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.

I watched the next video on WUWT and John Coleman took the high road in his reporting. Keep up the work everyone and learn from the mistakes made by the alarmists.

You can tell easily when he is lying….
It’s when his lips move.

I appreciate that some people have commented sympathetically with Mr. Gleik here. Conservtives are, by nature, pretty compassionate people. That said, piling on, is not inappropriate here. Unless sufficient public outrage exists I predict that the malefactor in this case will escape punishment for his attempt to destroy othe people! Mr. Watts has done nothing to harm Gleik yet he purposely tried to damage Anthony’s reputation simply because he does not like the beliefs and actions of Mr. Watts. The only way the warmist alarmist team will ever abide by the “Golden rule” is to see one of their fellow criminals serve hard time for hard crime. Perhaps we can see science rightly returned to the climate change work being done in the world.

I can’t begin to tell you how much I hate it when people put scepticism about CAGW in the same category as scepticism about evolution or gravity etc. The second they draw that parrallel, I know that they are either stupid, or intentionally lying.

“There’s no question he’s his own worst enemy, but as compassionate skeptics we need to accept his defeat graciously…”
who says I’m a “compassionate” skeptic? Not me.
“Bleick’s career is ended. Tamping his career’s grave with our witty shovels won’t make it more dead.”
As Clarence Darrow said, “I’ve never killed a man, but I’ve read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.” This is an intellectual vampire we are dealing with, after all – remember how many times Dracula came back? Don’t just tamp that career grave with a shovel, cover it with reinforced concrete!!!
Which is what will happen when Heartland pursues civil and criminal charges. The name “Gleick” needs to be known as a blot and a curse for all future generations.

I couldn’t resist. :->

I think it is time for members of the AGU and members of other science organizations to reconsider their position on AGW. I think there is legitimate ground to consider whether or not CO2 is a GHG. Dr. Tim Ball and others have raised a legitimate hypothesis.
http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/sample-chapters/99-climate-thermodynamics

4 eyes says:
February 24, 2012 at 2:44 am

Would someone please challenge Gleik to prove the “well funded” assertions he keeps on making?

What I believe he’s trying to say is “truth funded”, but “truth” is something he has trouble getting his head around so he uses an alternate adjective–one that makes people sympathetic to his cause.
It really is pathetic.

Playing the tobacco card.
I have had video conferencing in my company for 20 years. We rent video time for depositions. Since Psych is one of my few actual college degrees, i studied deception in terms of testimony, body language and mannerisms. It adds several layers to what a merely written deposition transcript could reveal.
One should listen just to his words and detect hyperbole. “The importance of climate to society”
What? We have massive climate variations. Are they all relevant?

After watching the video I now see why Gleick was paranoid that Heartland had invited him to their conference for “the entertainment”.

I was reading the Examiner link and how Gleick’s lawyer is threatening to use discovery to “determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.” It strikes me as questionable a judge would tolerate this under Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 26(c)(1). The purpose of the crime/tortious act was to expose Heartland’s donors. The implication—if the discovery is not barred or sealed—is that someone like Gleick could use discovery to further/achieve the goal of his admittedly illegal act.
Quite frankly, if I was Gleick, I’d be terrified of discovery. The guy has already shown a stunning lack of judgment and these climate scientists don’t strike me as a discreet bunch. It seems possible, even likely, that he consulted with other individuals before doing this and that there might be some damning information in his email account and computer.

Gary D. says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:31 am
“Someone has to be down before you can pile on. I am not convinced Gleick is down. His defense team and his supporters seem to believe he is doing very well indeed.”
Never said or assumed he was “down”. Does not change the fact that the guy and his warmist movement are a joke or the humor one can find in the situation.

My impression is this joker is unstable and as his AGW fraud and criminal intent of the HI intrusion becomes more proven we may be looking at a suicide.

Gleick says in the video (from about 2:25-3:14):
I actually think that a large part of the current denial about climate change, political scepticism about climate change, is actually not truly about the science.
Now, the scientific community is almost unanimous about this. There are very few credible scientists that really say that climate change isn’t happening or that it isn’t due to human activities.
But, if it is happening, and if it is due to human activities, policy makers have to do something. There’s going to have to be a policy response to deal with, for example, the fundamental ways we produce and use energy. And that’s a very difficult question.
I actually believe that a large part of the climate denial is actually fear about dealing with the policy components of climate change.
=====
If you replace the words “denial” and “scepticism” with “debate”, I wouldn’t particularly argue with those first two statements. I don’t think many round here would.
I do have a problem with the “something must be done to maintain the status quo at any cost” attitude. This policy and politics–not the science–seems to be the area where AGW supporters particularly want to avoid debate, yet it is exactly this that should be debated.
They seem to respond to any attempt to get a feel for the scale of any potential danger with suggestions that those questioning the results of their science are deniers and somehow anti-science. It is also, apparently, not possible for any change to have benefits.
I am not anti-science, a climate denier, or a climate sceptic. These seem to me to be emotive phrases to use in an ad-hominem fashion against the class of people who don’t have exactly the same world view as their own class. They can call me that if they like, but it really only reflects their own attitudes. I will happily say that I am quite sceptical about most things, so I don’t always automatically assume that everything I’m told is cast iron 100% correct. Also, just because I question something now doesn’t necessarily mean that I can’t believe or act on it at some point in the future.
The fear about dealing with policy (which should require debate) seems to be their fear.
It’s almost like climate science has Asperger’s syndrome.

The subconscious head shaking subliminal “no” is done every time he says somethings he wants you to believe, that he does not himself feel is valid. The blinking for longer than normal shows he is sorting thoughts to come up with what he thinks you need to hear form him to be believable.
The false starts and stuttering, is him sorting thoughts that he doesn’t have fully formed in his own mind to peel off rapidly and fluidly. The whole production is a projection of poorly thought out ideas that he has not practiced presenting to others, outside of the group think party he normally converses with.
The interruptions and disjointed thoughts are a sign he is not well organized in his subjects, due to lack of knowledge of the facts and needed quotes to cite references to make a coherent statement that conveys fluid comprehension of the subject matter on his part.
I would give him low scores for honesty, integrity, and basic fund of real data based knowledge of the subject he is discussing, grade D+ barely passing.

Why did Gleick do it? Putting two and two together he did it because he was about to assume the position of chairperson of the new Taskforce On Ethics And Integrity of the American Geophysical Union. WHAT A BULLY PULPIT! He intended to hit the ground running with a major issue to exploint.
Gleick was a man with a plan. Under the fancy title of “Taskforce On Ethics And Integrity” he intended to set up a “kangaroo court” (or if you prefer create “show trials”) that would be used to ruin the reputations of those who opposed the global warming movement. Heartland was to be his first victum. Heartland fit the bill perfectly. It had become a “hot topic” on the internet — a name known to liberals of many ilks (Heartland has fingers in many pots) and one already inspiring paranoid fantasies among those groups. Attacking Heartland was sure to generate immense publicity and with the help of the main stream media it could go national — with Gleick and his taskforce playing the role of “THE CONSCIOUS OF SCIENCE IN AMERICA!
Only one probelm — no smoking gun. Gleick was trying to create the smoking gun.
If you think what i am saying is an example of overwrought paranoric thinking — you don’t know much about how politicians operate. Joseph McCarthy made a speech in which he claimed to have in his pocket a list of the names of communists working in the state department. Never produced the list — didn’t need to. The rest, so to speak, is history. How many careers and lives did he ruin?
Politicians want an issue — any issue — and Gleick was trying to create one. But it all blew up in his face. When you lose your moral compass it is amazing how stupid highly intelligent people can be.
Anyway, committing wire fraud was really just a small first step in implementing Gleick’s much larger, utterly malicious plan.
Oh, and to end somewhat off topic — I think it could truly be said about the MacArthur Foundation that they give their genius awards to two distinct groups of people — people who should have been given the award twenty or thirty years earlier — and people who should never have been given the award at all.
Eugene WR GAllun

dp
So now you’re trying to conjure up guilt. You have nothing to say, right? Global warming is built on lies. Seeing some of the lying and hypocrisy exposed makes most people feel relief and indignation. But not you. Nope. In you it makes you defensive and want to make the people who are finding relief feel guilty.
What you are doing is called the losers limp.

Regarding the subdebate here on sicoal equity . From the context of the whole sentence: The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and sicoal equity. it obviously refers to the well established notion of three pillars of sustanability . Sustainability concerns precicely that: environmental protection, economic development, and sicoal equity. Social equity in this context has precisely NOTHING to do with the notion of left political governance.Sustainability Its just a way of encompassing all relevant effects of any human activity such as running a buisness, building a brige, driving your kid to school, or whatever. Relevant in the sense that they do matter in some way, but they do not necessarily have a clear pricetag or liability label on them. To assess the sustainability performance of an activity lets take the example of driving your kid to school:In the economic sense you achieve a desired function: transporting kid from point A to B. You also suffer economically, e.g. you pay for the gas and incremental value-loss of your car due to the driving. There are also more indirect economic effects but these are easy enough to consider as they directly affect your wallet. Now, your drive also produce effects in the environment and often indirectly on sicoal equity issues. Such effects are often called externalities .In the environmental sense you emit some gases and rubber tire particles to the environment that have (small, but still) unwanted effects such as toxic effect on organisms (including humans), global warming counted as kg CO2-equivalents is typically added here as an undesired environmental effect. But no one is held accountable in terms of paying for these external environmental effects. By using your car you also take advantage of all emissions and resource extracted from nature in order to build the car, the roads, produce the gas, the motoroil, etc.The sicoal equity aspect just means expanding the effects from not only covering traditional environmental effects but also effects on you guessed it: sicoal equity, i.e. human sicoal phenomena that are considerered worthy of protection or establishment such as human rights, gender equity, ethnological equity, religouos equity, the right of kids to be kids, etc.If parts of your car was produced by child labour on a next to nothing salary, your kid-to-school drive can be considered have a bad impact on sicoal equity, given of course that you think underpaid child labor is a bad thing.Now comes the most difficult part: how to compare all these effects? For example, how big is the cost of 3 hour of child labour compared to the cost of toxic effects due to air emission of 0.05 kg benzene-equivalent? It is ONLY in this sense of how things should be valued that any discussion of political values such as left-right policies has any bearing on sustainability. The effects will occur regardless of opinion. But people value the effects differently and it is a matter of preference and subjective choice. It is not inherent in the idea of sustainability that anyone must have adhere to a certain preset idea of what is good or bad. Sustainability assessment only acknowledges that in order to know if it is sustainable or not you must include some idea of what is a desired state of things including sicoal equity issues. So, assessing the sustainability of a given activity only means looking at ALL these effects: economic, environmental, and sicoal good and bad paid for or not.Now, please do not confuse my post of taking a stance for or against the concept of sustainability or any specific value on externalities, sustainability is only a perspective on things. Clearly the concept attracts environmentalists as they put a high value on environmental and socal equity impacts and it is a tool to assess responsibility for these effects.