AGU weighs in on Gleick: “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values.”

AGU Encourages Integrity in all Aspects of Climate Change Discourse

Scholarly Society Rejects Deception Regarding Heartland Institute Documents

February 21, 2012
AGU Release No. 12-11
For Immediate Release

In response to a blog post late yesterday, 20 February 2012, by Dr. Peter Gleick regarding documents purportedly from the Heartland Institute which he disseminated, AGU President Michael McPhaden issued the following statement:

“AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.

“AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust.  While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.

Following Dr. Gleick’s resignation, a search began immediately for a replacement. Effective today, 21 February, the new chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity is Linda Gundersen, Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit society of Earth and space scientists with more than 61,000 members in 146 countries. Established in 1919 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, meetings, and outreach programs. For more information, visit www.agu.org.

71 thoughts on “AGU weighs in on Gleick: “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values.”

  1. …and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair.

    –Ya think?

    Jerk. Don’t call yourself a scientist, ok? Don’t paint the rest of us with your tarred brush.
    Where’s the part where they also cancel his membership and strip his awards?
    Or invite the committee to investigate his ethics?
    grumble

  2. “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    Yeah, sure. What discourse? We only get discourse when these crooks are caught with their hands in the figurative cookie jar, and then we get BS like, “climate change is occurring”. Duh! Who pays these guys, and why?

  3. If Chairman Gleick hand picked the members of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics, perhaps the entire Task Force should be disbanded.

  4. Now that’s Gleick is a proven confessed liar and fraudster, when are his various scientific papers going to be investigated for falsehoods?

    Or at least noted that the author of the papers is not trustworthy?

  5. “On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics”

    That’s an interesting tidbit, just to know that he’s been preparing for his exposure since the 16th, at least…. so while he appeared to be “offline” he was monitoring the blog discussions (or receiving info about them from a 3rd party) and realizing that the blogosphere (yay Mosher) was focused upon him…..

    Doesn’t change any of the important aspects but suggests that he knew by the 16th that he was going to face some kind of consequences.

  6. I wonder what they’ll do when they find out that the whole UN-IPCC Assessment Reports and associated organisations have had as much ‘integrity’ as Dr. Gleick and the whole thing has been a lie?

  7. With a straight face he intones
    ““AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.””

    Ah but the integrity of science. After that laser like insight certainly he should resign as well as it was his integrity officer that committed the breach.

  8. Steve, they already know, they just hope no-one else will notice – apart from those evil skeptics, of course.

    PS Who are they?

  9. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.

    These people have no shame. They just had to throw that in there one way or another.

    Im sure this action will live on in infamy. Im speculating that the term Gleick will become a euphemism for blatant deception. As in “At first he was sounding convincing, but then I realized he was totally gleicking us so I left”. Or “this used car salesman was the biggest gleick Ive ever seen.”

    I think its got a nice ring to it.

  10. “it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring”

    Hell yes.
    Is there a law or rule that every statement has to be closed with this ‘credo’?
    Will people be punished by the climate gods if they forget to add this piece?
    Isn’t it ridiculous and embarrassing to do so?

  11. I find it interesting that there is a Pacific Institute (Gleick) AND a Pacific Research Institute, both in the Bay area. I believe that the PI was founded after the PRI and may have been an attempt to obfuscate both the mission and size of the PI.

  12. Per AGU President Michael McPhaden:

    “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    As if those skeptical of the “crippled conjecture” behind the Watermelons’ AGW fraud have ever denied that the Earth’s climate can change, has changed, or will in future change.

    We merely continue to observe that the “climatology” charlatans have yet to produce objective evidence to support the preposterous contention that any such change could be initiated or otherwise effected by the trace anthropogenic increase in a trace atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

    I don’t know about other readers and participants in these exchange, but I am personally fed up to the goddam gills with the flagrant blind arrogance of these warmista scions of random canine parentage

  13. AGU already has Linda Gunderson up on the page as the new chair.

    Peter Gleick still shows up in the comments in the code:

    <!–2010–2012 term–>
    Chair
    <!– Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California–>
    Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia.

  14. I notice that the Union of Bedwettingly Concerned Scientists issued the most feeble ‘condemnation’ ever.
    We know the expression “Damned with feint praise”, how about “Praised with feint condemnation”?

  15. In the beginning there was a “big bang”.
    Then the weather changed, well rather the climate changed, and still yet does so.
    Study it all you may, it will still in fact change.
    Notwithstanding your lust for power not you or your science will have much to do with the final results.

  16. The real story here is that the phrase “dissuading teachers from teaching science” didn’t leave Gleick rolling on the floor laughing. It’s obviously a childish caricature of the skeptics position. We don’t know if he’s so stupid that he actually wrote that phrase, but we do know that he’s not smart enough to laugh at it. My God, he can’t really believe those words, can he?

    Imagine a memo, allegedly from, say, Michael Mann, that says, “We need to figure out better ways to hoax the public. The old ways aren’t working any more.” Or how about, “We need to find new ways of preventing the truth from getting out.”

    Wouldn’t everyone instantly know that those words must be fake? Mann may be wrong but he’s still a true believer in his own side. Mann would never self-identify as a hoaxer, nor describe a paper he’s trying to block as “truth.” No one thinks that the guys mixing the kool-ade aren’t also drinking it.

    The skeptics are likewise serious. If the warmists thought otherwise, they’d be chomping at the bit to get us to debate. The fact that they avoid debates PROVES they take us, and our arguments, seriously. Who would hesitate to debate, for example, the holocaust with a real holocaust denier? It’d be an easy win.

    Gleick’s hilarious stupidity is the real story. It really does boggle the mind. AGU should be way more embarrassed about that than about Gleick’s unethical/criminal activity. Gleick’s cluelessness should win some kind of prize.

  17. What the press release should have said:

    “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick got caught red-handed. Getting caught while attacking a skeptic person and/or organization is inconsistent with our organization’s standards. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific sneakiness in their interactions with colleagues, the MSM, and the public (especially skeptics). Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan (coauthored by Dr. Gleick) are ‘sneakiness and subterfuge in everything we do.’

    /sarc

  18. As a geophysicist with 27 years experience actually being a geophysicist and a not bum sucker I am very annoyed at Peter Gleick and the UGU. I had always wondered while I was out in the field getting eaten by flies what were the academic guys doing joining all these committees. Well, now I know. A fellow geophysicist reminded me that no monuments have ever been erected for a committee but it saddens me that people like Gleick were spokesmen for me and now the AGU steps up to the plate to throw him under the bus without acknowledging the problems with climate science. “We want the gravy train to continue and regrettably Gleick will not be among us” Well screw you guys.

  19. “Mark W says:
    February 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    So is Gleick chairing an ethics committee like Iran chairing a human rights committee?”

    Good comparison, I think the answer is yes.

  20. “Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011.”

    That he was appointed to that panel in the first place tells us everything about the current “ethics” of the AGU. I trust their honest members will overthrow the activists who have taken over that organization. If they don’t they deserve the same contempt as Gleick. Enough of the ‘good German’ act and passive cowardly groupthink. Nobody can pretend they don’t know what is going on anymore.

  21. “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    Completely irrelevant to the statement, and to the crimes committed. When you cover your dirty rear, brown stains appear.

  22. What I find perplexing in all this, is the comparison being made to Climategate 1 & 2

    True, somone purloined CRU emails etc in true “whistleblower” style – and we all (IMHO rightly) commend them for making public such scurilous documents

    To the best of my knowledge, none of Climategate has been proven to be forgery

    Here however, if we are to belive the reports, Heartland Institute not ony had documents purloined (and some AGW would likely say well-done) – but to stoop to forgery is taking a step much, much further – and herein lies the Crux of the Matter

    Obtaining documents by deception (ie faking someone elses email address) is bad enough and criminal in its own right, but to then embelish what little evidence was there is outright malice and requires the harshest treatment – warmists and skeptics alike should be baying for blood

    sarc – Bring back hanging I say !!! – /sarc

  23. I don’t think “ethics” is really the damaging aspect of it. The truly damaging aspect, as with Climategate, is that these guys are acting as political hacks who happen to have scientific credentials.

    The only thing that can really be proven in a controlled experiment is IR absorption by CO2. The only calculation that I believe is “All other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will result in 1ºC of warming”, with “all other things being equal” being a HUGE assumption. Everything else about CAGW relies on correlation, statistics, computer models, etc. that rely to various degrees on human subjectivity, e.g. What’s in the model?, what natural variability factors are you subtracting out to determine the signal of anthropogenic CO2? Tree rings depend ONLY on hemispheric temperature?

    What this relevation, Climategate, the refusal to acknowledge the tree ring divergence problem, the unsubstantiated claim that the heat must be in the deep ocean (otherwise our models don’t work), etc. keep driving home the point that these guys are NOT doing objective science. Why should any of us believe that we’re being presented with *ALL* of the facts, when they’ve shown more interested in winning the fight than doing objective science?

  24. Gleick is a ruined man. Even though he did it to himself, such a thing should be an occasion for sadness; a certain sober satisfaction at justice done maybe, but certainly not glee. Careful that tribal warfare doesn’t turn us all into mean-spirited snipers. History will eventually record who was right and who was wrong in this epic battle over climate forcing. History will also record the behavior of the participants and it will not be kind to visceral participants, even those on the winning side.

  25. From the new and so-appropriately grave response from the AGU, we can suppose that the previous slanderous attack against John Christy and Roy Spencer, in which Peter Gleick participated last year, was not enough to disqualify him then from heading up the AGU Ethics committee, nor, by the evidence of their silence, enough to cause the AGU leadership any particular concern.

    The AGU’s message: don’t get lawyers involved.

  26. “it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring”

    Irrefutable evidence that the author is a politicised idiot rather than a scientist. Utterly irrelevant to the subject as well as fatuously unscientific. It is a disgrace to any organisation pretending to represent science.

  27. it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring

    This is a statement I am happy to agree with. In fact it was my belief (based on anecdotal historical evidence) that the climate was always changing that made me doubt the hockey stick when it first appeared.
    Had they said that any current climate changes where due primarily to anthropogenic causes I would have some disagreement with the statement.

  28. What strikes me in all this, is that as a sceptic, I never even heard of HI till this week.
    And if I had heard of them, it certainly didn’t register.

    I became sceptical of CAGW because of what the warmists said, didn’t say, wouldn’t say or couldn’t say. I became sceptical because I am naturally cautious, not because someone told me to doubt what the warmists were saying.
    The way they have gone looking for a ‘bad guy’ , identified one, tried to set him up (and failed) is indicative of a juvenile mindset in my opinion. If I were on my way to market, and someone offered me some magic beans for my cow, I would not need to refer to the HI in order to formulate my response.

  29. “On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011.”

    And we are supposed to believe that? Based on your word?

    How about some more doctored documents to support that statement?

  30. Why is it so blindingly difficult for alarmist to use the correct term for their obsession in their propaganda? Answer; It’s not. It’s the straw elephant in the parlor.
    Why would a bona fide scientist call his or her obsession ‘Climate Change’ and his or her detractors ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when it is their own tribe that denies climate has changed?
    I was always under the impression that scientist where, by virtue of their meticulous training, very accurate in their statements, but using Climate Change in lieu of Anthropogenic Climate Change tells me all I need to know about their integrity. It’s propaganda.

  31. Frederick Michael says:
    “We don’t know if he’s so stupid that he actually wrote that phrase, but we do know that he’s not smart enough to laugh at it. My God, he can’t really believe those words, can he?” & “Gleick’s cluelessness should win some kind of prize.”

    Excellent points. Maybe a dumbed-down version of the Darwin Award would suffice.

  32. Here are a couple of definitions the learned men of he climate science community should look up.
    Discussion – an exchange of views on some topic.
    Debate – discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

  33. “The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit society of Earth and space scientists with more than 61,000 members in 146 countries”

    There are 61,000 Earth and space scientists? Are they doing anything useful, and who pays them? The salary bill must be billions of dollars.

  34. It is troubling that we hear over and over that there is not an integrity issue with the IPCC and with climate change research in general, when there are re-occuring blantly obvious examples of integrity issues.

    The following is an example of a lead IPCC section author, using the media to push a message that is not supported by the science.

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

    Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

  35. I know this isn’t the AGU – it’s NOAA [even worse] – but here’s how they spend our tax dollars:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/senator-scott-brown-exposes-noaas-illicit-300000-party-boat-video

    And William Astley, I wouldn’t resign if I were you. You can be more effective going on record as opposing the IPCC agenda, as nicely phrased by WG3 Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    Insist on the IPCC using the scientific method, the null hypothesis, and full transparency. They ignore all three. You could use your position to send copious emails to IPCC colleagues, and compile their responses into a useful article here.

  36. Is it time for the scientists who support these institutions resign en masse?

    I think so. If the AGU is anything like my professional society, an alternative publication, staff and focus could be designed to replace the AGU for a quarter the cost. I gather the AGU was once an august and respected scientific institution?

    That a journalism student was made your spokesman gives me pause. The message is now more important that science? Is that what this community activist brings to your union, a message?

    This is absurd. What is the advantage of being a member of the AGU any longer?

  37. jaymam says:
    February 21, 2012 at 6:09 pm
    “There are 61,000 Earth and space scientists? Are they doing anything useful, and who pays them? The salary bill must be billions of dollars.”

    Ever heard of that thing called companies?

  38. A little late in asking, but obvious knowing Heartland…

    What exactly was Gleick trying to find out that Heartland wouldn’t have told him if he’d simply asked?

  39. Frederick Michael says:
    February 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    “The real story here is that the phrase “dissuading teachers from teaching science” didn’t leave Gleick rolling on the floor laughing. It’s obviously a childish caricature of the skeptics position. We don’t know if he’s so stupid that he actually wrote that phrase, but we do know that he’s not smart enough to laugh at it. My God, he can’t really believe those words, can he?”

    =========================================================

    Of course he can. If he’s used to lying in pursuit of what he thinks of as a noble advocacy, then he probably thinks everybody else does, too. He can’t conceive that Heartland Institute isn’t being disingenuous quite likely because *he* is so used to doing it himself. To him “dissuading teachers from teaching science” is obviously what the other side does since he’s part of community that does that routinely: says one thing to the public, but behind closed doors advances a more sinister, secret agenda.

  40. ‘On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011.’

    What, four months after they first convened their ethics it resulted in ‘Fakegate’. Lord help them. Imagine the behavior that will be displayed by the ethics committed as time progresses.

  41. “…it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring…” and has been for ~4.6 billion years, as any organization with geo in its name should recognize. So what else is new?

  42. hahahahaha – “climate change is occurring”

    Well, no one is skeptical of that!!

    I do enjoy seeing the whole religion collapse with this meaningless statement and then imply there are skeptics that don’t agree with this. Don’t they realize the logical absurdity of this?

  43. The only thing inconsistent with this organization’s values (and in which they’re VERY disappointed) is that the dude got caught. They’ve been on the wrong side of the science for decades–as long and I’ve been reading about this whole “climate science” meme.

    And for that reason (considering what Taphonomic says about the Earth’s climate having been changing for the past ~4.6 billion years), every one of these people should be required to take a fully curriculum in geology (althogh admitted it didn’t Michael Mann any good–but considering his ego, nothing would have).

  44. psion (@psion) says:
    February 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    If he’s used to lying in pursuit of what he thinks of as a noble advocacy, then he probably thinks everybody else does, too.

    I agree that “projection” is a reasonable hypothesis, but it leads to a conundrum here. If Gleick knows he’s a liar and projects that the other side is lying too, what does he really believe about climate change? We can’t all be wrong.

  45. In Magoo’s WSJ video link, Bast says they had the request for documents from Gleick impersonating a board member three weeks ago (that would be approximately the 1st of February). Do we know when Heartland actually sent them? Gleick could have had the genuine documents for up to two weeks before releasing them along with the “Strategy” document on the 14th, depending on how timely the Institute responded.

    The Gleick Fully Automatic Foot Gun (smoking). The preferred weapon of certain (inter)government agencies. It only takes one bullet, but that’s enough.

  46. I would say that the entire staff involved in so called “climate change” or “Global warming” in any of the Scientific Organizations AAAS, AGU etc and Climate Editors of Scientific Journals such as Nature etc invoved in the AGW scam should be immediately fired and/or replaced

  47. Wow that is lame. If he was a P. Eng engineer he would have lost his license and would have to face a disciplinary board. Surely the AGU would simply cancel Peter’s membership or does the AGU also have no ethics at all?

  48. The truth is ” the other guy is doing this so we have to do it” is probably he justification of every evil person in the history of mankind has used to convince himself what he was doing was right. Nobody sees themselves as evil yet they rapidly ascribe to evil and become evil on the justification the opposition is evil.

    The memo should serve as a historic example of that kind of thinking. All the evil insinuations. Somebody said it correctly you only see this kind of evil playing out among the bad guys in Batman comics. A complete divorce from reality.

    I became an auditor of corporations and held the suspicions of evil corporate intent going in. Boy was I wrong. I found corporations populated with some of the best meaning people in the world. If you can accuse corporations of anything in a stereotypical way its they are like out of control robots. Nobody is really in complete control so they often seem terribly impersonal. But beyond that almost all of them are like your local storekeeper trying to make a good honest living. Surely some fall into this trap that Gleick fell into thinking you have to do more than be honest and get tricky. And thats when all of them get in trouble. Corporations do that less seldom than individuals like we are seeing in this climate political environment. What is this the 3rd or 4th or 5th “gate”? I have lost count! First you have the Saul Alinsky horrible set of morality standards, immoral to the core, and a lot of people advocating them strongly.

    Corporations have attorneys and accountants and human relation professionals a list as long as your arm who have been trained in ethics in rich programs of business schools and law schools and they know the difference between right and wrong and that helps keep them on track because the truth is most people try to be honest.

    Gleick has it so very wrong about these corporations. Its always possible to be right on an environmental issue or be wrong whether a corporation or just a guy with smoking car. What is right for the environment has been changing a lot over the past 40 years and some people keep up and others do not. But evil intent? Not hardly! And that more than anything that makes this forgery so obvious and makes Gleick who signed the memo by using the email address heartlandinsider as evidence of guilt that he was also the forger; moreso than a slow speed white bronco chase, gun in hand, could ever do. Its not like he thought that the poor guy who he claims sent him memo sent it to the wrong address and he decided to help the hapless guy get it sent to the right addresses and he did it by deciding to assume the forger’s identity. Hope not on your life is that how it came down. There never was a Heartland insider just a single Heartland deceiver. And that guy had been busted in the first place because it was his writing style on the memo. Not a chance is there a different story here.

  49. I happened to look at the information on the Pacific Institute Web Site and I realized the Heartland Institute Budget for global warming projects was actually much less than Peter Gleick’s budget.

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf

    Check page2 and the total revenue was 2.3 million in 2010.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

    Global warming projects 2010: $964,000 and 2011: $629,000.
    Mr. Gleick must have sorely disappointed to find he was being harassed by paupers.

  50. Mark W says: So is Gleick chairing an ethics committee like Iran chairing a human rights committee?

    Not quite the Human Rights Committee, but close: Iran Elected to UN Commission on Women
    by Valerie Richardson, 05/07/2010

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36878

    The United Nations’ flair for the ironic was on full display last week when its members elected Iran to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.

    And:

    http://www.eyeontheun.org/un-authority-figures.asp

    U.N. General Assembly Vice-President: Iran, Term begins September 13, 2011

  51. Who would hesitate to debate, for example, the holocaust with a real holocaust denier? It’d be an easy win.

    Not necessarily. If the audience is composed significantly of extremists who think the Holocaust is wildly overstated and the opposing debater is someone like David Irving, for example, then winning that argument would be in the mind of the beholder. And it would be a deeply unpleasant experience and not at all ‘easy’. Winning a debate like that is not at all like winning a democratic consensus.

    In a court where one must prove each statement submitted as to provenance, relevancy and accuracy, Irving came massively unstuck as his sources and his scholarship came under unremitting examination (see http://hdot.org for an overview and the transcripts)

    For that reason, a large part of the Hockey Team’s efforts are on defaming their opponents as stooges or incompetent or unethical and trying to get them defunded or fired or both. Peter Gleick’s efforts are solidly a part of that strategy.

    I do not believe he acted alone. As with Michael Mann’s recent book being sold on Amazon.com, Gleick and others acted in concert to give Mann’s book a five star boost with lots of disparagement to Mann’s opponents. On another occasion Gleick and others used the same flash mob tactic against Donna Laframboise’s book.

    I think Heartland should subpoena Gleick’s email accounts.

  52. AGU,

    I’m not a scientists. I’m an accountant (CPA). My profession had a scandal known as Enron. We had to cleanup our profession.

    Prove it to me that you have the integrity to cleanup your profession and organization.

  53. “The message is now more important that science?”

    THAT science?

    And I see lots of use of the word ‘where’ instead of ‘were’ in some comments.

  54. I said ‘“Cojnsistent” == “stonewall”’ while I wish I had said ‘“Consistent” == “stonewall”’ which might have meant something at the time. But I discovered that error on my way here to say something else–’tis a shame I did say what [sfx=fingers drumming]…..[/sfx]

    Oh. Yeah. Somebody (John A ?) quoted somebody else as saying

    Who would hesitate to debate, for example, the holocaust with a real holocaust denier? It’d be an easy win.

    To which I say “nonsense”. I find arguing with a religionist whose brain has completely ossified (or frozen) to be a waste of time and good will. Somebody famous should have said that like a bear trap, a mind has to be open to do any good.

    I have personal experience with people who are genuinely brilliant in other areas (including some that make one think that, for them, AGW devotion would be somewhere between “terribly unlikely” and “impossible”) who genuflect like our President before our enemies.

  55. “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring…”

    Can someone remind me when climate didn’t change?

Comments are closed.