# Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the Palace of Westminster (don’t tell the Clerk of the Parliaments), at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more brilliantly than usual on “global warming”, and engagingly answered many questions from Parliamentarians and the public.

Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade “global warming” as nonsense). The Minister indicated – in effect, and with scarcely-concealed regret – that the party line set by David Cameron in response to various opinion polls, focus groups and other such artifices for identifying and following a consensus rather than setting a lead, and not the objective scientific and economic truth, was likely to remain the basis of UK climate policy.

In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal “government” by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UK’s environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if “think” is the right word). Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.

Over tea and scones at the National Liberal Club while Dick was with the Minister, several of us discussed what we call Fakegate – the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible.

I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else. The mistreatment to which the Heartland Institute has been subjected by a fraudster and counterfeiter constitutes several serious, imprisonable offenses, known in US law as felonies. The perps, whoever they be, should be investigated, brought for trial, prosecuted, and fined or – better still – imprisoned. Punishment for specific, manifest scientific frauds in no way prejudices, compromises, or trammels the freedom and purity of academic research. It protects and enhances them.

Three frauds are evident in Fakegate. First, wire fraud by whoever used electronic means to obtain internal documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by what the ineffable Richard Black of the unspeakable BBC calls “subterfuge” and what the criminal law bluntly calls “deception”. Secondly, circulation of a counterfeit document purporting to be a true Heartland document. Thirdly, reporting of the affair with reckless disregard for whether the counterfeit document was genuine on the part of the loony-left BBC, the Pooterish Scotsman, Britain’s Marxist daily The Guardian, and various blogs, notably the relentlessly malevolent and consequently uninfluential Desmogblog.

Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses) of the US Codex Iuris deals with “Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses”. Paragraph 1341 defines “fraud” simpliciter:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to … procure for unlawful use any …  article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, … or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by … such carrier according to the direction thereon, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. …”

In general, whoever knowingly perpetrates across state boundaries or recklessly perpetuates a deception calculated to cause financial or pecuniary advantage in goods or services to some or suchlike loss to others commits the Federal criminal offense of fraud.

If the deception be furthered by electronic means, it is wire fraud. If it be furthered by the use of counterfeit documents, it is a distinct count of fraud. If it be furthered by reckless and detrimental publication and repetition of the contents of counterfeit documents as though they were the real thing, when no steps before publication had been taken to verify that the documents relied upon were true, it is also fraud.

Let us begin with the wire fraud. The relevant US statutory offense seems to me to be 18 USC 1343 (Wire Fraud) of the US Codex Iuris, which opens with these words:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

I am unfamiliar with US law, and cannot confirm that these provisions still stand part of the US code, or that they have not been amended, or that there is no case law or rule of interpretation preventing their application in the present case. On the face of it, though, the obtaining of documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by a scheme or artifice whereby the fraudster misrepresented himself as a Board member of the Heartland Institute was achieved by electronic means across state boundaries between the Pacific and the Great Lakes.

The term “interstate commerce” is interpreted latae sententiae in US law, since it is widely defined in the US Constitution itself. Therefore, the fraudster would not be able to escape a wire-fraud charge by asserting that his deception of the Institute was not “in interstate commerce”. Even if the court were to find that the deception was not “in interstate commerce”, the deception would still constitute fraud simpliciter under paragraph 1341 of the Code, though not wire fraud under paragraph 1343.

Next, the fraud arising from the creation and circulation of the counterfeit document. Whether or not the fraudster who deceived the Institute also uttered the bogus document, he certainly circulated it. Consequently, even if he thought but did not know it was genuine, his reckless circulation of it without having verified that it was genuine, and in the company of other documents obtained by fraud, would constitute a distinct but connected fraud charge – and, given the malicious content of the counterfeit document and the very grave harm that it was calculated to do to the Institute, a very serious charge at that. The court would also take account of the fact that the perp had obtained all documents but the counterfeit document from the Institute and was, in the circumstances, under a particular duty to verify the genuineness of the document before circulating it with the others.

Finally, there is the fraud perpetrated by the various news and internet media, especially in the UK (where Marxism is many journalists’ creed) in perpetuating the Fakegate fraud by rushing to publication or broadcast without having verified the genuineness of the document that turned out to be counterfeit. Here, the well-established legal doctrine of mens rea applies. To commit a crime, one must know that one is committing a crime, or one must act in a manner calculated to cause harm to another while being reckless as to whether the harm that one’s actions are calculated to cause constitutes a criminal offense.

Fraud charges against the guilty news media and blogs would not be likely unless and until the Fakegate fraudster had first been brought to justice before a Federal court.

The dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media and blogs on what the counterfeit document purported to reveal about the Heartland Institute’s supposed attitude to the teaching of science in schools would count very much against them in court. The intent to cause harm to the Heartland, and to cause collateral damage to Anthony Watts and others, is very clear. On the other hand, those who at least acted promptly by publishing Heartland’s announcement that the document was counterfeit will have mitigated their crime to some extent. Those blogs that continue to publish the counterfeit document rather than removing it, and one blog that pretended to “confirm” the document as genuine, will face long prison sentences.

Or will they? Much of the scientific criminality surrounding the “global warming” scam only happens because the fraudsters in white lab-coats reckon that they are untouchable. They have the protection of governments, who are themselves profiting mightily by the scam; they are fawned upon by the news media, much as Al Capone was in Chicago; they are lionized by their academic institutions for the massive government grants they attract to investigate what, day by day, becomes more visibly a teacup tempest rebranded as Apocalypse; and, worst of all, the skeptics who ought to report the frauds – and without whose reports the authorities are unlikely to act ex proprio motu – are a bunch of wee, cowering, timorous beasties.

Since fraud across state boundaries is a Federal offense, any citizen of the United States, whether or not he is in any way connected with any of the parties to the frauds, has the right – and the duty – to go to his nearest police station and make a complaint that frauds have been committed to the detriment of the Heartland Institute. The complainant does not need to have any connection with the Institute, nor any permission from it. He just has to be as outraged as I am.

All he has to do is to go in and ask the police to investigate the frauds that have occurred. The facts are plain enough, and so is the law. The police will be bound to investigate and to pass a report of their investigation to the District Attorney, who, in matters of interstate fraud, would be likely to consult the State’s Attorney General. On the facts as I now have them, prosecution would certainly result, and conviction would be very likely.

But will anyone act? Around the fragrant tea-table overlooking the silent Thames, there was a marked reluctance to do anything other than talk about it. One said, “I couldn’t possibly make a complaint. Just think of all the unwelcome publicity.” In fact, there would be no publicity, since any complainant not connected with the Heartland Institute will play no further role in the case once he has undertaken the simple duty of reporting the fraud to his friendly, local police station.

Another said, “We really mustn’t interfere with academic freedom in this way.” Yet the action of the fraudster was not an exercise of academic freedom, still less a triumph for it. It was an abuse of it. It was a fraud. It was an offense. It was a serious offense. Read the Code.

The law, said Cicero in a beautiful passage in his De Legibus, is founded upon and rooted in love.  And what is a sin? In Christian theology it is a failure of love. A sin is a sin because its fake-etrator is knowingly or recklessly doing harm and, to the extent of the harm done, is failing to love the victims of his wrongdoing. It is precisely because of the harm done to the Heartland Institute and to Anthony Watts and others that the sin – in law the offense – is grave. And it is precisely to prevent such harm from being done that the law provides punishment for fraudsters – as long as someone, anyone, has the guts to go into a police station and start the ball rolling by making a complaint.

If just one or two of the numerous scientific frauds that are being reported to me were instead reported to the police, and if prosecutions and convictions were to ensue in just one or two cases, the “global warming” scam would come sharply to an end. Those scientists working in climate and related fields who have acted or published fraudulently (there are just a few of them, and they know who they are) would once again be reminded that they are not an untouchable, priestly caste at liberty to ignore the laws that the rest of us must follow. As the late Lord Denning used to say, in that gentle Hampshire accent of his, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

## 155 thoughts on “Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted”

1. mkelly says:

The Good Lord states: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.”

Some of the saddest words anyone can read. Freedom lost is not oft gained back.

2. ferd berple says:

How was Gleick identified? Wasn’t the fake reportedly similar in style to his writing style?

Imagine if an ordinary citizen had done this to Coca-Cola or General Electric. How long would it take before the FBI was knocking down their door?

3. jack mosevich says:

“Gleick-gate”: the prison door shutting behind him

4. klem says:

Wow, that is a long list of felonies committed by this so-called ‘whistleblower’.

5. Severian says:

Of course, anyone who expects that our justice department, given the current leadership, will do squat on this, well, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in North Dakota. One ICE agent and over 200 Mexican nationals dead due to Operation Fast and Furious and we can’t get anything done by our justice dept, what are the odds one case of wire fraud will get any traction?

6. kim2ooo says:

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Thank you for this post.

Soooo…if I brought charges in my state…Mr “Perp” would have to show-up in my state to defend?

That could add up to a lot of travel time – just here in the USA :)

7. Man Bearpigg says:

What I find amazing is that the Police are not (or do not seem to be) proactively involved. Surely if a criminal offence has been committed it is it is the Police /DA/ or whatever legal system is employed where the offences took place to prosecute?

8. Monckton is absolutely correct…it is time to put them in jail if necessary…their models were designed to deceive and Gleick and those who support the kind of conduct they represent must be prosecuted…and please this is no place for timidity and bleeding hearts. The time has come for some frontier justice.

9. A physicist says:

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

10. Rogelio says:

I’m afraid Monckton is right. I think one or two succesfull prosecutions would suffice. In any case Global temps are not following the agenda at all, in fact one suspects that many lukewartmers are quickly converting to skeptics or even AGW deniers at this stage. As always the data win’s. Even Conolleys graph put up recently from 1978 to current UAH satellite is no showing any significant trend *although they all love to put a trend line through the data haha

11. Academic freedom means that an academic can say whatever she can scientifically support, without fear for the consequences on career prospects, income, freedom or personal safety.

Committing fraud does not fall under academic freedom.

12. Joe says:

I think the best legal recourse for Gleick is to come clean, get a VERY speedy trial, and wrap it up in November-ish just in time to make Obama’s lame-duck list of Presidential Pardons.

13. Theo Goodwin says:

I am very pleased to see this post. Gleick should do hard time in a penitentiary for his crime. His considerable wealth should be used to compensate those who suffered because of his crime.

14. Whether or not one favors this sort of thing often depends on whether or not the person obtaining the documents illegally is acting in a way one perceives of as being beneficial (to one’s personal prejudices, if nothing else). One can work back through many famous cases from Viet Nam down through the present where documents have been “outed” by a process that strictly speaking breaks the law, but where what the documents reveal seems to justify the action a posteriori.

Climate skeptics, for example, speak of the individual(s) who outed the “Climategate” postings as being some sort of hero, in spite of the fact that what he or she or they did is almost certainly, strictly speaking, a criminal act. Of course so is some of what was being revealed by Climategate emails — arguably criminal acts.

In at least the U.S., there is now some degree of protection for “whistle blowers” — people who violate a privacy law to reveal overt lawbreaking on the part of somebody else. Of course this law is hardly consistent, and there are countless exceptions especially where “national security” or “government” is concerned, which is why Wikileaks is in such trouble. Nor does the open publication of “leaked” documents consistently reveal lawbreaking in the first place — in many cases it is merely embarrassing or something that really is private and none of anyone’s business.

For these reasons I think the best thing to focus on in the case of fakegate (why is it that since Watergate — which has nothing to do with a gate — all subsequent leaked documents have to have a “gate” appended? Human language is so strange…;-) is not so much the nominal legality of the alleged phishing of the documents but rather the far more serious charge of fraud. Turnabout is fair play (legal or not, it is fair) so if Climategate was “good” then Fakegate might have been “good” if it weren’t for the “fake” bit!

After all, who bloody cares how climate skeptics are funded, or if? Talk about major league tempest in the smallest of teapots! There are (as has been pointed out) mountains of money available, much of it from highly suspect sources, for any work that supports the “cause” of CAGW and its solution, mandatory carbon trading and the deconstruction of modern civilization. Is there some sort of rule that states that climate skeptics have to be brave and self-sacrificing and pay for their own efforts? Not at all — but of course one way the warmists like to claim that skeptics are biased is by alleging that they are really the catspaws of Big Oil or Coal Mining Capitalists, and are being paid to promote a point of view they don’t even really believe in, in exchange for being made wealthy by under the table payoffs.

Which is truly, truly laughable. I wish. In case any Big Oil execs are listening, don’t hesitate to make me an offer. I can be easily be bought, especially to do work I’m doing anyway without any sort of compensation. Goodness, I guess it is time for me to take a trip down to the Caymans to set up my very own offshore account.

Not.

Sigh.

No, the real issue is the Fake bit. Faking documents to smear an entire body of individuals so that they collectively are taken less seriously in a scientific debate is appallingly unethical, and whether or not it is against civil law, it is almost certainly not outside of the realm of lawsuits seeking compensation and restoration of reputation. Granting agencies should also take careful note, as this is precisely the sort of fraud that corrupts grant funded research in this arena — using any means necessary to not only fail to give fair consideration to opposing arguments, but to destroy those who offer those arguments by any means necessary. That is (and continues to be, at least for me) one of the most shocking things revealed by the Climategate documents — that a cabal of scientific researchers would actually conspired to have journal editors and individuals who sought to publish legitimate scientific results that contradicted their own results discredited and fired. They tried to professionally ruin people for the sin of disagreeing with them!

If you want something that will crush science, it is letting this sort of thing go unpunished. I still await “justice” here, in the form of actual censure and professional consequences for those involved. But I suspect that I will wait for the rest of my life for that.

For justice in the Fakegate case — well, I’m guessing that one thing the Heartland institute does have is enough money to sue the hell out of people for fraud and slander. I’m also guessing that at least some of the individuals involved have gone beyond the bounds where even the most tolerant of wink wink, nod nod, you know what I mean you know what I mean is going to be an acceptable solution. There will indeed be some public eviscerations now, in an effort to salvage what little is left of an already shabby reputation for self-policing of clearly inappropriate means and methods in supposedly scientific inquiry.

rgb

15. Scottish Sceptic says:

Lord Monckton, is there anything we can do in the UK?

The BBC believe they are immune from any kind of action, the Guardian likewise don’t believe the Heartland will take them to court.

Somehow we have got to get this to court and show that the law does have a say over what happens when it is totally unethical, immoral and illegal.

16. Steve Richards says:

So, who will make a complaint against the British press/meda?

17. Rob says:

4. Identity Theft. The wire fraud is separate from stealing the person’s identity.

18. P. Solar says:

His lordship is right of course. All the previously known nation states of Europe ceased to be democracies when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by their respective parliaments.

What future generations will despise us for in not out “carbon emissions” but our total acquiescence when democracy was taken from us at the stroke of a pen.

No wonder, then prime minister, Gordon Brown made sure he absent from the photo call for the biggest act of collective treason ever committed.

19. On top of that, Christopher, The ‘perp’ came right out and admitted it (albeit in a whingy, almost arrogant fashion), so the ball is already on the tee for the ‘investigation’ to proceed. I’m….turning….blue….

20. “Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic”

Any other approach is WRONG, seems to be Lord Monckton’s opinion…

I wonder who he meant ;-) !

To be honest it would be better if whoever did whatever, confessed now apologised without reservation. Climate Science could see what a dark politicised hole it had gone down, draw a deep breathe and get back to science. Unlike some I take no pleasure in the ‘downfall’ of any particular scientist.

21. G. Karst says:

To publish a forged document should always carry a risk of incarceration. Risk can only be perceived, if there is an actual consequence, for ignoring such risk. This makes prosecution necessary, especially if the fraud is clear cut and provable. Such blatant disregard to due process results in cavalier attitude, and such actions will become more frequent.

Gleick should be censored by his peers, but more important, the law should be prosecuted to it’s fullest extent. This will go a long way in preventing such tactics, by anyone… skeptic or advocate. I call on the FBI to act quickly, to secure all evidence, and our courts speedily render judgment. As to Gleick’s peers… shame and dishonor on you all. Your days are numbered, if you cannot demonstrate and enforce scientific standards.

Thank goodness, such behavior is relatively rare in the community. GK

22. Can someone living in Virginia make this complaint?

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

Bullcrap, physicist. That is one of the biggest lies you have ever stated.

Go get a moral basis, for if you really believe what you have stated above, your are in league with Gleick. And everything Monckton describes as nefarious behavior can be attributed to you–for it makes you equivalent to an accomplice and without moral or legal basis–and you do so willingly.

In addition, I believe you owe everybody you’ve inpugned, especially the accurate and honorable Lord Monckton, a public apology. And do it quickly, sir–do it quickly! Here and now!

(You may be a “critic”, but you are so absolutely and completely wrong on this it simply boggles the mind.)

24. Charles.U.Farley says:

Conolley as Baldrick.

25. In answer to Scottish Sceptic and Steve Richards, my posting points out that fraud charges would not be brought in the UK until they had been brought in the US. The UK frauds depend upon proof – not available within the jurisdiction – that the counterfeit document is just that. So our American cousins must go to the police first (it costs nothing) and then, as soon as convictions for fraudulently circulating a counterfeit document to Heartland’s detriment have been obtained in the US, we can make sure that the police here are asked to investigate the criminality of our too-Marxist media in also circulating the counterfeit document before they took any steps to verify it.

26. Disko Troop says:

The result of this fraud is that Greenpeace have now commenced a campaign of multinational proportions to vilify and harass the employees of Heartland. How politicians and even the ordinary members of Greenpeace cannot see the irony in this is beyond me. I could not associate myself with such a disgusting and vile organisation such as Greenpeace and still look at my reflection in the mirror every morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/23/scientists-heartland-documents-under-fire

“However, Greenpeace and other campaigning groups were working hard on Wednesday to expose a number of individuals who were revealed in the documents to be on Heartland’s payroll, and were planning to put pressure on the publicly-funded institutions that were the main employers.”

That disgraceful communist rag, The Guardian, is cheering this on.

No wonder the GWPF in the UK refuses to reveal its funding.

Self snipped comment to finish

Robert Brown says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:16 am

For justice in the Fakegate case — well, I’m guessing that one thing the Heartland institute does have is enough money to sue the hell out of people for fraud and slander.

No, suing them for fraud and slander is sufficient. No need for adding “hell”–fraud and slander is definitely sufficient.

28. JP says:

“Whether or not one favors this sort of thing often depends on whether or not the person obtaining the documents illegally is acting in a way one perceives of as being beneficial (to one’s personal prejudices, if nothing else). One can work back through many famous cases from Viet Nam …”

Let’s forget about ‘Nam. The Ellesberg case was unique in its time and place. What Gleick did was commit wire fraud (probably 2 counts at the very least). Are these people so niave that they think they are truly above the law. And even with a fellow traveller in the White House, it will be very difficult for the DOJ not to prosecute this case. And if there is a change in parties at the WH and Congress. Gleick could be looking at a decade in the slammer as well as an abrupt end to his career.

29. That will be the same clerk of parliaments who has written three state secret certificates for FOI requests of mine.

All about covering up what the Lords knew about the peers who are fraudsters.

30. Latitude says:

I see a bigger picture….

Gleick is not only the head of the ethics committee…
..he’s supposed to be smart enough to do climate science

What he did is so over the top butt stupid…..

Anyone that does something this stupid,
their judgement about anything can’t be trusted

31. mbabbitt says:

A great part of the outrage of this crime is that so many on the climate alarmist side are reflexively rationalizing, excusing, or condoning this behavior. This might be the bigger story – spinning an event so as to make it into something it is not. It exemplifies the Modus operandi of the global warming science community in its core.

32. Butch Corcoran says:

No one is interested unless the perp is named Murdock.

33. Beesaman says:

The real issue is knowingly stealing someone elses identity to acquire private correspondence.

That is what he will do time for, if there is any justice.

We have a number of journalists here in the UK who have done time or will be, for similar offences using mobile phones and emails.
There was no academic worth in this act and to say there was besmirches the reputations of the rest of us academics who work honestly.
The information he stole from the Heartland Institute was not in the general publics interest as it did not and was not likely to reveal any wrongdoing under the law. Just because you disagree with your neighbour does not give you the right to steal letters from his mailbox while dressed as the mailman. The fact that it appears that having found no legal wrongdoing it would appear that he went on to fake another document (perhaps with outside assistance) not only calls into account his integrity, but also the balance of his mind.

34. DirkH says:

Barry Woods says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:31 am
“Climate Science could see what a dark politicised hole it had gone down, draw a deep breathe and get back to science.”

Back to pretending their GCM’s can tell us anything about the future, you mean.

35. So Lord Moncton, what you were telling a certain sceptic in the UK to do.. collate lots of documents and go into a police station in the UK.. was just WRONG then…. ? ie nothing has happened yet in the USA…

Perhaps A physicist has a point..

Heartland will do what is I hope in the best interests of Heartland, not Lord Monckton, who I believe is part of the problem now.. the general public just don’t know or care about this and do not know or care about anybody who is involved. People that polarise the debate are the problem. Allways have been to some extant, this has prevented nornal science progressing as it should..

The fact that Andrew Montford was invited to speak at the Met Office yesterday, I hope would give a moments pause for thought that alternative approaches may be beneficial, and ultimatley more producitive to achieving the goal. Just an opinion.

36. Cassandra King says:

For a proud nation that founded democracy around the world, that fought for freedom at the highest of costs your words sound like an epitaph Lord Monkton.

Our political class have surrendered that supreme quality that marks a free nation of free peoples from an enslaved subject peoples. They have eagerly and secretly handed over something that is not in their gift to give, our sovereignty is not and never was theirs to give away and yet the UK is now to all intents and purposes an enslaved subject state, and to make it worse we didnt go down fighting, our freedom and sovereignty were stolen and the theft covered by lies.
A nation that no longer makes its own laws, houses the supreme judicial authority is no longer a free nation. And yet who among the gutless parasites of Westminster is speaking out? Even your cabinet member feels too afraid to stand up and speak freely under his own name. What nameless fear stalks the corridors of Westminster that free born men cannot stand for their values and speak their minds?

The EU is sinking into the abyss of a new dark age and the CAGW fraud has wreaked incalculable damage on the European economy, the unelected kommissars swagger and preen and act as though they represented a single nation, they do not. They represent nothing but a cancerous evolution of politics, a tawdry collection of non entities and puffed up fools who believe that they alone hold the keys to the future, their dream of a USSR Mk2, the perfection of a state ruled by a technocrat elite unencumbered by such outdated concepts as democracy. The true enemy of the professional politician remains the electorate, we are their most dangerous enemy and their ultimate is to remove that threat. The CAGW fraud has always been a useful vehicle and tool for the EU architects, it allows them to remove freedoms and stifle democracy under the fabricated illusion of an external threat.

The tragedy of our fall from saviour of the world to the sorry pathetic spectacle of a slave state in just one generation, oh how the mighty have fallen not in one last glorious battle but given away by traitors in the night.

37. amoorhouse says:

So why are the BBC, Guardian, DesmogBlog etc. (and the Telegraph!) in the act of praising Gleick not also praising Mr. FOIA. They are equating the two but are not them treating them equally.

Strange

38. No. Unless it was a conspiracy with the NCSE? and/or smeg blog etc.

Far better to ask the court to order Gleick to facilitate a set of conferences discussing the various areas of contention, an open public debate. If he doesn’t comply then lock him up, after all he’s the one requesting debate.

It should also be beneath ‘us’ to engage in petty vindicativeness, his reputation if not career is ruined already and I would not wish the US penal system on anyone.

39. DirkH says:

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
“Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.”

But Lord Monckton argues factually. He explains the crimes committed. You don’t argue factually against it because you know he’s right. So you throw up that link with total disregard for its content. Have you even read the text you linked to? I doubt it.

40. Grant says:

A Physicist says

“Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.”

No, demagoguery would be encouraging retaliation on you for your senseless posts. He makes a case for prosecuting Gleick based on his criminally fraudulent behavior and damage he has done to individuals who are participating in this discussion about climate change and public policy that addresses it. Heartland has a difference in scientific opinion, has the right to make their case to the public on what they think truth is.
Moncton is stating that they have a reasonable expectation that the law should protect them from malicious acts from idiots like Peter Gleick.

41. John West says:

Gleick is a hero; he’s proven beyond any doubt that his ilk will do anything for the “cause”. Everything associated with his name is tainted forevermore; no paper, report, letter, editorial, or opinion that he’s ever been a part of will ever again have any credibility outside of the ever dwindling population of true believers. The IPCC AR5 will most likely cite some of his work and there won’t be enough popcorn to go around as it will discredit the entire work.

42. Mike M says:

I should have said still trotting out the headline a week later AND despite the Gleick’s confession and resignation.

43. Neville says:

It’s important to note that obtaining information (the parts that are genuine) from the Heartland Institute by impersonating their rightful owner is what several of Murdoch’s journalists in the UK are under arrest for right now. Nevertheless, many people on the left manage to applaud the one (because Murdoch is a political opponent) while excusing the other (because Gleick is an ally). This underlines how careful we need to be about allowing people like this to define what ‘human rights’ are. In their minds their friends will always be “more equal than others”.

44. DesertYote says:

A physicist
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
###

No one cares what you think except your anti-human fellow travelers. The more you post the more desperate you look.

45. Barry Woods says:

That was a party political broadcast by Lord Monckton whose total indiscretion about a ‘private meeting’ which he did not attend, and naming a cabinet minister attended of political parties he is in opposition too, has potentially put into jeopardy lots of work by lots of people.. and very possibly all future meetings.

well done

46. Louis Hooffstetter says:

If they decide to appoint a special prosecutor, Ken Cuccinelli gets my vote.

47. A Physicist
If anyone can be charged with demagoguery the surely it must be Peter Gleick.
Attacking the the institute as he has been doing for some considerable time for the express purpose of closing down the debate is a classic case of demagoguery.

48. DesertYote says:

Barry Woods
February 23, 2012 at 9:00 am
###

You appear to be under some delusion that both sides are wrong because they have politicized the debate. That is non-sense as there is no debate. It is all politics and has always been politics. One side want to destroy western civilization as a means to bring about their great Marxist utopia, the other side wants to stop them. Global warming is just a pretext.

49. Barry Woods says:

can’t type when cross. sorry.

50. neill says:

The watermelons would be shouting fraud from the mountaintops if Gleick worked for a tobacco company. Goose, gander, etc etc. Case closed.

51. Scottish Sceptic says:

Monckton, before we lapse into despair, let’s think about what we can do in the UK.

First we cam complain to the BBC. True the BBC will just write a snotty note back, but the number of complaints does worry the BBC. If enough people did complain it would cause them to change their output (even though they will never admit that to any complainant)

Second the PCC (press complaints commission). Technically the Heartland Institute have to complain, but I’m sure if the complaint were “condoning illegal activity” or something more general, it would have to be considered …. and might make a complaint from the Heartland more likely to succeed if they took this action.

Third, we can all write to our MP. Generally, the best thing to do is to ask a question. Another way is to ask the MP to write to a minister.

Fourth, we can all write to Lord Monckton asking when he is going to do a speaking tour of the UK & Scotland, because …. well nothing would annoy the ecos at the BBC and the Guardian than to see Lord Monckton in the UK.

52. PaulH says:

Mark my words, Dr. Gleick will be hailed as a hero and will live a very comfortable and profitable life. His “mistake” will make him a wealthy man.

53. neill says:

The watermelons would be shouting Fraud!! from the mountain tops if Gleick worked for a tobacco company, instead of being a formerly card-carrying member of the green aristocracy. Goose, gander, sauce, etc. Case closed.

54. … but why the rant on europe with a masked godwin?

55. Skiphil says:

@A Physicist

First I must state that I was intensely disgusted when you sought (on a previous thread) to wrap your specious arguments in unearned honor of association with the values of the US Marine Corps for purposes of your own tendentious political claims. You received a “time out” before I saw that thread so I did not comment, but I would say (in general) that people should not try to dress up their own arguments by pretending they are uniquely in tune with the USMC commitment to truth and honor.

2nd, your comment here shows no intellectual grasp of the article at the link you supplied. You have tried to associate Monckton’s piece here with “demagoguery” but you do not deign to supply the slightest attempt at analysis or substantiation. The link begins with discussion of Hitler’s propaganda methods (nice way to FAIL by violation of “Godwin’s Law”). Then it definies “demagoguery” in this way:

“Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called “an escape from freedom.””

I do not see the slightest connection between Monckton’s piece on this thread and any of this quotation. You have not made any intelligent effort to explain the connection you imagine exists. You have achieved an utter “fail” in understanding the phenomenon of demagoguery and trying to smear Monckton and WUWT.

56. Louis Hooffstetter says:

A physicist says:
Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery…blah, blah, blah.

The supplied link states: “The easiest way to restrict the ability of people to criticize you is to make it dangerous to do so.”

Like many AGW proponents, “A physicist” either can’t distiguish the difference between truth and lies or simply chooses not to. The difference is subtle but important: Criticism is truthful, legal, and protected by our First Ammendment. In the US and the UK, you can truthfully criticize people to your heart’s content. Slander, is a lie, plain and simple. It’s wrong, it’s illegal, and deserves to be punished.

If AGW proponents understood the distinction between truth and lies, they wouldn’t be their own worst enemies.

57. Cassandra King

I could not agree more.
Very well said.

Peter Oneil

58. Sandy says:

One rather suspects even if it went to court the fix would be in, something would appear ‘post ex procto’ to save him.

59. Garry says:

He’s confessed to impersonation, fraudulent taking, and identity theft under the California penal code.

But we should be surprised if even one of these statutes is enforced.

60. Jimbo says:

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

Do you think that people who commit WIRE FRAUD in the USA should be reported to the police? A simple question requiring a simple answer.

61. nc says:

Barry Woods says:

February 23, 2012 at 9:26 am

can’t type when cross. sorry.
Good, you did not say much anyhow.

62. Kaboom says:

The idea that not prosecuting fraud in the sciences is necessary to have scientific freedom is about as ludicrous as stating that deaths in prisons by the hand of guards should not be investigated because they might interfere with serving justice.

63. Kaboom says:

It is also quite notable that the fear of becoming persecuted in the media for asking the police to investigate such blatant fraud reflects upon the chilling effect the CAGW proponents have brought to free speech.

64. Garry says:

John West says February 23, 2012 at 9:12 am: “The IPCC AR5 will most likely cite some of his work and there won’t be enough popcorn to go around as it will discredit the entire work.”

Always bear in mind that the IPCC is in business for one and only one reason: to bolster the case for Disastrous Anthopogenic Global Warming (DAGW), and how (and how much) to “fix” it.
From the third paragraph of the IPCC charter dated 6 December 1988: “Noting with concern that the emerging evidence that the continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”
The IPCC charter:

http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNGA43-53.pdf

65. Jimbo says:

Robert Brown says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:16 am
……………………
Climate skeptics, for example, speak of the individual(s) who outed the “Climategate” postings as being some sort of hero, in spite of the fact that what he or she or they did is almost certainly, strictly speaking, a criminal act. Of course so is some of what was being revealed by Climategate emails — arguably criminal acts.

Contact the UK police immediately! Tell them it was not a leak from a whistelblower. By the way I understand that the CRU emails were the subject of a legal FOI. Whistelblowers in the UK have legal protection by the way.

CRU emails and Heartland docs are two very different things.
CRU publicly funded, publicly accountable, no forged emails.
Heartland privately funded and accountable to only themselves, forged doc distributed………..

66. John Mason says:

Tit for Tat games never really bring a good outcome IMO – for each opponent there exists the delusion that the first one to get ten tits wins supreme control of the Universe!

Will the schoolchildren of the future play Deniers and Warmists instead of Cowboys and Indians as was the case in my day?

Guess like a stream sediment sample it will pan out…..

Cheers – John

67. A physicist says:
A physicist says: Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

RockyRoad says: Bullcrap, physicist. That is one of the biggest lies you have ever stated.

RockyRoad, anyone who reads those two essays side-by-side can verify that my post’s assertion is factually correct.

And this factually objective assessment of Lord Monckton’s essay accords well with the public perception of him: a Google search for the exact phrase “Lord Monckton” and “demagogue” finds 11,000 hits … few or none of which praise him.

For me, the gravest charge against Lord Monckton is that demagoguery such as his gravely harms humanity’s ability to improve our estimates of the probability $P_{\text{CAGW}}$, that is, the probability that the chain of Hansen-style physics GHG $\Leftrightarrow$ GHE $\Leftrightarrow$ AGW $\Leftrightarrow$ CAGW extends to completion.

And it is evident (IMHO) that the uncertainties presently associated to $P_{\text{CAGW}}$ are sufficiently great, that no rational person (whether skeptic or scientist) can confidently assert that this probability is less than ~20% or greater than 80%.

For our children’s generation, the probability $P_{\text{CAGW}}$ is the only thing that matters in the end; all else is destined to be forgotton. For as Richard Feynman reminded us, “Nature cannot be fooled.”

And in particular, Nature cannot be fooled by demagoguery. That is plain common sense, eh?

68. I’m against putting him up on serious charges or jail time. Yes, what he did was illegal. However I think all skeptics should be reminded that the Warmistas out number us, at least in the political sphere, and apparently have fewer scruples. Imprison Gleick for a real offense, my guess is we get one if not more prominent skeptics inprisoned for make believe ‘crimes’ or even thought crimes in the near future. They will pervert existing laws and even make new laws to come after the skeptic community and anyone else who holds unPC or the ‘wrong’ opinions on certain issues.

Shame Gleick to the ends of the Earth. Add his discredit to the smoking compost heap in which the credibility of Mann, Jones, Hansen, Briffa, et al already rot. But don’t imprison or persecute him, it’ll come back to bite us in the ass. When you’re playing against people with no scruples you should never assume they couldn’t stoop any lower than they already have, or they’ll revel in surprising you as to just how low they can go.

69. Rob_Dawg says:

An injust society cannot conduct reliable science. Allowing this theft to go unexamined serves no one. The Allies of WW-II struggled with the a similar conundrum when the data from Nazi human experiments were uncovered. Ethical to use inhumanely collected data on exposure to heat and cold and altitude, etc? Ultimately the decision was prosecute to perpetrators where possible and use the data to save lives. Let us prosecute the perpetrators and use the the data.

70. Robert Clemenzi says:

publication and repetition of the contents of counterfeit documents as though they were the real thing, when no steps before publication had been taken to verify that the documents relied upon were true, it is also fraud.

Pot, Kettle, Black

Is this so really different than Climategate? Suppose that in the vast number of emails someone had manufactured one (fraud). Are you really suggesting that the blog owners who disseminated the emails should be prosecuted? Even if only one was fraudulent?

In this case, the person has admitted phishing to get information.Shame on Heartland for supplying it. But please don’t request greater punishment for this than you want the Climategate people to receive.

For producing the fraudulent document – well that is another thing. We still don’t “know” the source of that. At any rate, I have seen far worse written as satire by both sides of this issue, (Remember the exploding heads?) Now that it is clearly acknowledged as a fake, it is doing more damage to “the cause” than prosecuting the messenger ever could.

As for punishment – having this event remembered for all time as “Gleick’s fraud” seems pretty fitting.

(Anonymous names, like “fakegate”, should not be used. One person is responsible for this situation. His name should be prominently associated with it.)

71. The idea that academics who do harm should not be held accountable because it will inhibit them has always struck me as absurd. In engineering one expects to be held accountable when a bridge you designed collapses. Knowing that you will be held accountable makes one behave more responsibly.

Academics who publish work that is dead wrong can get away with it as long as nobody is harmed. However, when it comes to “Climate Science”, immense harm is being done and huge sums of money are being wasted. When the IPCC’s house of cards comes crashing down it is vital that the perpetrators know they will be held accountable.

72. Willis Eschenbach says:

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

A physicist’s critics will argue that his WUWT comment exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Stupidity. And the comment itself establishes that these critics are correct …

A physicist, you do see that your comment is content-free? Other than a nasty, invidious slur, it contains nothing. No facts. No citations. No supporting evidence. No details. No logic. We’re just supposed to take your word for … what? Oh, right, for the cleverly-capitalized and rarely seen

Characteristics of Demagogery

You mean like making nasty, invidious slurs without supporting evidence? That kind of thing?

w.

73. mbabbitt says:

You can’t make this stuff up. Oh wait… yes you can – it’s all done in the name of science and truth.

74. Rob Crawford says:

“A physicist” seems a bit defensive on the question of fraud.

75. Downdraft says:

To A physicist February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
Try again. You have misinterpreted demagoguery to suit your purposes, which is to attempt to deflect the demagoguery committed by your friends on “The Team”, and others, who have called for prosecution and imprisonment of anyone who would dare to defy the forces CAGW. Advocating for the prosecution of someone who has apparently committed an actual crime, vs. advocating for persecution of someone who has done something legal but which you don’t like, is not equivalent. You are getting tiresome.

76. HankHenry says:

Seems like defamation more than fraud. Was Heartland deceived? Not for a minute.

77. Mike M;
So are you going to go to your local police and lay out a complaint against SciAm? Put up or …

Monckton calls us “wee, cowering, timorous beasties.” Prove him wrong.

[I'm a Cdn resident, or I'd do it myself. Needs to be a US action. )B( ]

78. Climategate 2.0 says:

I learned from “a physicist’s” link that Hitler was a huge fan of the consensus mindset and its application as opposed to individual decision making via democratic methods. I’d like to thank “a physicist” for helping me to better understand the type of person that feels that consensus is a vital component of postnormal climate science. By the way Hitler had the support of the nature loving German Green Party and actually gave out oak tree seeds to winners during the German sponsored Olympics. It almost brings a tear to my eye when I think about the rich history of those greenies who felt man was a disease to nature.

79. Lord Monckton presents an interesting idea… But if the average Joe decides to make a complaint at the local police station, wouldn’t the police simply claim it is out of their jurisdiction? I doubt they take complaints in Peoria about crimes that were perpetrated in Downtown Chicago (or across state lines).

I’ve had very few dealings with the police and really don’t know the answer… Can any lawyers chime in? Can someone who has not been harmed directly file a complaint? (without going into the great economic harm being perpetrated upon us collectively by scientifically or economically non-viable policies – a harm which would take more than the average Joe to establish, even though it is much greater, more harmful and more obvious).

80. Rob Crawford says:

“Is this so really different than Climategate?”

You do understand that one case involves public documents subject to sunshine law disclosure and the other involves documents produced by and for a private organization, right?

81. Coach Springer says:

Scientific fraud is not what is at issue. It’s not an honest mistake to claim some exemption based on academic freedom – it’s intentionally misleading. What Gleick (and anyone acting concert such as his mysterious anonymous donor and possible DeSmog) did was an attack on science, not an attempt to conduct science. It’s also not a whole lot different than claiming an exempton for selling one orange grove over and over and over again while claiming a scientfic advance that will the orange grove more productive. If it’s fraud, it’s still not scientific fraud. I’ll go with the motive of committing regular fraud with a motive of concealing his own scientific fraud.

Separately and for further hypothetical discussion, Monckton may have forgotten about RICO. Originally for fighting organized crime, but broadly effective against other types of acting as a defacto crime organization without having to prove a direct conspiracy. (Ask Michael Milliken) Can the ones actively promoting the Gleick fraud adequately separate their gain (they make their living off their opinion and their opinion is advanced unless the fraud is exposed) from their political belief in knowingly promoting the fraud? And is it too late for them to walk it back? — Generally though, i agree with most that this whole idea of a fraud prosecution turns on prosecutorial discretion. But maybe Patrick Fitzgerald could trick Trenberth into lying to him about what he knew when he co-wrote that article with Gleick and Abrams.

Less hypothetically, science in service of politics is not recognized as scientific fraud although it can be no other. Isn’t that where the climate science went off the tracks to start with? If you oppose science in service of politics, then your opponent discredits you as having a political motive. Sound familiar? Sound like “sustainable” science?

Then there is the remaining ethical problem: Greenpeace style harrassment in Greenpeace, in the press, in government.

82. John Whitman says:

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

Your post is a call for skeptics to step forward. Thanks for that. However, let’s not get misdirected by the Gleick hoax affair.

Yes, the Gleick hoax affair is a poisoned dart aimed at the heart of scientific honor. Yet, more importantly, it is not focus on the Gleick hoax but focus on the fundamental ideas that will make our great freedom based culture advance toward higher enlightenment. That, not Gleick, must now take our highest priority. Right?

Independent thinkers (aka skeptics) will lose if those fundamental ideas of freedom based culture are not the main focus. As you have done, focusing briefly on Gleick’s hoax is important but only as a classic example of the irrational fundamental ideas of the anti-humanity culture that are the basis of the IPCC centric ’cause’. Let’s get on now with aggressive positive support of our fundamental ideas that ground firmly our precious freedom based cultures. We must remember that objective skeptical science processes are just one element, albeit an important one, in support of our freedom based culture.

John

83. Ken Hall says:

to A physicist, so any charge of criminal malfeasance can be defended by a counter charge of demogogery? You are so far out on a limb on that one as to render your comment self evidently ridiculous.

HankHenry, Was heartland deceived? Well, if I was to pretend to be a relative of yours (via electronic mail means) to solicit personal information of yours, which I could use to cause you actual harm, I would be guilty of deceiving you and I would be guilty of ID fraud.

So in committing ID fraud to gain documents that he was not lawfully entitled to, Peter Gleick has publicly admitted and confessed to committed a deceptive act. He used ID fraud to obtain documents by deception, with the intention of publicly causing harm by slander to the Heartland institute. Several distinct CRIMINAL offences. These are offences in criminal as well as common law.

Of course the police should begin a criminal investigation and charges should be brought against Peter Gleick and his accomplices who acted as accessories to the criminal acts. Then let a criminal court decide who is guilty.

84. Die Zauberflotist says:

Come on people. This is clearly a false flag op perpetrated by the connivers at the Heartland Institute. Dr. Gleick’s biggest sin, other than being a supporter of a healthy earth and concerned about the dire consequences of fossil fuel usage, is being a trusting individual. HI has passed a phony looking document through Peter Gleick in order to discredit him and others of us who care about the planet.

Please. If you support science and are sick of the attacks on the good people who are trying to do the right thing about CO2, join me…. raise your voices…. say it with me now:

ICH BIN EIN PETER!

85. Skiphil says:

re: venues for legal/criminal complaints

I’m no lawyer, but within the USA I think one can state with confidence that local police departments will not even consider an investigation into possible violations of federal law, especially where the actions alleged/admitted in the case occurred in other jurisdictions.

Legal complaints and requests for investigation need to go to the relevant US Attorney’s offices in places such as Chicago, IL (location of Heartland Institute) and Oakland, CA (where Peter Gleick and his Pacific Institute are located). Despite the ubiquity of the Internet I don’t think that a US Attorney’s office in a city which is not explicitly associated with a victim or perp would start the case.

There may be other ways to try to get the FBI involved directly.

86. CRU emails and Heartland docs are two very different things.
CRU publicly funded, publicly accountable, no forged emails.
Heartland privately funded and accountable to only themselves, forged doc distributed………..

No, not as far as privacy laws are concerned. I happen to have arbitrary read access, should I choose to exercise it, to the email spool directory of the Duke physics department (around 25 years ago I helped set up its original Unix network and managed it for years, and am one of the only Duke faculty who still has systems administrator status as well as faculty status). Of course I have a professional code of ethics that prevents me from doing any such thing, I have signed agreements that I would do no such thing (outside of the course of my job and with very severe restrictions as to what constitutes an exception), and there are laws that threaten to punish me for doing any such thing. Those laws and rules do not provide exceptions for “I think they are avoiding FOIA requests so I’m going to do it anyway”.

Almost precisely the same crime has been committed in both cases. I say “almost” because the real difference isn’t the violation of privacy (which is severe and illegal in both cases), it is the allegation of fraud. It is bad enough to steal my email spool file and make its contents public, including conversations I might have had in the good faith belief that they were and would remain private. It is unconscionable to steal my email spool file, EDIT IT TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT I AM A CRIMINAL OR CAD, and then publish it for the express purpose of FALSELY destroying my reputation.

Personally, not being a complete idiot I try to keep my list of gay lovers, undergrads with whom I’m having affairs, my kiddie porn collection, and the records of my thriving business selling cocaine out of my email spool file, so that for the most part my own mother could read its contents and not be offended were she still alive. There are a few trade secrets in there, and I have been known to voice an unguarded opinion that certain people are complete and total idiots and a waste of perfectly good air to people I trust, even when I have to maintain a public face and work the the individual in question as if they aren’t an accident of evolution gone horribly wrong, but that’s pretty much the extent of the real damage that could be done by publishing all umpty gigabytes of my email spool from the last few decades as one enormous book.

There is no limit to the damage that could be done if its contents were tampered with along the way, if kiddie porn is inserted, cocaine transactions inserted, and so on, first.

That’s why this entire affair has the characteristics of major league “tempest in a tea pot” writ large across its face. I find it hard to believe that grown adult humans would self-destruct in this particular way, but then, yeah, some people are just a waste of good air, evolution gone awry. Whatever Gleick hoped to prove, what he actually proved is that he is an … oh dear there I am about to libel the man. That he is whatever a court of law, should one ever be invoked, concludes that he is.

rgb

87. wsbriggs says:

At this point, it’s starting to appear as though a physicist is a thoroughly indoctrinated student of the infamous Post Normal Science student body. Comments which show no indication of ever having been exposed to Aristotelian Logic at all, inasmuch as there is no single part of the definition of demagogery which fits Monckton’s comments, neither in genus, nor differentia.
It would seem on the written evidence, the individual seems to believe that saying something is so, makes it so, this is like claiming that swiping a brush through water paints a wall, and then claiming a bucket of water is paint.

88. A physicist says:
A physicist says: Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

Willis Eschenbach says: A physicist’s critics will argue that his WUWT comment exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Stupidity. And the comment itself establishes that these critics are correct …

A physicist, you do see that your comment is content-free? Other than a nasty, invidious slur, it contains nothing. No facts. No citations. No supporting evidence. No details. No logic.

Willis, please let me direct your attention to a WUWT comment that supplies the evidence and logic that you have requested,which perhaps you have overlooked, and upon which you may wish to comment.

89. Ken Hall says:

“Climate skeptics, for example, speak of the individual(s) who outed the “Climategate” postings as being some sort of hero, in spite of the fact that what he or she or they did is almost certainly, strictly speaking, a criminal act. Of course so is some of what was being revealed by Climategate emails — arguably criminal acts.”

This is not such a clean cut case. IF the “leaker” of the climategate emails was an insider with lawful access to these files, then this person could be granted whistle-blower status. Additionally, the Information commissioner stated that the CRU was acting unlawfully in preventing the release of the data which was leaked. Additionally, IF that data was publicly available on the internet to anyone who happened to type in the correct address into a public facing browser, or if they followed a public link to the FTP store, due to the CRU’s own incompetence at leaving all this data open, then that data would actually have been accidentally placed into the public domain by the CRU’s own negligence. Therefore no theft or fraud would have taken place on behalf of the whistle-blower.

In this ‘fakegate’ example, Peter Gleick willingly and with malice aforethought did commit ID fraud to obtain these documents by deception, as he admitted. If it can be proven that he committed this fraud with the criminal intent of causing harm to the Heartland institute, through publication of these along with the fake document, to damage their reputation.with the public and to cause harm by publishing the identities of their donors and thus to put future donations to the Institute at risk, then he should be looking at a custodial prison sentence.

90. Robert Clemenzi says:

Rob Crawford says:

You do understand that one case involves …

Yes. Of course. But what if the Climategate emails contained a few fakes? Would you then want Anthony prosecuted distributing them? Do you really want each and every email verified to be authentic before making them available? What I am suggesting is that news sources (blogs, papers, and so forth) should not be prosecuted for being duped as long as they present a retraction once the truth is known. In the above article, I think that Lord Monckton is suggesting the prosecution of organizations who honestly thought they were publishing whistle blower material.

In this one point, I think the two cases are very similar.

91. Rob Crawford says:

“But what if the Climategate emails contained a few fakes?”

They don’t.

92. It is always a pleasure to me, to listen Christopher Monckton of Brenchley’s words and arguments. They let me know he has studied and realized the science of philosophy as a part of nature. Unfortunately this science of philosophy is shifted into the nirvana from the governments and have replaced it with charmed fallacies, people love. Now there is confusion in the consciousness of the specialists. Some have lost their trust, others still stay outside but nobody knows what’s inside going on these days.

There are celebration of ethics called taskforce, but it seems that the task is just a confession out of the individual confusion or bias. But a confused or biased mind cannot realize the holy methods of science; it will fail. Truth is not to alienate, it is coupled to the own consciousness.

It seems that the spirit of this age is stamped with a revolution in the consciousness of all people call in question the practice governed by kings or authorities (Pink Floyd has a vision decades ago). Looking around the Mediterranean sea, to financial games called science, or editors and their peers on ‘real science’, it seems that the very same revolution in the consciousness of consumers of climate science confession has taken place. It reminds me on the story of David and Goliath.

But I think it is hard to retrieve the timeless principles of philosophy in a week or ten, except if there is a natural unbiased unconditioned brave mind.Shams ad-Din i Tabriz says, „The easiest of science is the science of purification rituals and the branches of jurisprudence. More difficult than that are the principles of jurisprudence. Still more difficult are the principles of theology, and even more difficult is the science of philosophy and metaphysics.”

This and the knowledge of Parmenides’s recognitions can recognize persecution as a trap to the conditioned mind; it leads the mind away from that what IS.

I feel fine A.W. is part of the revolution in the battle field of climate kingship, and as well listen to a speech long time not heard in this confused world.

Respect.

V.

93. Kitefreak says:

Scottish Sceptic says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:18 am

Somehow we have got to get this to court and show that the law does have a say over what happens when it is totally unethical, immoral and illegal.

I’m afraid the law itself, as practised today, is “totally unethical, immoral and illegal”. The common law, well, that’s something else (see Magna Carta, etc.).

.Abbreviated version: you’re not going to get any joy from these people. Forget about it.

94. OK, so i arrived too late to slap down A Physicist on his misunderstanding of (or willfull blindness to) the meaning of his own link. Did anyone find the humour in his later post regarding Lord Moncton’s internet hit? “A google search for Lord MOncton and Demagogue… finds over 11,00 hit, few of which praise him” . So now it is not just climate science which is decided by concensus, it is Mr. Moncton’s status as a demogogue as well.

[Check for typo's in that quoted search. Robt]

95. And it is evident (IMHO) that the uncertainties presently associated to P_CAGW are sufficiently great, that no rational person (whether skeptic or scientist) can confidently assert that this probability is less than ~20% or greater than 80%.

Yes! It is indeed evident. Thanks for pointing out that the one who said “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” was a complete and utter moron! I can’t stand demagoguery either.

For our children’s generation, the probability P_CAGW is the only thing that matters in the end; all else is destined to be forgotton.

Thank you for your anit-demagogueriness, A Physicist! That which will be forgotten includes that other stupid, non-statistical weather forecast: “when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”

96. John Whitman says:

wsbriggs says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:49 am

It would seem on the written evidence, the individual [a physicist] seems to believe that saying something is so, makes it so, [ . . . ]

wsbriggs,

The name for that world view is the philosophical system of Pragmatism from the likes of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952).

There are, since them, other splinters from those pragmatists that extend the pragmatist’s world view into our 21st century.

John

97. Ken Hall says:

Die Zauberflotist, If your theory is correct that the Heartland Institute themselves created the “fake” document by which to entrap Peter Gleick, then he was stupid to then allow himself to be motivated by his own personal hatred to then commit ID fraud. So not only is he a self-confessed criminal, he is a stupid, self confessed criminal.

However your theory might fall apart if a criminal investigation discovers that Peter created the fake document himself.

That would prove criminal intent to cause harm.

I am buying shares in popcorn manufacturers. :)

98. Academics who publish work that is dead wrong can get away with it as long as nobody is harmed. However, when it comes to “Climate Science”, immense harm is being done and huge sums of money are being wasted. When the IPCC’s house of cards comes crashing down it is vital that the perpetrators know they will be held accountable.

Almost right, friend Camel. Whether or not somebody is harmed by scientific work is still not the issue, not if the work in question was done in good faith and if it presented a fair and balanced treatment of things. It’s not that my algebra could not be wrong, that my concepts could be mistaken, that I could misinterpret the data or fail to consider a confounding variable — what scientist has not done some of that (and ever done anything useful). It is whether or not I deliberately and in bad faith falsified my research to promote a conclusion (even if I believe that conclusion to be true). It is whether or not I deliberately omitted or misled people about work that casts doubt on my findings (and beliefs), lest people fail to arrive at the conclusion I want them to arrive at (whether or not I think that conclusion is really true).

If I am an honest, an honest mistake is an honest mistake and anyone who adopts the science (mistaken or not) does so at their own risk and with their eyes open; surely all of scientific knowledge is caveat emptor, provisional truth and not certain knowledge. Problems arise when I fake the data, when I manipulate people’s emotions, when I plead for their money without honestly stating the gambles and tradeoffs involved. If I sell you a horse, you must count its teeth yourself — the law and ethical common sense protects you only if I’ve outfitted the horse with a set of very deceptive false teeth.

Otherwise science (and commerce and other areas of human endeavor) truly could not move — one could be sued just for being mistaken, and of course all of physics is probably mistakenand it is quite impossible to say that nobody is ever harmed by many of the mistakes. Often they are, or have been. Should we sue Newton’s Ghost for failing to come up with relativistic quantum theory, even though countless generations of people were “harmed” by fact that classical physics can’t predict all sorts of useful stuff that would have saved or improved lives? Should we sue Fermi’s Ghost for Hiroshima or Chernobyl? No, because nobody was deceptive, their science was the best they could come up with and nobody could see precisely how it would eventually fail or what the — erm — “fallout” of a discovery would be.

Feynman puts it best in his Cargo Cult article. Deception has no place in science. If you can avoid deceiving yourself, that’s the hardest part. Then you just have to be honest in the ordinary way after that. The problem with the IPCC isn’t that the work it promotes could be wrong and that there could be harm associated with it being incorrect, but rather is that they are deliberately and openly deceptive and neither present a balanced treatment of the science nor one that correctly acknowledges the uncertainties. They are trying to prevent the public from being fully informed on the issues because they fear that if they honestly stated the uncertainties and probable boundaries of reliable knowledge here, nobody would (literally) buy into the CAGW story line.

The top-post on “Omitted Variable Fraud” yesterday is a case in point. It is fine to leave a variable out of a model. It’s your model, and as long as you clearly describe what you put in an what you left out, and why, people can decide what sort of credence to give its results. Note that even in your own model, deliberately leaving out a variable that could be highly explanatory because it might confound your own desired explanation is straight up deceiving yourself, pretending to yourself that it isn’t important when you really don’t know or even rather suspect that it is but don’t want others to think so.

Its rather another thing to pretend that the variable in question simply doesn’t exist, that it cannot have explanatory power when rather obviously it does and when many people have pointed this out. Even if one personally thinks that it isn’t the right explanation, it is nevertheless attendant upon them to present the opposing viewpoint in any public debate with enormous costs and consequences, even if you think it will weaken the argument that you think is correct to where your “side” in that debate will lose.

Feynman gives a lovely example of that — an astrophysicist who won’t tell the public how “useless” the knowledge he seeks really is in the real world, for fear that the public won’t want to fund it. Feynman points out that this is a kind of fraud in and of itself, deliberately acting in a deceptive way to engineer some particular desired outcome.

If you wished to argue that responsible scientists should conform to Feynman’s rather high standards especially carefully in research with high stakes outcomes — medical research, climate research, bioweapon research — I would completely agree. There one really should bend over backwards to avoid overstating results that should prove to be very expensive if they are incorrect. But truly, it should be standard of practice everywhere.

rgb

99. Scottish Sceptic says:

John Whitman says: “Independent thinkers (aka skeptics) will lose if those fundamental ideas of freedom based culture are not the main focus.

Two fingers to freedom based culture … that’s political hyperbole …. usually right wing trash hyperbole.

The last thing we need is more hyperbole in climate science. What we need is decent science we can trust. Science which is not polluted by political hyperbole, science where no activists, neither warmist nor sceptic has a place.

Then we would believe it!

100. Snotrocket says:

@Barry Woods: You say: “Unlike some I take no pleasure in the ‘downfall’ of any particular scientist.”

I’m really interested Barry, would you say/think the same if an unknown blogger with a high IQ had done the same and committed wire fraud – against you, say? Is it one law for ‘scientists’, another for we proles? (And please, they’re not trick questions. I really would like to know)

101. Rob Crawford says:

“Unlike some I take no pleasure in the ‘downfall’ of any particular scientist.”

Gleick is a “scientist”? I thought he worked at a PR firm.

102. Rob Crawford says:

“Two fingers to freedom based culture … that’s political hyperbole …. usually right wing trash hyperbole.”

Because freedom is “right wing trash”?

103. Dr Monckton:

In regard to fraud, I feel there are two key issues which would be difficult to defend …

(1) The AGW proponents have avoided mention of the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs some of the incident infra-red radiation that makes up about half the energy in solar insolation. It is just as likely to send some of this as backradiation to space, thus having a cooling effect. Anyone would be hard pressed to prove that any warming effect resulting from much lower energy radiation sent back to the surface would exceed the cooling effect of backradiation to space. At least one scientist (from the Slayers) has calculated the alleged warming effect is only 13% of the cooling effect.

(2) Over half (maybe 70%) of thermal energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is by way of evaporation, conduction, chemical processes and diffusion (molecular collision) followed by convection. This leaves far less to radiate, so S-B calculations must be very inaccurate. But, more importantly, how could “backradiation” have any effect on these processes? It could only do so if it first added thermal energy, which it cannot because that would clearly violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

There are other issues with backradiation which I have explained cannot even effect cooling by radiation, let alone the above processes. See: http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html

104. Lars P. says:

Aphysicist says:….

You are trying to distract from the facts which were clearly enumerated in the post:
“Three frauds are evident in Fakegate. First, wire fraud by whoever used electronic means to obtain internal documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by what the ineffable Richard Black of the unspeakable BBC calls “subterfuge” and what the criminal law bluntly calls “deception”. Secondly, circulation of a counterfeit document purporting to be a true Heartland document. Thirdly, reporting of the affair with reckless disregard for whether the counterfeit document was genuine …”
This is no demagogy but a list of facts. 1,2,3.
You know and we know the story will not end here. The person who committed the fraud – circulating the counterfeit document has not been identified yet.
It will take some time, but I trust this can be also clarified.
You have nothing to comments to the facts so you try to hide behind ad hominem attack. Well, why am I not surprised.

105. John Whitman says:

Scottish Sceptic says:
February 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm

John Whitman says: “Independent thinkers (aka skeptics) will lose if those fundamental ideas of freedom based culture are not the main focus.”

Two fingers to freedom based culture … that’s political hyperbole …. usually right wing trash hyperbole.

The last thing we need is more hyperbole in climate science. What we need is decent science we can trust. Science which is not polluted by political hyperbole, science where no activists, neither warmist nor sceptic has a place.

[ ... ]

- – - – - -

Scottish Sceptic,

As a matter of principle, I do not respond to racist laden remarks.

For the hyperbole part of your comment, I extol the virtues of freedom based cultures and oppose authoritarian based cultures that impugn it. What part makes it distasteful political hyperbole to you? It is the values within freedom loving cultures that I speak, not the political product of cultures.

My thrust was that broader ideas in freedom loving cultures will inform the integrity/honor of science as well the nature of the political system deployed.

John

106. snotrocket:
a very well known climate scientist made publically unsubstantiated claims about me on the internet, will that do?

reputation is everything……..

three weeks ago, a certain climate scientist named Peter Gleick, VERY publically tweeted to all his followers that I had been ‘incredibly offensive’ to him. Recognise the scientist?

our mutual followers include Revkin, (NYT) Leo Hickman (Guardian) and very many other climate scientists and journalists..

I was very cross about this, Peter was publically challenged to substantiate this ‘claim’ , or to apologise and withdraw it.(by anumber of people including Prof Richard Betts(IPCC) Peter Gleick then restated that he had reviewed my tweets and comments, and that I was ‘incredily offensive’…

So he is not exactly on my Christmas Cardd list, at the momemen, nor in mine.
Eventually when THREE climate scientist wrote to him, including a certain Dr Katie Hayhoe, he eventually backed down…

Peter also made it very clear his opinion of me and sceptics in general (WUWT, Bishop Hill)in some emails. A UK climate scientist made it vey clear her opinion of his attempts to ‘communicate climate science, I know he was a little annoyed by this, maybe he did something silly a day or 2 laters?
————————————————————–
Dr Edwards to Peter Gleick:

“I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were”.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! –

——————————————————————

If you are vaguely interested in all this, it is documented here (including all emails (with permission)

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

107. Martin457 says:

I think this needs to be handled by the Postmaster Generals office.

I might be wrong but, somebody needs to file a complaint with the post office.

108. Scarface says:

“In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal “government” by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UK’s environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if “think” is the right word).”

This is exactly what makes these times we live in so grim. Europe is on the road to oblivion and there seems no way to stop the march into the dead end that the EUSSR is pushing us into.

Please, Lord Monckton, keep on using all your powers, means and contacts to help stopping this nightmare. We are much obliged already, since you are fighting the good fight for a long time, but the forces we’re against seem to have not given in a bit yet. However, one day we will prevail, with the help and effort of people like you. V for Victory!

109. Shevva says:

But, but, but it’s for a noble cause?
/sarc

I live in Hampshire, but have a cockney accent.

That post was the bollo*

110. Jabba the Cat says:

@Barry Woods
“That was a party political broadcast by Lord Monckton…”

Spot on Barry.

111. Anthony Thompson says:

“Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade “global warming” as nonsense).”

My money’s on Owen Paterson

112. Joe says:

Three cheers for the Vicount.

He can be the public prosecutor after he memorized Cicero’s 4th oration against Catiline.

113. Tim Minchin says:

I always thought the term was ‘con artist’ my self

114. Dave Wendt says:

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 10:15 am

“And it is evident (IMHO) that the uncertainties presently associated to are sufficiently great, that no rational person (whether skeptic or scientist) can confidently assert that this probability is less than ~20% or greater than 80%.”

In the comment thread to this recent post

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/ipccs-pachauris-voodo-science-claim-comes-full-circle/

you endlessly repeated this same inanity. Commentor Kadaka responded with several posts illuminating how your omniscient mentor had just as repeatedly violated your test of rationality, culminating in this post

February 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm
From A physicist on February 11, 2012 at 3:38 am:

Kadaka, most of your quotes were *not* direct quotes of Hansen. And your sole quote of Hansen, did *not* say “CAGW is a certainty.”

Perhaps you might like to try again? Direct quotes of Hansen’s own writings. From verifiable sources. Asserting “CAGW is a certainty.”

Storms of My Grandchildren is searchable on Google Books:

pg 72-73:
“If we continue burning fossil fuels at current rates, ice sheet collapse and sea level rise of at least several meters is a dead certainty.”
Such a rise would be catastrophic, and brought about by AGW per Hansen.

pg 172:
“A SIMPLE, CLEAR, URGENT CONCLUSION leaped out from our research on the appropriate target level of atmospheric carbon dioxide: Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty.”
Coal emissions (CO₂) -> AGW -> global climate disasters (catastrophes)

pg 269:
“THE ABOVE SCENARIO-with a devastated, sweltering Earth purged of life-may read like far-fetched science fiction. Yet its central hypothesis is a tragic certainty-continued unfettered burning of all fossil fuels will cause the climate system to pass tipping points, such that we hand our children and grandchildren a dynamic situation that is out of their control.”

As I said before, so will I say again … perhaps the plain fact of the matter is simply this: Dr. Hansen’s writings have been more circumspect than his reputation here on WUWT would suggest?

At this point you’re sounding like a defense attorney: “But did my client specifically swear that he would certainly kill the victim, with a shotgun, on that Tuesday, using buckshot, that was nickel-plated lead of #4 size, and specified the gun was 12 gauge and made by Remington? Well then, which did he specifically swear that it certainly would be, a top-break double, pump, or auto-feeding semi-automatic? Wait, he didn’t swear with certainty which type he would use? Well then, members of the jury, clearly my client is innocent!”

You, as usual, responded in a totally nonresponsive manner

A physicist says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Kadaka, your posts (and many WUWT folks’ posts) continue to dodge the main question: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability that the Hansen-style physics of GHG GHE AGW is correct?

For a climatological system as complex as our planet, the answer ZERO percent is not rationally skeptical, eh?

Moreover, whatever one’s assessment of , in the event that Hansen’s Seven Key Predictions of Warmism come true in coming decades, that estimate of will have to be adjusted soberingly upward.

That’s no more than rational common sense, eh?

I offered the following after which you chose to withdraw to greener pastures. I reproduce it here in the vain hope your response will be similar.

Dave Wendt says:
February 11, 2012 at 7:03 pm
A physicist says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Kadaka, your posts (and many WUWT folks’ posts) continue to dodge the main question: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability that the Hansen-style physics of GHG GHE AGW is correct?

Since in his recent comments Kadaka has, by the very criteria which you yourself established, proven that your hero and mentor Mr. Hansen is a batshit crazy lunatic, any “rational” assessment of the probability of the correctness of his predictions, skeptical or otherwise, would have to fall somewhere on the low side between slim and none. And, since in nearly every comment you have posted in recent days you have wrapped yourself in Mr. Hansen’s predictions, it suggests to me, again based on your own criteria, that you are not a candidate for sharing a “rational” dialogue. but are instead the perfect potential roommate for Mr. Hansen, in whatever rubber room he ends up in. At least if there is any justice left in the world.

115. Karl Koehler says:

It’s a cowardly anonymous stance you take there A physicist. In my neck of the woods it would be called Gallus gallus domesticus excrement.

Lord Monckton’s essay is spot on! Thanks are due to him for his articulated outrage and targeted denunciation of this shameful spectacle.

As for Peter Gleick and his ilk, it appears the AGW community’s chickens…
have come home to roost!

116. A physicist says:
A physicist asks: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability $P_{\text{CAGW}}$ that the Hansen-style physics of GHG $\Leftrightarrow$ GHE $\Leftrightarrow$ AGW $\Leftrightarrow$ is correct?

Dave Wendt says: [You are] the perfect potential roommate for Mr. Hansen, in whatever rubber room he ends up in. At least if there is any justice left in the world.

Dave, I will just note for the record that prominent in the Characteristics of Demagoguery is polarization:

Polarization  This is one of the two most important qualities of demagoguery. To polarize is to divide a diverse range of things into two poles. Thus, a demagogue breaks everything into two camps: the one s/he represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group). This kind of polarization recurs throughout demagoguery—there are only two options, there are only two policies, there are only two groups.

In particular, insistence that $P_{\text{CAGW}}$ is near-zero (ultra-skeptical), or alternatively that $P_{\text{CAGW}}$ is near-unity (ultra-warmist) … accompanied by demonization of all who disagree … is in either case a polarizing tactic that is characteristic of demagoguery.

That’s just common sense, eh?

117. 1DandyTroll says:

A physicist says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“Kadaka, your posts (and many WUWT folks’ posts) continue to dodge the main question: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability that the Hansen-style physics of GHG GHE AGW is correct?”

Actually, that’s not the question at all but a mere demagogue’s way of averting the topic. But even in the context of your question, the rationally skeptical assessment of the probability, all statistically correct, the answer is: it is not, which has, incidentally, been stated in absurdum ad nauseum on this here blog of Mr Watts, even by the good Lord hi’self.

Which begs the question, in correctness of all your logical fallacies, how come you haven’t read it?

118. mkurbo says:

This AGW false science and “Green” alarmism movements has cost the world literally trillions of dollars. There are so many that should be prosecuted, where do you start ?

119. philincalifornia says:

Monckton of Brenchley says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:37 am
and:
Skiphil says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:43 am
re: venues for legal/criminal complaints

I’m no lawyer, but within the USA I think one can state with confidence that local police departments will not even consider an investigation into possible violations of federal law, especially where the actions alleged/admitted in the case occurred in other jurisdictions.
=====================================

With respect Lord Monckton, Skiphil is correct. I’ve been involved as an expert witness, corporate representative, etc. in cases where there were clear grounds for criminal prosecution but it never happened. I also live in Oakland, so I know the terrain in more ways than one. If I went downtown and reported this, I’m afraid I wouldn’t be given the time of day. In fact, I think the police department personnel would look at me like I was lunatic, and get back to their stolen cars, drug dealing and vandalism routines.

If HI file suit, and it’s difficult to imagine that they wouldn’t win given the confession, the Judge could refer it for criminal prosecution but, with a good attorney defending him, and lots of remorse, I wouldn’t give that a high percentage chance of happening. If the U.S. Attorney, and/or the FBI thinks this rises to a high enough level, they may take it on.

Also, as far as I can tell, no one went to jail in the HP pretexting case although a lower level scapegoat was convicted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard_spying_scandal

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/30/feds-delay-sentencing-in-hp-pretexting-case-due-to-related-matt/

This guy too was convicted of pretexting, but didn’t do any time:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/first-pretextin/

Whatever, it’s not a good place to be in right about now.

120. Persons wishing to follow up Monckton’s advice are unlikely to get anywhere at the local or state police levels, a more likely venue would be Fraud Section of the Dept of justice,

Correspondence to the Fraud Section may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Fraud Section
Bond Building, 4th Floor
10th and Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

By Phone
Fraud Main Switchboard – 202-514-7023

By Fax
Facsimile – 202-514-7021

121. In true skeptic form, I would like US District Attorneys to turn a blind eye to the Gleick affair.

I see the decision tree thus:
1. US DA’s to do nothing, allowing Heartland to vigorously pursue civil procedure.
2. US DA’s bring criminal charges against Gleick and Gleick alone. Heartland’s civil case awaits criminal case result. US DA drags heels and in the end 2 years later commits an error to guarantee an acquittal.

Ok….. maybe it is a view more cynical than skeptical,
but I think fully observant and realistic.

122. Lord Monckton,

I tend to agree with your position, and your sense of outrage – actually I think defenestration is more viscerally satisfying response than prosecution – however, when you open by first citing law from the US Codex Iuris, and a use a great many Latin phrases, then equivocate by saying:

“I am unfamiliar with US law, and cannot confirm that these provisions still stand part of the US code, or that they have not been amended, or that there is no case law or rule of interpretation preventing their application in the present case. On the face of it, though…”

I wonder if I should stop reading there.

Best regards,

W^3

123. To a physicist, you lose the argument because you are not addressing the issue but you are diverting into a subject not related to the topic.

124. HankHenry says:

Ken Hall,

You have a point. I’m thinking this would better advance as a civil matter. Especially true, if Heartland loses a donor over this because you have demonstrable damages. In civil matters your attorney is independent of political considerations that might bedevil a prosecutor. If Gleick imagines he’s doing “civil disobedience” he’s wrong.

125. theduke says:

I just wrote the following letter to Senator Joe Simitian, (D-Palo Alto):

Dear Senator Simitian:

I am writing to you regarding possible violations of the impersonations law (SB 1411) you authored and successfully guided through the California legislature into law. It appears that Bay Area Scientist Dr. Peter Gleick has violated the law you wrote by impersonating a member of the Board of Directors at the Heartland Institute in Chicago in order to obtain privileged information from that private organization. Mr. Gleick has confessed to violating the law in a column on the Huffington Post. Here is a link to that column:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

As SB 1411 is a new law and, as the violation of privacy is particularly egregious in this case, I think it important that it be vigorously enforced. Enforcement would also serve to educate the public about the illegality of impersonating a fellow citizen.

I have read that this is a law that needs to be enforced by local law enforcement officials. Although I do not know where Mr. Gleick lives, I am writing to you in hopes that you might use your influence to see that the law enforcement officials in the Bay Area city in which he lives are aware of his offense and will act accordingly.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[theduke]

126. Regarding Dr. Peter Gleick and why I think that what Lord Monckton says is correct. I have been following this since the story broke. What stands out to me is that a number of crimes have been committed, and the worst being what has been termed wire fraud which was the means by which the documents were obtained by deception.

I note that some have come out against the notion of prosecution of Dr. Gleick. What I remind those people is that the type of deception had nothing to do with science. It was based upon maliciousness towards an organisation that has a different point of view.

Also, when I see something like this I am reminded of what was done by Dr. William McBride who was the scientist that discovered the link between thalidomide and birth defects. The man was a hero in the community (and rightly so when you see how those children were affected) until he was motivated (with good intention) to falsify data regarding Debendox, which does not (according to my own personal anecdotal evidence) cause birth defects. I do understand that Dr. McBride wanted to achieve results that would give the mother of a child a good outcome during a lawsuit. I remember the case when it happened because I had used Debendox during 3 pregnancies and none of my sons had any birth defect. It really shocked me when the claim was made. Then several years later somebody who had worked with Dr. McBride spilled the beans about the falsification and his reputation was in ruins.

This kind of scientific deception is different from what was done by Dr. Gleick, but the impact is similar because Dr. McBride went under oath to testify about his scientific studies. By testifying that he found a link between Debendox and the defect Dr. McBride had perjured himself. Hence he had committed a crime in the eyes of the court.

Gleick has confessed to what he has done, yet he has also lied about the circumstances, and continues to claim he did not write the forged document, claiming that it was sent to him. I do not believe him, and in the end it will be this lie that will nail him to the wall.

127. Jim z says:

[snip. You post as Steve, Dan, Jim z and who knows what other names. One identity, please. ~dbs. mod.]

128. Alan Wilkinson says:

It is very important that Gleick be formally judged and sentenced in the appropriate court since that will expose and establish his wrong-doing in a way that biased journalists world-wide can neither ignore or deny.

Since the appropriate court is in the USA, those qualified to initiate the proper complaints must accept the responsibility and do so. An obvious consideration is to liaise with Heartland in the process to avoid duplication or creating unnecessary confusion.

129. A physicist says:

Aussie says: “To a physicist, you lose the argument because you are not addressing the issue but you are diverting into a subject not related to the topic.”

Aussie, some folks conceive that Monckton’s WUWT essay is motivated mainly by a desire for justice. Other folks conceive that Monckton’s essay is motivated mainly by a demagogue’s thirst for polarization.

So perhaps the truth is in the middle? And yet it seems (to me) that Monckton has crafted the language of his essay so as to serve mainly the latter objective.

130. Computer related crimes of fraud in the U.S. are investigated at the Federal Level by the U.S. Secret Service (Dept of Treasury). Given all the links to misapplication of federal grant funds a complaint of this type to them could open the door to some very interesting secondary but related frauds regarding misuse of Federal funds.

http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml

Larry

131. Jim z says:

[SNIP: You really need to read up on site policy, which can be found here. -REP]

132. michael hart says:

Journalists are often criticized in the UK, both rightly and wrongly. Some of them may be Marxists. I don’t know.
But Richard Black of the BBC does not count as a journalist or a scientist in the opinion of many. He is an environmental activist/advocate who is paid by the BBC from public monies. He studiously ignored the contents and provenance of the “Climate Gate” emails. Publicly owned emails which had been justifiably sought under freedom of information laws. That no prosecution case can be brought against those that withheld them is due to the very short statute of limitations. The source of the released emails is still unknown. Their legality/authenticity is not disputed, but was cited as reason for not publishing on the matter.

Now reverse all those facts mentioned above and consider the Gleick incident.
The loud scraping noise you heard last week was the sound of Richard Black’s chair as he rushed to tell the world the news. I’m confident he ‘knew’ it all to be true, of course. But he had just never been lucky enough to be able to prove it. [A bit like CO2-induced catastrophic global warming really]. No need for the journalistic niceties here, despite plenty of people pointing out what was really happening. The band played on. I think he would still be singing it from the rooftops if complaints hadn’t probably forced the DJ, kicking and screaming, to do a ‘special request’. Yet the song remains the same (TM- Led Zeppelin). Just one more token bandage on another self-inflicted wound at the BBC.
After similar complaints in the past, the BBC-trust had a review. As a result, the BBC got a brand shiny new Science editor. One with a BA in Geography. And he wasn’t new. This flight is going to be a long haul.

I’d like to put a good word in for scientists who really do wear white coats. Computer modellers don’t wear white coats. I’ve done both. I always took my lab coat off before sitting down at the computer. If anyone can get hold of a photograph of Richard Black or the other usual suspects actually wearing white coats [of the laboratory type], then I’d like a copy for my wall. If the lab coat in the photo looks like it’s slightly dirty due to use, then I’ll frame it. Or put it on a T shirt.

133. The term “interstate commerce” is interpreted latae sententiae in US law, since it is widely defined in the US Constitution itself. Therefore, the fraudster would not be able to escape a wire-fraud charge by asserting that his deception of the Institute was not “in interstate commerce”. Even if the court were to find that the deception was not “in interstate commerce”, the deception would still constitute fraud simpliciter under paragraph 1341 of the Code, though not wire fraud under paragraph 1343.

The interstate issue merely affects which jurisdiction or jurisdictions Gleick might be tried in. It’s possible that one act can simultaneously be illegal in an individual state and also violate federal law. In principle, he could be charged in Federal court because this is an interstate transaction and he can be charged for violations of state statutes if one exists.

For example: Illinois has a state wire fraud statute. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K17-24 No matter where the transmission originates, if the transmission fits the definition of wire fraud under Illinois statues, the violation of state law occurs in the county where the transmission was received. Heartland’s main office is in Cook County Illinois. If the communication in which Gleick gave a false identity to obtain documents was received in Cook County, and the pdf attachments are deemed property, I think Gleck could be charged with violating Illinois’ wire fraud statute with the infraction occurring in Cook county.

Given the fact that people can pick up transmissions, it’s possible that an employee might pick up the transmission while commuting, in which case the violation might be in one of the collar counties (e.g. Dupage, Lake.)

With respect to reporting a violation of state law to the police: in principle, I guess anyone could report the infraction. However, only Heartland has the information and evidence to lodge a complaint in the appropriate county because only they know where any incoming emails or phone calls would have been received. DuPage County police can’t hassle Gleick if the crime is in Cook county and vice versa. So one really needs to have some specifics on the evidence if they want to get the police to act. It’s probably best to let Heartland report as they will know the proper jurisdiction.

134. Jim z says:

I have now done so
And apart from as I said not remembering the previous handles I used (as I have only posted here about a dozen times over several years, I am not being rude, trolling or using words you don’t like, I am simple asking about a story this very site ran with some lead skeptics saying that they were not funded, which now seem to not be available as it mentions several of the scientists listed as being funded by Heartland. That I would have thought was directly relevant to the topic this thread is about ‘fakegate’ I guess your repeated snips are in a way an answer.

I wonder if Aussie and UKIP Scotland, A physicist, Man Bearpigg are real names as the ‘site policy’ states real names should be used but they don’t seem to be being snipped.

[Reply: They use one screen name. Using multiple identities is sock puppetry, and against site policy. The decision was made at the moderator’s discretion, and it cannot be undone. Please read the site policy page. ~dbs, mod.]

135. Pedric says:

Die Zauberflotist, you should know that in American slang, a “peter” is the … ummm … male organ of generation. You just called yourself one in German. Rather like Pres. Kennedy inadvertently calling himself a jelly donut when he visited West Berlin.

136. Steve C says:

His Lordship, as ever, is well worth the reading, and not merely for the pleasure of encountering the English language stylishly used. I suspect, though, that what ultimately determines the fate of Dr. Gleick will be driven, as so often in the field of climate debate, more by politics than by fact,. Only time will tell.

One point which ought not to be overlooked is that Lord Monckton, a Conservative if ever there was one, refers here inter alia to “Cameron and his vapid focus groups” – Cameron being a (nominally) Conservative prime minister. To this I might add that I, a long-term ‘soft leftie’, fully support this ‘right wing’ Lord in this and other comments, not least, alas, his observation that “we have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.”. Sadly, and as I have observed elsewhere, ‘left’ and ‘right’ have largely lost their traditional meanings as centralising authoritarianism has taken over the political process, manipulating both into the distraction of shouting at one another when we should all be rallying together to fight the authoritarians.

Christopher, I for one would dearly love to see you get together with, say, Tony Benn (a retired far-left politician, for non-UK readers) on this, since I believe you share a deep committment to proper democracy which has long been quietly shelved in mainstream politics. It would ‘de-fang’ the ‘extremist’ label routinely stuck on both of you sufficiently, we might hope, to give pause for thought to many on both ‘sides’ to realise that ‘the other lot’ do, in fact, share that commitment despite all differences in detail.

As for those who would throw around the phrase ‘Characteristics of Demagogery’ as an insult, know that my Oxford English Dictionary defines a demagogue as ‘a leader or orator who espouses the cause of the common people’. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about? Which, or whose, other ’cause’ should a politician in a democracy – particularly a ‘representative’ democracy – espouse, if not that of its people?

137. Snotrocket says:

@Barry Woods: I thought I’d asked you a very specific question about your comment (“Unlike some I take no pleasure in the ‘downfall’ of any particular scientist…”) yet you regaled me with your story of how PG had traduced your reputation. I have read this story many times here and at BH. You have my sympathies for what must have been a difficult time. BUT, you didn’t answer my question. Were you proposing, in your earlier comment, that scientists, being scientists, should not be prosecuted (PG specifically) for felonies?

I apologise if I have misunderstood your comment, but that is what it seemed to me you were suggesting.

138. pete50 says:

Someone should consult their local office of Homeland Security to find out if this warmist does this sort of thing often, sometimes or only this time. And should he be on their list or not.

139. Christopher did not set up the talk..
These guys did..

Lord Monckton did not attend the meeting he just blabbered about, breaking confidences, and potentially damaging all these guys work.

140. Lord Monckton stepped in to chair the event, due to Prof P Stott being ill. He was a very good chair of the event.

141. Lord Monckton

Being an Australian citizen, I was wondering if you could suggest any particular Australian person or organisation that has committed, in your view a specific fraud pertaining to promulgating the hoax that there is a radiative greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide etc.

I’m serious about filing a complaint and believe I could defeat any of them as a witness in the case.

142. Louis Hooffstetter says:
February 23, 2012 at 9:47 am

If AGW proponents understood the distinction between truth and lies, they wouldn’t be their own worst enemies.
__________________________________________________________

It is just so easy to prove the radiative greenhouse conjecture is a lie. Follow instructions on the page linked below to build a funnel cooker with which you can cook with concentrated sunlight. But can you cook with concentrated backradiation at night which is supposed to be about a quarter as strong? Can you warm anything just a little perhaps? Read what it says – the thing acts as a refrigerator at night. Despite the fact that it is concentrating the backradiation (multiplying its power several times) it still can’t overcome the normal upward radiation.

http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm

143. Skiphil says:

NPR interview with Judith Curry and Scott Mandia:

I haven’t listened yet, it’s 17 min. long and I’m rushing out the door now….. if anyone gets a chance to hear it pls let us know what you think, thx

144. Spector says:

This ‘Fakergate’ debacle is one more example the danger of using false evidence to tell what someone thinks is the ‘real’ truth. Avid proponents of any belief run this risk. I suspect that the ‘Hockey Stick’ modification of global temperature history did more to shake belief in the danger of ‘Global Warming’ than to support it.

145. Myrrh says:

Steve C says:
February 24, 2012 at 12:32 am
His Lordship, as ever, is well worth the reading, and not merely for the pleasure of encountering the English language stylishly used. I suspect, though, that what ultimately determines the fate of Dr. Gleick will be driven, as so often in the field of climate debate, more by politics than by fact,. Only time will tell.

One point which ought not to be overlooked is that Lord Monckton, a Conservative if ever there was one, refers here inter alia to “Cameron and his vapid focus groups” – Cameron being a (nominally) Conservative prime minister. To this I might add that I, a long-term ‘soft leftie’, fully support this ‘right wing’ Lord in this and other comments, not least, alas, his observation that “we have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.”. Sadly, and as I have observed elsewhere, ‘left’ and ‘right’ have largely lost their traditional meanings as centralising authoritarianism has taken over the political process, manipulating both into the distraction of shouting at one another when we should all be rallying together to fight the authoritarians.

Democracy’s traditional meaning is authoritarianism – rule by the majority vote..

Try Common Law instead… This is the Law in Britain.

146. During my many years in the Duke university physics department I was beholden to Robert Brown who rescued my chestnuts from the fire on several occasions. I never got to know him personally so it did not occur to me that he has a great sense of humor.

Until recently I had no idea that he knows how to brew beer, a skill that I greatly respect. The next time I am in North Carolina I hope to sample his work, assuming I do not tick him off with what follows.

Up thread he had me LMAO with his comments on the ethics of data management which is the key to this post.

Nevertheless I (respectfully) disagree with him on the scientific accountability issue. Scientists have trouble with the concept of accountability whereas engineers do not. It is up to the courts rather than the scientific community to decide whether harm has been done and what the remedies should be.

Robert says that someone who causes harm by offering an expert opinion based on work that was done in “good faith and if it presented a fair and balanced treatment of things” should be exonerated. We hold engineers to a higher standard than that and scientists should accept the same burden.

Six scientists in Italy are being prosecuted for manslaughter. They are experiencing what happens to engineers who design a bridge or apartment building that collapses. Is it fair? Is it reasonable? Robert and I probably stand on opposite sides on this issue but what really matters is what the Italian court decides:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/italys-unfounded-earthquake-prosecutions/