“Copner” alerts us in comments to this public document:
Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7, 2007 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Table 1
Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process
(source: P.H. Gleick, Pacific Institute, 2007)
There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process.
Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks
This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.
Demonization
Guilt by Association
Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)
You can read it here:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good grief……..why didn’t Mann and Hansen sue him for slander
But somehow “denier” isn’t ad hominem and does not trivialize other terms like Holocaust denier.
I am an expert (in doing those things).
It looks like a course outline.
Methinks he doth project too much.
“Hypocrite”!
This is hilarious as his Forbes rebuttal uses all of these rightly abusive of scientific process techniques. The man is blind to his own behavior.
He’s got the makings of a good defence there.
As a leading expert in science ethics – he felt it was his academic duty to work his way through the list and experience first-hand every imaginable facet of ethical failure.
A “to do” list.
Guilt by association, and challenge to motive (funding), are all over his Forbes attacks on Heartland.
More significantly perhaps, they are 2 of the main themes of the fake memo (and not even the correct associations & funding), ermmm cough: Koch
Just speculating, but I would guess that Gleick suffers from NPD – narcissistic personality disorder. To the narcissist, a public insult is devastating — like an attempt to kill him would feel to a normal person. Narcissists are notoriously sensitive to criticism or ridicule from others although very prone to dishing it out themselves.
Assuming that Gleick authored the strategy memo, it would also explain why he referred to himself as a high profile climate scientist. That’s classic NPD behavior, i.e. having an exaggerated sense of self importance.
Last, people with NPD tend to have trouble recognizing other peoples’ boundaries. So it wouldn’t have occurred to Gleick that he was doing anything wrong by engaging in identity theft.
Anyway, Heartland is likely to file a civil lawsuit against Gleick which will give them the chance to depose him (i.e. question him under oath.) That should be very interesting.
Simply amazing.
Oh Jesus, Peter, this is awful… No matter how good a scientist you may be, if you’ve spoken to the Senate about ethics and purity, then why in God’s name have you gotten yourself into such a mess.
Lesson no. 1: Don’t talk about ethics and purity. Ever. That’s a hostage to fortune.
May I add ‘Gleickenfreude’ to the lexicon?
Have I mentioned my call for “degree recall” yet this week? The academic world is infested with intellectual sloth. There seems to be no critical thought left. All started in the late 60s when so many kids were going off to graduate school, they begun to hand out degrees fresh off the Xerox. Then, when those lazy SOBs started teaching, we got BS’ in “Environmental Science” which seemed to be based on a curriculum of A & E, Nova and PBS specials, and post-grad degrees meant you had to watch them twice AND write a book report. Gleick needs to tap a bit more BC bud. A LOT more.
Quote of the week nomination via WUWT
Wow!!
Right out of the CRU Standard Operating Procedures manual!!
@Steve Salter… Either that or “Schadengleicken”.
@ur momisugly Steve Salter
“May I add ‘Gleickenfreude’ to the lexicon?”
Ooooohhh! I like it! May I make a variation on it?
Gleickenspiel: The orchestrated set of lies and arguments made by the unethical fraction of warmists in support of Peter Gleick’s actions. Hmmmm…. that word rings a bell… 🙂
That paper looks like a playlist for the entire liberal structure and it’s apparently being followed to the letter.
I have often seen the tactics used but never knew it had been written as a paper. I thought it was just a sub psychological behavioristic trait. Now it seems to be a learned and applied trait. If Gleick thought this up he is a genius.
Jimbo says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Quote of the week nomination via WUWT
“A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise to the level of David and Goliath. Heartland is more like a David fighting a hundred Goliaths. ”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning_631915.html?page=3
Jimbo I might agree except for the fact that AGW is a team (Gleick/Hanson/Gore/Mann/Trenbreth) fabrication not a movement. The sun seems to be evaporating the pools of deceit. Of course there is no possibility of recovering the huge sums of tax dollars wasted on this deceit.
Gleikenspiel!! I love it! You’ve heard of the Glock 17. Now the preeminent ethicist of the CAGW crowd has introduced to the world his weapon of choice, the unlucky “Gleick 13”. It fires straight downwards out the handle wounding the idiot who pulls the trigger, in the foot.
I agree, “gleikenspiel” when used to refer to “ethical behaviour” has a synonym – projection.
Anthony,
May I suggest that you save a copy of this pdf before the Pacific Institute realizes that their own document is being used to incriminate themselves.
😉
wermet
Who here has the time to fill out Gleick’s list with real examples from the warmist fanatics?
Projection is such a wonderful thing; once you recognise it you can at once see the light it shines into the dark suppressed thoughts of another. It’s too easy to say this of Gleick after the fact of the revelations. But Jeez, it is palpable in all those shysters who scream about sceptic funding, sceptics’ unwillingness to debate, sceptics cherry-picking, sceptics’ lack of transparency – all that back-to-front BS that (post-Climategate) they-know-we-know they’re guilty of. Whenever one reads such statements it is clear they’re really talking about themselves. Jo Nova recently took an alarmist piece of writing (I can’t remember the details, but it was posted on her site some weeks ago) and wherever a sceptic person or subject came under attack for all the usual BS reasons, she substituted a pro-AGW equivalent in its place – and the piece then read perfectly, of course. Watch out for the projection.