More Hypocrisy in the Global Warming Propaganda Community

In yet another blow to global warming hysteria peddlers, one of their leaders has destroyed his reputation by presenting false documents as real.

Peter Gleik recently sent documents supposedly from conservative advocacy group the Heartland Institute to several papers that allegedly showed their agenda in fighting the climate change supporters and also released names of donors and other information. At least some of those documents turned out to be true while those that were not were fraudulently acquired, meaning stolen.

The ones that may have been true don't concern me that much, they lay out what we know about the Heartland Institute and its mission. Having documents released by unauthorized personnel is as old as secrets are and we never would have heard the phrase "hide the decline" if that wasn't the case.

The ones that were falsified concern me greatly, however. Putting out false information to attack an individual or organization is not only illegal but says a great deal about the integrity of those who illegally construct them. If falsifying documents is you way to win an argument then your argument wasn't very strong anyway. This is just such an example of that.

Better still, Gleik had the support of some pretty strong allies including the NY Times, Guardian (UK), leading climate change blogs and many other including Bill Gates. Liberal purveyors of information to be sure and now looking like suckered amateurs.

Here's Gleiks weaselly confession and I'm sure we'll see the "fake but accurate" meme resurrected once again but for anyone paying attention, this is a black eye for climate change propagandist's who have berated those of us who don't take studies showing rising temperature at face value just because they say to. The hypocrisy in the movement knows no bounds.

I have one last question for this guy: If you believe every single word of the Heartland documents, why do you not also believe every single e-mail written by the CRU at East Anglia? Those were a million times more devastating to the science of the issue. What about statements recently released by the CRU that greatly contradict what CRU themselves said?

More here.

Update: Much more here.

Update #2: This puts it better than I ever have:

The main issue I am raising is not that the scientists who are at the front line of this research are blind or bellicose – not that they are unscrupulous or fraudulent. Most of the scientists working in the field are not trying to push an ideological position but are genuinely trying to get at the truth. If they can be accused of any moral failing, it is simply the tendencey to go with the flow when it comes to writing grant proposals and alluding to the possibility of global warming as a justification for supporting their research. Nothing horrible about that.

That does not say that there are not a few at the top and at the edges who are true believers – who think that behaving as deceivers is ethically the right thing to do given the gravity of the threat (that they perceive) and the ignorance of the masses to that threat (as they perceive).

Al Gore and his army of climate change zealots are the ones at the top and will do anything to stop even one counter argument. To allow any alternative theories would begin to erode the belief in the false god they've constructed and staked their reputations on. But ideology is not their main driving force, AGW has been their golden goose and they've made billions on the biggest scam of the last century. Redistribution is only a happy side effect to them.