Of Meat Patches and Cat Eyes |

What, you’re asking, could have happened to rival momentous events in history like these? It is simply the publication of an academic paper that presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West.

Denialgate and Fakegate – Revenge of the Nerds by Richard Komorowski – March 13, 2012 |

A third, and quite compelling reason why the document might be genuine is because the recipient, Gleick, says it is. Gleick’s primary purpose in obtaining and releasing the information was to reveal, once and for all, the true workings of the Heartland Fakegate machine, and their funding. The other seven documents, which Heartland concedes are genuine, do a brilliant job at doing just this, humiliating the company, Bast and his associates. Why would Gleick, aware that he might face prosecution over his actions, intentionally go to the trouble of creating a fake document with the potential to save Heartland and the denial industry from having to face the truth and the consequences of their own actions, and also increase his own chances and consequences of being convicted? If the document was created by Gleick or another Heartland Outsider, why not simply label it for what it is: an “executive summary” of the other documents? At the moment, Gleick has credibility as a scientist, regardless of the alleged criminality of his deed in obtaining the legitimate documents. The information in these other seven documents is, in itself, more than sufficient to blow Heartland’s fake science out of the water. To risk damaging the reliability of these documents, and potentially damaging his own credibility, by creating a fake document makes no sense.

Eastern Europe May Block Green Lobby For Good

Poland vetoed new carbon targets at a meeting of EU environment ministers on Friday. Now, there is growing  support of neighbors including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania in a bid to block the initiative permanently.

Climate journalism gone awry

We like to believe in the fantasy that all scientists agree on the basic principles, because it is "truth." But that's simply not the case, one can always find a scientist or expert, i.e. someone with a degree in the subject or who has published widely on it, who disagrees with the consensus. But there is such a thing as the scientific mainstream, i.e. the widely accepted opinions by the vast majority of scientists in that field. In the case of climate science it's this: yes, the world is warming; yes, human activities are playing a significant role in the current warming; and yes, climate change is going to be very bad for the bulk of society. It's not going to destroy the world, of course, but, if it's not mitigated, it will certainly test civilizations and ruin lives starting with the most vulnerable and the most impoverished. Climate change is ultimately an issue about people: what kind of a world do we want to hand off to our children?