*.

"The students will learn how the earth’s temperature is highly variable and that it has been stable or declining in recent years while carbon dioxide continues to increase."

nice: they want to teach kids to cherry-pick non statistically significant data-series to "prove" a pre-determined conclusion. how is that an appropriate lesson?

"The data used by NOAA and NASA is shown to have excluded temperature data from northern latitudes and high elevations since 1980 which automatically shows greatly increased temperatures that supposedly shows great man-caused global warming."

this was shown to be crap more than 2 years ago: http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/

either they've not carried out the trivial amount of research required to validate their claim, or they're knowingly spreading lies. either way: not the sort of thing that belongs in a classroom.

then again, maybe i'm just a far-left whacko who puts accuracy and honesty in education above politicking...


* to be fair, they don't seem to understand the how apostrophes work, so we should probably tend towards them being ignorant rather than mendacious...

J Bowers said...

"Yes I have read all the HI "obtained" documents and I yawn at the paltry ~$4 million budget."

Being generous 'coz HI are so minor league, apparently, now multiply by 130+.

State Policy Network.

Why, they even have their own budding propaganda arm.

Anonymous said...

Let's all appoint J Bowers as the speeah and donation czar. J Bowers can then dictate (as he snaps his heels together) as to what levels of donations will get you on a public list. Further J Bowers will dictate (as he laughs at the Chamberlains of the world) who is allowed to associate with who and what they can or cannot say.


Thanks J Bowers, you are a genius and our savior.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

That could be $430 million going into the free marketeer franchise coffers, tax deductible.

But then, Greenpeace's lobbying isn't even tax deductible.

ligne said...

...and Celery Eater Godwins the thread. classy!

Anonymous said...

ligne said...


You meet stupidity with stupidity and Rabett Run has jumped the shark. Condoning Gleick's crimminal action. Crying about ~$4 million Heartland budget that comes from anonymous donors, oh no call the thought police.

If you do not want to be compared to anti-freedom historical figures then stop acting like them and advocating similar policies.



Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ah, It seems that Celery Eater, like Glenn Beck, has Nazi Tourette's.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

Call it whatever you want at least I am not the one advocating the termination and restriction of free speech.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

Who's advocating restrictions on free speech? I don't give a stuff about where muppets put their money, it's their money. I object to comparing Greenpeace with Heartland, when Greenpeace don't go all tax free for their lobbying, and Heartland are part of a hundreds of million bucks franchise themselves. Unless, of course, you want to see my free speech restricted in pointing these things out? Sorry if you don't like what I say, but as we say over here, "tough titty".

J Bowers said...

Columbia Journalism Review has a piece on the legal ins-and-outs of Peter Gleick's actions, with input from real lawyers not of the armchair variety.

Heartland, Gleick, and Media Law

Anonymous said...

J Boiwers,

If you are advocating the termination of anonymous donations via all donors must be made public than you are advocating termination/restriction on free speech.

Please by all means tell me what changes to the current system if any that you want to see put in place?


Read that article by a supposed legal team who failed to even look up and reference a single relevant law. Sloppy work to say the least. I would not hire one of them to represent me in small claims court.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

Free speech depends on anonymous donations to think tanks? A ridiculous notion. You may as well argue that sponsors of TV shows should have their brand blacked out.

Anonymous said...

Read that article by a supposed legal team...

What article is by which legal team, Celery Eater?

The article linked by J Bowers is by Curtis Brainard, "the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting". The author is a journalist who sought various legal (and other) opinions in writing his editorial.

Am I reading the wrong article? I would appreciate you linking me to this article by this supposed legal team, Celery Eater.

Cymraeg llygoden