Crock of the Week: Smack the Hack

Sun, 2009-12-06 20:33Peter Sinclair
Peter Sinclair's picture

Crock of the Week: Smack the Hack

 

Comments

I wonder what would happen if we collated a bunch of climate skeptic/denier quotes out of context? Of course, the denialosphere would be up-in-arms. How dare we misrepresent what people said? I'm constantly amazed by the double standards exhibited: utter credulity when it comes to anything anti-climate-science, complete and constant attack against anything pro. It's almost as if... these people have their minds made up and just select information to support what they already believe.

WUWT has a great one - the 'smoking code'. They don't discuss this comment, right at the start of the code:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

Now, there are one of two explanations here:

1. A comment in case at a later date they forgot they were committing fraud. (hat-tip to denialdepot)

2. A comment to make clear the code... applied a very artificial correction for decline.

Which you believe depends on your pre-existing view of the integrity of the scientists in question. Oh - and also the small matter that, if you were deliberately falsifying results, you probably wouldn't say you were in caps-lock text at the start of your code.

Would Fox News? Would ABC? Would CBS? NBC? Would NYT reporters like And Revkin, who typically go first to denialist media scientists like Pielke and Easterbrook and Michaels, even report it?

That's highly doubtful. Consider the case of BP in Alaska - about the only coverage was this from 2005:

"May 16, 2005—While the hacks working for mainstream news organizations were busy chasing the story about the Runaway Bride late last month, a real scandal was just beginning to unfold as Congress inched closer to approving a controversial measure to open up a couple thousand acres of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration."

"It was then, unbeknownst to the federal lawmakers who debated the merits of drilling in ANWR, that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation started to lay the groundwork to pursue civil charges against UK oil and gas behemoth BP and the corporation's drilling contractor for failing to report massive oil spills at its Prudhoe Bay operation, just 60 miles west from the pristine wilderness area that would be ravaged by the very same company in its bid to drill for oil should ANWR truly be opened to further development."

http://onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/051605Leopold/051605leopold.html

"Despite those dire warnings, neither the House nor the Senate plans to investigate the whistleblowers claims or plans to hold hearings about drilling in ANWR, according to aides for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Even more troubling is the fact that the federal Environmental Protection Agency still refuses to investigate the whistleblowers claims of frequent oil spills and BP's alleged attempts to cover it up."

Has anything changed there since? No:

"BP facing scrutiny again after fresh oil spill in Alaska
By Sheila McNulty in Houston, Financial Times UK
Published: December 1 2009
BP, the UK oil company, has uncovered a spill on a pipeline in Alaska, which, following major corrosion and resulting spills revealed in 2006 at the field, is likely to raise the ire of regulators."

Given all that, what do you think is the likelihood that oil & coal claims about "clean coal" and "carbon sequestration for tar sands" have any basis in reality whatsoever? Standard operating procedure for these guys is to lie through their teeth at the drop of a hat - they only argue about the "right lie" to tell - which means, what is the most believable lie...

Thus, within the fossil fuel monopolies, there are arguments over whether to deny global warming is happening, or whether to pretend that there is a "carbon capture technology" that will capture and bury all CO2 emissions..

Both are lies aimed at protecting their fossil fuel investments and preventing a transition to renewable energy - but some lies are more believable than others.

FOX News Propaganda? Or NEWSCORP Propaganda? Or is it propaganda ordered up by the large fossil fuel investors? Try http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=NWS

Is it ABC, or is it Disney, or is it FMR and State Steet? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=DIS

Is it CNN, or is it Time Warner, or is it Dodge & Cox and Barclays?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TWX

Is it MediaNewsGroup?

"MediaNews Group is one of the largest newspaper companies in the United States situated throughout California, the Rocky Mountain region and the Northeast. We are privately owned and operate 54 daily newspapers in 11 states with combined daily and Sunday circulation of approximately 2.4 million and 2.7 million, respectively. Each of our newspapers maintains a Web site focused on local news content. These Web sites are hosted by MediaNews Group Interactive, our new media division."

I can tell you that those MediaNewsGroop internet sites all routinely censor any comments related to global warming.

What you are looking at here is an unofficial state-corporate propaganda system, not so different in style and substance from the Pravda and Izvestia systems of the old Soviet Empire.

The difference is that the U.S. public still has access to international news and blogs, so it is harder to keep stories from veering off - for example, what if the hackers identities are exposed? Let's say they turn out to be ex-government intelligence agents hired by coal and oil companies?

Consider a similar case, the many emails leaked to BP Whistleblower Chuck Hamel regarding BP's ongoing neglect of their Alaska operations over the past decade - an ongoing problem.

Quote:
""Courageous 'Concerned Individuals' contacted me for assistance in reaching you," Hamel's April 11, 2001, letter to Browne said. “They have not succeeded in being heard in the past two years in London, Juneau or Washington. I am again a reluctant conduit. They hope that you will take whatever action appropriate to effect corrective action which would protect the environment, the facilities, and their safety."

Very few media outlets reported on BP's response, which was to hire the private security firm Wackenhut to tail Hamel, even going to lengths such as hiring prostitutes and placing hidden cameras in his hotel room in a (failed) effort to entrap him - which sort of tells you what kind of people you're dealing with here, doesn't it?

Similar stories (such as the email hack) seem to give credence to claims that thuggish petro-state behaviors, once limited to places like Nigeria and Colombia and the Ivory Coast, are now becoming more commonplace in the U.S., Canada and Britain.

What's remarkable is the extent to which the corporate media is now acting as nothing but a conduit for these companies to get their message out to the public. The only way to end such practices is to put responsible news professionals in charge of media companies, rather than directors with shared allegiance to the fossil fuel interests who selected them to run the media conglomerates.

A complete breakup of media conglomerates is clearly needed - and this is also a free-market argument, in that the lack of competition is leading to low-quality and inferior products being foisted on the American public by shyster con artists - the typical monopoly situation.

this is what you guys get for constantly hyping global warming. You have put yourself in a position now where you panic if the temperature doesnt go up every year. You constantly claim that 1998 was such a significant year because it was one of the warmest years of the "instrumental record". How long is the instrumental record? Has the earth been warmer than in 1998 by several degrees? Yes. Has there been more co2 in the atmosphere? Yes. Have there been natural disasters that have been much worse than anything we've experienced? Yes.

mark the video is about people making a big deal out of the hacked emails, awesome. Here mark refute this. The atmosphere has been at 2000ppm of carbon dioxide and it was much warmer. Currently, we are at 380ppm. Since it takes 5yrs to add a molecule of co2 to the atmosphere, we have a long long way to go before we hit 2000. Another point, 2.5 billions years ago, the sun was 20 to 30% less bright, yet the ocean was not frozen. This means that somehow the planet was pretty warm and there was no man made co2. Please explain what you want refuted in the video because I'd like you to explain to me why it is acceptable to use false data.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the 1 molecule thing, but CO2 increase is about 1 part per million per year. I think we're around 388 now.

edit - okay I get it - 1 molecule per 100,000 molecules of atmosphere

You do not need man-made CO2 to create a greenhouse gas effect. It can be from any source...

We do know that the current increase in CO2 is man-made.

And it currently takes about 5 years to increase CO2 by 5 ppm.

Hi All,
Just got on here; great stuff and I have been sending crock links to denier friends who send me links to their slick videos; great mix of facts and humour Peter, thanks.
This Faux bit with Mike Papantonio of course outnumbered but holding his own, makes the claim repeatedly that the US has 'reduced' carbon emissions. Cow methane?
http://airamerica.com/ringoffire/blog/12-23-2009/papbullsandbearsclimate/
Keep it up,
Cheers,
Rick

Pages