Via The Hockey Schtick
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Bast Again Says Gleick "Forged" the Memo
In a video interview today Joseph Bast (President of the Heartland Institute) said explicitedly that Peter Gleick "forged" the two page said-to-be fake memo. I've again asked him and Jim Lakely how they know it was Gleick who did this, but still haven't received a response.)
Via The Hockey Schtick
Via The Hockey Schtick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Of course Gleick forged the memo, as several people explained to you yesterday.
Bast doesn't allow for a charitable position to those who disagree with him. "surrender your rights" "or we're all going to die" etc.
Number of similar strawmen towards smart environmentalists/economist positions
If my neighbors discovered that some punk broke into their house, and simultaneously discovered that someone peed on their couch, then I don't think that I would be violating any ethical or moral norm by stating that the punk peed on their couch.
Pretty Obvious Gleick is the forger.
Gleick says he received the "forged" document through US mail, and he scanned it in himself. Oh, really? Let's see that original sheet of paper and that envelope.
I'm guessing Heartland knows it in the same way they know climate change is not occurring and tobacco is harmless.
Mr. Appell, do some of your contacts have access to Gleick himself? Ask him: Does he still have the memo? If not, why not? How could he possibly justify getting rid of such an important proof of his documents' authenticity?
If he does have the document, let's have it. We can find out a lot from the physical document. Was it scanned on his printer at home or at his office? Was it originally printed there as well? He can answer all these questions, and they can be independently verified.
Of course, since the most likely explanation is that he wrote it himself (his own story is ridiculous), he won't do any of that, unless maybe forced by Heartland discovery.
MikeR: I've asked the Pacific Institute this question, twice, but haven't gotten a reply. I've also asked for a picture of the envelope, or its return address, or postmark, etc., but they won't share.
How do they know? C'monn now Dave... The reason you're blogging about this is that people recognized his hand in that very memo. The memo is date-identified as being created after the official documents. That would be because it was writting after the documents were in hand, not before. There is two kinds of information in the fake - accurate, which needs the real documents in hand, and lies. The lies - like referring to Gleick the meglomaniac himself - point to Gleick. The idea that anyone at Heartland would be up nights worrying about a blon on Forbes.com is laughable. I'm a climate skeptic blog follower, and I didn't know it existed. i've seen all the blogrolls on other blogs, and never caught sight of Glieck anywhere. In the blogosphere, he's a nobody. But of course, he's a legend in his own mind.
This is very simple - whoever wrote the fake had to have the other, real documents in hand. If someone had the documents to write the fake, why didn't they just send them along with the fake? And why the scanned document. The idea that someone would print out an electronic document, scan it, and then send it in electronic form to Glieck boggles the mind.
How does Bast know Gleick is the forger?
Who would know better than Bast whether or not the memo is forged? Clearly, he _knows_ that it is a forgery (this is also obvious to anybody who reads it once with two open eyes and one open mind).
Operating from the assumption that it *is* a forgery the only logical conclusion is that this particular forgery could have been created only by somebody who had the stolen documents in his possession. Gleick has already admitted he is the thief who stole the documents. Ergo, he's the forger.
I'm more interested in what possible line of reasoning could cause anybody a moment's doubt that Gleick created the forged document himself.
I can just barely understand why somebody might be able to close his eyes to the obvious indications that the document is forged, though this position reveals some serious flaws in one's intellectual honesty.
But once one accepts the forgery, I don't see how anybody could doubt that the person who stole the documents is the same person who created the forgery which relied on those stolen documents for 'corroborative' data.
Who would know better than Bast whether or not the memo is forged? Clearly, he _knows_ that it is a forgery (this is also obvious to anybody who reads it once with two open eyes and one open mind).
Operating from the assumption that it *is* a forgery the only logical conclusion is that this particular forgery could have been created only by somebody who had the stolen documents in his possession.
False conclusions from false premises notwithstanding, which agitprop manual do you find works best when spreading BS? It is clear you have a fave! Sharrrrrre!
Best,
D
zookeeper: as I've written, I do suspect the suspect document is forged. That does not imply that Gleick forged it. In fact, he says he didn't.
I've asked both Bast, the HI, Gleick, and his handlers for evidence. None will supply any.
--David
David, you will pardon me for not taking his word on his innocence of the forgery given the pattern of dishonesty he has already displayed. I also don't believe he read The Delinquent Teenager before he wrote his Amazon review, either. He denied that, as well, but the internal evidence of his review gives the lie to that denial. Also, he is not listed as a confirmed purchaser and refused to offer any sort of evidence to support his claim that he'd even seen a copy of the book, let alone read it, before his laughable review. There is a point at which a person's word is not only not good enough, but frankly suspect. Gleick is at that point.
The document was clearly created by somebody with access to the stolen documents. Indeed, those who uncritically (and somewhat gleefully) quoted from the forged document as accurate insisted that the other documents 'confirmed' the legitimacy of the forged document. They tacitly acknowledged the connection between the forgery and the stolen documents even while insisting the forgery was legitimate.
Ergo, the person who stole the documents is most likely to have had a hand in the creation of the forgery.
Dano, I have no doubt that Gleick will be proven to be very much involved in the creation of the forgery. I wonder what your reaction will be when that happens?
David, you will pardon me for not taking his word on his innocence of the forgery given the pattern of dishonesty he has already display
So we all know only dumb*sses and the willfully ignorant fall for this weak sh*t, right?
Too bad your transparently lame sh*t reminds me of an Adlai Stevenson story:
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
*heart*!1one!
Best,
D
What evidence should HI supply to prove they didnt fake the memo?
Approximate sequence of events:
Documents released, including the suspect memo.
Steve Mosher posts at The Blackboard that the writing style is very similar to Glieck's.
Other commentors note various other quirks in the document which point to Glieck as the author.
Pressure mounts on Glieck, who finally confesses to Identity theft, Wire Fraud and "leaking" the documents, but not to the forgery.
But: The only reason Gleick was suspected in any way was because of the style and content of the suspect document. It seems to me that the only reason Gleick fessed up was because he had been fingered for the forgery and wanted to limit the damage.
Are to believe, given this history, that Gleick didn't forge the document?
Some people's insistence that the memo has to be false and has to have been forged by Gleick isn't supported by much evidence. In any case, these affirmations clearly don't point to the skeptical minds of their authors.
Anonymous (@12:56)
At the moment, the identity of the author of the "anonymous" memo and it's true provenance is *all* speculation of course.
But the version of events touted by Gleick is the single most damage-limiting version of events imaginable,
An anonymous person sends him a memo with what he identifies as explosive content.
Unable to let it rest he embarks, at great personal and professional risk, on a course of action that is illegal (but he believes justified) to confirm the contents are true.
He extracts documentary evidence that appears to support some of he evidence.
It is just unfortunate that the anonymous "insider", despite having access to the memo doesn't also send the corroborating evidence; it's unfortunate that there is no signatory to the memo; that it gets several matters of fact and mathematics incorrect, in much the same way as a hasty cut-and-paste would; that the stylistic similarities that point to Gleick as the author merely prompt him to admit to leaking the rest; that the content of the memo appears to settle old scores with people he's had recent public disagreement; that the memo elevates his own efforts above that of many many more prominent colleagues.
He is truly an unfortunate ingenue, buffeted this way and that by circumstance and coincidence.
Fortunately he can ameliorate this by producing the original PDF and envelope - perhaps there is some clue there? Or perhaps, again unfortunately, it isn't available.
Only time will tell.
In the meantime, I'll repeat my question; what documentation can HI produce to prove they *didn't* write the memo?
Bonus points for identifying, succinctly, why seeking to prove this negative is a ridiculous premise, and why this is different from asking Gleick for evidence that he received the original memo anonymously?
@ mrsean2k
Your narrative is too dismissive of Gleick's intelligence to be sensible. I don't see someone like him taking such risk on the basis of a forged memo. Heartland however has plenty of incentives to claim the memo is fake. I must say that I find it quite revealing that you don't consider this later possibility considering the amount of time you appear to have spent thinking about this.
I suspect we'll not get proof either way, unless Heartland was to sue but they likely won't because media spin is already in their favor and a trial would imply some degree of transparency.
@anonymous
But I *do* consider it as a possibility, just a vanishingly small one.
As others have pointed out, all the memo lacks is a drawing of an evil mastermind in a top-hat twirling his moustache and cackling. Even if HI was given to using the language of a stereotypically villainous nature, for no reason, how and why were the factual inaccuracies introduced?
That still leaves the possibility that Gleick *did* receive it anonymously and *did* believe it was genuine (at least enough to engage in extended subterfuge to attempt to confirm it).
As to the contention that Gleick is just too intelligent to get involved; please, my aching sides.
Gleick is not only intelligent, he's a genius! He got an award for it.
Neither fact excludes him from also being an idiot.
Now again: how to HI prove they didn't write the memo? And what sort of evidence could PG produce to support the contention that he received it anonymously? Note, not that he didn't write it, but that someone else did?
MrSean2k: "all the memo lacks is a drawing of an evil mastermind in a top-hat twirling his moustache and cackling. Even if HI was given to using the language of a stereotypically villainous nature, for no reason, how and why were the factual inaccuracies introduced?"
hmm, there is no need for the drawing since a look at HI's school science curriculum is all that is needed to picture an evil character spewing disinformation: http://hot-topic.co.nz/heartland-on-education-theyd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-lie/
@anonymous
You - and the articles authors - are free to characterise the *public* and *overt* activities of HI as much as you like, but that dodges the question of how the character of the "anonymous" memo fits that of a genuine HI member, as contrasted with an ideologically opposed activist such as Gleick.
(and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the HI approach described in the article on a factual basis, when the hand-wringing accusations are removed)
If it comes to light that Gleick also forged the memo, and lied about that, how would that alter your viewpoint?
Post a Comment