Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

“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

 

About these ads

84 thoughts on “Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. @ 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… :)

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. @DonV,
    Were you thinking something like this?
    [IMG]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/RandomPhate/Gleick13.jpg[/IMG]

  14. Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”
    ===================
    (while they laugh up their sleeves at the rank amateur).

  15. I still want to know how much funding he got from me through the EPA.
    I may have to go to confession for paying my taxes.

  16. “False Authority
    Including appeal to authority not competent to address issue”

    This is my favorite, because it implies that appealing to authority competent to address the issue (such as himself) is OK. In his Forbes piece on the 2011 B.S. Award, Gleick praises Obama for saying that we should put our trust in climate scientists. He wants control.

  17. Can we find out his PHD granting university. I too want to join the campaign to REMOVE his PHD.

    Please, someone give us the Alma Mater for this rube.

    Max

    REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony

  18. Someone at the U.S. Senate passed him the wrong script and he was mistakenly reading his resume.

  19. Copner,

    Good finds.

    Your energy and persistent focus is awesome dude(tte). I hope I never have the pleasure of your persistent attention because of any misdeed on my part. I mean that as a complement compliment [NOTE: Corrected at author’s request. -REP].

    A toast to the study of Gleicks everywhere they may occur!!!

    John

  20. I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.

  21. 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. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the forehead.

    There’s your money quote right there.

  22. that as a complement compliment [NOTE: Corrected at author's request. -REP]

    ———-

    Dear REP the moderator,

    Thank you . Have a good Saturday night.

    John

  23. The only consistently catastrophic aspect of the AGW crowd is how the acolytes continue to crash and burn their own wonderful careers over something as controversial, indefensible and undefinable as “climate change”.

    Is it the water? Is it the soap they use? Maybe the ragweed is blossoming. What gets under their skin to the point they self destruct? I can’t figure it out, but it must have something to do with mixing the heady alcohol of success with the prospects of fame and unlimited funding while the weather gods blow an ill wind on their house of cards.

    It really is a sickening spectacle to see once grandiose gentlemen look at themselves in the mirror and fail to recognize the reflection. My heartfelt condolences.

  24. After reading this post I was amused to see on the Pacific Institute website at least two presentations that appear to be PDFs of more detailed versions of the testimony referenced in this post.

    I’m amused because, in it, Gleick attacks the institution I work for (actually, a blog post of mine) for committing an alleged “abuse of science” for criticizing – get this – Al Gore.

    Gleick paraphrases our offense as an “Appeal to Emotion; Ad Hominem and Personal Attacks” and lists it as:

    “Al Gore can’t be trusted on climate change because he lives an energy-intensive lifestyle. The National Center for Public Policy Research (2006)”

    Yes, I criticized Gore (not in those words), but GORE IS A POLITICIAN. Not a scientist. One can claim he is also an investor, or a moviemaker, or a board sitter-onner, or a speech-giver, or an activist, or a man who loves himself a good massage, but he’s certainly not a scientist.

    My naughty blog post can be seen at: http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2006/8/10/al-gores-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-philosophy.html

    I do hope science will recover from my sin.

    Gleick complains about a bunch of other people as well. There do not appear to be direct links to the pdfs, but they are on the Pacific Institute website and have the following two titles, if anyone wants to take a look to see who else misbehaved.

    The documents are entitled: “The Integrity of Science: Identifying Logical Fallacies, Deceitful Tactics, and Abuse of the Public Trust,” American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Dec. 2006″ and “The Integrity of Science and Climate Change: Logical Fallacies and Abuse of Science,” SkeptiCal 2011, Dr. Peter H. Gleick

  25. sabril says:
    February 25, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Assuming that Gleick authored the strategy memoSince Gleick authored the strategy memo…

    There, fixed that for ya..
    Let’s stop playing the PC BS game, since we already know who wrote it.

  26. Eric Dailey says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.

    He must be a pretty wily poker player. I know I wouldn’t want to try to discern whether he was bluffing with $100 riding on it.

  27. Eric Dailey says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.

    I would suspect its the two “ethics” appointments he was just taking on. He had to shut them down before he got into them. If he’d been ensconsed in those positions and then all this came to light down the road, he’d be even more deeply fried than he is now, if that’s possible.

  28. Eric Dailey says on February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.

    This intrigues me as well. Perhaps he was falling on his sword for someone else. After all, people can be as suspicious as they like. In the absence of proof, there is not a lot that can be done.

  29. REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony

    With respect, I don’t see why a PhD shouldn’t be subject to the same integrity standards as are P.Engs MDs and LLBs, and here, people who are trustees. There should be a formal censure for PhDs in working practice just like there.is for other professions. Heck, even I have a sworn oath for my official duties that carries criminal charges for violating…

  30. peter_ga says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    I am curious as to the single most inspirational piece of work that qualified him as a genius.

    You’ve seen it. But he didn’t get away with it. Except he sacrificed himself as an example of what not to do. Good man, Peter Gleick.

  31. With both this and Markey getting involved (without even knowing WTF he’s getting into – no doubt), I wonder if now might be the time to ask FOIA if the repentance has not been quite as extensive as could have been expected ??

    Gwaaaarn FOIA, just another 20,000 e-mails – at random even !!!!

  32. @Amy Ridenour

    The 2011 presentation referred to can be watched online. Near the end of the 2nd video he promises to put the slides online at the Pacific Institute website, but I haven’t seen it.

  33. An excellent list of deceitful tactics! I especially like “Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)”, under “Personal (Ad Hominem) Attacks”!

    Did Gleick compose this list himself, or did he copy it from an uncited source?? :-(

  34. To the credit of Gleick’s list, it very thoroughly covers the omitted variable fraud that I documented in the first draft of the upcoming AR5.

    Under “Misuse of Facts” it lists: “Selective Omissions of Data.”

    Under “Scientific Misconduct” it lists: “Falsification (manipulation of research data and processes or omitting critical data or results)”

    Under “Science Policy Misconduct” it lists: “Altering or Suppressing Information.”

    Too bad this is an outline of the warmists’ modus operandi.

  35. peter_ga says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    “I am curious as to the single most inspirational piece of work that qualified him as a genius.”

    His business card?

    I’m not saying this is an inspirational work by him

  36. Paul Coppin says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony

    With respect, I don’t see why a PhD shouldn’t be subject to the same integrity standards as are P.Engs MDs and LLBs, and here, people who are trustees. There should be a formal censure for PhDs in working practice just like there.is for other professions. Heck, even I have a sworn oath for my official duties that carries criminal charges for violating…

    If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally rrelevant.

  37. Did Dr. Gleick confess out of panic?

    There he was, patting himself on the back at how cleverly he’d hoaxed everyone and how the Heartland Institute would suffer; sitting back, savoring the sweet music of the baying press-pack as it hounded its victim; then, out of the blue, the cold, terrifying shock of being identified and called out by name by people he despised!

    It must have been horrible.

    Before confessing, he set some of his affairs in order. One does suspect he views the Pacific Institute as his own private property, which is why he didn’t resign or request a leave of absence before committing to the modified limited hangout confession.

    Of course, that’s reading it like a novel, but it’s the best I can come up with.

  38. Sloppy work. He forgot to add criminal impersonation and fraud to his list.

    @ Sabril: You might be on to something with your narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis. Many commentators have asked, “how could anyone be so stupid?” I had asked myself the same question, but then I got to thinking: Maybe Gleick was taking mood altering pills? Maybe those pills clouded his judgement?

    Gleick had convinced himself that the “anti-climate” community were the apotheosis of evil. He had worked himself up into a highly emotionally-charged state about that. Any rational person reading his recent articles and posts could see it. He was virtually foaming at the mouth and committing the very same logical fallacies that he so often accused others of committing; sometime several to a sentence. That’s irrational conduct.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the Dr. Gleick is/was crazy. I’m only noting that irrational conduct is often preceded by extreme emotional distress, mixed with mind altering substances. Of course, none of this excuses the crime.

    Climate science is a good example of a “scientific elite” gaming the system to gain personal power and enrichment. But modern medicine is a much better example. The government estimates that Medicare fraud is something north of $70-billion a year. But they mostly only count direct criminal fraud. We pay three times more than Europeans for healthcare but we’re not healthier or better served. We’re also more likely to be killed or maimed by a doctor than by an automobile. The US medical industrial combine suctions off almost 20% of our economic output. It’s the biggest money-grubbing monopoly ever invented in the whole history of humankind. We should not be thinking about how to get every citizen covered by our hyper-expensive and dysfunctional medical system. We should be thinking about how we’re going to break up the entrenched monopoly and make medicine cheap enough for everyone.

  39. Paul Coppin says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    ” If he’d been ensconsed in those positions and then all this came to light down the road, he’d be even more deeply fried than he is now, if that’s possible.”
    =====================
    “No matter where you go, there you are.”
    Thomas Moody
    CE & PLS.

  40. Hu McCulloch says:
    February 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    [....]
    If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally rrelevant.

    You’ve missed the point entirely (and the relevance…).

  41. When his colleagues were discussing the requirement for a level headed genius to testify on ethics to the U.S. Senate, the consensus of a group of peer review process redefiners was….

  42. RockyRoad says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    The only consistently catastrophic aspect of the AGW crowd is how the acolytes continue to crash and burn their own wonderful careers over something as controversial, indefensible and undefinable as “climate change”.

    Is it the water? Is it the soap they use? Maybe the ragweed is blossoming. What gets under their skin to the point they self destruct? I can’t figure it out

    I think it’s the sheer overwhelming force of the contra-factual “data points” they have to integrate into their personal and professional opinions and statements. At some point, somewhat different for each person, it just becomes too much.

    BTW, there are three types of “data errors” to watch for:
    1) Interpolated
    2) Omitted
    3) Altered

    All require effort to create and hold in place.

  43. I’ve sparred with Gleick numerous times at Forbes. You can tell his science background is weak. His undergrad degree at Yale was in Engineering and Applied Science. Sounds impressive, right? No. There are the rigorous ABET accredited degrees at Yale, such as mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering. And then the less rigorous non ABET accredited ones, like Gleicks’. So he ended up taking the “jock” type science and math courses. At Forbes he kept beating the drum about scientific consensus, not really understanding what is required to confirm a hypothesis under the rigorous tenants of the scientific method. But he has a PHD! So does the dufus Paul Ehrlich. And we know all the predictions of his that have “bombed” (bad pun).

  44. Paul Copin: Why bother Anthony or the moderators with this question when you know they have a problem answering. Just do a Google on the man and you’ll find all the info you need.

  45. RockyRoad says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    “The only consistently catastrophic aspect of the AGW crowd is how the acolytes continue to crash and burn their own wonderful careers over something as controversial, indefensible and undefinable as “climate change”.”

    “Is it the water? Is it the soap they use? Maybe the ragweed is blossoming. What gets under their skin to the point they self destruct?”

    Maybe it is a hormone? Maybe you even know which one?

  46. Hu McCulloch says:
    February 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    Paul Coppin says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    “REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony

    With respect, I don’t see why a PhD shouldn’t be subject to the same integrity standards as are P.Engs MDs and LLBs, and here, people who are trustees. There should be a formal censure for PhDs in working practice just like there.is for other professions. Heck, even I have a sworn oath for my official duties that carries criminal charges for violating…

    If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally irrelevant.”

    Glieck’s insanity (skulduggery might be a better word) came not in recent mid-life, but back on the day that he abandoned science for a cause. There are a lot of Phd.s out there that are equally guilty in this regard: people who do not understand that the diploma, of itself, does not bestow authority, but does bestow a lifelong obligation of honest dissertation. The crime is not simply that of getting caught but of abandoning academic obligation which is owed not merely to his alma mater, but to mankind.

  47. @doubting thomas

    “Maybe Gleick was taking mood altering pills? Maybe those pills clouded his judgement?”

    That thought occurred to me too, but it seems Gleick’s misconduct lasted over a period of a at least a few weeks. So he would have had time to think about what he was doing while sober.

    “Gleick had convinced himself that the ‘anti-climate’ community were the apotheosis of evil. ”

    Another common behavior of people with NPD is “splitting.”:

    From Wikipedia:

    ___________________

    People matching the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defense mechanism. Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize his sense of self positively in order to preserve his self-esteem, by perceiving himself as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to his will or values as purely wicked or contemptible.
    ______________

    This would also explain the book review fiasco, in which Gleick gave an extremely poor review to a book he perceived as being on the “anti” side of the debate seemingly without having even read the book. Assuming he suffers from NPD, there would have been no need in his mind to actually read the book since the book was “purely wicked or contemptible.”

  48. Paul Coppin February 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm says:

    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.

    Bingo! In my opinion you are exactly right. And it certainly is not just in high profile Climate Science fields, it is everywhere, lawyers, politicians, journalism, what have you. Lots of people ever since the 70′s would say: ‘Ah, what harm can come from all these diluted degrees? At least they’re working and they have self-esteem!’. Well, we are seeing the results first hand everywhere today, the seeds grew, flowers bloomed, reproduced, repeat again. Peter ‘Principle’ Gleick is just one of many, albeit the most obvious at the moment. But he is most definitely not the exception, he is the rule. I mean, does anyone really believe that Gleick is a worse person than Mann and other Greenies? I sure don’t. Heck, he probably still would be too tame for ‘Earth First’ and other Eco-Nazis. I mean, we all saw a glimpse into their sick minds with 10:10 ‘No Pressure’ last year.

    Truth be told, you really can’t throw a rock without hitting an example of the Peter Principle these days. Their visibility is even higher due to social media which helps them to self-identify and garner publicity in ways that used to be impossible. This ultimately may be the ‘forcing’ that ultimately undoes some of the damage they have caused.

    In a way it is our own fault. Lots of people chose long ago to entertain the arguments of these idiots, rather than laughing them off the scene like the clowns that they are. People willfully have chosen to ignore rather than challenge errors and propaganda when they encounter it. They’re too busy with football, basketball, iPhones and whatever distraction comes next. Meanwhile the inmates have taken over the asylum thanks to attrition and plain laziness.

  49. J.H. says:
    February 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    LOL…. What the hell was that?…. His bucket list?
    ============

    Tactics – someone, maybe Gleick maybe not, has gathered together all the main points used, accurately, by the sceptics in their arguments against the faux science and vested industry funding, for the next big loud campaign to misdirect attention from the real culprits by the simple expedient of accusing the sceptics of these. What has been successfully used so far is “funded by fossil fuels”, but this is beginning to collapse on two fronts.

    The AGWarmers are beginning to hear that it is ‘their side’ which gets all the big funding from oil and nuclear, and government, and even hearing that the whole shebang was set up and funded by them, and this is beginning to set up a discordant note in the brainwashing and so they need another distraction to stop any more looking too closely behind the now partially drawn back curtain, and, whereas before the non-coal big players were pretty much above the anti-oil skweeming they’d encouraged to get the greenies on board to further their own anti-coal agenda, it is now beginning to backfire on them because such as fracking is become viable etc. and the oil/gas companies now have to distance themselves properly from the coal industry, which was the name of their game all along, so they can go forth and fracking prosper without the greenie useful idiots interfering. They’ve begun doing this by creating a separation between coal and non-coal fossil fuels, fossil being the generic rallying cry. There was piece the other day about a new study which showed that fracking was oh so much carbon cleaner than coal.

    As before, sceptics can show that this relentless screaming that ‘sceptics are funded by big oil’ is a lie and it’s actually the greenies funded by them and even that their greenie AGW movement was created by the oil companies themselves, such as CRU set up and still paid for by oil/nuclear to cook the temperature records, but now sceptics are going to be targetted by more such misdirection ammo, which they themselves have provided through discussions.

    As before, sceptics can continue to show with actual facts and figures that these new memes apply to the AGWarmers and their corrupt science, but ‘big oil’ is counting on the sheer volume and range they’re planning to generate to drown this out. It’s all about keeping control of the useful idiots and getting the sceptics mired in arguments while they go on with their business with as little disturbance to their agenda as possible.

    And there’s no getting around it, it doesn’t matter which political party in office, they wouldn’t have got so far and been so successful without having control of the process, setting up ‘apparent’ discord and different political policies merely part of the same game as is MSM involvement.

    It is a war, but the only reasonable way, as I see it, to fight this practically ubiquitous control is by enlightenment, the spread of knowledge. When everyone, or enough to get the ball rolling, can see behind the curtain, can see through the illusion they’ve created to keep the useful idiots in thrall, they’ll be seen for the manipulative small percent psycho/sociopaths not very evolved critters they are..

    ..and maybe science can come up with some way of curing them… :)

  50. Using Google to chase up the Gleick papers that Amy Ridenour discovered, I encountered a domain name http://www.integrityofscience.org .. but, if you click on it, you will find yourself redirected to Pacific Institute. They seem to have cornered the market in integrity. It’s a great page, though. You can email them to report integrity violations and make financial contributions:

    If you are aware of instances of science misuse and abuse, from personal experience or your local paper, bring them to our attention! E-mail integrityofscience(at)pacinst.org.

    Contribute to the Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative with an online donation.

  51. The only evidence this genius didn’t leave on the forged Heartland document was his name. Oh, wait a minute, actually he did didn’t he!

  52. Ken Harvey says:
    February 26, 2012 at 1:47 am

    A PhD is an academic designation and is in no way comparable to a professional designation such as a PEng or MD. Once achieved by honest means, an academic degree can not be taken away.

    Professional designations exclusively license their holders to offer essential services to the public and the bodies granting the professional designations are independent of academic institutions. Professional designations can be withdrawn by the granting bodies for unprofessional behavior in order to protect the public.

  53. “Robert Austin says:
    February 26, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Ken Harvey says:
    February 26, 2012 at 1:47 am

    A PhD is an academic designation and is in no way comparable to a professional designation such as a PEng or MD. Once achieved by honest means, an academic degree can not be taken away. ”

    I can accept that, but of course that means that a PhD has all the scientific credibility of a Heisman Trophy, or a ‘participants award’.

  54. Real Climate
    Open Mind
    Skeptical Science
    Integrity of Science Initiative

    Gleickenspiel is a good name for this brand of behaviour, and this whole document.
    * Claim the moral high ground,
    * demonstrate expert understanding of the principles involved to maintain that high ground…
    * pre-emptively accuse one’s enemies of expert intricacies of corruption…
    * which everyone believes because they are so plausible…
    * BEFORE the other side can point out…
    * that the Gleickenspiel player is talking about himself.

    Mark Twain / Winston Churchill had a relevant saying:
    “A lie gets halfway round the world before truth can get its pants on”.

  55. I can just imagine Dr Evil’s consensus meeting to discuss forging the Heartland document to discredit them:

    Dr Evil: “Two words Peter, ‘plausible deniability’, if you put your name on the document we….. (evil chuckle) er,… I mean ‘you’, can plausibly deny you had anything to do with it. If they do rumble you we just get desmogblog and our journalist activist friends to justify deceitful, unethical and criminal behaviour on the grounds that we had to stop Heartland from pointing out that the science isn’t settled”.

    Gleick: “Thanks ……….(name self snip) great plan”.

    Dr Evil: “Don’t forget to delete the email evidence, that mistake has cost us dearly before”.

    (Gleick leaves)

    Dr Evil: “Fool, there’s only room for one evil genius in this organisation”. Now let’s get on with our peer review of this skeptics work, how are we getting on with our complaint letter to the editor”…

    (scene fades with evil chuckle).

  56. @Copner, I did watch that video, and Gleick was flat-out dishonest in it about our blog post (15:42) in a way that was not apparent from his PDF notes. He went on for a bit about our post, the thesis of which was, quote, “…the former VP isn’t exactly acting as though he believes the dire warnings in his movies, slide shows and public appearances…” in a way that led the audience to believe we were attacking the underlying science, which we never addressed. He also falsely implied his summary of our piece, which had a different slant than our piece did, was a direct quote from us. More interesting, though, is that Gleick then went on to attack Gore himself “he does live an energy intensive lifestyle” and “he may be hypocritical.” Not an especially harsh attack, but I think he wanted to criticize Gore in a safe way, considering his audience was probably sympathetic to Gore, so he hid behind one of the nasty “deniers” (us) to do so.

    I really am only wildly speculating here, but I wonder if he is/was a bit jealous of Gore, because he went out of his way to tell people he wouldn’t want to be Al Gore “for lots of reasons.” Gore was at the top of his glory back then. Why go out of your way to say that, when no one asked?

  57. A news item this morning, from a notoriously biased program on global warming (Today) in the notoriously biased BBC: people no long have confidence of the UK government’s support.

    … then they went on to talk about jobs which we were never going to get, which we have been promised for a decade were just around the corner, which I said we were never going to get a decade ago and the BBC said: “who cares”.

    So, it looks like we are on the verge of winner over wind. But that doesn’t mean we are anywhere near winning on climate science … climate “science” will still be corrupt to its core, lacking in integrity and will still be jumping on whatever is the latest bandwagon climate scare to come along.

    It’s like having a weather forecast each day that goes on about the risk of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winds, etc. for the next day And all we really wanted to know was whether it was going to rain.

  58. @Amy Ridenour:

    There’s an interesting bit of colorful omission in the letter. The letter published by Science signed by 255 scientists, that the WSJ didn’t publish (he doesn’t mention that WSJ didn’t publish). He talks about the letter. He reads a snippet from it. He offers to handout copies. He says it’s a “great letter”. He doesn’t mention that he was the organizer (?), lead contact, one of the signers, and most likely the main author of the letter.

    So in one bit, in my opinion, he’s both a little deceitful and shows that he’s immensely proud of the letter.

    And we know that he was intensely annoyed about the snub of the WSJ not publishing his letter, but publishing the skeptic letter on the very day the phishing began…

Comments are closed.