Chinese corporate hackers, the Chamber of Commerce, Fakegate

What do they have in common?  Apparently some methodologies, uncovered by the hacktivist group Anonymous.

Details can be found in an interesting, if dense, article at The Nation, which describes how Anonymous revealed dealings the Chamber of Commerce was having with a Cyber Security firm that did not limit itself to defensive measures.

Attorneys for the Chamber were caught negotiating for a contract to launch a cyber campaign using practically identical methods to those attributed to the Chinese, which reportedly could be used to cripple vital infrastructure and plunder trade secrets from Fortune 100 companies. The Chamber was seeking to undermine its political opposition, including the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and MoveOn.org, but apparently had to scotch the plan after it was revealed by Anonymous.

[…]

The story of both the Mandiant report and the American lobbyist hacking conspiracy begins in February of 2011, when the hacktivist group Anonymous stole some 70,000 e-mails from a Bethesda, Maryland-based firm called HBGary Federal and dumped them onto the Internet. HBGary Federal was an affiliate of HBGary, a firm that maintained a database and discussion forum of hacking software called Rootkit.com, which served as a “malware repository where researchers stud[ied] hacking techniques from all over the world.” It appears the Chinese hackers, known as the “Comment Crew,” had participated to gain the types of software used to compromise computers owned by dozens of American interests.

The connection to the Heartland Institute is just circumstantial and I make that connection here:

The presentations, which were also leaked by Anonymous, contained ethically questionable tactics, like creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents.

I think we have here by far the most plausible explanation for the still mysterious beginning of the whole FakeGate controversy from just over a year ago.  Heartland itself is likely the source of the initial forged document that came into Peter’s possession, but rather than simply running with it into their trap, he unexpectedly sought to verify its contents with a subterfuge of his own and thus got his hands on the real goods.  (BTW, that is what is called real skepticism!).  This also explains Heartlands rather shrill protestations, it is very hard to stomach when plots like that back-fire into your own face!

So, except for the absence of actual evidence, I think we can say “case closed”!

Any thoughts?

 

81 thoughts on “Chinese corporate hackers, the Chamber of Commerce, Fakegate

  1. I like your reasoning! When Heartland protested ‘fake!’ they were correct,only neglecting to admit it was their own work! Chuckle. What a miserable soul-destroying existence,working for a bunch of liars for hire.

    Like

  2. The money is good, though.

    It takes much less effort and absolutely no research to make shit up, whereas if you’re restricted to having to prove your stuff, that can get expensive, cutting in to the profit margin.

    Like

  3. I always thought the fake documents about GW Bush military service were a plant of this type. It was such an easy way to shut the issue down, and those guys were devious enough to use it.

    Like

  4. Nick, Susan, Russell

    Is it maybe your hidden agenda to spin some republican policy bashing here? Have you ever, only in a sole instance, agreed to anything President Bush or the Heartland Insitute has said? No? Then you are only partizan (green, left, liberal, AGW alarmistic, against shale gas etc.) and not objective.

    Like

  5. Freddykaitroll doesn’t know who Russell Seitz is. Quite funny. In case he doesn’t know, Russell’s a Republican.

    Freddykaitroll shows some old fashioned partizan thinking: if you are not for me, you are against me, and thus anyone criticizing Heartland or a Republican must be a Democrat.

    Like

  6. Marco, wrong answer, you failed to answer my question: have you ever abstained from bashing republican party policy?

    Like

  7. Freddy, wrong response- my position of record is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected.

    Heartland, which makes a living by traducing that principle, is a for profit corporate PR firm masquarading as a libertarian think tank, and has done the republican party a great dissservice by its serial incorporation of every known species of climate crackpottery into what ought to be the scientifically sober case against regulation.

    My bibliography speaks for itself , and were you familliar with it you would know it has and has and continues to evoke bitter recrimination from Democrats and the environmental left .

    Like

  8. The environmental left is a false partition. There’s an environmental libertarian, environmental right wing, environmental anarchists, environmental statists, and so on.

    The right, though, see the left wing only.

    It’s probably true to a lesser extent that the left see mostly the right wing.

    Like

  9. “Marco, wrong answer, you failed to answer my question”

    Yes, we haven’t answered a leading question that is irrelevant.

    This also answers your question.

    But you’re too fucking dumb to know how.

    Like

  10. Freddski, go check up the average nighttime minimum temperatures in Sau Paulo compared to nighttime minimum temperatures in the Sahara.

    Both about the same latitude.

    Oh, and go look at the CO2 concentration in those areas.

    Like

  11. Freddykaitroll, why should I answer that question? You didn’t ask me!

    But worse for you: not only did I not bash the Republican party, I actually defended someone who is a Republican!

    Is your head spinning already?

    Like

  12. What fredski reads isn’t based on what comes through his visual cortex. Indeed what he reads entirely comes from within his own cranium.

    Like

  13. @Russell “my position of record is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected”

    Agreed, but do you consider Heartland a scientific institute and not rather a political organization which opposes the political IPCC with its insane climate hysteria spin?

    “My bibliography … has and has and continues to evoke bitter recrimination from Democrats and the environmental left”

    Congratulations! That’s the right way to go!

    Like

  14. Heartland Institute is a political lobby organisation PRETENDING to be a charity. Illegally.

    The IPCC is a scientific report institution whose members ARE NOT PAID.

    The only insane hysteria is yours, you idiot.

    Like

  15. wow, wrong: Everybody except you knows that the IPCC has a political spin, is profoundly partizan and crowded with lefties and ecos (green peace, wwf, etc. etc. etc.), relies on manipulative methods, e.g. the insane hockey stick which did not show warm periods in the past, etc. etc. and much more disgusting stuff.

    You have already lost your case and you are desperate and furious that you don’t get what you desire: being someone important who pretends to be willing to save the world from floodings in a few hundred or thousand years. What a poor misguided and uninformed person you are!

    Like

  16. “… the insane hockey stick which did not show warm periods in the past, …”

    freddykaitroll keeps repeating the lies of other climate deniers. The famous Hockey Stick has been affirmed by numerous studies since its first appearance.

    No matter how many times the deniers claim that the Hockey Stick has been disproven, their assertions does not become a tiny bit truer. So they keep lying and lying and lying and …

    Here is some more information on the Hockey Stick:

    “Critics, most notably Canadian mining executive Steve McIntyre, argued that the type of statistics Mann used to collate past temperatures from tree rings inevitably introduced biases toward warming in the hockey stick reconstruction. But among scientists, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences report headed by Texas A&M’s Gerald North that largely vindicated temperature reconstructions settled a lot of debate.”

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-04-20/global-warming-climate-wars/54454322/1

    Funny, argueing with climate deniers is like shooting rats in a barrel, they are no real challenge as all their assertions are easily refuted.

    Like

  17. Jan, for your information: the Mann’sche hockey stick did not show the MWP! Period!

    Is it that you don’t understand the implications of this data fraud? Mann did not want to show that there already was a warm period, as warm as today, in the recent past. He wanted to elicit the impression in the public that the current warmth was unprecedented, what AGW church members so much like to say and is a plain lie. Therefore Mann deceived the public with his green-leftist ideology dreams. You better learn to accept this truth.

    Like

  18. Wow, so you call the source, the paper of Mann with the hockey stick, an insane source? Interesting!

    Have you ever looked at the hockey stick? Most probably not. Because then you would know that Mann constructed a chart were temperatures go strongly up only in the 20th century, leaving out a similar sharp increase during the time of the Roman Empire and the MWP. And you don’t know these trivial facts?? ts ts ts …

    Like

  19. “Wow, so you call the source, the paper of Mann with the hockey stick, an insane source?”

    No.

    You really are clutching at straws (while clutching at pearls).

    Like

  20. “Jan, for your information: the Mann’sche hockey stick did not show the MWP! Period!”

    That would be because the MWP was not global, idiot-boy.

    Like

  21. Freddykaitroll scolds others for supposedly not having looked at “the hockey stick” and then claims that “Mann constructed a chart were temperatures go strongly up only in the 20th century, leaving out a similar sharp increase during the time of the Roman Empire and the MWP”.

    MBH99 goes back to 1000 AD, several centuries after the time of the Roman Empire (at least 5 centuries, unless you desperately want to include the Eastern Empire, but then you’re talking MWP). Trivial facts, but freddykaitroll is completely oblivious of those, apparently…

    Like

  22. wow, since you don’t appear to know who Keith Briffa is (you obviously mix him up with me), I have to give you a few lessons in order to provide you with the chance to learn more about the frauduent hockey stick

    1: The data for the hockey stick construction came primarily from investigations of Yamal peninsula (Siberia, Russia) trees. So the investigation had nothing to do with global data, in sharp contrast to the lies you have badly delivered here.

    2: The Yamal tree sample data from which the hockey stick was constructed came from only 12 specimens of tht total of 252 in the whole data set.

    3: There was a larger data set of 34 trees from the same area of the Yamal peninsula in Siberia which did not show any dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages, in contrast to the sample of 12 specimens which Mann selected to produce the fraudulent hockey stick.

    Do you know why Mann selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP and had purposefully left out specimens which showed the MWP???

    Like

  23. For those of you interested in facts, and who may not have actually read some of the early reports and papers on climate science, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

    The famous “Hockey Stick” graph was first shown in IPCC 3 (2001), here:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069.htm

    (I have removed the hyperlinks to avoid this post being forced into moderation)

    As you can see the words underneath Figure 2.20 (the Hockey Stick!!!) state:

    ”Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999, adapted from Mann et al. (1999)….”

    Underneath the second graph (Figure 2.21) it states:

    ”Comparison of warm-season (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean (Mann et al., 1998, 1999) multi-proxy-based and warm season tree-ring-based (Briffa, 2000) millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions….”

    To check that information, we need to go to – AND READ – the relevant papers, here:

    Mann et al 1998: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

    Mann et al 1999: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf

    Briffa 2000: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000566

    Jones et al 1998: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jonesetal-1998.pdf

    What we do now is to go away and read them. This is what sets us apart from deniers, who never actually read any science (because they are ignorant and know nothing about science), but instead they just mindlessly parrot things that they have read in the denier echo-chamber.

    So – once we have read all those papers, let’s check to see if the accusations levelled by kai at post #30 are accurate. Indeed, we can check to see if there are any facts in his post at all.

    And that would be…………… no. But then, did anyone expect anything different from a demonstrated liar?

    Like

  24. Freddykaitroll, I strongly recommend you do what mandas suggests: read the actual papers.

    It’s quite interesting to see you attacking the hockeystick by referring to Briffa’s criticism of Mann *and* by referring to the criticisms of McIntyre about Yamal.

    A small hint for you: neither MBH98 nor 99 used data from Yamal.

    This is already the second time you spread falsehoods about MBH98 and 99 (last time, and still unacknowledged, you suggested the reconstruction went back to the RWP).

    I think you are mistaking us for the usual gullible people that surround you. We, however, are actual skeptics in the scientific sense. We do not just take your word for it. And now that we have found you spreading lies on multiple occasions about the hockeystick (when was the RWP again, freddykaitroll?), there soon comes a point where we just have to assume that whatever you say will be a lie.

    Like

  25. MandasMarcoTroll, I wait for all your alarmist feedback and will then demolish all your false assertions and statements.

    One hint for you MandasMarcoTroll for your preparation what I am going to teach you: I recommend to you to read the mail exchange between Briffa, Jones and Mann on the topic in the climate gate e-mails.

    Your argumentation path is unfortunately always strictly partizan and unobjective when it comes to destroying your faked climate arguments which should convince the public that you were right with your alarmism. But we all know, you are not right. You simply do not like to hear what does not fit with your virtual climate warming world. This is the real problem in any discussion with you. You as warm world believers are not able to look at the facts from both sides, from your and also from the opposite.

    Like

  26. Freddykaitroll, what will you do when you find out that Yamal was not used in MBH98 or 99? Will you:

    a) apologise to all for making false claims?

    b) ignore this inconvenient fact and come with yet another false claim?

    My money is on b).

    Like

  27. <blockquotewow, since you don’t appear to know who Keith Briffa is

    Since you didn’t appear to know what he said, I gave a link that shows his work:

    However, you didn’t know his work was in the IPCC, did you?

    Apparently it is you who don’t know who he is.

    1: The data for the hockey stick construction came primarily from investigations of Yamal peninsula

    Nothing there about Mann, who Keith is, or what the hell you’re wibbling on about.

    2: The Yamal tree sample data from which the hockey stick was constructed came from only 12 specimens of tht total of 252 in the whole data set.

    So what? The MBH paper included far more than Yamal data.

    Again, your assertions have absolutely no point to them. Signifying nothing.

    Do you know why Mann selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP

    Uh, you have to prove he selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP.

    Because he didn’t select them for that reason.

    and had purposefully left out

    You have to prove purposely.

    specimens which showed the MWP???

    Since the MWP wasn’t global, “the MWP” was not seen by the great majority of trees. Trees being a global phenomena.

    Like

  28. I wait for all your alarmist feedback

    You’ve already had it.

    But you don’t know what the word means, do you.

    and will then demolish all your false assertions and statements.

    You haven’t managed to find any false assertions.

    I recommend to you to read the mail exchange between Briffa, Jones and Mann on the topic in the climate gate e-mails.

    Did. Nothing there of note. Proofs in science isn’t done in email.

    Do you have ANY clue what science is? No, you don’t.

    Your argumentation path is unfortunately always strictly partizan and unobjective when it comes to destroying your faked climate arguments.

    But we all know, you are not right. You simply do not like to hear what does not fit with your denialist world. This is the real problem in any discussion with you. You as conspiracy theorists are not able to look at the facts from both sides, from your and also from the opposite.

    Like

  29. Wow, you should have read my comments first. MBH98 and 99 do not contain data from Yamal (the Northern Urals data in the former is not the same as the Yamal data from Hantemirov which was used for the Briffa 2000 reconstruction and about which McIntyre complained so much).

    Like

  30. Wow, you should have read my comments first. MBH98 and 99 do not contain data from Yamal

    Well, my mistake: I took kai as at least competent enough to report a correct lie.

    Apparently even that level of accuracy is not possible to the idiot boy.

    It matters little, though, since MBH used lots of proxies. There’s no proof of deliberate weeding out. No proof of the missing trees would show a global MWP. Nothing at all, really.

    As usual for the dumbest underpant-stain idiot boy troll for this thread.

    Like

  31. Wow – just a suggestion for you.

    I know you love to play the abuse game with people like kai – and I admit that I don’t mind it a bit myself on occasion. But how about you at least do it from a position of knowledge. I posted all the information on the ‘Hockey Stick’ issue. I gave you and everyone the evidence to beat him over the head. As Marco has suggested, all you had to do was read the papers I provided.

    Deniers are despicable and deluded fools who deserve every criticism that we level against them. But it does not serve the debate to be exactly like them and to argue from a position of ignorance.

    I will at least give you credit for having enough integrity to admit your mistake, which is something trolling deniers never do.

    Like

  32. MandasWowMarcoTroll

    can you explain to me what this means:

    “I know you love to play the abuse game with people like kai” ???????????

    Is playing “the abuse game” something ususal among climate realism deniers like you, MandasWowMarcoTroll???

    So are you admitting that you play games and are not serious in what you are saying?

    Like

  33. But how about you at least do it from a position of knowledge

    Yeah, right, your a half-wit trying to tell me to work from a position of knowledge???

    It is to laugh.

    . I posted all the information on the ‘Hockey Stick’ issue.

    Really, and you think that your post should have been read in answer to kai because you’re the center of the world and everyone MUST PAY ATTENTION TO YOU?

    Right.

    Narcissism. Check it out. You have it.

    I assumed that kai had at least been told a lie by someone who at least could get what tree records were in there when talking about MBH having 12 Yamal trees in there.

    Why the fuck would I read your posts when it’s frequently useless drivel used to make you “better” than the “other two sides”.

    Problem with idiots like you, is that just because you’re different in outlook between two others, you think YOU are the moderate one. This allows you to pretend to be BETTER than either and make both others worse.

    All you do is make yourself out to be hugely pompous and a pratt.

    Like

  34. So are you admitting that you play games and are not serious in what you are saying?

    So since you haven’t given information that there were ANY Yamal trees in the MBH study, are you admitting that you make it all up 1200%?

    And given that NOTHING you’ve provided has shown what Kevin thinks of Mann’s work, your opener also seems to have been completely empty. Or are you admitting that you don’t know what Kevin thinks of Mann’s work and wanted to ask?

    Like

  35. Wow, let me just say that mandas was correct in calling you out. Plenty of morons on “the other side”, no need for one who thinks he is on “ours”.

    Like

  36. Wow, you mix up everything: I was talking about Keith Briffa and not “Kevin”. Is the discussion too demanding for your intellect? BTW, I hate your support in front of other climate realism deniers like MandasTroll and MarcoTroll. Resolve your problems with your climate church fellows first and then I give you a few lessons on what you are missing.

    Like

  37. No, kai, you get everything wrong.

    You didn’t provide anything from Keith Briffa either.

    Is the claim you made too hard for you to substantiate? Yes.

    Why?

    Because you’re a moron.

    Like

  38. Wow

    “Yeah, right, your a half-wit trying to tell me to work from a position of knowledge???

    “You’re”, not “your”

    If you are going to accuse someone of being a half-wit, at least try to us the correct words. And I think a good definition of a half wit is someone who, despite being given the correct information, still refuses to learn.

    Narcissistic? Moi? I have never denied it.

    “Pretend” to be better than you and kai? I don’t have to pretend. You both keep proving it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s