My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Gore now predicting 67 metre sea level increase in ten years! | Main | Why Gore needs more scrutiny »

Comments

nat

I suppose you will be telling us next how you knew all along it was a sucker site. http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/

CM

Seems to me that those are in the 'discussion' section (as part of a project for school children) for a reason. They aren't 'facts'. They are for 'discussion'.

E.g. obviously more than half of the warmest years on record weren't in the 1930's (as their own link demonstrates).

Ian Wishart

Congrats CM...yes, they are discussion points.

Nat, I'm uncertain where you got that idea.

Thomas Everth

It would appear that Ian has fallen for a hoax website set up by some of his fellow right wingers in Texas:

The text Ian copied here is actually on this site:
http://swenglishrantings.com/swenglishrantings/Docs/ll_gas.htm

That site decorates itself with icons and links to NOAA and links to the actual NOAA site and it is graphically similar to the actual NOAA site but not the content.

The actual NOAA site is here:
http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/atmos/atmos_intro.htm

And the text Ian copied out is not appearing there.

This is not the first time I have come across fake NOAA and fake NASA websites set up by the hard core GW deniers in their epic struggle to confuse the gullible.

If even one of their own, investigate editor Ian Wishart falls for the tricks... what does this say about the means and methods employed by the radical right wing....

The home page of the 'swenglishrantings' is here, if you dare to look... (sunglasses recommended... ;-) )
http://swenglishrantings.com/

CM

Classic.

Ian Wishart

The page was previously discussed on Physics Forums:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=277874

And according to a thread this morning on Watts it appears to be a genuine NOAA page but one that Gavin Schmidt acknowledges has been 'hacked'.

The page is, overall, pro-warming but the discussion points were sufficiently provocative to stimulate debate, and remain so.

Given that the root directory is NOAA.gov, I don't think you'll find it's a phishing site as such.

CM

So if you agree that it's likely to have been 'hacked', then how would NOAA be 'in denial' too?

Ian Wishart

It's a NOAA site, the question is valid. It wasn't a 'hoax site'.

Ian Wishart

So Thomas, in the spirit of your bleating over the past 24 hours, what do you say to the contention your claim it was a 'hoax site' was utterly wrong? Did you check first?

Thomas Everth

The site where you can currently find this is at a domain called http://swenglishrantings.com/ which serves the page up looking like it comes from the NOAA site which it is not.
I have seen other sites in the recent past that decorate themselves with NASA stickers to look like NASA sites but are anything but.
If the text has been on a NOAA site in the past, the as you point out it has been hacked by somebody with an agenda to sneak this text in.
So either it was hacked or a hoax. We will not know in what spirit the author put it there.

Ian Wishart

You may find swenglish took a copy of the page. If you search a bit more, you'll find a number of sites have done that.

The site was a NOAA site, and as a rule impersonating a .gov site is a federal crime, so not common.

CM

Ian - the question isn't valid if you believe it's been hacked though. Do you believe that's been hacked, or do you believe it's legitimate?

Ian Wishart

Craig, you are chronologically confused.

Last night, when I posted, I verified it was a NOAA site, and it was, and I posted the excerpt, mainly to stimulate a little discussion as the site appeared to intend.

The claims that it was a hoax site, I checked out this morning, and found, no, it was a genuine site but it appears to have been HACKED.

The story, as the update indicates, moves into how someone managed to hack a federal site, or was it simply a NOAA employee speaking out of turn and wanting to generate discussion.

That question remains unanswered. And the question of whether NOAA was in denial cannpot be answered until the reason is found.

CM

Have only just noticed your 'update', it wasn't there last time I looked.

So this is twice in one week where you've posted something based solely on an assumption......which turned out to be wrong.

Neither option (it was hacked or someone in NOAA did it) equates to NOAA being 'in denial'. One individual isn't NOAA.

Ian Wishart

Sorry Craig, you are pushing this particular one uphill.

A statement that appears on an official federal government website in the US is entitled, unless proven otherwise, to be taken at face value.

It's a NOAA site, promoting skeptic talking points.

Some of you flew off the handle and instantly assumed it was a phishing site, but it wasn't.

There are only two other options. Either the feds were hacked, or a NOAA employee did it.

You can speculate on whether the employee acted under authority or not, but none of us know and it remains speculation.

Until these questions are resolved, we are prima facie entitled to ask, Is NOAA in denial?

CM

Nah, neither of the two alternatives scenarios you've provided to explain what happened result in NOAA being in denial. Only if it was NOAA authorised (which it clearly wasn't, as evidenced by them pulling it) could you claim that. That's fairly basic logic.

I don't actually see the problem with the statements. Kids SHOULD be provided with these types of statements for discussion that they can then go away and research and then determine whether they are valid statements or not. It will educate them on how the denial industry works, and how distortions and cherry-picking and misrepresentations are used to decieve people who don't have the time or inclination to do their own research.

Ian Wishart

I don't have a problem with the statements either, and nor should NOAA, but someone evidently has because the page has been pulled.

And I'm sorry, you continue to be wrong about NOAA. An agency is a legal 'person' in the entirety of its organisation, but its personhood is reflected through its official statements. An official statement made on its official site is deemed to be a NOAA statement, mistake or otherwise.

NOAA has not publicly said the page was hacked, as far as I can see.

CM

I don't agree that anything an employee of a company says/writes automatically and necessarily becomes the opinion of that company. I don't see how that webpage is 'an official statement' of NOAA.
You even agreed that it was in the discussion section of a section specifically set up to be used as an educational tool. It's perfectly reasonable for a company or Govt agency to say or post something in this manner to stimulate debate, or for the purposes of education, without it being their official position.

Thomas Everth

Found another rather odd website perhaps masquerading as an actual NASA site with some rather old (1997) content but also apparently full of GW denial spin too. The site ranks very high when you Google "Nasa Temperature", on second place just under the actual NASA temp site.
Hard to believe that anything like this would have appeared on a real NASA site ever.

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

So who is behind this spacescience.spaceref.com site? Whois reveals a texas webhost as the owner.

Paul

There are no NASA/NOAA decorations of -http://swenglishrantings.com/Climate/ my web site. The page you are referring "http://swenglishrantings.com/swenglishrantings/Docs/ll_gas.htm"was saved to my local system as a precaution against NASA/NOAA deleting or altering the page. Wouldn't you know it, delete and alter is just what NASA/NOAA did once it was widely noticed that a NASA/NOAA web page was not portraying the Global Warming Political message but actual science.

At the time I had also noticed after the NASA purge that a Norweigian site still had a version of that very page but theirs was a month or two older than the page I had archived.

It is good practice to not just bookmark but also archive web pages that tickle your fancy.

Skål

The comments to this entry are closed.