Guest post by Dr. Nicola Scafetta
I am following this story about Gleick vs. Heartland Institute. I believe I found something that might be useful and/or interesting.
To understand what happened in the mind of Gleick you need to carefully read the exchange occurred on Forbes between Gleick and Taylor in January. Apparently, everything started from this post by Gleick
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/05/the-2011-climate-b-s-of-the-year-awards/
where Gleick personally attacked known scientists who are critical of AGW and he also attacked you.Later James Taylor of Heartland Institute responded to Gleick here
First, you need to note the dates of Taylor reply (2012/01/12) and the date of the email sent by Gleick to Heartland which started a couple of weeks later on 2012/01/27. So the dates match.
Now you need to take into account that the article by Taylor is quite strong and solid, and very likely severely damaged the scientific credibility of Gleick who was proven not even having the scientific facts right and having his analysis of the scientific literature, in a particular of that that opposes the AGW theory, extremely superficial and unfair.
I would say that Taylor won the debate without doubts, and Gleick simply matured the idea of having a strong revenge.
Now you need to carefully read the comment by Gleick to Taylor’s article that you can read at the bottom on the Forbes’ article page. Gleick wrote
“I don’t normally respond to the posts by James Taylor — reading them makes my head explode. They are written as though from a completely different universe — some parallel universe where up is down, left is right, and global warming isn’t happening…. whew (though a careful reader of this post by Taylor will note that he accidentally acknowledges global warming is occurring). But since I’m the entire target of this rant, I thought I might offer a minor comment or two: He says I’m upset because so few people agree with me… Hmm, 97-98% of all climate scientists (of which I am one, and James Taylor is not) agree with me — climate change is happening, and it is happening because of human activities. Maybe no one at the Heartland Institute agrees (though they are paid not to), but I like the company I keep better. I will ignore the completely scientific nonsense that comprises the rest of his post, except to note the fine response by “cyruspinkerton” who sets Taylor straight about extreme events in 2011. Taylor must not read the news, or the science, either. I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that $7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus). And their 990 tax form doesn’t say either. [By the way, while my Forbes posts reflect my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Pacific Institute, all of the Pacific Institute’s financial records are public.] So, Mr. Taylor: let’s have the complete list of your funders.”
As you can see, instead of discussing the scientific facts that Taylor was addressing in his article strongly disproving Gleick, Gleick just wanted the names of the donors of Heartland Institute more than anything else, as if that was the most important issue.
Now you need to read the response from Taylor. At the end Taylor responded
“Finally, Gleick asks for the Heartland Institute to publicly reveal all the names of its donors. The Heartland Institute used to do so, while similarly appealing to other groups to do the same. However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors while simultaneously refusing to release the names of their own donors. It is funny how Gleick rants against the alleged harassment of Katharine Hayhoe yet remains silent about the harassment of people who disagree with him. This further reveals Gleick’s appalling lack of objectivity, as does Gleick’s call for the Heartland Institute to release the names of its donors while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of global warming activist groups have been far less transparent than the Heartland Institute. Of course, Gleick’s attempts to make Heartland Institute funding an issue while ignoring the less transparent funding reports of global warming activist groups with 10, 20, or even 80 times the funding of the Heartland Institute is a tired and sad tactic used by global warming alarmists who try desperately to take attention away from scientific facts and objective scientific data. I can see why Gleick views these scientific facts and objective data as a “parallel universe” that makes his “head spin.”
Now you need to focus on the key sentence in Taylor’s response:
“However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors”
At this point, Gleick knew what he could do to have his personal revenge against Taylor and the Heartland Institute . He simply needed to get the list of names of the donors of Heartland Institute and make it public in such a way that environmental activists and other extremist groups could use the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against those persons and damage the finance of the Heartland Institute. And in two weeks Gleick prepared his “smart” plan that we know.
In my opinion Gleick was simply blinded by a strong feeling of personal hatred against Taylor and just wanted his personal revenge against the person that so efficiently rebutted him in public. The irony of this story is that it was Taylor himself to suggest Gleick what he could do to have his revenge and to efficiently damage the Heartland Institute. ButGleick’s plan was uncovered…
In conclusion, the real reason why people like Gleick do not want to publicly debate with the AGW and IPCC critics is simply because somehow they know that they will lose the debate. And they get mad of it.
==============================================================
Addendum by Anthony
I would add that there is one other exacerbating factor that occurred on January 27th, 2012, and that is seen in this article on Forbes by Dr. Peter Gleick:
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal
Gleick writes:
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”
Then there’s this, Gleick was one of the signers:
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.
The NAS essay is here. The WSJ article is here
Seems to me that he was quite put out that WSJ would accept the 16, but not the 255. I see it as contributory to his anger that day, the day he decided to assume a new fake email identity and break the law.
It seems he also made his own bias very clear in an article where he asks readers:
Do you have an open mind?
It doesn’t matter what might be said or published, he claims we are wrong:
I’d say he’s now disqualified himself, and in spectacular fashion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My theory on the faked memo goes something like this: When Gleick received the documents from Heartland, there was no smoking gun.
What he needed was proof of what he and the other CAGW alarmists have been saying repeatedly. That oil companies are funding the anti-CAGW movement. Turns out, Heartland does NOT get any funding from oil companies for anti-CAGW work. Yes, they get money from Koch, but that was for Healthcare, and a pittance at $25K.
So the faked memo was required in order to clearly draw the line for journalists, who are no longer expected to delve very deeply into sources or documents – nope, they just repeat verbatim what they are told.
The only purpose of the faked document was to help journalists draw conclusions from what the real documents said, but because there was nothing there, the faked document is mostly made up.
Again, the Koch connection to anti-global warming had to be one of the top take aways. This is after all what Gleick and so many others keep saying. That fossil fuel interests fund deniers. Too bad it’s not true.
It would have been so much easier to just admit he and his ilk have been mostly wrong all these years, with much less damage to his professional reputation.
Pity this didn’t occur to him.
…and this man is how old?
Go back in time and look at the climate gate emails, Gleick has conspired with Mann and Jones since the beginning.
I LOL’d at 97% reference. Gleick is really one angry man. Hope he seeks some help because there is truly something wrong with him.
Keep up the fact pressure and many more of them will self “swiftboat” themselves.
whatever motivated his criminal activity – it does seem clear from the above that anger drove him to take a chance in an environment where anyone not a penny short of a shilling would realise the chances of getting caught were very high indeed.
So that is what is surprising to me.
What is NOT surprising is the fact that he considerred the act itself. Because manipulating data is what the Team does. But usually in a safe “area”.
The only mistake Gleick made was thinking he was above the law of the land.
Let’s face it Climatescientists have been above the normal laws of science for some time now
Anthony, isn’t there a thread to be followed in asking, “What Board members name did Gleick use?” “How did Gleick get that name?” That name needn’t be published here, but it’s part of the puzzle that completes this effort by Nicola & others.
And, Anthony, what can you tell us of the steel & resolve of The Heartland Institute to go into full battle mode here. I’m frightened we’ll get a “McCain/Romney/’Let’s all be civil, moderate Republican'” response strategy.
Please, all commenters: Make your contributions to the Heartland legal fund!
Well: “Getting mad by loosing dabates”…”planning revanche” …”letting steam/anger off”….
and, at the same time, sneaking into School Education Institutions claiming highest
moral standards……now he submarined for the coming months…..
The cause for his actions are not the Taylor TRIGGER EVENTS…..the cause is simply he is a
sneaky, sleezy obstinate trying to outsmart the HI-institute…..fully in the center of the
CAGW movement…..and still being laudated by Horgan: “Hero…” with “clearly MORAL lies…”
JS
When one sits back and considers the overall scope of the Government led climate propaganda effort, the size of the conspiracy is very disturbing. It appears the is no choice but to shut down NASA, NOAA, EPA, the DOE and start over (sure I missed a few). Their so called out reach efforts and funding of their lackeys is an insult to the American people. The US scientific community needs to be taken to the wood shed for allowing this to happen. As for the non-profits, throw their ass in jail.
Gleick and his CAGW allies keep repeating the absurd statement that “…climate change is happening, and it is happening because of human activities.” Would climate change not be happening without human activities? Talk about anti-science!
see the article yesterday http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/22/gleick-and-the-ncse/
Jan 13th “Dr. Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute, has joined NCSE’s board of directors. Gleick, a world-renowned water expert, will advise NCSE on its new climate change education initiative.”
NCSE explain this on their webpage neutrally entitled “NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial”
Perhaps the NCSE programs would be like the ones in Australia
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_global_warming_is_preached_in_year_8/
Good analysis. That does now seem plausible to me. Gleick personality traits lead him to be hypersensitive to public criticism. Having been radicalized by the CAGW movement, he now holds extremists views on CAGW. He believes that Skeptics are standing in the way of saving mankind from mass extinction and believes skeptics are funded by the forces of evil; therefore he feels ethically justified in using mendacious and mean-spirited tactics. He feels publicly humiliated by the battle with HI in Forbes. And finally, he believes that HI’s invitation to debate was in bad faith and simply intended to further humiliate him (by calling his appearance “entertainment”).
All of this sends him off in a vindictive rage. I think that’s also a good defense that might keep him from doing jail time.
Interesting conjectures. It is noteworthy that it looks like Gleick was the primary author of the NAS letter. This suggests even more ego involvement and a greater sense of rejection.
@Nerd … “Hope he seeks some help because there is truly something wrong with him.”
Unfortunately there’s no way he could get counseling that would ‘deprogram’ him from his particular religious cult. 100% of credentialed psychologists and psychiatrists would consider him to be a hero and paragon of sanity, because their minds are rigidly locked within the same paradigm.
There may be some uncredentialed counselors in Evangelical or Muslim circles who could see the problem and pull him toward reality, but there’s no way Gleick would ever contact them. He “prefers the company” of fellow credentialed apocalyptic nutters.
Gleick: “… climate scientists (of which I am one, and James Taylor is not) ”
That’s odd, ever since he’s been disgraced he’s been a “water scientist”.
Wouldn’t do to refer to a disgraced climatologist would it?
I think he’s quite right about the parallel universe where up is down, left is right, bit though. He could probably add : where good is bad and right is wrong.
It’s probably some fancy Einsteinian relativity thing. Different frames of reference and all that. It seems Peter does not know which side of the looking glass he’s on.
It’s a well know corollary of special relativity that when you’ve got your head up your own arse the world seems upside down and the clocks go backwards.
In the UK there is some jurisprudence (tagging Kingsnorth power station’s chimney stack) that excuses criminal activity if you hold your environment beliefs like a religion. Though I doubt US courts would be that amenable.
I think his best defence at this stage would be temporary insanity.
All the best Peter, see you on the dark side of the moon 😉
My theory, until now, was that this was a Dan Rather episode. That is, that Heartland had caught on to Gleick phishing and fed him the fake memo to blow the whole thing up.
That was based on the assumption that Gleick could not have been stupid enough to do this himself. Now I’m not so sure that he wasn’t that stupid, if that is the right word. Looks like he may have just become temporarily superstupid due to his emotional attachment and dedication to the cause. In other words, a zealot who finally ‘lost it.’
Another excellent coverage of global warming alarmism by Anthony Watts. Kudos to you.
The Gleick affair is simply another reason and proof of why ideology has no place in climate science, or Science in general. The facts of the matter are that the Earth can never become a greenhouse, according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics. That means never.
Still, those who continue to push AGW ideology worldwide do not forecast climate and weather in the real world. They ignore the astronomical facts of the matter and treat the Sun as if it has no place regulating the Earth’s climate. It is the Sun that is the cause of all ‘climate change’ on Earth, which I remind AGW alarmists, is always changing. The Earth has a highly variable climate, which means that our climate and weather changes rapidly. It has always been this way since the origin of the Earth.
For many years I have stated that it is the Sun that is the cause of global warming and global cooling because it is a fact. Yet, we have witnessed over the past two decades especially; cliques of careerist ideologues ruin climate science with the fallacy of anthropogenic global warming. These careerists cannot and do not forecast the weather; much less the climate; yet they continue to waste many millions trying to force the AGW square through a round hole.
By his own admission, Gleick chooses to ignore every one of the scientific points raised by Taylor in his article: “I will ignore the completely scientific nonsense that comprises the rest of his post,” This alone highlights the magnitude of his hubris. He must actually believe that the reader will nod in agreement when he, Gleick, dismisses – without a single counter argument – the more than 2 pages of detailed scientific citations as “scientific nonsense”.
But this is so completely typical of many of those who carry the torch for the CAGW movement. There is a phobia of getting involved in any arguments on the scientific data. They can only achieve this by launching into ad hominem diatribes, loaded with nothing more than cutting sarcasm and utter disdain for their interlocutors scientific arguments, and, in this case, raising straw men. Gleick himself had become so completely obsessed with the issue of Heartland’s funding, that in his mind, it was no longer a straw man. He would have seen this as a point so substantitive, that he must have believed that the mere uncovering of this information would wipe out the entire worth of the Heartland skeptical arguments.
It is further clear, that this is a material fact, one that aggravates the seriousness of his original crime, since it shows premeditation and malice of forethought. No punishment can be too servere for such perfidy.
If only his mom had pulled him out of the sand-box and called a time-out. None of this would have happened.
And a week later journalists still can’t get it right.
http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/1136340–climate-change-scientist-fights-back-against-deniers
Twitter makes people sound like idiots.
Hey, that would be a great tweet.
Phishing is not a crime…unless you do something with it….then it’s a felony
Gelick admitted to phishing…and doing something with it
Does anyone know if he can be charged for each email?
I had been meaning to comment here upon this or make a blog post. I believe that it is this specific exchange of pieces and follow up messages that set Gleick off. He displays, in my opinion, some classic behaviour of narcissistic personality disorder, something I have seen in others I have had dealings with in high-profile positions. I simply don’t think that his ego could accept the perceived affront and assault from James Taylor and as a result Gleick formulated his plan as an act of retribution against Taylor and the Heartland institute.
I think it is very pertinent to the evidence and I hope that it’s been discussed at HI with the appropriate investigating authorities.
What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick………….
Stupidity should not be ruled out!