Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on "deceitful tactics"

Good grief……..why didn’t Mann and Hansen sue him for slander

Methinks he doth project too much.

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.

A “to do” list.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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… 🙂

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.

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

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.

Hello Kettle? Pot calling….

Pot, meet kettle.

“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.

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

I think the Senate should invite him back in for an update.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 !!!!

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?? 🙁

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…

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.

Cough up, which one of you jokers slipped him his resume to read out at the Senate?

Paul Coppin says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Gleick needs to tap a bit more BC bud. A LOT more.
That would make him an hydroponiclimatologist, I’m thinkin’…come to think of it……

@Copner, thank you. I will listen to it in the next few minutes, as I clean the kitchen. I’m assuming it won’t need my full attention…

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….

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).

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?

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.

@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.”

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… 🙂

Boy, for an expert in “Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process” he sure sucks at it.

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”.

Some people are too smart for their own good or so they think.

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.