Gleick on camera before he exploded his world

Piling on, dude. We get it.
REPLY: No it is for balance, see the next update video. – Anthony

The piling has not even begun for Gleick….

What’s with the blinking?
From some quick googling (I don’t know how authoritative these hits are):

Blink rate tends to increase when people are thinking more or are feeling stressed. This can be an indication of lying as the liar has to keep thinking about what they are saying.
…
Rapid blinking blocks vision and can be an arrogant signal, saying ‘I am so important, I do not need to see you’.

(http://changingminds.org/techniques/body/parts_body_language/eyes_body_language.htm)

Shifty eyes, too much blinking can suggest deception.

(http://www.positive-way.com/body.htm)
It’s not an eye disorder, since he only does it when he speaks.

Gary Pate says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm
The piling has not even begun for Gleick….

No doubt. There’s no question he’s his own worst enemy, but as compassionate skeptics we need to accept his defeat graciously and without assuming a Taminoesque vitriol. Bleick’s career is ended. Tamping his career’s grave with our witty shovels won’t make it more dead.

This feels a little like one of those videos you see that suicide bombers make just before heading off on their “mission”.
It makes me feel a little queasy watching it.

ULF,
I was a film tech geek in High School. One of the things we were taught was blinking. A normal person will blink 15 to 30 times per minute. News Anchors and other media figures who appear on TV are taught to blink more often than usual, generally around 31-50 blinks per minute(what Gleick is doing above). This is because a lack of blinking from a person on TV makes a person seem less approachable and more cold. It turns the audience off to the individual talking. Keep in mind when you are being filmed there is usually a lot of light on you from several different angles that can make you want to blink a lot more. A lot of people will fight blinking into the lights and blink less than they should which leads to the above perception.
All his blinking implies is that he has bright lights on him and that someone has told him to not fight the blinking. If Gleick was sitting in front of me and not on TV doing the same thing it would imply stress and all of the other plethora of things that can be read from excessive blinking, however for someone sitting in an interview this level of blinking is normal.

Where’s the next video?

I wish I could tell if he really believes this insanity he spews. My first guess would be no and it is a means for him to gain acceptance into a place where his self-importance gets stroked from all the warmist groupies and a grant funded paycheck that exceeds mine by a factor 10. However, if he really does believe this drivel I do have concerns for his mental health. His ego is huge and has been protected by the team for many years. With the loss of income, peer association ( he won’t be hanging out with Mike and Kevin in public anymore ), and all of the prestige that came with his position in the climate community I think someone who is close to him should keep an eye out. This complete and utter destruction of his life could make him a danger to himself and others. People have cracked for less and his behavior leading up to this incredibly stupid act adds to the concern.
His vile contempt and actions perpetrated on so many people keeps me from having any compassion for him, but I don’t wish harm to anyone.

When it comes to “climate change” I’ve always taken the position that the climate of the planet has been continually changing ever since that long ago time when it could be first meaningfully be described as having a climate. As far as I can tell this view is similar for most of the regular visitors here. Mr. Gleick and the CAGW crowd argue that all or nearly all of the observed rise in global temperatures in the last couple centuries is entirely due to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels and that no natural cause can possibly explain the change otherwise. Which of those positions would most logically fall under the rubric of “climate change denial”? I would strongly suggest that it is not mine. Yet Mr Gleick fills his entire spiel with repeated accusations that anyone who dares to disagree with him and his cronies is a “climate change denier”, all the while pimping for a theory whose clear logical implication is that, absent evil humans and their evil CO2 emissions, the planet would still be trucking along at the bottom of the LIA. If that is not climate change denial, I can’t imagine what would be.

Would someone please challenge Gleik to prove the “well funded” assertions he keeps on making? Over the years of following the AGW show I have yet to see anyone present anything that resembles evidence of large funding or evidence of who is providing it. I reckon these guys say this just because they “believe” it. As someone committed to facts and evidence Gleik would do himself a favor not to make assertions he can’t support. Perhaps if he can’t find the time to dig out the evidence then one of the AGW bloggers might.

I’m sorry. I watched 59 seconds of the video and I started to get upset; therefore, I quit watching.