Saturday
Feb182012
by 
Josh
Josh Not fake, no, not really - Josh 149
;)
(Click the image for a larger version)
Everyone is writing Open Letters these days - so I thought I would have a go.
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (57)
One for the study wall! You sure ain't impressed by them Josh, and neither am I. Who is? How on earth did they come to have such influence? One day, and let it be soon, the whole darn thing will be unravelled and examined in great detail. In the meantime, there may yet be aftershocks in their scarequake as those who made political and financial commitments for 'the cause' are still playing their game.
Josh, excellent as usual and I echo John Shade's "let it be soon" comment.
The walls of their Jericho are crumbling.
Peter
Excellent Josh, but I am not sure that you are using the approved style:-
"Writing Style Guide"
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/publications/logosbrandguidelines/writingstyleguide
"The first time that an abbreviation is used, it should be written out in full and followed by the abbreviation. This applies to the name of the University as well as to operational units within it. The abbreviation alone can then be used in sentences that follow. For example:"
"This course is taught by staff in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). CRU is world-renowned."
I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for the desmoggers. It's occurred to me that having fallen for that fake, they're going to be prime targets for every Nigerian-scammer and phisher out there.
I wonder what the order of rats leaving the sinking ship will be? (There are only 7! possible sequences).
brilliant cartoon
Top one Josh !
Josh, judging by some of the analysis, I have read. Shouldn't there be, a few, extra, commas, in this???
I've got some Secret Knowledge I need to reveal to the world.
There's a secret military base in Nevada were evil aliens control the world, and run the climate denial machine.They love CO2.
But there are good aliens who walk among us and spread the Green religion. They want to make Earth a galactic park.
All I need is the Area 51 letterhad and and Epson scanner. Should I leak the documents to NY times or the Guardian?
Brilliant and delightful, Josh!
Dear Mr Climate Scientist
Excuse me writings to you in a deeplies personalise matter but I understand you are a person of integrritty and trusting.
I am a humble clark in the propaganda section of the Nigerian climate septic connspirrasy orginisation.
I have fallen into posession of a remarkable secret document exposing the massive plot by US necons and oil magnets to destroy the earth by sabotagating all the works of people like your esteemed worshipful selves.
For a small advance payment - to be mutually agreeable by negoatiation between our parties I can send you this hugely important informatiions which can be of great benefit to all peoples and espeshully yourselves.
I am your most obedient and humble servant with bank account details to follow.
Carlton Ndrongo Assistant to Chief Climatological Septic of all Nigeria
Eric Gisin
I would suggest both, but before you do that send me the PDF's and I will edit the XMP objects in them to make it look like they were done in the Lunar zone by Carl Sagan, and next year, as well as with out of this world computers. Must look after the details, you know.
Foxgoose
Classic!
Josh
I am sure Foxgoose will give you permission to use that letter!
Josh,
Bearing in mind what's going on at the moment, this has to be your best one yet. Spot on and absolutely superb. If this was the 60's or 70's we'd be reading you every day in the Sketch or the Mirror. Excellent.
Foxgoose,
Genius :)
[Following comment crossposted from WUWT]
Josh,
You did much better in your wonderful open letter than whoever did the faked HI doc. You have great stuff and timely efforts.
John
PS - on another different train of thought, the CSRRT are probably envious of you. They have no capacity for humor. They could really use someone with your talents for brightening up their crude vigilante escapades against people who do not blindly follow their 'cause'.
And yet, the lunatics are pushing ahead with another scheme to waste billions of other people's money, and still get to feel good about it
Britain must act fast to rule wave-power world
I am the widow of the aforementioned Carlton Ndrongo who tragically met an untimely end for exposing the Nigerian climate septic connspirrasy. Please direct the cheques accordingly.
Myasa Ndrongo
The Suckergate Complex
1 BornEveryDay
Lagos
Oh, thank heavens. When I first saw the title of this thread for some reason my mind brought up the Joshua who has been trolling all the threads.
Whew.
Excellent Josh, lol.
@ Josh AND Foxgoose
ROTFLMAO...
Doesn't seem fair making fun of these maroons . . . Mikey, Jonesy et al . . I mean really.
They are like a walking-talking vaudville act without much talent.
Too bad their 15 minutes of fame are just about up. Too bad about the $trillions in wasted taxpayers funds that have been diverted from useful public policy pursuits into useless carbon reduction programs based on their scientific advice.
slightly OT.
In response to this progressive thought leader's portrayal of Mann's travails, nearly 8 to 2 con. Someone must've kicked a hornet's nest. This has NEVER happened before:
http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video
Superb Josh
Why is it that like the devil gets all the best tunes sceptics get all the humour ? OK I know the true faith has Marcus Brig-stroke but I'm really not sure he is helping their humour deficiency !
Spot on Josh! :)
Josh possesses amazing powers of observation, to bad he is not a climate scientist aswell, or is he?
Genious, cuts though the crap like a surgical occhams razor, exposes rhe malignity and displaysit for all the world to se. Dont underestimate the importance of his cartoons.
Sorry for my crappy english typed on a train.
Thank you Josh.
Rick Bradford 12:39.
" Britain must act fast to rule wave-power world"
http://plungelondon.com/
........may be too late!!!! They don't give up do they?
h/t Orkney Lad at the Glebe.
"One day, and let it be soon, the whole darn thing will be unravelled and examined in great detail."
I've seen them on the forum, trying desperately to find some link to big oil in these documents.
They are desperately trying to excuse the lying cheating and faking that has been going on in their ranks by saying they hold the moral high ground ... and they have singularly failed.
The temperature isn't rising.
There is no increase trend in Weather extremes
They have been caught faking documents
They have been caught breaking FOI law
They cannot forecast the climate at all
They have lost the moral highground.
They have lost the "little guy" status
The Russell inquiry showed that they were part of the establishment machinery.
The Heartland papers show big oil is not funded the sceptics.
Any look at any member list of a wind organisation will show big oil is funding the alarmists
The BBC have been shown to be clearly in breach of its own guidelines ... with no excuse what-so-ever except "I (Black) think they are nasty and so it is in the public interest to publish all their private, stolen material"
The BBC have been shown to apply totally different standards. Sceptics material that is private and forged is publiished. Pubic funded emails which were not being released under FOI cannot be released because they might show something bad about the nice people in the establshment.
News:
The open letter to Heartland was *not* written by any scientist. It was written by Aaron Huertas.
Fake. Fake. Fake. The fakery in climate science never ends.
Has anyone compared the writing style of these open letters with the fake document?
Rick Bradford,
The story you found is one of the many strands that gives AGW such universal appeal amongst leaders and representatives - for some it is the business opportunities, for others it is control over how the public live, and particularly for politicians it is for having something to crow about. Green energy, green subsidies, being a leader in a new economic industry. All very attractive to meddlesome politicians. As the west de-industrialises these new sectors of work look all the more juicy to command economy types.
When is an open letter not a open letter? When none of the signatories have authored it!
We have a FAKE Open Letter.
Well it is one way to get the grammar right. I don't have a problem with who authored the letter. Has anyone verified that the signatures are inauthentic?
Signing on Ghost-authored papers is a punishable crime in medical academia.
Shub,
i was astonished that anyone still believed the letter's statement identifying human activity as the major contributor to warming. It has relieved my anxiety about not wanting to read Mann's book.
But it is a letter, not a paper. If these guys are willing to sign on to this stuff, does it really matter that it was written by a flack rather than one of them?
I can understand if an organisation like The Union of Concerned Scientists had a letter drafted and called for signatories, but they are saying they didn't;
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html
..... but, again, the press secretary of The Union of Concerned Scientists, Aaron Huertas did draft the open letter.
So we have the bizarre situation where it is very likely that same person at UCS not only drafted the open letter but also the UCS press release.
So we have a FAKE open letter and a FAKE press release.
let the legal games begin!
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/heartland-sends-out-first-legal-notice-about-stolen-and-faked-documents/#comment-975404
j ferguson,
I think it looks worse in the present context. Where climate activists fake a strategy memo, and then complain about it, via a fake letter.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-emails-stolen-heartland-institute-1372.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/joshs-open-letter/
Frosty:
The news that Heartland has initiated legal action against DeSmog is interesting. I had suspected that Heartland's threats against, it seems, anyone posting the documents was little more than potentially embarrassing bluster. I somehow doubted that it actually meant it - not least because legal action (especially in the US) can (a) be unexpectedly expensive and time consuming and (b) turn out to be self-defeating. But it seems it did: both sides had better have deep pockets.
It'll be interesting to see how DeSmog responds.
Shub,
I must be very dense. Has anyone "denied" that Mann et. al. signed this thing?
Nice one Josh! The heart thing is especially timely with the I heart Climate Scientists thing launched on facebook and twitter.
The warmists dictionary
FAKE
I fake – it is a warmist’s job to be creative with the truth and make sceptics and CO2 look bad
You (singular) fake – individually sceptics are deluded and anything they say is fiction.
He/she/it fakes – any scientist or data that doesn’t tell the warmist story is made up.
We fake – the stuff we fabricate has credibility because we have consensus.
You (plural) fake – a group of sceptics are called Astroturf – a fake grass roots organisation
They fake – sceptic institutions are fossil funded liars.
We faked – any warmist data/reports created in the past are proof that CO2 theory is long standing
They faked – any sceptic data/reports created in the past are an aberration/exaggeration of the media in the 70s and only fit for toilet paper.
We will fake – we promise to keep the CO2 crisis alive no matter how big the whoppers we have to tell.
They will NOT fake – we will do our best to keep sceptic papers out of the peer review system even if we have to redefine what peer review is.
Faking – the act of saving the planet from the truth about CO2 whether it wants it or not.
I think I should expand a little on my earlier (7:02 PM) post re the Heartland legal action.
What's happening is that Heartland ("HI") is taking the first step in what may turn out to be a lengthy process. They're writing politely - but very firmly - to (I suspect) everyone who has published and commented on what they term the "Fake Memo" and the "Alleged Heartland Documents", reminding them of HI's initial warning about the nature of these documents. It notes that, nonetheless, the documents and comments are still being published. It goes on to "demand" that all the documents, comments, quotations from the documents be removed and that retractions are published.
The reason for taking this step is to establish that HI has acted reasonably in attempting courteously to get redress without resorting to litigation. If the addressee ignores it (or, worse, continues to comment on the issue), HI's lawyer will write a more formal letter - and an exchange of lawyers' letters will follow, hopefully concluded by some agreement. In my view, the addressees of HI warnings would be wise to assume that HI is not bluffing and to settle quietly with an apology (I should explain that anyone issuing what appears to be a libel has to prove that the material on which it based its allegation was genuine and that what it said was justified). But, if it doesn't, the matter will go to court. And in court the fact that HI had acted reasonably will count strongly in its favour: courts don't like it when matters get to court that should have been settled long ago. And, I say "long ago" because all this would take months.
As I said before, both sides had better have deep pockets and it'll be interesting to see how DeSmog responds.
The reason the lobby-group Heartland is doing nothing more than sending out slightly intimidating letters is that if they actually try to litigate, they'll have to get involved with the legal system - provide facts, tell the truth and all that. This is way out of Heartland's area of competence so can't happen.
If heartland want to prove that this document was "fake", all they have to do is re-send the original email containing the docs to you and the other Heartland fans so you can see the difference.
But they haven't taken this step.
Why?
They're a lobby group, for crying out loud, you *know* why....
Robin Guenier
You clearly understand what is happening.
j ferguson,
What I am asking for, is some simple transparency and straightforwardness in the affairs of scientists. When I see a document published by the Guardian as being a letter from climate scientists, that is what I expect. I don't expect an activist organization to be discovered to have had a hand in the letter's business.
The Union of Concerned Scientists website themselves carries a blog post on the matter where they link to the Guardian letter. A letter which - going by Gavin Schmidt's words - they themselves had a hand in its publication at the venue.
This is what Gavin has to say:
I admit that having Huertas' name in the author tag doesn't automatically make him the author - that is not what I am saying either. But it raises certainly the possibility, and therefore looks bad in the context of a situation where a fake document has been the very basis for this open letter to be written in the first place.
@Vince
You .... Have .... No .... Idea ..... What HI may or may not do in legal terms in days, weeks, and months to come (nor do I).
There are a variety of reasons for HI not to rush their responses, not to "play cards" any sooner than they need to, etc.
I don't pretend to know how this will all play out, but your post. Impresses me as manipulative and trolling.... I.e., not sincere.
I’m sorry Vince but you’ve got it hopelessly wrong. For the reason I explained just now, Heartland has every reason for taking it nice and slow – no rush, no threats. These are not “slightly intimidating letters”, they are IMO carefully worded letters obviously written following sound legal advice. They’re specifically intended to support, if necessary, an eventual legal argument that Heartland had acted courteously, consistently and reasonably in unpleasant and trying circumstances and, despite provocation (e.g. continuing insults) had done everything possible to get redress without having to resort to litigation. Heartland doesn’t have to prove anything at this stage. And, if eventually the matter comes to court, the burden of proof would be on any defendant that posted and commented on the “Fake Memo” to show that it was in fact genuine: a heavy burden in this case. That, Vince, is how the law of defamation works – in the US and in England.
Lobby group it may be. But it’s playing what may be a long game where care and patience usually prevails. It seems to me it’s playing it well.
@shub
Gavin really said -
“The letter was written by the people who signed it, and it’s publication was coordinated by Aaron Huertas at UCS, a group (of which I’m a member) that has been very helpful in making making media connections for the scientists.”
unbelievable, and i thought he was
"Gavin Schmidt Named EarthSky Communicator of the Year "
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_1326812986206.html
From Gav's latest "reconstruction" exercise:
In this day and age?! One is expected to believe that NASA (his employer)'s media dept doesn't have such a list that it could share with him? Nor do the media departments of any of the institutions of his "co-authors"?
No wonder these poor beleaguered "climate scientists" are having such difficulty "communicating the science" to the public, eh?!
Amazing. Simply amazing.