Escaping Carbonite

UPDATE: Carbonite is taking a hit on the markets for its decision to pull advertising from Limbaugh’s radio show:

freefallin'

Carbonite is between a rock and a hard place. Reversing the decision will infuriate the left, and do little to persuade the right that it’s a firm to be trusted, yet sticking to the decision is likely to drive the value of the stock into the ground. Business schools will use this as a teachable moment not to Rush to hasty decisions. See what I did there?

Original Post:

This post isn’t about global warming. But it has a carbon theme, sorta.

There’s a fuss south of the border about whether or not radio host Rush Limbaugh insulted a woman who figured the government owes her free contraception. Limbaugh apologized for the name he called her, so it seems even he agrees he went too far. She refused the apology, as is her right. Fair enough. Their spat is not what this post is about, what happened next is.

The left went after Limbaugh’s advertisers, including data back-up company Carbonite, who quickly caved to the pressure:

This is where the fuss became of personal  interest.

I’m a Carbonite customer and just renewed my subscription for the third time at Christmas. But now I’ve disabled the auto-renew option and will find some other provider for my future data back-ups. Because data security is what I pay for, and I no longer trust Carbonite to provide it.

I’m not dropping Carbonite because it pulled advertising from Limbaugh, that’s its right, whether or not I agree with the decision. But its decision tells me something about the company, and it’s nothing good.

If Carbonite folds like a cheap suit to demands from a few noisy and noisome voices, how long do you think they’d put up a fight if the government wanted to look at what it has on its servers?  If management is afraid of a few horny hippies looking for free lube and rubbers from Uncle Sam, how will they respond if Uncle his own self shows up at the door and asks them to bend over?

It’s not as if Carbonite is in any financial position to put up much of a battle:

Based on information available as of February 9, 2012, Carbonite is issuing guidance for the first quarter and full year 2012 as follows:

  • First Quarter 2012: The company expects total revenue for the first quarter to be in the range of $18.2 million to $18.4 million and non-GAAP net loss per common share to be in the range of ($0.32) to ($0.33). Carbonite’s expectations of non-GAAP net loss per diluted common share for the first quarter exclude stock-based compensation expense, patent litigation expense, lease abandonment charges and amortization expense on intangible assets and assume a tax rate of 0% and weighted average shares outstanding of approximately 25.2 million.
  • Full Year 2012: The company expects 2012 total revenue to be in the range of $83.3 million to $84.8 million and non-GAAP net loss per diluted common share to be in the range of ($0.82) to ($0.86). Carbonite’s expectations of non-GAAP net loss per common share for the full year excludes stock-based compensation expense, patent litigation expense, lease abandonment charges and amortization expense on intangible assets and assumes a tax rate of 0% and weighted average shares outstanding of approximately 25.4 million.

The unforced error from Carbonite is hardly of Gleick-ian proportions, but it’s an own-goal, just the same.

Keystone XL: OK to TX gets OK

Transcanada Corporation is to go ahead and build a large stretch of the southern Keystone XL pipeline with the blessing of the White House.

The pipe will run from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. Since it does not cross an international border, State Department approval is not required. Which lets President Obama off the hook for making a decision. No wonder he approves:

“The president welcomes today’s news that TransCanada plans to build a pipeline to bring crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf of Mexico,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

The plan will “help address the bottleneck of oil” in the U.S. Midwest that has resulted from increased domestic production in areas like the Bakken oilfields of North Dakota. “We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary federal permits,” Carney said.

The announcement came on the same day anti-energy activist Weepy Bill McKibben wrote this:

the White House continued to stand strong against Congressional efforts to force a permit for Keystone — as the president’s press secretary pointed out (in a pointed tweet) the administration’s new fuel efficiency standards for cars would save more oil than the pipeline could deliver in 45 years.

Oh noes, Weepy Bill is under the bus, and he doesn’t even know it. At least he won’t be lonely, Daryl Hannah, Mark Ruffalo and Margot Kidder can keep him company under the diesel reaper.

Here’s the obligatory Weepy Bill Google juice, Round-up reader favorite Olivia Wilde:

*click*

Keystone XL: OK to TX gets OK

Transcanada Corporation is to go ahead and build a large stretch of the southern Keystone XL pipeline with the blessing of the White House.

The pipe will run from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. Since it does not cross an international border, State Department approval is not required. Which lets President Obama off the hook for making a decision. No wonder he approves:

“The president welcomes today’s news that TransCanada plans to build a pipeline to bring crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf of Mexico,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

The plan will “help address the bottleneck of oil” in the U.S. Midwest that has resulted from increased domestic production in areas like the Bakken oilfields of North Dakota. “We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary federal permits,” Carney said.

The announcement came on the same day anti-energy activist Weepy Bill McKibben wrote this:

the White House continued to stand strong against Congressional efforts to force a permit for Keystone — as the president’s press secretary pointed out (in a pointed tweet) the administration’s new fuel efficiency standards for cars would save more oil than the pipeline could deliver in 45 years.

Oh noes, Weepy Bill is under the bus, and he doesn’t even know it. At least he won’t be lonely, Daryl Hannah, Mark Ruffalo and Margot Kidder can keep him company under the diesel reaper.

Here’s the obligatory Weepy Bill Google juice, Round-up reader favorite Olivia Wilde:

*click*

Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail

You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since.

Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story, instead of the somewhat more mundane fact that an ideological entity supported people of similar ideology:

The debate about what Gleick did to acquire the internal documents from Heartland will surely rage on. It will make good fodder for university students in ethics and journalism classes for years to come.  But as Republic Report points out, it is hardly the most vital aspect of the story for mainstream media outlets to prioritize coverage on right now. That is, if the mainstream media are truly reporting what’s in the public interest, rather than chasing advertising revenue through scandal-mongering.

Note to Brendan – when the FBI is called in to investigate your source, it is the story.

Fellow DeSmogger Richard Littlemore is equally upset that Heartland outplayed the warmists at every turn since the document release:

In the last week, Heartland has been able to rely on this network – and on its own considerable skill as a propaganda machine – to deflect responsibility for the recent revelations of its own improprieties.

Most impressive, however, in Heartland’s campaign to spin this reputational catastrophe was its creation of the website www.fakegate.org.

Yet, in less than a week, it picked the its favourite meme “fakegate,” and ran up an entire website inlcuding everything from a section dedicated to inciting people to harass Heartland critics to a solicitation for funding for Heartland’s “legal defence.”

Clearly this was not a fair contest. How could DeSmogBlog expect to compete with Heartland when it came to messaging, it’s not like they’re a PR firm or anything. Oh, wait:

The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.

In case you were wondering, I’m pretty certain it was DeSmog who put the PR in pratfall.

For bonus comedy, here’s the strategy statement from Hoggan and Associates web page:

1.            Do the right thing.

2.            Be seen to be doing the right thing.

3.            Don’t get #1 and #2 mixed up.

We know that recognizing “the right thing” can be difficult. Sometimes what’s right is a matter of perspective. Sometimes it means taking a short-term hit to ensure long-term gain. But in a climate of mistrust, where people have learned to recognize authenticity, we believe that doing the right thing, and being seen to do the right thing, is a sure strategy for success.

Good luck with that long-term gain, hippies.

NOTE: Thanks to Anthony Watts for the link, and welcome Wattsians. I didn’t know traffic could go to 11, but it can.

Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail

You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since.

Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story, instead of the somewhat more mundane fact that an ideological entity supported people of similar ideology:

The debate about what Gleick did to acquire the internal documents from Heartland will surely rage on. It will make good fodder for university students in ethics and journalism classes for years to come.  But as Republic Report points out, it is hardly the most vital aspect of the story for mainstream media outlets to prioritize coverage on right now. That is, if the mainstream media are truly reporting what’s in the public interest, rather than chasing advertising revenue through scandal-mongering.

Note to Brendan – when the FBI is called in to investigate your source, it is the story.

Fellow DeSmogger Richard Littlemore is equally upset that Heartland outplayed the warmists at every turn since the document release:

In the last week, Heartland has been able to rely on this network – and on its own considerable skill as a propaganda machine – to deflect responsibility for the recent revelations of its own improprieties.

Most impressive, however, in Heartland’s campaign to spin this reputational catastrophe was its creation of the website www.fakegate.org.

Yet, in less than a week, it picked the its favourite meme “fakegate,” and ran up an entire website inlcuding everything from a section dedicated to inciting people to harass Heartland critics to a solicitation for funding for Heartland’s “legal defence.”

Clearly this was not a fair contest. How could DeSmogBlog expect to compete with Heartland when it came to messaging, it’s not like they’re a PR firm or anything. Oh, wait:

The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.

In case you were wondering, I’m pretty certain it was DeSmog who put the PR in pratfall.

For bonus comedy, here’s the strategy statement from Hoggan and Associates web page:

1.            Do the right thing.

2.            Be seen to be doing the right thing.

3.            Don’t get #1 and #2 mixed up.

We know that recognizing “the right thing” can be difficult. Sometimes what’s right is a matter of perspective. Sometimes it means taking a short-term hit to ensure long-term gain. But in a climate of mistrust, where people have learned to recognize authenticity, we believe that doing the right thing, and being seen to do the right thing, is a sure strategy for success.

Good luck with that long-term gain, hippies.

NOTE: Thanks to Anthony Watts for the link, and welcome Wattsians. I didn’t know traffic could go to 11, but it can.

Peta-pocalypse

Radical animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals loves animals so much it kills 95% of pets in its care:

Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.

The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.

Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.

Note for animal rights activists and ex-chairs of scientific ethics committees: ethics, you’re doing it wrong.

It’s Sunday, so here’s Natalie Imbruglia holding a rabbit:

click

Peta-pocalypse

Radical animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals loves animals so much it kills 95% of pets in its care:

Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.

The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.

Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.

Note for animal rights activists and ex-chairs of scientific ethics committees: ethics, you’re doing it wrong.

It’s Sunday, so here’s Natalie Imbruglia holding a rabbit:

click

Pesky Penguins

It’s not easy living in a tuxedo 24/7 and hopping around on ice all day waiting for Morgan Freeman to show up. Ask any penguin.

It's good to be King: licensed to krill and popular with chicks, too

But for King Penguins, life was pretty much expected to be over as they moved ‘inexorably’ toward extinction caused by, you guessed it, global warming:

Using a mathematical model, the scientists calculate that there will be a nine per cent decline in the adult penguin population for every 0.26ºC of sea surface warming, suggesting that this population is at high risk under current global warming conditions, which predict an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade for the next two decades.

They conclude that there is a “heavy extinction risk” given current global warming predictions of a 0.4ºC rise over two decades, which cuts the chance of survival from 95 per cent to 80 per cent.

King penguins breed on seven sub-Antarctic island groups with large populations on the Falkland Islands, Macquarie Islands, Heard Island, Iles Crozet and Marion island and other sea birds will face similar problems.

That prediction was made way back in 2008, so it’d be fair to expect King Penguins to be harder to find in 2012, right?

Wrong:

RESEARCHERS say it is remarkable that a population of king penguins on the brink of extinction has not only recovered but expanded its colonies on remote Macquarie Island.

No doubt researchers who made the extinction prediction only did it for the funding, because why else would anyone fund penguin research? But now another global warming calamity claim is found to be all alarm and no science. Either that or Gaia doesn’t need to be saved.

It’s like there’s a trend, or something.

Thanks to eagle-eyed reader Byron for the tip and the links for this post.

Fakegate: Warmists fumble the fallout

Peter Gleick’s ‘lapse of judgement’ has delivered his fellow global warming advocates into a world of pain, and they are struggling to manage the fallout.

Greenpeace USA understands the bad optics, but not the wider damage Gleick wrought:

“This is going to stick,” said Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace USA. “For those people who don’t believe climate change is real or think that it’s part of some U.N. conspiracy to control their lives, this will reinforce that view. Those who don’t believe that, who think there is a massive conspiracy by corporate and conservative interests to muddy the science, on that side Peter Gleick is a hero for his temerity to do this.”

But Gleick’s Heartland documents proved the so-called ‘well-funded denial machine’ is anything but well-funded, and destroyed what was a pretty handy warmist narrative about their opponents. He also showed that when it comes to climate ‘science’, feelings come before facts. Gleick claimed it was ‘frustration’ that drove him to either forget or forgo his own ethical standards. That’s not how a man of science thinks, that’s how a deeply invested activist thinks.

Some of his defenders suggest Gleick is guilty only of a ‘small’ breach of ethics, or perhaps deserves praise for whistleblowing heroics. They don’t realize it, but they are further damaging their cause. By making excuses for their friend and fellow-traveler Peter Gleick, they show that when it comes to keeping the global warming gravy train on the tracks, they’ll do and say anything.

Megan McArdle gets it:

Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it.  If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.  And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

Gleick apologists note, she’s talking to you as much as to him.

Fakegate: Warmists fumble the fallout

Peter Gleick’s ‘lapse of judgement’ has delivered his fellow global warming advocates into a world of pain, and they are struggling to manage the fallout.

Greenpeace USA understands the bad optics, but not the wider damage Gleick wrought:

“This is going to stick,” said Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace USA. “For those people who don’t believe climate change is real or think that it’s part of some U.N. conspiracy to control their lives, this will reinforce that view. Those who don’t believe that, who think there is a massive conspiracy by corporate and conservative interests to muddy the science, on that side Peter Gleick is a hero for his temerity to do this.”

But Gleick’s Heartland documents proved the so-called ‘well-funded denial machine’ is anything but well-funded, and destroyed what was a pretty handy warmist narrative about their opponents. He also showed that when it comes to climate ‘science’, feelings come before facts. Gleick claimed it was ‘frustration’ that drove him to either forget or forgo his own ethical standards. That’s not how a man of science thinks, that’s how a deeply invested activist thinks.

Some of his defenders suggest Gleick is guilty only of a ‘small’ breach of ethics, or perhaps deserves praise for whistleblowing heroics. They don’t realize it, but they are further damaging their cause. By making excuses for their friend and fellow-traveler Peter Gleick, they show that when it comes to keeping the global warming gravy train on the tracks, they’ll do and say anything.

Megan McArdle gets it:

Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it.  If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.  And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

Gleick apologists note, she’s talking to you as much as to him.