Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

Commenter FP writes:

Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page:

http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

It had read as the page screencap shows:

(from Google cache here)

Chair
Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California

Now reads:

About these ads

77 thoughts on “Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

  1. LOL

    I saw it moments ago, and when I saw this on WUWT I could not belive it. Refresh, and he’s gone!

    Anthony, this is going fast! It’s like a domino race! What is happening now???

    Ecotretas

  2. I wonder will The National Centre For Science Education, who recently appointed Peter Gleick to it’s board as spokesperson on Climate Change & Education, follow suit

    it’s view on this matter can be found here

    http://tinyurl.com/77w4urh

    Would you want your children’s education influenced by a self confessed liar, thief and who is prepared to commit fraud in support of a cause?

    Surely he must resign

  3. He was listed as chair earlier this morning (I have a screen cap). Good call, AGU! Wonder if he resigned, or if AGU decided themselves?

  4. It’s a conspiracy! You don’t think some delinquent teenager at the Heartland Institute could possibly be behind it, do you …..

  5. This reminds me a whole lot of the Jimmy Swaggart messing with hookers blowup from — what, something like 25 years ago?

    Jimmy Swaggart was a prominent televangelist who preached against sexual misbehavior with great gusto — while he was making trips to New Orleans to visit a rather ugly prostitute.

    Peter Gleick enthusiastically lectured others about maintaining integrity in science — while living a secret life as a forger and identity thief.

  6. Tremendous news, lets hope it the start of the wholesale removal of political scientists from the climate change arena.

  7. Looks like a silent removal. How typical – and how unprincipled. Unless, of course, they’re a little slow in the press release department. When I see the press release explaining the “disappearance”, I shall apologize and revise my assessment.

  8. His name is still here:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml

    EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 47, PAGE 433, 2011
    doi:10.1029/2011EO470009

    ABOUT AGU

    AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work

    Peter Gleick
    Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA

    Randy Townsend
    American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

    In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”

    Published 22 November 2011.

    Citation: Gleick, P. and R. Townsend (2011), AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(47), 433, doi:10.1029/2011EO470009.

  9. There are some more committees, boards, and groups in which he needs to resign from:

    PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

    Current

    • World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Water Security, 2008-present
    • Committee on Ecological Impacts of Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences, 2008-present
    • Expert Group on Policy Relevance of the World Water Assessment Program, United Nations, 2008-present
    • Human Impacts of Climate Change Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007-present
    • Climate Advisory Group, California Academy of Sciences, 2007-present
    • Climate Change Technical Advisory Group, State of California, 2007-present
    • Advisory Board, Environmental Research Letters, 2006-present
    • Editorial Board, Water Policy, 1997-present
    • Editorial Board, Climatic Change, 1990-present
    • Board of Directors, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 1988-present

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/gleick_cv_7-08.pdf

  10. I had also mailed AGU last night asking if he were the current chair of the committee. Thayer didn’t answer. It will be an interesting study in ethics to watch how AGU distances themselves from Gleick — hopefully without deception.

  11. AGU probably thought it clever to remove his name from the limelight until it all blows over, but their wrong if they think he’ll ever be back. Yes, Gleick’s first mover statement today was very clever, admitting to only half the crime and insinuating a third party exists for the other half, the faked memo. But his problem is is that there was a strong line of thought across the internet that Gleick was the author of the faked memo, long before he admitted to the other half of the crime today. The forensic analysis will most likely land Gleick in far bigger trouble for what he did and didn’t say today. I suspect law enforcement will get up to speed very quick.

  12. It was still there about two hours ago (9AM EST) when I sent them a message through their contact form.

    How do we prevent this text box from automatically sub scripting numbers?

  13. Don’t worry, I’m sure Gleick will be cleared of any ethical violation by multiple independent inquiries, and reinstated. It may even have already happened.

    /sarc

  14. Definitely a quick edit. I saw the unedited page this morning. Now the code reads:


    Task Force on Scientific Ethics
    <!--2010–2012 term-->
    <!--Chair
    Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California-->

  15. light fuse … and stand back!

    As a sceptic I should reframe from saying things like “this is going to be great” … because obviously it could be a damp squib … but I won’t … it’s going to be great.

    Obviously, sad for the guy … but he’s hardly a naive loner. He acted with knowledge regarding the ethics etc.

  16. I think that they may be expecting a quick full open and honest investigation followed by a swift exhoneration and restoration to the chair.

    The page still has him on it, but it is only commented out.
    for readers who are not aware of HTML, Any thing in between tags will not appear on the page.

    As shown by JonasM above, the following code:
    <!– Chair
    Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California –>

    Is still on the page, if you look at the sourcecode of the page.

  17. Notwithstanding Mosh’s brilliant deduction skills, it’s going to be very hard to prove that he faked that document, particularly now the way he’s lawyered up.

    Being a “man of letters”, he’ll likely have stamped envelopes from other parts of America, and thats even if it gets that far. I haven’t heard of any police involvement yet.

    My guess is on McKibben next, or is that just wishful thinking?

  18. Whatever the case may be, if the American Geophysical Union wants to be taken seriously on matters of scientific ethics from this point forward they must address this matter. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to expect them to outline how they plan to address these very serious violations. For years I have observed a bias in how ethical standards are applied to sceptical scientists when compared with the warmista scientific community. The AGU response to Gleick’s transgressions could very well prove this point.

  19. Sad to see how fanatically people are acting for a ’cause’ they believe in.
    The originally honorable objective to protect the environment has been hijacked and perverted for long now. Didn’t we have enough bad examples in present and past, what fanatism and dogmatism will cause?
    Such behaviour of the climate alarmists will certainly make more people become sensitive and open their eyes about what’s really going on here.

  20. Gras Albert says, February 21, 2012 at 7:52 am

    Try here … http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/source-heartland-leak-steps-forward-007220

    As part of NCSE’s expansion to defend the teaching of climate science, Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

    “Gleick obtained and disseminated these documents without the knowledge of anyone here,” NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, “and we do not condone his doing so.” But, she added, “they show that NCSE was right to broaden its scope to include the teaching of climate science. There really are coordinated attempts to undermine the teaching of climate science, and NCSE is needed to help to thwart them.”

  21. “What ultimately makes Gleick a truly pathetic figure is that what he did, even if it had been successful, would have had no discernible effect on the final outcome of the war, except possibly hastening it. There’s simply no way that a vitriolic squabble between a cabal of activists and an institute the ordinary person had never heard of, was going to reverse the declining belief in the threat of global warming. The Heartland Institute extracting huge sums of money in punitive damages from prominent media outlets will however, have a huge propaganda impact.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/fakegate-claims-its-first-scalp/

    Pointman

  22. Well, de ja vu! I do so hate to be such a bore, but I’ll say it yet again. Lying, even if for a noble cause, is still…………………………………………..LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. Copner says:
    February 21, 2012 at 8:19 am
    Don’t worry, I’m sure Gleick will be cleared of any ethical violation by multiple independent inquiries, and reinstated. It may even have already happened. /sarc

    Yep. Can I recommend Muir Russell? He is a good safe pair of hands.

  24. Well, in AGW-land time will cure almost anything, remember Phil Jones? He resigned but is back at his desk. Unless Cleick is found guilty in a court of law, he will be back as well. It is up to HI what happens next (and maybe the FBI, if they can be bothered)

  25. Gleick will be regarded as a martyr for the cause and celebrated in an increasingly small band of like minded zealots. Groups like this do not play well with others.

  26. JonasM – Looks like some webmaster’s phone went off full-blast sometime 0-dark-thirty with a command to Get Him Out Of There Now.

    Will this finally, FINALLY be the last nail in the coffin of the myth of Honorable, Infallible Climate Scientists? This guy’s crawled to public prominence by being the mouthpiece for what all these other political pseudoscientists wanted to say but didn’t dare.

    They have, in various letters and papers and through supporting his appointments, hitched themselves to him – let us hope that he’s finally the anchor that drags them all under.

  27. JonasM says on February 21, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Definitely a quick edit. I saw the unedited page this morning. Now the code reads:

    Task Force on Scientific Ethics
    <!–2010–2012 term–>
    <!–Chair
    Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California–>

    It is interesting that they seem to have hand-edited the HTML to comment him out.

    Seems they intend to reinstate him when this all blows over.

    Speaks volumes to “scientific integrity.”

  28. Amazingly I’ve been extremely vociferous about AGW and all the obvious lies an manipulations of data for the past 4 years, but I say, lets all cool down. Nearly ALL the AGW believers and “climate scientists” we are talking about here, are at my guess about 30′ish, a time when your fanaticism is at its peak especially over politics, social issues which AGW has become.. Let us remember in the 70 80s when a HUGE crowd of youngish people everywhere though socialism was great!. Most of them now probably think it was a bad joke! I say continue to hound them currently for their mistakes, but by my guess, by the time the AGWers are 40-60yrs old, most of them including Gleick will admit it was all a bad joke that they themselves fell for. BTW I was a fervent believer up to 5 years ago when i saw that famous hadcrut graph lol. Im proudly a 100% denier now being a 100% scientist statistics etc… NO AGW due to Co2 Zilch nada from my view of the temperature data to date AMSU. Lets all get a life and tone down the Climate sickness we all suffer from hahahah Just a final I don’t acknowledge ‘climate science” as science per se whereas meteorology or atmospheric physics is climate science cheers

  29. Note that there is no indication that Dr. Gleick is not still the Chair nor that someone else is in the seat (even provisionally).

  30. Ideology or religion? It is also ironic that the AGU chooses to call there newsletter Eos after the Greek goddess of dawn. Idol worship under the guise of science is truly pathetic.

  31. Remember how hard the warmers struggled to pin a charge of plagiarism on Ed Wegman after his report poked serious holes in the AGW arguments? Let’s not get too cocky over this because that same crowd is now going to redouble efforts to discredit a prominent figure in the skeptical community. And this will doubtless increase pressure to identify FOIA and reverse the damage done by the Climategate e-mails. Despite the hollow bravery of the DeSmogBlog and the like, the warmers are on the ropes and they’re going to try their best to hit back hard now. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be fair, and it won’t be anything but dirty, but this fight is far from over.

  32. Rogelio – nah, Hansen, Trenberth, Jones, and quite a few others. are older than I am, and I’m looking backward on my thirtieth birthday from some distance. Mann, Santer, etc. are younger, but one might argue they’ve achieved their prominence more through advocacy than accuracy.

  33. It should be interesting to see whom else gets roped into this morass once Gleick’s lawyers start looking for ways to spread the liability. My guess is that “anonymous” bites the dust first followed closely by several of the approved propaganda blogs (DeSmog, Hoggan, etc).

  34. Charlie Martin says:
    February 21, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Hmm. I had emailed AGU for comment last night, while it was still there.

    You and many others are directly responsible for this prompt and correct action. Timely emails can be devastating. The trick, of course, is in the timing of the “quick, short, shock”. The warmists have given us another opportunity, to make a difference. Thanks GK

  35. Confirmation, and another “Poor Peter!” piece for the pile:

    http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/02/gleickgate-climate-change-activism-takes-a-big-step-backward/

    “Perhaps most damning, Gleick was (until this morning) chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.”

    The end of the piece could be a runner-up for a “Most Incredulous Spin” award:

    Thus a policeman for scientific ethics at one of this country’s most prestigious scientific organizations has just made an incredibly serious ethics violation. If you wanted to hand red meat to your opponents in the battle for public hearts and minds in the climate change debate, congratulations, you have just done it. Skeptics are already having a field day.

    Beyond the very serious legal consequences Gleick faces, he has unquestionably ceded some of the high ground scientists held in the climate science debate. It will not be easily won back.

    And for what?

    It was already clear the Heartland Institute was an advocacy organization, and we already knew the Koch Brothers were interested in fostering skepticism. And it was such a small player. As the Wall Street Journal noted recently Heartland’s revenues in 2012 were expected to be $7.7 million. That compares to climate advocacy organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, with $95.4 million in operating revenues last year, and the World Wildlife Fund took with $238.5 million.

    All of this makes for a very sorry state of affairs as the climate change debate tilts yet further away from science into spin. When it comes to spin, scientists usually lose.

    The “scientists” held the high ground? And what the heck is a “climate advocacy” organization? They advocate for the rights of the climate, starting with the right of the climate to exist?

    Oh well, at least it was nice of them to show how terribly outspent we skeptics are, without even one use of any variation of “the D word”.

    BTW, they’re now calling this “GleickGate”? WUWT?

  36. It seems quite the personal tragedy for Peter Gleick…

    …but, I’m very sure his friends will look after him and find him a cozy job somewhere.

  37. Glieck offered his resignation to National Center for Science Education. They accepted.

    “Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board … His offer was accepted.”

    Gleick went way too far with this. According to Wikipedia: “In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication.” The elements of the crime include, (1) Intent, (2) a scheme or artifice to defraud or the obtaining of property by fraud, and (3) A mail or wire communication.

    Gleick has publicly admitted to these three elements. Justice maybe too slow to matter. A civil case could easily take two years or more.

  38. Peter Gleick is quite simply a fanatic. “A fanatic’s real strength is that they’ll never give up, never rethink their position, are not proportionate and above all; don’t know when to stop.” It’s the “don’t know when to stop” bit that always delivers the self-inflicted mortal wound in the end.
    Predictably, they’ll defend him heroically all the way to the gates of the penitentiary and damn the reputation damage. It springs from that essential self-righteous arrogance that has always plagued them. Their whole movement is by now crippled by assorted Albatrosses like Gleick, Pachauri, Hansen and Jones hanging around its neck.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/fakegate-claims-its-first-scalp/

  39. I maintain web pages at my institution, and when a controversial personnel issue comes up my initial quick response is to make just such an edit until the dust clears, then recode the page with all the new information when it is all settled. Thus, I don’t make too much of the fact the change was a comment out the offender sort of deal. Reworking a page is a good deal easier if I can just change the name and title to the new occupant of the position and uncomment the code.

  40. Andrew30
    February 21, 2012 at 9:23 am

    They lie and they know that they lie, and we know it too.
    ###

    No they don’t know they lie, after all its not a lie-lie, it exposing a deeper truth. These greenie also can not remember from one moment to the next. This is how their brains work:

    Greenie: “HI is anti-science and wants to brain wash our kids!”

    Human: “How do you know?”

    Greenie: “Its in the leaked documents.”

    Human: “Which one?”

    Greenie: “This one.”

    Human: “But this is a fake.”

    Greenie: “Not really. It just highlight the anti-science agenda of HI who want to brain wash our kids. Focusing on the one document that might be a fake distracts from the deeper truth about HI.”

    Human: “And what’s that?

    Greenie: “HI is anti-science and wants to brain wash our kids!”

    Human: “How do you know?”

    Greenie: “Its in the leaked documents.”

    …..

  41. JonasM says:
    February 21, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Definitely a quick edit. I saw the unedited page this morning. Now the code reads:

    Task Force on Scientific Ethics

    So, they just “commented out” the listing. Easy to reverse as soon as the dust settles …

    The resignation/firing I’m waiting for is the Pacific Institute, his day job. Food stamps time for Peter!

  42. This says much more about AGU than about Gleick himself. How could he have been on AGU’s integrity committee, given his well-known advocacy position? How could they have ever considered him a neutral arbiter of fairness and scientific integrity?

  43. Brian Adams @11:13 – I agree completely. That AGU would include someone on an integrity board of this type speaks very powerfully about the current leadership of the AGU, and what it says is not flattering.

  44. Owen in GA: “I maintain web pages at my institution, and when a controversial personnel issue comes up my initial quick response is to make just such an edit until the dust clears, then recode the page with all the new information when it is all settled. Thus, I don’t make too much of the fact the change was a comment out the offender sort of deal. Reworking a page is a good deal easier if I can just change the name and title to the new occupant of the position and uncomment the code.”

    I agree that using comments for a potentially-temporary webpage change is an easy and obvious approach that makes some sense. But would you really just dump a prominent person from your website and make it look to the world (other than the few of us who bother to look at the code) like the individual was never involved with your organization and never existed? Say one of your Board members gets embroiled in controversy, do you quickly hop on your webpage and quietly excise him, without comment, explanation or press release?

    This is an opportunity for AGU to take the high road — issue a press release distancing themselves from Gleick, stating categoricaly that they do not condone the behavior, that it is inconsistent with AGU’s principles and policies, and that they stand for integrity and have asked him to resign. This is the kind of PR approach that makes sense. Not holding my breath . . .

  45. Rogelio says:
    Nearly ALL the AGW believers and “climate scientists” we are talking about here, are at my guess about 30′ish, a time when your fanaticism is at its peak especially over politics, social issues which AGW has become.. Let us remember in the 70 80s when a HUGE crowd of youngish people everywhere though socialism was great!. Most of them now probably think it was a bad joke!

    No – it looks like many, if not most, have managed to place themselves in positions in government, education, and various bureaucracies in such a way that they are able to disseminate their propaganda “officially”. They didn’t give up, and they didn’t change their ideas. Neither with the warmist crowd.

  46. http://tinyurl.com/83crwgq

    Ann Cairns, a spokeswoman for the AGU, told FoxNews.com that Gleick quit the ethics board last week.

    “Peter Gleick resigned from the task force on Thursday, February 16. His resignation was accepted and his name was removed from the task force web page,” she said. He cited “personal, private reasons,” Cairns told FoxNews.com, “and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair.”

    “expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair”.

    I wonder why he thought that?

  47. It was already clear the Heartland Institute was an advocacy organization, and we already knew the Koch Brothers were interested in fostering skepticism.

    That’s why their funding of Heartland was for healthcare.

    That’s why the Koch brothers helped fund some of the BEST project.

  48. @Eric – Yes, on the web page they get disappeared as soon as they leave the position. Sometimes their entry is replaced by the comment “VACANT” and sometimes they are just commented out until someone fills the spot. All I care about is the current information on the web site is current. I leave the press releases to the PR department, but in academia there does seem to be a knee-jerk, circle the wagons ethic that is irritating even to those inside the institution. It is as if the leadership has forgotten that transparency only hurts a short while whereas the stink of coverup stays with you for a long time. People suspect there is a good deal more going on under the surface when an organization isn’t open in their dealings. Usually it is just thin skinned administrators not wanting to stand up to a little embarrassment, and there really isn’t anything going on “under the surface,” other times where there is smoke there is fire.

    Now this wouldn’t be the first time I have seen and ethics commission have ethical problems at the top – it seems it is always the fox that volunteers to guard the hen house.

  49. I love how the warmists always try to paint those that demand strict compliance with the scientific method as “unscientific”. What a bunch of s.

  50. “Gras Albert says:
    February 21, 2012 at 7:52 am
    I wonder will The National Centre For Science Education, who recently appointed Peter Gleick to it’s board as spokesperson on Climate Change & Education, follow suit.
    it’s view on this matter can be found here

    http://tinyurl.com/77w4urh

    Surely he must resign.”

    That link has changed now. Resignation tendered and accepted. Getting hard to keep up with this story, its moving so fast.

  51. I’ll try one or two links at a time.

    DJ says

    Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?

    Funding sources for 2009 here. Customers include public sources of money from California, Florida, and US Environmental Agencies, NOAA, United Nations Environment Programme. I think that means that maybe a little FOIA sun light might be available.

  52. Seen this movie too, too many times….

    The half-hearted apology.
    Off to rehab.
    The inevitable sympathetic media soft-ball interview complete with ‘victim of his own compassion for a dying planet (David) fighting big-obstructionism villains (Goliath)’ storyline.
    And bwalah….Peter becomes a pop-culture icon.

    Time to change the script. File criminal charges. I’m getting sick of hearing myself say it but yet once again; Until someone is made an example that fraud will not be tolerated by the courts and actually serves time, this CAGW siliness is not going to stop.

    And now (always perpetually late to the truth), Andy Revkin throws Gleik under the bus? Wasn’t Revkin earlier in the week claiming the fake document was in fact real? Who is going to demand Revkin own up to his own involvement in this mess? Politico? Right. What an incestuous bunch of spineless weenies the cause attracts.

  53. Post normal science: re-write your web pages and simply pretend it never happened! Just like the hockey team disappeared the MWP! What does this imply about the ethics of AGU?

  54. just how do these who-did-it revelations change the truth of the bulk of the documents. In particular the public document 990 which has been incorrectly completed

  55. Last night I saw upon the stair
    A little man who wasn’t there
    He wasn’t there again today
    Oh, how I wish he’d go away

  56. Gleick’s name has still only been commented out of the source.
    Chair
    <!– Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California–>
    Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia.
    Members

    Early re-instatement still hoped for?

Comments are closed.