tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post3845593379477740984..comments2024-03-17T21:38:11.530-07:00Comments on The Tree of Life: Leaked insider docs from Heartland Institute goal: "dissuading teachers from teaching science" (ps hey Scholarly Kitchen do you support this?)Jonathan Eisenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-11518548945925502562012-02-16T13:50:06.649-08:002012-02-16T13:50:06.649-08:00Thanks --- that doc does have some anomalous, susp...Thanks --- that doc does have some anomalous, suspicious qualities. But I note the NY Times article on the topic says <br /><br /><br />"Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak."<br /><br />So I am not so sure.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-11265004878574332302012-02-16T13:38:13.639-08:002012-02-16T13:38:13.639-08:00The "2012 Climate Strategy" document (wh...The "2012 Climate Strategy" document (which Heartland says is a forgery) is the one that the shocking quotes come from. I noticed several suspicious things about it:<br /><br />1. It uses the term "anti-climate" to refer to Heartland's position -- a derogatory term which neither Heartland nor any other climate skeptic outfit <i>ever</i> uses to describe their own position.<br /><br />2. It is written in the first person, yet there's no indication of who wrote it. (Have you ever seen a memo like that?)<br /><br />3. The PDF is time-stamped with a Pacific Standard Time timestamp: 2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 But Heartland is in Chicago (two timezones away), and none of its directors are in the Pacific Time Zone. Most are in Illinois, and none are in or near the Pacific Time Zone.<br /><br />So it appears likely that, as Heartland claims, the document really is a forgery, and a clumsy one, at that.ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-88012234736910013422012-02-15T17:38:01.537-08:002012-02-15T17:38:01.537-08:00Follow up response to David (with some edits from ...Follow up response to David (with some edits from what I emailed him)<br /><br />David<br /><br />I think this has nothing to do with open access or not. And it<br />really has nothing to do with climate per se (I think my thoughts on climate science are someone in the moderate camp). This is about<br />Heartland and Wojick purposefully deceiving the public about<br />scientific work that has been done. And I will not stand for it. I<br />note - though I am clearly a pro-open access person, I am unlike many others in the arena in that I am also more than willing to<br />go after inane activities of supporters of OA - from the spammy new<br />journals, to PLOSs not so good commenting system, to inappropriate behavior anywhere. I still want to see OA spread, but I am open to the<br />difficulties of doing it well ...<br /><br />JonathanJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-88858553190580655802012-02-15T17:34:04.963-08:002012-02-15T17:34:04.963-08:00I wrote back:
David
Thanks for the email.
I wil...I wrote back:<br /><br />David<br /><br />Thanks for the email.<br /><br />I will post this - sorry that you could not do it directly,<br /><br />A few things to note<br /><br />1. I think my post (I assume you mean this one) is quite balanced.<br /><br />http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/02/hey-scholarly-kitchen-do-you-support.html<br /><br />2. I stand by the statement:<br /><br />"So, in a way I think it is not a stretch to interpret his involvement<br />in the Scholarly Kitchen as a way to boost his "authority" in academic<br />circles even in the absence of any expertise in climate science."<br /><br />3. I ended the post with a question<br /><br />Wow. Not anything else to say here. I wonder if any of the other<br />writers at the Scholarly Kitchen will comment about this.<br /><br />I would still like to see this<br /><br />4. I have tried (but maybe failed) to not accuse individuals at TSK of<br />anything. However given the history of fraud, deception, fronts and<br />bribery in some of the anti-science movements out there I think it is<br />entirely reasonable to ask for those at TSK to clarify their conflicts<br />of interest, their sources of funding and whether or not they support<br />Wojick.<br /><br />JonathanJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-21269065691825251162012-02-15T17:33:38.166-08:002012-02-15T17:33:38.166-08:00A comment from David Crotty who is one of the peop...A comment from David Crotty who is one of the people who blogs at The Scholarly Kitchen<br /><br />Hi Jonathan,<br /><br />Wanted to drop you a line. I tried to leave a comment on your recent blog entry but I don't seem to have any of the proper accounts to do so (it won't seem to accept my Google account). Please feel free to post this on your blog:<br /><br />I can't speak as an official spokesman for The Scholarly Kitchen as no such thing exists. We are deliberately a diverse group, from a variety of backgrounds and holding a variety of opinions. To me, that's what makes it an interesting place. I regularly disagree with the opinions of the other authors, and they with mine. I often learn something new, or am forced to clarify my own thinking on a subject to better defend it.<br /><br />We are unpaid volunteers, and not connected in any meaningful way, other than playing some role in the scholarly communication landscape. Please don't fall prey to "guilt by association" (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html) and please don't take anything one author says as representative of other members of the group.<br /><br />Though I made my feelings on climate science pretty clear in a recent comment thread (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/02/02/mysteries-of-the-elsevier-boycott/#comment-43299) it seems a bit of a dodge here. If you wish to take David Wojick to task for his stance in this area, you'll get no objection from me. But it shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss an argument about open access mandates with which you disagree, particularly since it was someone else entirely who made that argument.<br /><br />There's a compelling set of reasons for increasing access to the scholarly literature that is quite capable of standing on its own without relying on red herrings.<br /><br />David CrottyJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-30433170819119462302012-02-15T01:29:32.715-08:002012-02-15T01:29:32.715-08:00Ah, you are finally realizing that America has a 五...Ah, you are finally realizing that America has a 五毛党 too. But of course, this being America, we spare no expense for <i>our</i> Fifty Cent Warriors, and the anatomy of our misrule is somewhat different.Russell Necheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253304712038983943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-91035330460338012722012-02-14T21:07:49.206-08:002012-02-14T21:07:49.206-08:00*And* he gets $100,000 for it? Huh. Crime really...*And* he gets $100,000 for it? Huh. Crime really does pay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com