But Gleick was “in line with some of the tactics used to undermine climate science”?
Nature comments on “Deniergate” in its Feb. 23 issue (“Over the line: Dishonesty, however tempting, is the wrong way to tackle climate sceptics”):
… Gleick’s deception — using an e-mail address set up in someone else’s name to request the documents from Heartland — is certainly in line with some of the tactics used to undermine climate science. When in November 2009 a hacker distributed thousands of e-mails stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, Heartland was prominent among those who criticized not the hacker, but the scientists who wrote the messages. However, Gleick, as he has admitted, crossed an important line when he acted in such a duplicitous way. It was a foolish action for a scientist, especially one who regularly engages with the public and critics. Society rightly looks to scientists for fairness and impartiality. Dishonesty, whatever its form and motivation, is a stain on the individual and the profession. Gleick does deserve credit for coming clean — but, it must be said, he did so only after he was publicly accused on the Internet of being involved…
The Climategate emails were public property, and rightly should be available for public scrutiny. Public funds paid for their creation, and they are the property of the taxpayers.
There is no proof that the climategate email were hacked, in fact it is more likely they were ‘leaked’. Nature is showing its bias once again, comparing apples to oranges.
“Heartland was prominent among those who criticized not the hacker [climategate], but the scientists who wrote the messages. However, Gleick, as he has admitted, crossed an important line when he acted in such a duplicitous way.”
Is Nature suggesting that based on past HI reactions to the Climategate scandal, then HI should give Gleick the scientist a pass and rather attack Gleick the hacker? Or even more, give Gleick the hacker a pass as well because he eventually came clean? Seriously?!?
Well, if Nature wants to play the moral equivalency card, obviously Gleik’s deplorable action(s) vindicate/lends credence to Hearland criticizing the Climategate scientists rather than HI focusing on the supposed hacker.
Nothing in the ‘REAL’ HI documents cast HI members in any negative light. The same cannot be said of the expose of ‘scientists’ in the climategate emails. Gleick had to pass along (create?) a FORGED document to portray HI in a negative light – to date, no forgery has been shown in the climategate emails.
Fakegate simply reinforces what HI was claiming after Climategate — ‘Team’ scientists in the climategate emails were (and evidently continue) doing unethical things.
Does Nature really require models/projections to understand this much-observed trend by Team scientists to act in an unprofessional manner that only serves to furhter prove HI was correct in focusing on the emails rather than the supposed hacker? One would think Nature could at least observe the distinction between an apple and an orange. This gives a new meaning to blind ideology.
Nature can’t stomach addressing the public funding/public inst/already FOIA-ed aspect to UEA vs Private money private group in the case of Heartland. Cowards. Phonys.
Nature seems to have a hard time distinguishing between Climategate and Fakegate.
They can’t understand PUBLIC funding from PRIVATE.
If they can’t understand these differences…how can I trust their science reporting?