The Gleick Tragedy

The original Gleick Confesses thread was getting unwieldy with almost 1000 comments, so this one will serve in its place and will continue to be updated.

New content on other topics will appear below. Satirical logo by our own charles the moderator.

UPDATE95: 10:45 AM 3/9 Peter Gleick gave the keynote address to a recent water conference. Yesterday, KQED Radio aired a snippet of his talk, the part in which he denigrates “deniers”. http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/

UPDATE94: 8:50AM 3/7 Questions in the house about Gleick’s EPA grants, will his ethics violation mean he won’t be able to get EPA grants again?

UPDATE93: 9:25PM 3/6 Financial Post: ‘Fakegate’ latest climate clashDocument from skeptical think-tank turns out to have been forged

UPDATE92: 7:30PM 3/6 NYT’s Andy Revkin speaks of the fake memo issue, but basically tells people asking why he’s silent on the issue to go suck eggs (my interpretation). Harold Ambler has the details here.

UPDATE91: 7:45AM 3/6 The Sound of Silence  Harold Ambler asks:

I have asked him, twice now, if he bothered to ask Peter Gleick if he was the author of an internationally significant document that someone fraudulently produced two weeks ago.

And Revkin has gone silent.

UPDATE90: 7:30AM 3/6 Fakegate/Gleickgate – Global Warming’s Piltdown Man 

UPDATE89: 11AM 3/5 WaPo weighs in with In climate wars, radicalization of researchers brings risks – The Washington Post

UPDATE88: 11:30AM 3/4 At The Reference Frame: Selling your soul for a narrative: understanding the Gleick fraud

UPDATE87: 10:30AM 3/4 The Toronto Sun reports: Climate expert’s pants on fire. Loved this part:

Gleick’s other big “find”, according to Heartland’s critics, was a plan to infiltrate public schools with educational programs promoting climate denial.

But for heaven’s sake, if Al Gore and his minions are going to be welcomed into schools to scare the bejeebers out of children on climate change, what’s the big deal about Heartland sending in a few troops to say Gore’s full of hooey?

UPDATE86: 2PM 3/3 The Orange County Register has a strong opinion piece by Steven Greenhut who says: What’s a little fraud to save the Earth?If the theory of man-made global warming were such a self-obvious truth, the result of scientific consensus, then why do its advocates keep committing fraud to advance it?

UPDATE85: 10:37AM 3/3 The Chicago Tribune weighs in on Fakegate with Climate madness -Skulduggery undermines the case for global warming I missed this when it first came out, but still relevant today.

UPDATE84: 10:13AM 3/3 More Fakegate Fallout in the form of gotcha jounalism: Fake moral outrage translated to smear: media upset that students can choose to take an elective course on climate change at Carleton

UPDATE83: 10:00AM 3/2 In Heartland, Gleick, and Media Law, the Columbia Journalism review takes on Fakgate saying: “Gleick leaked information to the press, which puts him in league with figures like Daniel Ellsberg, the source of the Pentagon Papers, and Bradley Manning, the source of the Wikileaks cables, rather than with the muckraking journalists of yore.“.

UPDATE82: 9:45AM 3/2  Things About Peter Gleick That “Might Also Interest or Intrigue You”

UPDATE81: 8:00AM 3/2 Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming – Forbes.  The stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement.

UPDATE80: 7:60AM 3/2 From Master Resource – An appreciation for the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast Meanwhile, if you want to show appreciation while poking some fun, Heartland now offers Fakegate Gear 

UPDATE79: 12PM 3/1 In Politico’s Morning Energy, NCARS’s Kevin Trenberth excuses Gleick’s criminal behavior as “advocacy”, here’s what they say along with quote by Kevin Trenberth:

I’VE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE — Peter Gleick’s career isn’t over despite the big scar linked to his duping the Heartland Institute, says Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth told ME on Friday. “He’s had a strong science background, especially related to water. I don’t see this as the end of the road for Peter by any means.”

As Donna Laframboise says, what will it take? Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Lying and stealing and misleading are OK so long as they help advance a good cause. What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?

UPDATE78: 11AM 3/1 A new documentary about water by the makers of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ features none other than Peter Gleick. h/t to the Daily Bayonet Weekly Roundup.

UPDATE77: 6:50PM SciBlogs resident crank Greg Laden has a wild conspiracy theory according to Mr. Worthing who writes: Meanwhile, on another planet…Greg Laden suffers from a shortage of oxygen to the brain… (worth a read, wow, just wow – A)

UPDATE76: 12:20PM 2/29 In a letter, Koch takes the NYT and Revkin to task

UPDATE75: 10:20AM 2/29 Heartland sends a letter to all board members of the Pacific Institute.

UPDATE74: 820AM 2/29 In more dysfunctional editorializing from the LA times, trying to prop up Michael Mann and push his book, we have this passage: “Peter Gleick, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else…” Playbook? OK geniuses, name ONE INCIDENT where a skeptic posed as somebody else to steal documents and commit wire fraud.

UPDATE73: 8:10AM 2/29 In a fit of angst titled Subterfuge vs. propaganda in global warming debate, LA Times writer Michael Hiltzik tries to equate CRU “Team” scientists illegally avoiding FOI requests and getting off on a FOIA statute of limitations technicality to hypocrisy on the part of Heartland for having a criminal wire fraud act made against them. The logic dysfunction by this reporter is stunning.

UPDATE72: 7:55AM 2/29 EENews Climatewire has a timeline narrative of the affair in A scientist’s fraudulent peek into Heartland’s files began with a modest request.

UPDATE 71: 3:27PM 2/28 In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.

UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.

UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.

UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online

UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate

UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.

UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).

UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.

UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.

UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million

UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.

UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.

UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition).  My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.

UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.

UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.

Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review

UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?

UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here

UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails

UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.

Oh, the ironing.

UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.

UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.

UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:

EPA, do you know where your grants are?

Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.

The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.

UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.

UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.

UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.

UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.

UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home

UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.

UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?

UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.

UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.

UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.

UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.

UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers

UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.

UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.

UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html

UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.

UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:

On September 4 2011 I posted

Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California,  involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue.  Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.

UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.

UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate

UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm

UPDATE25: 8:18PM 2/21 Willis Eschenbach writes An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen asking et tu AGU?

UPDATE24: 8:10 PM 2/21 Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute gives a video interview with the Wall Street Journal. He accuses Gleick directly, saying:

Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”

UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.

UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment”  Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.

UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21  Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner

UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. 

UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes

UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus  a supporting editorial.  Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?

UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.

Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign

Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.

UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):

Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose

Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis.  He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.

UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here

UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.

On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here

UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.

UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.

UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents

For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.

UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:

Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.

Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.

UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:

No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.

UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:

Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html

Integrity of Science

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here

UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here

UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony

UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/heartland-institute-appreciation/

http://www.lesjones.com/2012/03/02/an-analogy-of-what-peter-gleick-did-in-fakegate/

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme UV flash:

This eruption hurled a bright CME into space. First-look data from STEREO-B are not sufficient to determine if the cloud is heading for Earth. Our best guess is “probably, yes, but not directly toward Earth.” A glancing blow to our planet’s magnetosphere is possible on March 8th or 9th.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

242 Responses to The Gleick Tragedy

  1. What a fantastic effort Anthony and Charles. Thank you.

  2. sky says:

    To anyone aware of classic genres, the Gleick affair is not tragedy, but farce.

  3. Richard Sharpe says:

    Said this before, but someone needs to create a genuine Evil Anti-Climate institute board meeting template so that those AGW fanatics won’t get embarrassed again.

  4. I just remember a fragmentary line from a childhood favourite of mine, music with the sung lines, when the baddie is finally brought to justice:

    “Hooray the bad old glockenspiel is dead! Boom-diddly-ai-dee boom diddly-ai-dee boom diddly-ai-dee boom”… or some such words. Anyone remember?

    Of course, now it’s the “bad old gleickenspiel”.

  5. Andrew says:

    Lets hope the FBI hands this off to the local Federal Prosecutor… http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/aboutus/patrickjfitzgerald.html

    It could be a Merry Fitzmas every day of the year…for the next few years, perhaps.

  6. John Whitman says:

    The authorities should be all over the email Gleick alleges to have anonymously sent to 15 people on or about Feb 14 which he also alleges contained only HI sourced docs. Let me explain why.

    To me Gleick appears to be an extremely active and zealously enthusiastic member of the small group of ‘cause’ activists who are well known from CG1/CG2 and well know from other advocating activities for anti-skeptic PR campaigns. He appears to me by nature to be intrinsically a group player in the ’cause’ over an extended period of time (since AR4).

    Gleick alleges to have sent an anonymous email (?on Feb 14, at 9:13 a.m. Pacific?) to ‘15’ ‘friends’ that were ‘ journalists and experts working on climate issues’. The alleged ‘15’ have not been identified. That email, Gleick also alleges, contained what he said at that time were all docs from HI. Gleick, contrary to his past active close collaborative behavior for ‘cause’ advocacy, subtly and without actually saying so in his confession on Feb 20 leaves the reader feeling that he was the sole perpetrator of the fraud. Read his confession. That is a subtle piece of lawyer handiwork. He does not say he was alone in the perpetration.

    My impression of ‘cause’ behavior, based on my observations of public dialog during several years before the start of the Gleick affair in early Jan 2012, is of an extraordinarily tight nexus centered on the small group of activist ‘cause’ centric climate scientists; see, among other things, the CG1/CG2 docs. That was all before the beginning of Jan 2012.

    NOTE: I leave aside for the time being another interesting emphasis which is whether PI staff and clerical members could have known of Gleick’s perpetration while it was in progress.

    John

  7. Mike says:

    I understand how this story about Gleick is important. He was/is unethical. But 71 posts on the same subject seems like riot mentality or similar to who police have been caught on tape kicking and beating some cockaroach gang member until he is bloodied.

    There are OTHER issues with the global warming debate which are not appearing in this blog as of late because everyone is going after Gleick with vengence.

    Please, let’s get back to the science. I have been a skeptic for years and have followed Anthony’s blog for years, including “Climategate”. But really…this is getting too much for me.

  8. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent. Telegraph.
    16 Jan 2012

    “Michael Mann vows to keep up the “street fight” against climate change deniers”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8282028/Michael-Mann-vows-to-keep-up-the-street-fight-against-climate-change-deniers.html

    Even though the climate change debate is calmer today, with even Republican candidates in the US taking the issue seriously, Professor Mann insisted scientists have to keep up the pressure to prove man made climate change is a threat that needs to be tackled.

    “Scientists have to recognise they are in a street fight,” he warned.
    —-
    By Bryan Walsh . Time Science.
    Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012

    Mann realizes that as long as he keeps conducting climate research, he’ll be a target for tough personal attacks. “I fully recognize that this is going to continue for the rest of my life,” he says. “And probably beyond.” He’s all right with that now, even though he knows that his side will always be fighting the climate war at least partially — and voluntarily — disarmed. “We can’t maintain the moral high ground if we adopt street fighting tactics ourselves,” says Mann. “We feel that we can and will win an honest debate.” As much as Mann wants to be a climate warrior, that’s really the only way he knows how to fight.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107747,00.html?xid=tweetbut

    Silly bugger, in January he wanted to get into a street fight. Well, we all know how that went. Six weeks later, he wants it to stop.

    Please, Please Anthony, can we have another post about Michael Mann, the last one was hilarious, the next one will be even better.

  9. MattN says:

    “Appearance of hypocrisy”? Seriously, Andrew? “Appearance”?!?

  10. Chuck L says:

    “Tragedy” implies some kind of nobility or innocence. Gleick’s actions contain neither.

  11. dr.bill says:

    re Mike, February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm :

    No, Mike, this isn’t going away anytime soon, and for good reason.

    People like Gleik have been subverting actual science and the minds of young people for much too long. I’m a teacher (a Physics professor), and I have seen the results of this among the students in my classes. When they arrive from high school, they have been brainwashed to oblivion, mostly by people who don’t have a clue about Thermodynamics or Atmospheric Physics, or anything else that impinges on the topic of “climate”. The people who have subverted them might have done so in all innocence, but that’s because they too have been brainwashed by people like Gore, Hansen, Suzuki, Gleick, and all the rest…

    You say “Please, let’s get back to the science.” I’ve been trying to do that for years, but before we can do that, we need to expose these fraudsters for what they are, and then, perhaps, we can get back to the science. If they are allowed to continue, or to be let off with a bit of mild wrist-slapping, it will just continue like the destructive game of whack-a-mole that they’ve been playing all along.

    /dr.bill

  12. Ben D. says:

    Mike says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    “I understand how this story about Gleick is important. He was/is unethical. But 71 posts on the same subject seems like riot mentality or similar to who police have been caught on tape kicking and beating some cockaroach gang member until he is bloodied.

    There are OTHER issues with the global warming debate which are not appearing in this blog as of late because everyone is going after Gleick with vengence.

    Please, let’s get back to the science. I have been a skeptic for years and have followed Anthony’s blog for years, including “Climategate”. But really…this is getting too much for me.”.

    Can you clarify, are you suggesting that there have been 71 WUWT posts on Gleick?.

  13. Elmer says:

    Richard Sharpe says:

    “someone needs to create a genuine Evil Anti-Climate institute board meeting template so that those AGW fanatics won’t get embarrassed again.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    That would be Anti-Climactic

  14. rk says:

    I think Steve M’s take is sound

    “Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor of John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”

    That pretty much sums up where this is going. Heartland is in Chicago (hint: Rahm Emanuel), Gleick is in CA (hint: Jerry Brown)…and well, you know the rest

  15. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    Mike says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Please, let’s get back to the science. I have been a skeptic for years and have followed Anthony’s blog for years, including “Climategate”. But really…this is getting too much for me.
    ——-
    I can understand your feeling Mike. I’ve only been looking at this climate science fiasco for a short while now and I have a lot of science to learn.

    However, I think I’m astute enough to know that we a close to a endgame here. WUWT and others have swamped the ‘consensus’ with science. But, because they refuse to debate or consider the proper scientific process, sceptics have had to strategise differently to what has been happening in the last few years.

    I can only say I’m having a great time, it is just as enthralling as a Gladiatorial battle at the Coliseum.

  16. wte9 says:

    Anthony,

    I don’t see this anecdote highlighted anywhere on this blog, but I think it should be. It’s a good reminder there are sane people on both sides of the debate. Over at All Models Are Wrong near the end of January there was a pretty intense debate over ethics, you may have read it (http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/). Mr. Gleick, who we now know was engaging in a little climatic espionage, was pushing some rather shady tactics. Some of his fellow scientists, to their credit, told him to sod off in so many words, including this rather prescient quote: “@nmrqip: @richardabetts Yep. Lying ‘to avoid being misunderstood’ never ends well @PeterGleick @flimsin”. Talk about foreshadowing. Doesn’t that just about sum up this entire fiasco?

  17. Rogelio says:

    I say time to lay off Gleick, we’ve had our fun he may actually have a wife and kids

    Reply:
    Anthony and I had an email discussion about this before adopting my graphic. Here is a slightly edited version of what I said: The sanctimonious bastard’s “confession” was &&%%() legal damage control, completely lacking any contrition. %$&#% him. He has crossed the line and still is trying to make it work for him. Behind the scenes he is orchestrating his defenders to attempt to salvage a win. No mercy or forgiveness is appropriate until he admits everything he did and stops trying to make a “win” out of it. ~ ctm

  18. Tim Jenvey says:

    May be some “management” going on at the BBC Richard Black blog. I would be classified as a ‘denier’ on previous posts. I get a message now that tells me I need to update my profile.When I click the link I get blown off and it tells me comments are not being accepted at this time.

    And strangely the votes are very high for the AGW proponents whereas ‘deniers’ are usually well in majority

    Just thought to mention in case others find the same problem.

  19. GeologyJim says:

    WUWT – Hats off, guys! Despite all the heavy rhetoric in this thread, I have to applaud you for managing two elegant puns in one headline, one literal, one visual

    Gleick tragedy = Greek tragedy

    G [loser hand gesture]-eick tragedy = GLEE the US TV sing-a-drama program

    That’s why you’re Number One again – Content + Humor = Success!

    Ausgezeichnet!

  20. bubbagyro says:

    wte9 says:
    February 28, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    “Mr. Gleick, who we now know was engaging in a little climatic espionage, was pushing some rather shady tactics.

    To be precise, he was engaging in criminal activity on several levels, and Gleick should be prosecuted with the same energy as was Bernie Madoff. This AGW scam is orders of magnitude more egregious, morally and economically, than was the Madoff scheme.

  21. Toto says:

    The Gleick Affair (Team Rules) is not unprecedented.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

  22. Neo says:

    What is quite clear is that all the employees of NASA GISS need to take ethics training.
    Most private sector employees in publicly traded companies are required to take ethics training at least every two years.

  23. Warmist Cargo Cult Scientists says:

    It ain’t the way we wanted it! We can handle things! We’re smart! Not like everybody says… like dumb… we’re smart and we want respect!

  24. Andrew says:

    @MattN

    MattN says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:58 pm
    “Appearance of hypocrisy”? Seriously, Andrew? “Appearance”?!?

    Huh? Was that to me?

    If so, hypocrisy?

  25. diablo says:

    Two thoughts on Aristotelian tragedy from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy). I think both apply to some extent in this case. From what I can tell, Gleick was a gifted scholar and valuable scientist before the CAGW nuts got to him, so the “seriousness and dignity” part could apply to his pre-CAGW days…

    1. “The philosopher Aristotle said in his work Poetics that tragedy is characterized by seriousness and dignity and involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune (Peripeteia).”

    2. “Tragedy results in a catharsis (emotional cleansing) or healing for the audience through their experience of these emotions [pity and fear] in response to the suffering of the characters in the drama.”

  26. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    “Please, let’s get back to the science. I have been a skeptic for years and have followed Anthony’s blog for years, including “Climategate”. But really…this is getting too much for me.”

    Mike, you don’t have to read the Gleick threads, there have been plenty of others over the past days, but you seem to have missed them. But of course you didn’t miss them.

    So why is it that you don’t like other people analyzing the organized fanaticism of the raving lunatic CO2AGW scientists, Mike?

  27. DaveG says:

    This is a masterful compilation.
    I was into my 100 or so saved articles on Gleck and fakegate, dutifully cut and pasted into a huge Word document, this timeline and anthology now sits at the top of the page like a shiny crown.
    What we have here is a quick and painless reference library of a sordid group of CAGW pond scum scammers, adoring followers, promoters and press.
    A littoral Agatha Christie novel of real life losers and easily caught idiots. On second thought Agatha wouldn’t have touch it with a 10 ft pole, what a pathetic group!

    Well done Anthony and the brilliant crew that have taken the lid off the warmist septic tank and exposed the filth within!

  28. Trash Mouth says:

    Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me
    I ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed
    They made me look sorta dumb with their fingers
    And their thumbs in the shape of an “L” on their foreheads

    Well deniers start coming, and they don’t stop coming
    Fed up with rules and I hit Heartland running
    Didn’t make sense not to smack them some
    My brain’s so smart but my head’s so dumb

    So little for you, so much for me
    So what’s wrong with taking the baksheesh?
    You’ll never know what I did there
    I’ll always whine ’cause it’s not fair

    Hey now, I’m an all star got my fame on, okay?
    Hey now, don’t you squawk loud, leave me ‘lone now, go ‘way
    All climate “science” has gone cold
    Only an ethics’ star can break the mold

  29. DirkH says:

    Markus Fitzhenry says:
    February 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    “Mike says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Please, let’s get back to the science. I have been a skeptic for years and have followed Anthony’s blog for years, including “Climategate”. But really…this is getting too much for me.
    ——-
    I can understand your feeling Mike. I’ve only been looking at this climate science fiasco for a short while now and I have a lot of science to learn.”

    Markus, in that case the phenomenon of the “concern troll” might be new to you. These are warmists appearing here, telling Anthony to not talk about any political implications, and they always add that they are devoted fans of WUWT and been reading it for years. They always emphasize how much they would be interested in more science postings, and how much they are disappointed by the current post.

    Mike is a classic example. Point me to one genuine non-concern-trollish comment of him.

  30. DirkH says:

    Ben Shapiro at Breitbart about the NYT and its coverage of the Gleick affair.
    http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2012/02/28/new-york-times-uses-false-data-to-smear-koch-brothers/

  31. Jeremy says:

    For those seeking to investigate Peter Gleick further, Amazon.com is a gold mine for Peters closest connections!!!

    William K. Reilly has a foreward in Peter’s latest book:

    So who is William K Reilly? Chairman of the Board of WWF that is who!!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Reilly

    Reilly is a director of DuPont, ConocoPhillips, Royal Caribbean International, the National Geographic Society, and the Packard Foundation. He also serves as chairman of the board of the World Wildlife Fund, co-chair of the Energy Project formed by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and chair of the Advisory Board for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. He has also been the Payne visiting professor at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.

    William K. Reilly is Founding Partner of Aqua International Partners, a private equity fund dedicated to investing in companies engaged in water and renewable energy. He is a former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993), and president of the World Wildlife Fund (1985-1989). He was head of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio in 1992.

    Oh how the chickens may have come home to roost!!!!

  32. Markus Fitzhenry. says:

    DirkH says:
    February 28, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Thanks for the heads up, DirkH.

  33. Brian H says:

    John Whitman says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    NOTE: I leave aside for the time being another interesting emphasis which is whether PI staff and clerical members could have known of Gleick’s perpetration while it was in progress.

    I’m not altogether sure such exist. I suspect that PI = Gleick = PI. A poster noted its official address is some small unrelated shopfront (using Google Maps to inspect it), without even a plausible second floor for an office. IOW, a mail drop.

    It appears to be a Tides Foundation sock puppet, in reality.

  34. Brian H says:

    Jeremy says:
    February 28, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    For those seeking to investigate Peter Gleick further, Amazon.com is a gold mine for Peters closest connections!!!

    William K. Reilly has a foreward in Peter’s latest book:

    A foreword, even?
    Heh.
    All these groups are thick as thieves, since that’s what they are. Money and connections form a tangled web of historic proportions.

  35. Brian H says:

    DaveG says:
    February 28, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    A littoral literal Agatha Christie novel of real life losers and easily caught idiots. On second thought Agatha wouldn’t have touch it with a 10 ft pole, what a pathetic group!

    Don’t think Aggie wrote much about coastlines! ;)

    But the “pathetic group” has a death-grip on huge funding flows, and will not let go of them until they are pried from their dead, cold, hands. Many, if not most, have staked their entire careers on the ultimate victory of the CAGW Narrative™. Without it, they are lost, busted. Don’t underestimate the fight they will put up!!

  36. pat says:

    When the cold wind blows it will turn your head around.
    James Taylor

  37. Alex Heyworth says:

    All this talk about Greek (Gleick) Tragedy reminds me that in Greek Tragedies, Hubris is traditionally followed by Nemesis “In the Greek tragedies Nemesis appears chiefly as the avenger of crime and the punisher of hubris” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(mythology)].

  38. dp says:

    I’m not a concern troll but I would like to be able to tell if I’m reading Romm’s blog or WUWT without looking at the banner. Lately the two sites have little distinguishing differences. I was actually concerned with all the trash talk as the Bloggies were winding down but WUWT fared well.

    I quit reading Stephen Goddard’s site because of the anger and I can drop this site for a while until this blows over. It turns out most recent posts are from other sites anyway, and the comments are not worth mousing through. Including this one. JMO

  39. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Oh but bp, it’s all so delicious! Just look at what Jeromny, seven or so inputs above yours, has found about. Look at the connections to Big Oil! Look at the connections to Big NGO! Incestuous!

  40. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    heh: found about = found out

  41. Roger Knights says:

    “someone needs to create a genuine Evil Anti-Climate institute board meeting template so that those AGW fanatics won’t get embarrassed again.”

    See my “Notes from Skull Island,” here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039

  42. Roger Knights says:

    pat says:
    February 28, 2012 at 10:26 pm
    When the cold wind blows it will turn your head around.
    James Taylor

    The warm is turning.

  43. Scottish Sceptic says:

    I hope that no one has forgotten to send a copy of this to the FBI, together with original documentation and/or references to source material so that it is ready to go to court.

  44. orkneylad says:

    Interesting new climate blog just spotted:
    http://allmodelsarewrong.com/

    The title of the blog is from a quote by the statistician George E. P. Box which is a mantra of modellers everywhere:

    “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

    The blog is the creation of a climate modeller at the University of Bristol.

    Interestingly, it runs an ‘illuminating’ dialogue with one Peter Gleick, prior to his Seppuku moment, and Prof Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre chips in:

    Gleick: Not all models are wrong
    Betts: Which model is right? Please can I have it?

    No new post since the Gleick affair, but it may be worth keeping an eye on.

  45. Scottish Sceptic says:

    Mike says: February 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    There are OTHER issues with the global warming debate which are not appearing in this blog as of late because everyone is going after Gleick with vengence.

    Mike, this is not vengeance. What I think is happening is that sceptics for the most part like things to be done according to the rules. Gleick has clearly broken the rules, and there is frustration and/or anticipation that our view that the rules should be enforced is going to prevail.

    I think you could compare this to the trial of Charles I in England. His view was that he was ordained by god to be king. As such he believed he was above the law. Likewise, the climate scientists have been of the view that they are above the law … both of man and of science (and of morality/god).

    We have already seen that scientists who were clearly breaking the law of FOI in Climategate were not subject to the law. If Gleick gets away with it, then effectively the FBI/courts are saying that they have no jurisdiction over climate science.

    This will be a very profound judgement. Are scientists subject to the law?

    And remember, this profoundly affects are criminal system which daily uses scientific experts. Is it permissible for these people to lie and cheat for the “greater good”? To what extent is reversing the null hypothesis acceptable: “they must have raped someone, unless or until there is evidence to the contrary”. To what extent can an expert witness rely on scientific consensus, when there is little or no evidence to back up that consensus?

    So, if Gleick’s actions potentially undermine all science and therefore the court experts that underpin so many convictions. Why will the judicial system willingly bring this case to court and potentially undermine it’s own authority?

  46. ThePhysicsGuy says:

    The new “satirical logo” has the wrong finger pointing up.
    Just sayin’…………. ;-)

  47. John Whitman says:

    Gleick is not a lone wolf type activist climate scientist, he is a clingy social associate of the nexus of activist scientists centric to the CAGW biased IPCC. I think that it is not credible that he, as a lone actor, both conceived and perpetrated the fraud on the HI.

    At the least, given his nature, I see him as getting guidance before, during and after.

    John

  48. Bloke down the pub says:

    It’s just as well Gleick broke US law and didn’t pull his scam in the UK. Here the data protection act would be used to prosecute Heartland for being so lax on who they sent confidential information to. It’s a strange world we live in.

  49. MattN says:

    “Huh? Was that to me?”

    No sir. Andrew Lacis, as referenced in Steve’s entry (update 71).

  50. Old England says:

    It strikes me that Gleick’s insititute has been a significant beneficiary of government funding and Gleik is/was employed and paid by that organisation out of those funds.

    His admitted fraud was intended or designed, so far as I can see, to prop up the alarmist cause at a time when it is in some difficulty – and difficulty which could see a very significant reduction in govermental funding in time to come as the ’cause’ unravels further.

    If part of his intention or motive was to encourage or prolong governmental funding for his institution and thus his own employment then it seems to me that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he had a direct personal and financial motive.

    Maybe due legal process will get to the bottom of it.

  51. Rick K says:

    Charles, GREAT logo! I am all for keeping the pressure on Gleick and his cohorts. For those worried about the science… it’s still there. Anthony hasn’t lost sight of that. The best defense is a good offense. Keep it up!

  52. John West says:

    From RC:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/

    Peter Gleick says:
    7 Jul 2011 at 9:44 AM
    Thank you for pointing out that the source of the funding, while of interest and relevant for understanding possible conflicts of interest, is far less critical than the quality of the science itself. Good research can, and is, done with funding from dubious sources. But bad research is bad research, no matter WHO funds it.

    So why did he become so obsessed with Heartland’s funding?

    Why didn’t he just expose the more critical quality (or lack thereof) of the science Heartland publishes?

    I suggest there’s nothing substantially wrong with “Heartland’s science”, therefore in frustration he resorted to attacking the source for “far less critical” attributes. The same frustration level Mann must have felt trying to get the MWP and LIA out of his hockey stick handle and keeping the tree ring is a thermometer meme alive.

    Hide the decline!

    Fabricate the anti-science conspiracy!

  53. Nerd says:

    Take a look at this – http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/02/mann-on-heartlands-education-plan-so-amoral-it%E2%80%99s-almost-hard-to-put-into-words/

    Mann on Heartland’s education plan: “So amoral it’s almost hard to put into words.”

    ====

    Oh boy…

  54. Smokey says:

    Nerd,

    I posted a polite comment, but it was never allowed out of moderation. Perhaps others might have better luck. Contradicting Michael Mann is easy, it’s a target rich environment.

  55. Russ R says:

    Out of curiosity, can anyone confirm the correct pronounciation of “Gleick”? Does it rhyme with “leek”, “like”, “lake” or “leck”?

  56. wws says:

    Trashmouth, those lyrics were the first thing I thought of when I saw that graphic! LOL!

    great work on the graphic AND the posts! And CTM, you and Anthorny are EXACTLY right – Gleick has NEVER confessed and is still trying to salvage a win. Likewise, warmist blogs are STILL proclaiming the essential truth of the fake memo, which someone has named “the Protocols of the Elders of Heartland.” Until they are forced to admit the fraud behind ALL of their charges, the war goes on!!!

  57. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Russ R said February 29, 2012 at 6:41 am:

    Out of curiosity, can anyone confirm the correct pronounciation of “Gleick”? Does it rhyme with “leek”, “like”, “lake” or “leck”?

    I wasn’t sure myself, then found this provided a valuable clue. Recommended.

  58. Nerd says:

    Smokey,

    Did you check again? Someone called Mann a p*ssy… Maybe yours got through?

  59. HenryP says:

    I think the play is called
    A Greek Tragedy
    so perhaps the title must be
    A Gleick Tragedy

  60. RockyRoad says:

    53 comments and STILL nothing from Connolley, Gates, physicist, Exp, and others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd. Not surprising–they’ve been severely disappointed by one of their “standard bearers” so they’re avoiding this telling episode at all costs; they have nothing to defend.

    But projecting this little affair to the bigger issue–that of fudging, impugning, infilling, projecting, hiding, threatening, lawbreaking, and a dozen other highly questionable and unethical practices commonly used by those in the AGWCF–they are now finding their positions highly indefensible also. Maybe the world’s highly critical reaction to Gleick’s antics will make them reconsider their own.

    Meanwhile, Mann says he’s out in the streets “fighting”. But what a joke. Most of the others are hiding while some of their disciples are posting strange tributes on other sites attempting to shore up Gleick’s “honorable” reputation and a severely damaged cause. But such tributes are really eulogies for a Gleick that no longer exists and is professionally and ethically dead and burried.

    This could actually be the turning point in the big war on AGWCF, for many people don’t really understand the science or the UN’s intentions, and many people get their “news” from the “drive-by” media so they’re unable to formulate an informed opinion. But what they can easily understand is that Gleick is a criminal, one of the top leaders in AGWCF, and a veritable “expert” in ethics, to boot!. It won’t matter about the science, the IPCC, or fanciful excuses from the media anymore.

    And it won’t matter how much “street fighting” Mann does. His biggest “weapon” has been shown to be as questionable as Gleick’s forged document. Mann has to be “mental” if he still doesn’t understand that.

  61. Mark Hladik says:

    DITTO: ThePhysicsGuy. Had you not mentioned the faux pas of the incorrect elevated digit, I was going to.

    O/T : Has anyone seen Joe Bastardi’s latest prediction on ENSO? I am trying to put together something for the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, and his (rather spot-on) forecasts of what is happening with ENSO would come in real handy right now.

    If, as the sidebar widget on WUWT indicates, we are in transition between la Nina and el Nino, we could expect significantly unsettled weather throughout the later Spring in my neck of the woods. It would be helpful to know.

    Thanks to all,

    Mark H.

  62. Jeremy,

    You may find this interesting how Reilly thinks with respect to CO2 as a pollutant, national energy policy, and cap and trade as a control measure. I was doing research at the EPA Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory when he was the politically appointed head of EPA. During that time, objective research was being replaced by subjective research to support the administrations policies.http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/risk/02.html.

  63. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From RockyRoad on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 am:
    Meanwhile, Mann says he’s out in the streets “fighting”.

    He’s on sabbatical leave, maybe he lost his parking space and has been fighting with the students for a spot near the campus.

  64. Jeff D. says:

    I have backed scanned all the messages and I have not been able to find anything referencing the ” Climate Lord on High Kevin T’s. ” take on the state of his buddy Peter. Did I miss it, or is he just being smart and not saying a dam thing? Maybe he just has his hand up Mann’s backside and using him as a puppet again for all the street fighting? Sorry for the visual but then again it would make for a nice cartoon by Josh :)

  65. reason says:

    The Gleick logo is RESPLENDENT.

  66. reason says:

    “Gleick has NEVER confessed and is still trying to salvage a win. Likewise, warmist blogs are STILL proclaiming the essential truth of the fake memo, which someone has named ‘the Protocols of the Elders of Heartland.’ ”

    As liberals / progressives have stated in the past… “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”

  67. JustaMom says:

    I suppose you’ve already seen: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/mann-climate.html

    “Peter Gleick, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else, he obtained internal documents from the Heartland Institute…..”

  68. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    reason said on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 am:
    The Gleick logo is RESPLENDENT.

    But is it a theft of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?

    While Googling I found this, see the graphic. Decide for yourself!

    (I’d go with the explanation of artists that it was “subconsciously inspired” and label it an “homage.”) ;-)

  69. Paul Westhaver says:

    I just saw a good term in a comment above by wte9.

    He refers to Gleick activity as espionage, “Climate Espionage”.

    I think the term is fitting and should come into common parlance.

  70. 1DandyTroll says:

    The biggest irony of this tragic comedy seem to be that for all that the crazed communist hippies with their self-proclaimed righteous cause are nought but a corporatist wannabes, PR hacks, and puny lobbyist, working for Big Funds, Big Greens, Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Nuclear,… Big Everything Monopolized Oligopol, that is.

    And their only so called grass roots supporters are the extremists and fundamentalists of socialists and environmentalists, that ever so love to hate the very same corporatists they root for.

    These extremists and fundamentlists are also the only ones that seem to support the new versions of the NGO complex, such as Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and WWF, called Big NGO–the industrilized edition–run by the very same BIg Corporatist Monopolized Oligopolists they so riot and rage against.

    Talk about being stuck on stupid. :-()

    I wonder what’ll happen when the real grass root hippies trully see that they’ve been had, used and abused seven days to sunday by the very Big NGOs they have given their time, energy, and money too. And when they understand that their lovely Big NGOs are nothing but coroporatists personal ponzi schemes to have the cake and eat it too–playing both sides of the field as it were. :p

  71. Typhoon says:

    Gleick: more of a farce than a tragedy.

  72. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Found a very balanced Chicago Tribune editorial. Dated 2/25, not sure if it was mentioned before.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-climate-20120225,0,3701177.story


    Gleick said his judgment was “blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate. …”

    Two points here. First: Yes, a rational public debate is desperately needed. But Gleick’s skulduggery in obtaining documents and leaking them to bloggers doesn’t advance that goal.

    Second: You get a rational debate when both sides are able to fully air their evidence and interpretations. Scientists shouldn’t — can’t — be in the business of trying to discredit opponents with sneaky Internet ruses, even if some of their opponents sometimes stoop to such dishonest tactics. Note that we’re not dropping any sly hints here about Heartland, which in this drama is the victim of chicanery.

    Gleick may have thought he could undercut Heartland and thereby advance the case for global warming. Instead, he fueled doubts about which side is right in this long-running debate.

    That’s a shame. Science relies on multiple layers of honesty. They include the honorably conducted gathering and analysis of facts, a perpetual quest for irrefutable evidence supporting conclusions — and trust that everyone is acting with integrity.

    When scientific truth becomes sufficiently compelling, it matters little what the critics or skeptics say. It doesn’t matter if everyone doesn’t believe. Doubters cannot make the Earth flat.

    Refreshing read. And great views on real science, especially this: “…a perpetual quest for irrefutable evidence supporting conclusions…” This science sure ain’t settled.

  73. Mike says:

    The “playbook” it seems includes quoting only part of a sentence and assuming the masses won’t check the original. The LA Times wrote: “Peter Gleick, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else, he obtained internal documents from the Heartland Institute and distributed them to journalists, a tactic little different from the hack attack at the University of East Anglia that has been decried by environmentalists.”

  74. Colin in BC says:

    Scottish Sceptic says:
    February 29, 2012 at 12:27 am

    I hope that no one has forgotten to send a copy of this to the FBI, together with original documentation and/or references to source material so that it is ready to go to court.

    I log in every day hoping there’s an update regarding law enforcement formally taking up this matter. To date I’ve been disappointed, and I worry that, in the end, Gleick will avoid criminal sanctions.

  75. reason says:

    kadaka – bah! “Fair use” is to copyright law as “commerce clause” is to the 10th Ammendment. =)

  76. DirkH says:

    Re LA Times: You should reconsider that medical Marijuana thing, Californians.

  77. DirkH says:

    Russ R says:
    February 29, 2012 at 6:41 am
    “Out of curiosity, can anyone confirm the correct pronounciation of “Gleick”? Does it rhyme with “leek”, “like”, “lake” or “leck”?”

    Looks like a name with Yiddish roots and would be spelled “Glike” in Germany.

  78. Ockham says:

    1DandyTroll says:
    February 29, 2012 at 8:39 am

    I wonder what’ll happen when the real grass root hippies trully see that they’ve been had, used and abused seven days to sunday by the very Big NGOs they have given their time, energy, and money too. And when they understand that their lovely Big NGOs are nothing but coroporatists personal ponzi schemes to have the cake and eat it too–playing both sides of the field as it were. :p

    That will never happen. It won’t because true belief requires them to shut off the possibility of alternate, valid realities. They need an antagonist. It is human nature to root for something, uncertainty is uncomfortable. Ultimately, they need a side to be on and Big NGO is the only side. That is why, through the ages, people have been so easily exploited by those they believe have their best interests in mind. I know … I used to be an environmentalist. I still share some of their sentiments, however, now with an open mind knowing that the corporate/environmental complex works both sides. Now, I walk carefully through the halls of academia, witnessing first hand how otherwise very intelligent people accept BS unquestionably. I learned quickly not to openly contest CAGW lest I be pummeled by raised eyebrows of incredulity and risk being labeled and marginalized. Anyway, environmentalism as I once knew it is extinct.

  79. Bruckner8 says:

    The fact that these warmist-journalists call this a “debate” means that it’s not science at all. They worry about “losing the debate.” This is nothing more than another faith-based religion.

    Don’t get me wrong: There is CONSTANT DEBATE among scientists when new ideas (ie, Hypotheses) are being formulated, as they confer with each other on whether the ideas even pass the smell test! Unfortunately, we’re kind of stuck in this mode right now, even when real science comes out to support (or deny) any hypothesis put forward. It’s at this point where the science has turned over to religion, since we’ve stopped the scientific process at the “debate point.” Where are the experiments? Where are the falsifiable tests? There really aren’t that many…each new idea is just another untested Hypothesis.

    The warmist side is saying “trust me,” whilst the denier side is trying to “enforce real science.” This is why i stay on the skeptic side.

  80. David L. says:

    Update 74: The LA times piece.

    Wholey crap, that piece was awful, obnoxious, packed full of lies, and worse.

  81. dp says:

    “OK geniuses, name ONE INCIDENT where a skeptic posed as somebody else to steal documents and commit wire fraud.”

    We can’t know yet, but it is entirely possible the Climategate letters were acquired by way of gleickswoggling – a form of social engineering used with great success by computer crackers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29

    Computer security is a big part of my job and I see daily very clever attempts to gain access with this method As Gleick has shown it is easy to do which is why it remains so popular. However – the LA Times is clearly out of line concluding this is a fact and even more stupid is the suggestion it is a normal practice of the skeptical community.

    Dear LA Times editor:
    Evidence or an apology, please.

  82. Bruce says:

    Is Gleick pronounced to rhyme with geek or prick?

  83. Bill Parsons says:

    borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else…” Playbook? OK geniuses, name ONE INCIDENT where a skeptic posed as somebody else to steal documents and commit wire fraud.it wire fraud.

    Vaat??! Does dis mean dat dey haff seeeen through vone of my many disguises???

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041038/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Moriarty

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Yoda

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Hari

    Curses! De jig iss upp!

  84. Alexander K says:

    Anthony and team, thanks for your incredible efforts! The La Times piece is not really unusual, just more in-yer-face than the usual incredibly silly MSM stuff. The comments following the article in the LA Times were mostly better examples of writing than the article itself and were generally condemnatory of it, which may be an indication that even in California good sense is not in short supply.
    Here in New Zealand, our major daily papers have not uttered a syllable about l’affaire Peter Gleick that I have been able to find, but minor celebrities of stage and screen are given massive and totally unearned credence in environmental matters. A Kiwi actress has been part of a greenpeas occupation and protest, which involved unfurling a banner and attaching it to the highest part of an oil exploration ship; this was featured in most of the nation’s press, but the fact that these idiots broke a raft of important environmental safety regulations designed to protect local wildlife before they were arrested, charged and trundled off by the local constabulary has not been mentioned.

  85. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re UPDATE73: 8:10AM 2/29 ….Anthony said: “The logic dysfunction by this reporter is stunning”

    Actually I have to say it goes far beyond just stunning dysfunction on the part of the reporter – ostensibly an editor would have had to have bought off on the story also, unless they’ve done away with editors for online pubs?? Bad enough that a journalist would come up with this stuff, but even more shocking when an editor, who is supposed to be in place to oversee and ensure that crazy stuff doesn’t get thru, buys off on it instead.

  86. JPeden says:

    Speaking of the strange “logic” of the current LAT editors and posing as someone else, the same Update 73 Michael Hiltzek of the LAT was busted for sock-puppeting on his own official LAT blog in a pretty big dustup with Patterico a while back and was apparently ‘demoted’ to his current status – resulting from a debate involving the city of Costa Mesa’s attempt to check the immigration status of the people it arrested. But Hiltzek had also directly lied about ~”what the Social Security Administrators say” in a Table he’d linked to in his argument – which apparently no on but me went to, because who in their right mind wants to look at some freaking SS tables – claiming the Table[s] and the SS Administrators said that illegal immigration would cure SS’s future financial woes. But if you went to the SSA’s Tables, the SS Administrators thankfully explained right above them that they were saying a direct opposite of what Hiltzek was claiming they were saying: the SS Administrators instead specifically said they weren’t saying anything at all about how the scenarios in their tables might affect SS’s future financial well-being. There was also almost no way the Tables could be interpreted as indicating much hope for SS.

    Hiltzek had also been advertised as a financial/business writer for the LAT!

    I posted Hiltzek’s non-sockpuppet “logic” at Patterico’s at the time and at Hiltzek’s LAT blog site after Hiltzek’s demotion, when Matt Welch took over temporarily during the removal of Hiltzek transition to respond to criticisms. But Hiltzek stayed at the LAT and Welch wisely left.

  87. Apologies if this is a duplicate comment – I think I posted it in the wrong thread a minute ago. Or it might have been this one!

    I notice that Shawn Otto has published a new post in the last few minutes in which he says he has done another textual analysis. This time he used only those words that Joe Bast acknowledges to be his own and still gets the result that it was written by Bast.

    Here is the link. He may also have a post up at the Huffington Post, but I have not yet seen it.

    I would have liked to have commented on his blog, but I can’t see where to register. My own take is that the hypothesis that Peter Gleick wrote the strategy memo himself is the only one that provides a simple and psychologically plausible explanation for the errors and style of the memo. (My own post for the blog Samizdata giving reasons for this belief is here: The Gleick Earworm.)

    To me the fact that Joe Bast actually facilitated people analysing his own prose suggests that he is confident of his own innocence. Nonetheless, Shawn Otto’s analysis is out there, and I would be interested to the reactions from both sides. I thought the JGAAP analysis was a fascinating idea though I couldn’t get the programme to save and eventually gave up on it.

  88. JPeden,

    I had forgotten about Hiltzik’s sock-puppetry. It was fairly trivial compared to Gleick’s impersonation, but a shared penchant for assuming a false identity goes some way to explain Hiltzik’s indulgent attitude to the breach of ethics.

    Here’s the link to a post from “Patterico’s Pontifications” in 2006 for anyone who is interested.

  89. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    I find the following apt in explaining the parisian predicament the climate change issue is in.
    ——————————————
    Who the hell is Gleick and why should I care? Of course it is a battle – it is one of the turning points of human history and we have been here before. The last time collectivism triumphed 500 million people died. This time the price would be much higher. There are enemies – and they know who they are – in a cultural and social war that we must win. To do that we have to know what is at stake and start to fight back in a coherent way. Not simply respond to every wild argument but consciously forge a battle plan.

    If we surrender freedom – we are at blame. If we allow socialism to triumph piecemeal – we are at blame. If we allow democracy and the rule of law to falter -we are condemned by our inaction and condemn the future to a world of pain.

    We are liberal in the true sense of the word. Sons and daughters of the scientific and cultural enlightenment. Defenders of free markets, science, democracy and the rule of law – the war is with the purveyors of junk science and junk culture. Science, engineering and free markets have provided us with limitless opportunities. The enemy constantly argues limits in a world that needs to overcome the limits that blights existence for many. They argue that if we don’t turn from our profligate ways the world is doomed.

    The reverse is true – if there is no rich and economically stable future then we risk descent into a dark age. Televisions, cars, phones, clean water, sanitary systems, health care, washing machines – these are the important issues and the trappings of 21st century culture. Goods for all is good for all. The challenges are great and require great discipline and not adventures in social and economic management.

    The world is not warming notably as a result of CO2 – the models are nonsense. Is it not clear how and why ‘solutions’ are chosen? They have been overconfident and now will suffer the consequences. Pride goeth before a fall after all. What is left? Only the wheedling of an enemy staring defeat in the face.

    What the true liberal must now present is an optimistic narrative – protecting human freedom, enabling scientific development, fostering democracy and the rule of law, managing economies with the hard won old virtues of not overspending, not printing money and not keeping interest rates artificially low.

    Can we win this battle? I think rather that it would be difficult to lose – but the potential is always there and always to be guarded against.

    Robert I Ellison
    Chief Hydrologist

  90. Surfer Dave says:

    @Sky – It has all the hallmarks of a classic tragedy, the high position, the fatal character flaw and the public fall from grace. I think it would make a fabulous opera. I said so in comments a few days ago, there’s such wonderful scenes like the first Ethics committee meeting with Gleik as the new chair, clearly he has a solo with supporting chorus (committee members), the public duette between Laker and Gleik about the invitation where Laker has no idea what it bubbling around inside Gleik’s personal madness. No, the script could be have been written by Sophocles and would sit happily next to Ajax.

  91. pat says:

    as if the Gleick Tragedy has run its course. anyone who thinks so is a Gleick apologist. btw there have been many science threads since Fakegate.

    who are the 16 journalists and experts? none of Gleick’s apologists seems to care.

    meanwhile,

    29 Feb: Science Blogs: Greg Laden: Heartland-1 … NCSE-0
    So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.
    The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland’s Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. Peter Gleick then obtained additional material from Heartland, which came to him at his request but all to easily to be explained as a mere oversight on the part of some administrative or secretarial staff. The only thing missing here is evidence that Bast or Mosher or someone suggested to Peter that he verify the memo by asking for related documents from Heartland. But that would be too easy.
    Anyway, it now seems clear that the document, the allegedly faked internal strategy memo with the most damning text in it (but nothing really different from what is shown in other verified Heartland documents) was fed to Gleick, presumably in an effort to engineer his downfall as an incipient board member of the National Center for Science Education…
    The evidence for this is the analysis just published by Shawn Otto…
    Shawn Otto’s analysis is here.
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

  92. Bill Marsh says:

    “admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else…” Playbook? OK geniuses, name ONE INCIDENT where a skeptic posed as somebody else to steal documents and commit wire fraud.”

    Don’t worry Anthony, I’m sure that Dr Gleick can produce a copy of the ‘Denialist Handbook’ if you ask nicely.

  93. Alan says:

    After Climategate 1, there was a post on here from a techie that analyzed the sequence of events and the computer environment at CRU to show that it was likely an inside job — a whistle blower. Can anyone point me to that post? I seldom have success using the search function on this site, too many false positives. Thanks.

  94. Ethically Civil says:

    “playbook” — receiving factual, authentic information from actual 3rd parties (likely an actual insider) is being compared to a fake insider, with forged documents committing wirefraud… right….

  95. “No one should feel any satisfaction in these events…” says Steve McIntyre. But everything sceptics are saying about this business demonstrates the opposite! Its interesting how the difference in the legal systems in the US and the UK affected warm-mongers and critical thinkers – the UK Freedom of Information Act has no teeth, so East Anglia University initially kept its dirty secrets, and the enquiries were a typical old-boys-club whitewash. On the other hand, the law on hacking in the UK is also mild compared to the US. So even if Climategate WAS the result of an intrusion, the hacker is relatively safe. Unfortunately, the law is much more draconian in the US. I didn’t like that youtube video about Al Gore doing time with mean-looking criminals for faking climate statistics, and I will not ‘feel any satisfaction’ if Peter Gleick is fingered by the feds.

  96. Jeremy says:

    Another Peter Gleick and William Reilly (head of WWF) connection:

    http://grist.org/article/roberts5/

    (Reilly also wrote a foreward for Peter Gleick’s new book, which comes out in May)

  97. Babsy says:

    RockyRoad says:
    February 29, 2012 at 7:14 am

    “53 comments and STILL nothing from Connolley, Gates, physicist, Exp, and others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd. ”

    Gleick, set, match!

    Bawhahahahaha!!!

  98. sky says:

    Surfer Dave says:
    February 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    “…the script could be have been written by Sophocles…”

    Say what you will, but Gleick’s actions were so transparently inept, his motives so ignoble, and his (and his apologists’) judgement of the fallout so sophomoric that Sophocles would never have entertained such a flimsy “tragic” script. Nor does imagined theatricality change the moronic into the mirthful, as in operatic comedy. The whole affair has never risen above the level of slapstick sitcom.

  99. DirkH says:

    The British ethicist and philosopher James Garvey, who defended lying and forging for the Cause in the Guardian, says he has been misunderstood, closes all comment sections on his blog and memory-holes all existing comments.

    http://jamesgarveyactually.wordpress.com/

    I’ll keep an eye on him; he is to philosphy and ethics what CO2AGW scientists are to climate science.

  100. JustaMom says:

    From my other favorite website, RealClearPolitics.com :

    “Fake But Accurate” Science
    By Robert Tracinski

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/fake_but_accurate_science_113294.html

    A serious rebuke to those who excuse and/or defend Gleick.

  101. pat says:

    and if u believe this….

    29 Feb: Brookings Institution: Belief in Global Warming on the Rebound: National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change
    Christopher P. Borick, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion
    Barry Rabe, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies
    Nearly 80% of Democrats believe in global warming, while Republicans are almost evenly split with 47% seeing evidence of increasing global temperatures…
    http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2012/02_climate_change_rabe_borick.aspx

    claims “62% ‘belief’ mark is the highest level recorded since the fall of 2009″.

    would the “fall” be a climate pun for Climategate?

  102. pat says:

    re Brookings poll, more proof it’s a religion:

    28 Feb: MSNBC: AP: Seth Bortenstein: Poll: US belief in warming rises with thermometer
    Americans’ belief in global warming is on the rise, along with temperatures and surprising weather changes, according to a new university poll.
    The survey by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College says 62 percent of those asked last December think the Earth is getting warmer…
    Nearly half the people who say they believe in global warming base that on personal observations of the weather. Climate researchers say that’s reaching the correct conclusion for reasons that aren’t quite right.
    When asked an open-ended question about why they thought the Earth was warming, one-quarter of those surveyed pointed to temperatures they experience and another quarter cited other weather changes. One in 7 mentioned melting glaciers and polar sea ice, and 1 in 8 noted media coverage. Only 8 percent mentioned scientific research.
    “It seems to be driven by an increased connection that the public is making between what they see in terms of weather conditions and climate change,” said Chris Borick, the director Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.
    The poll was conducted from Dec. 4 to Dec. 21, after the U.S. experienced a record 14 billion-dollar weather disasters in 2011, including killer tornadoes, an unusual northeastern hurricane, a devastating southwestern drought and floods along major rivers…
    “I’m pleased that Americans believe in thermometers,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver. “People feel confident about what they personally experience. They mix up the difference between weather and climate. It’s not unexpected. It’s human nature.”…
    NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt called strange daily weather “the visceral experience of climate” for people…
    The survey of 887 people has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
    The findings are similar to other recent polls, including a 2010 AP-Stanford University Poll showing 3 out of 4 Americans thought global temperatures were going up, said Stanford poll chief Jon Krosnick.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46562357/ns/us_news-environment/

    2007: Barry Rabe: Can Congress govern the Climate?
    http://www.nyu.edu/brademas/pdf/Rabe_Formatted-_FINAL.pdf

  103. hro001 says:

    [x-posted from CA]

    A minor point, but posting it here for the record.

    Pacific Institute have updated their http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/ page, which now shows Elena Schmid as “Acting Executive Director” on the “Pacific Institute Staff” page.

    Curiously (or not), Gleick is still listed as “President” on the above page, as well as on http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/board.htm. There is no indication that he is “On leave of absence”.

    Perhaps the Advisory Board held a séance, in order to seek the advice of the absent (In Memoriam) Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, who declared that this was ‘the right and ethical’ thing to do?!
    ============

    And while I’m here … Readers might be interested in my speculations on ‘why did he do it?’

    Let’s face it, folks! Gleick was relatively unknown until he began his adventures in ego-land, circa August 2011 during l’affaire Wagner. He was a little pisher in the Big Green Pond.

    Could it be that – notwithstanding his MacArthur “genius” status (which makes him “too smart to get caught”) and his apparent lack of a functional moral compass – Gleick is afflicted, if not driven, by chronic green envy?

    From pisher to phisher in less than a year. What a legacy, eh?!

    For details, pls. see Gleick and the green factor$

    Hilary Ostrov

  104. Truthseeker says:

    Greg Laden does not do a lot of moderating it has to be said.

    Just read this comment: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#comment-6235931

    Don’t sugar it up Markus, tell it straight!

  105. Allan MacRae says:

    The chorus of unethical nonsense from the global warmist camp has become deafening.

    The charlatans of the Gleick Klub are desperately trying to mutate Peter Gleick’s criminal acts into heroic deeds of daring-do against the evil Heartland Institute!

    Against all odds, the Gleick Klub has accelerated the elevation of “The Theory of Warmist BS” to “The Law of Warmist BS”.

    The final decree has been issued, and “The Law of Warmist BS” will be officially declared effective on March 1, 2012.
    _________________________________________

    Repeat from my earlier posts:

    “You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”

    Perhaps, with time and continued nonsense from the warmists, this Hypothesis will become a Theory, or even a Law (“The Law of Warmist BS”).

    ______________

    Now, with the Peter Gleick confession, and the chorus of Pavlovian support for his criminal actions by the global warming alarmist community, I submit that:

    “The Hypothesis of Warmist BS”

    be herewith elevated to:

    “The Theory of Warmist BS”.

    ______________

    By the end of the Peter Gleick affair, a further elevation may occur, to:

    “The Law of Warmist BS”.

    However, it is too early for that now. In any case, “Peter Gleick” and “The Law” will soon become all too familiar with each other.

  106. DirkH says:

    Here’s a very weird apologist who speculates that Gleick’s actions will actually lead to acceptance of 5 trillion USD’s worth of “market-base solutions” battling climate change.
    http://gigaom.com/cleantech/why-peter-gleik-is-the-milken-moment-for-climate-change/
    “Jigar Shah is the CEO of the Carbon War Room, a nonprofit that harnesses the power of entrepreneurs to implement market-driven solutions to climate change and create a post-carbon economy.”
    Don’t know if that is the same carbon war room inhabited by archwarmist and super CO2 emitter Richard Branson. Or the same carbon war room of which the brother of the Figueres IPCC / UNEP / UNFCCC woman is the chairman of.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Figueres
    Talk about Nomenklatura…

  107. dp says:

    If I were to bet on this story being right I think I’d win – here’s story, simply conjecture and nothing more. Greg Laden is taking a hit for the team so he can be hauled in to court where he expects to be able to turn the Heartland Institute inside out with subpoenas. Just because it sounds crazy to you and me does not mean it sounds crazy to everyone :) and crazy seems to be on the uptick in climate circles.

    Time will tell.

  108. Merovign says:

    People keep floating the idea that Heartland “set this up,” by feeding the fake memo to Gleick. Shall we say I find this implausible, to say the least.

    This would depend on Gleick magically knowing what specific documents to get that would reinforce his fake memo, and that he would magically choose to specifically commit wire fraud by impersonating a board member (since he hasn’t alleged that a *strategy* was given to him by the person who sent him the fake document).

    This is unbelievable on par with a conspiracy theory that a bank is trying to commit insurance fraud by way of inducing arson by giving out matchbooks (I know, anachronistic example)..

    It would be laughable as a movie plot, impossible in real life. You would have to deliver a detailed plot to carry out such a plan by inducement, and Gleick would be certifiable to *not* release that inducement as his first defense, if only as a “post-fail revenge move.”

  109. D. Patterson says:

    dp says:
    February 28, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    I’m not a concern troll but I would like to be able to tell if I’m reading Romm’s blog or WUWT without looking at the banner. Lately the two sites have little distinguishing differences. I was actually concerned with all the trash talk as the Bloggies were winding down but WUWT fared well.

    I quit reading Stephen Goddard’s site because of the anger and I can drop this site for a while until this blows over. It turns out most recent posts are from other sites anyway, and the comments are not worth mousing through. Including this one. JMO

    Other readers do see “distinguishing differences” between those two blogs, even though you do not. It can well be imagined what other people may think about your efforts to dictate what you believe they should and should not have access to after your call for censorship. of what they read and write.

  110. old44 says:

    Update 77: The only part of the true story SciBlogs resident Froot Loop Greg Laden missed, was the part where a Mossad agent acting on the orders of the CIA met Elvis Presley in a 7/11 store to pass on the fake document.

  111. Jason says:

    Now here’s a thing. I asked Greg Laden this and he replied:

    Jason: Here’s another wild theory, but less mad than yours Greg. You were one of the 15 and maybe more than just a recipient.

    I will neither confirm nor deny this.

    Posted by: Greg Laden | March 1, 2012 7:07 AM

    Now, why would he not just deny it?

  112. GregS says:

    I just read Shawn Otto’s blog post and came away shaking my head.

    Shawn is a world-class writer. He wrote the screenplay for the award winning film House of Sand and Fog. You would think he would know something about writing.

    Can I ask the obvious question here?

    Wouldn’t a writing analysis reveal high scores for both the writer and the person they are trying to imitate? In other words, if Gleick was trying to write like Bast, would an analysis reveal that the document sounds both like Gleick and Bast?

  113. hunter says:

    Laden and the other true believers like him are basically occupying the part of the public square formerly dominated by UFO abductees and 911 truthers.

  114. Blade says:

    Heartland attorneys take note, here is a look at what can happen in an intellectual property case:

    http://www.techspot.com/news/47614-western-digital-to-swap-certain-hdd-assets-with-toshiba-moves-closer-to-hitachi-gst-merger.html

    “The news comes amid a busy last few months for hard drive manufacturers recovering from a series of floods that struck Thailand last year. It also follows an arbitration award in November ordering WD [Western Digital] to pay Seagate a hefty $525 million in damages for allegedly coaxing “confidential information and trade secrets” from a former Seagate employee. Western Digital has denied those allegations and it plans to contest the ruling.”

    Peter ‘Principle’ Gleick confessed because he knows just how serious this can become. The wire fraud and libel issues are one thing, but the devious appropriation of Heartland’s protected private property could be in itself huge.

    While these are not the exact same things (after all, no two things are ever the same), it is really not that large a stretch.

  115. Alan Watt says:

    Anthony writes:

    UPDATE77: 6:50PM SciBlogs resident crank Greg Laden has a wild conspiracy theory according to Mr. Worthing who writes: Meanwhile, on another planet…Greg Laden suffers from a shortage of oxygen to the brain… (worth a read, wow, just wow – A)

    I read this and you’re right: wow!. I left a comment and found his blog had one extremely useful feature: a “preview” button which shows how your comment will actually appear. Any chance you can add this to wordpress?

  116. Joe says:

    UPDATE77: 6:50PM SciBlogs resident crank Greg Laden has a wild conspiracy theory according to Mr. Worthing who writes: Meanwhile, on another planet…Greg Laden suffers from a shortage of oxygen to the brain… (worth a read, wow, just wow – A)

    All he is missing is the saucer people and reverse vampires.

  117. edbarbar says:

    Greg Laden is a fakegate denier.

  118. M Courtney says:

    RockyRoad says:
    February 29, 2012 at 7:14 am
    “53 comments and STILL nothing from Connolley, Gates, physicist, Exp, and others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd.”
    In fairness to RGates, he disagrees with us and loses it occasionally but he’s never indicated support for the kind of practises of which Gleick has been found to be involved in.

    OK. He is more trusting in Climate Models than I am, but that’s just a disagreement about the science.

    Let’s not lump everyone in together. We have the moral high ground and are confident in our interpretation of the scientific evidence. So please beware of stereotyping or even the appearance of stereotyping.

    And please forgive my arrogance in requesting this sanctimonious injunction from someone you’ve never met.

  119. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    Greg Laden’s conspiracy theory actually makes sense … if you’re of a mindset that already routinely accepts contradictory data as proof of a pre-determined result. If you believe both downpours and drought, or warm days and cold days are proof of global warming, for example.

    This comes off sounding snarky, but really, it’s an observation. The AGW community jumps through all sorts of logical hoops to come up with support for their (ultimately) anti-human agenda. I expect Laden’s nonsense to carry a lot of weight with that crowd.

  120. I know a very good computer forensics expert, and I asked him some questions about ‘stylometry’. It had some validity, but you need a lot of text, because it requires decent statistics. A page-and-a-half of partly cut-and-pasted text won’t cut it.

    As a RealScientist (TM) i’m also incredibly skeptical about a noobie downloading a program off the web and using it, without understanding the first principles of what he’s doing. This is the sort of thing we warn graduate students against.

    If Mr. Otto thinks this is science, no wonder he’s so confused about climate.

  121. Hu McCulloch says:

    After directly accusing Bast and Mosher of composing and planting the fake memo, Laden adds way down at the end of his post,

    It is a conspiracy theory, produced for your amusement and, admittedly, as troll bait.

    Still, it will be amusing to see how many Gleick supports take his accusation as truth.

  122. Anthony

    After reading Greg Laden’s scree I am reminded of another. The “Protocols of the Elder’s of Zion” was a document purporting to be a plan by Jewish leaders for world domination. Here is the first bit from the wikipedia page for those not familiar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is a antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies which were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s.

    Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were major proponents of the text. It was studied, as if a factual document, in German classrooms after the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, despite having been exposed as fraudulent years before. In the opinion of historian Norman Cohn, the Protocols was Hitler’s primary justification for initiating the Holocaust and his “warrant for genocide”.[1]

    The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world’s economies. It is still widely available today, still presented, typically, as a genuine document, on the Internet and in print, in many languages.

    *************************************

    The Gleick document is of the same order. As pointed out by Steve Mosher, MacIntyre and others, Gleick’s fictional document was created because he “knows” that the Heartland Institute is bad and since he could not find anything in the documents that he purloined from them, he created one. That is the noble cause corruption part.

    The worse part comes from people like Laden, people who are so blinded by their own sense of righteousness that anything that is counterfactual to that sense is portrayed as evil, conspiracy, etc.

    The success of the Protocols is that they helped to cement in the believers who hated Jews (skeptics), that they were evil and it is a righteous task to do anything possible to end their influence on the world. Laden is a believer, so when Gleick has his version of the protocols, it reinforces the base, and it is used as a tool to sway the undecided to their ranks. They know it will not shift people who are already committed skeptics any more than the Protocols shifted the minds of those who were not anti-semitic.

    The danger is that the committed ones on their side, like Ted Turner and those like him with a lot of money will be pursuaded to give more money to the “cause” to fight the good fight (read the interview of Turner from this week on the internet). Do not underestimate the power of money in this fight. We have the truth on our side but look how much good the truth did the Jews in Germany.

    Hyperbole maybe? Yep, but those of us who are skeptics must be ever diligent to speak the truth and to push the boundaries of knowledge forward. It is all we can do, and hope that people are not as easily swayed by hysteria as they were a hundred years ago.

  123. Peter Gleick is the Raskolnikov of climate alarmism! The parallels are inescapable. Starring Peter Gleick as Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, and Steve Mosher as Ilya Petrovich.
    from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskolnikov

    In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov murders a pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, with an axe he stole from a janitor’s woodshed, with the intention of using her money for good causes, based on a theory he had developed of the “great man”. Raskolnikov believed that people were divided into the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary”: the ordinary are the common rabble, the extraordinary (notably Napoleon or Muhammad) must not follow the moral codes that apply to ordinary people since they are meant to be great men. An extraordinary man would not need to think twice about his actions. Raskolnikov had been contemplating this theory for months, only telling it to his (now deceased) fiancée. (Although earlier, he had written an article along those lines in a journal on the condition that only his initials be used as attribution). Raskolnikov believes himself to be one of these extraordinary men and is thus “allowed” to commit murder. However, his plan goes wrong; before he is able to make his escape from the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna’s flat, her meek-tempered half-sister (Lizaveta Ivanovna) arrives and stumbles across the body. Raskolnikov, in a panic, murders the pawnbroker’s sister as well, a crime which, for some reason, does not weigh on him anywhere near as heavily as the initial murder. Although, the fact of the murders themselves does not particularly torment him. What torments him is the fact that he has not “transgressed”, and that he was not able to be the “great man” he had theorized about.

    Raskolnikov finds a small purse on Alyona Ivanovna’s body, which he hides under a rock outside without checking its contents. His grand failure is that he lacks the conviction he believed to accompany greatness and continues his decline into madness. After confessing to the destitute, pious prostitute Sonia Semyonovna Marmeladova, she guides him towards admitting to the crime, and he confesses to Ilya Petrovich, a police lieutenant with an explosive temper (the book implies the policeman suspected him from the start). Raskolnikov is sentenced to exile in Siberia, accompanied by Sonia, where he begins his mental and spiritual rehabilitation.

    Identity theft = murder of Alyona Ivanova
    Forged strategy memo = murder of the sister, Lizaveta (an unplanned complication of the original crime)

    The screenplay is already mostly written! I can’t wait for the production.

  124. Fred 2 says:

    Laden’s new theory only lacks facts AND logic, so it’s perfect for the AGW crowd:

    For example:
    Why would Heartland sue anyone? Once you sue there is something called ” discovery.” And a conspiracy this extensive really wouldn’t be that hard to figure out. It also would depend on your target going crazy. Who plans for that?

  125. Vinny says:

    Where is the tragedy? I can personally care less about how good a scientist he was, the point is he knew every step of the way what he was doing. He tried to scam us, with the liberal lies of global warming and ultimately pick our pockets with ridiculous tax increases and “Carbon footprint” goals.

    He chose to be a crook and get in bed with the devil, as they say “Devil be damned”.

  126. MarkW says:

    Joe says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:09 am

    Does a reverse vampire suck on your ankle instead of your neck?

  127. DirkH says:

    Vinny says:
    March 1, 2012 at 9:02 am
    “Where is the tragedy?”

    Old Greece had two kinds of theatre pieces: comedies and tragedies. Tragedies were the ones ending in massacres.

  128. DirkH says:

    Hu McCulloch says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:13 am
    “After directly accusing Bast and Mosher of composing and planting the fake memo, Laden adds way down at the end of his post,

    It is a conspiracy theory, produced for your amusement and, admittedly, as troll bait.”

    He must have added that after receiving multiple comments of medical advice. I didn’t see it when I commented.

  129. DirkH says:

    M Courtney says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:20 am
    “RockyRoad says:
    February 29, 2012 at 7:14 am
    “53 comments and STILL nothing from Connolley, Gates, physicist, Exp, and others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd.”
    In fairness to RGates, he disagrees with us and loses it occasionally but he’s never indicated support for the kind of practises of which Gleick has been found to be involved in.”

    But he equated ClimateGate with Gleick’s actions multiple times. Which is at the moment the consensus position of the IPCC consensus crowd – tit for tat. He’s definitely deep into some warped James Garvey’ish moral relativism. Like the rest of them.

  130. G. Dixon says:

    >>Kevin Trenberth excuses Gleick’s criminal behavior as “advocacy”
    >>”I don’t see this as the end of the road for Peter by any means.”
    True.
    1. Dr. Gleick will probably find a place among his supporting scientist friends.
    2. He will still find ways to get government (our) money (assuming he avoids jail).
    3. He will still spout off at the mouth.
    4. It will be trivially easy to show it would be very dangerous to believe or follow a single thing any of these people say about anything.
    Ever.

  131. dccowboy says:

    “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth told ME on Friday.”

    I see. Then I suppose Dr Trenberth would be okay with one of the better known Skeptics falsifying documents and attributing them to the IPCC as a matter of ‘advocacy’?

  132. John West says:

    “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth

    Yes, he’ll have to work at jobs where people expect him to be lying: advocate, PR man, spin-meister …… but never a publishing research scientist ever again, and no ethics speeches either. [Unless he gets a whitewash special pass from the team's connections.]

  133. DirkH says:

    John West says:
    March 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    “Yes, he’ll have to work at jobs where people expect him to be lying: advocate, PR man, spin-meister …… ”

    Perfect future job: Advertising Evian.

  134. Merovign says:

    I’m still a little bothered by the confession itself. A sudden fit of conscience seems unlikely, and larger crimes have been covered up by political movements historically and recently.

    There’s more to that part of the story.

  135. u.k.(us) says:

    IMO, Gleick was coached on how to perpetrate his cyber attack, unless he has done so before.
    I noticed a “subset” mention in a Revkin article somewhere, interesting times.

  136. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    ahh Dr. Trenberth.

    The Little Bo Peep of Climate Scientology. First he lost all the missing heat.

    Now he has lost his moral compass.

    Becoming ever more desperate and petty as his life long career derails in front of his eyes.

    And he could have been a contender.

  137. Al Gored says:

    In that report about that ‘Inconvenient Truth’ style water movie a commenter left this link to the “ethics” of another one of the people involved in it, who seems to be as bent as Gleick.

    In case anyone missed it: http://www.atrazine.com/Amphibians/tyrone-hayes.aspx

    A little taste:

    “These offensive emails to Syngenta employees are copied to scientists from other universities as well as scientists at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Over time, Dr. Hayes’ emails have become increasingly taunting, harassing and sexually explicit in nature. Examples of offensive text include:
    •”Now, you’re just “Trick”…paying your H*’s hoping to keep your pimp happy.”
    •”by the way…i saw what you wrote (you dumb d*ck!).”
    •”tell your little lap dog to wear knee pads next time and wipe the *** from his mouth before he steps up to the mic.”
    •”Oh Cindy C, will you play with me?….oh Cindy C, I will pay the fee”

    Such ‘scientists.’

  138. Gary Hladik says:

    “Peter Gleick’s career isn’t over despite the big scar linked to his duping the Heartland Institute, says Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.”

    Great. Not only do we still have to find Trenberth’s “missing heat”, now we also have to find his missing ethics. Fill in the blank: “CAGW alarmists couldn’t find their [blank] with a [blank].”

  139. Jeremy says:

    From Politico

    SOME MEDIUM TO HEAVY TREASON — An FBI spokesman says that the bureau’s discussions with the Heartland Institute over the theft of stolen climate documents remain in a very early stage, but the spokesman stressed it cannot be called an investigation. “We cannot conduct a criminal investigation unless there is a clear allegation that a federal criminal statute has been violated,” Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office, said via email. “Based on what we know so far, there is no evidence that has occurred.” Samuelsohn tracked the FBI action Friday: http://politico.pro/w5j8FJ.

  140. Chuck says:

    “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth told ME on Friday.

    This affair has really been a treasure trove for CAGW advocates to identify themselves as such and to tell you what they really believe! It’s not about science, it’s about activism, or as I prefer to call it – religion. There is no line that can’t be crossed because anything is okay if it’s for “The Cause.” Since they draw no line, I would hope that the justice system will draw one, but history has not been very encouraging so far. As long as no line is drawn for these people, you can expect their (illegal) activities to escalate.

  141. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    Truthseeker says:
    February 29, 2012 at 9:26 pm
    Greg Laden does not do a lot of moderating it has to be said.

    Just read this comment: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#comment-6235931
    Don’t sugar it up Markus, tell it straight!
    ———
    Thanks Truthseeker;

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/fakegate-beats-deniergate-in-google-war-desmog-disaster-spreads/#comment-994108

  142. MarkW says:

    “CAGW alarmists couldn’t find their [blank] with a [blank].”

    honor
    troop of Boy Scouts

  143. 1DandyTroll says:

    Gerard Harbison says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:10 am

    “I know a very good computer forensics expert, and I asked him some questions about ‘stylometry’. It had some validity, but you need a lot of text, because it requires decent statistics. A page-and-a-half of partly cut-and-pasted text won’t cut it.

    As a RealScientist (TM) i’m also incredibly skeptical about a noobie downloading a program off the web and using it, without understanding the first principles of what he’s doing. This is the sort of thing we warn graduate students against. ”

    I must protest this as BS.

    A forensics expert does not per se spell a linguistics expert with the proper degrees of the necessary parts of behavior psychology. A team of forensic experts though, FBI schooled and all… :p

    If I remember the risk assessment stuff right you don’t need all that much, if any, statistics if you already have a probable target. It’s when you have too many to choose from when you need more data to figure out who’s who.

    And as for amateurs, well, most sucsessful hackers learn by trial and error, adapt accordingly, to succeed in their enterprise, and apparently that’s just like proper criminals, professionells and scientist do stuff too, and incidentaly why “14 year” old hackers can outsmart the US intelligence community even.

    One noob might not do it, but amongst a million noobs there’s at least one that’ll succeed.

    But, of course, I hardly would call the s.mosher a noob, especially not a linguistic noob. And he didn’t even need a stinckin’ program. :-()

  144. u.k.(us) says:

    Markus Fitzhenry says:
    March 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm
    ================
    Have to admit, I do like this part of your comment at JoNova:

    “If the likes of Greg Laden are in their camp, people need to be wary while these crocodiles attempt a death roll.”

  145. hunter says:

    The amazing nearly prophetic choice made by Donna Laframboise in naming her expose of IPCC and climate science “The Delinquent Teenager” turns out to be ingenious. What better way to describe a bunch of over privileged, spoiled brats who think far too highly of themselves and far too little of the common decency and scruples that mark responsible adults?

  146. JPeden says:

    “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth told ME on Friday.

    At least now we know what differentiates a mainstream Climate Scientist from a Climate Advocate – getting caught, eh, Kevin? Thanks for fingering yourself.

  147. Myrrh says:

    M.A.DeLuca II says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:55 am
    Greg Laden’s conspiracy theory actually makes sense … if you’re of a mindset that already routinely accepts contradictory data as proof of a pre-determined result. If you believe both downpours and drought, or warm days and cold days are proof of global warming, for example.

    This comes off sounding snarky, but really, it’s an observation. The AGW community jumps through all sorts of logical hoops to come up with support for their (ultimately) anti-human agenda. I expect Laden’s nonsense to carry a lot of weight with that crowd.

    =================

    They’re doing as they’ve been programmed to do. See this page for a collection of interesting background.

    “The Tyndall Centre in the UK is a large promoter of the AGW scare. One of their papers: “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” provides insight as to why the official term was changed from “global warming” to “climate change” The paper states: “To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future. Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming. Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change. We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    See “Founders of the AGW Movement” to note some key players in creating this morally bankrupt ‘religion’ using ‘science’ as its ‘sacred text’ and “Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic”, who’s seen it all before in another guise, and “Post-Normal Science” has Mike Hulme intellectualising the logical fail for those attending his seminary.

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/EcoReligion.htm

    .

  148. Tim Ball says:

    Defence of Gleick follows the standard pattern of the CRU people and associates outlined in the leaked emails and usually carried out by members of Realclimate. Why would they defend Gleick so vehemently? He is not a climate person. However, he is very much a part of and critical to the group pursuing Agenda 21. Here are the details of his importance to the larger objective.

    http://drtimball.com/2012/peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21/

  149. Smokey says:

    Regarding Gleick’s illegal shenanigans:

    “When the spirit of mendicancy has prevailed for so long among the rich, how can we expect it not to have penetrated to the less privileged classes?”

    But is not the consternation these classes feel a just punishment? Have they themselves not set the baneful example of the attitude of mind of which they now complain? Have they not always had their eyes fixed on favors from the state? Have they ever failed to bestow any privilege, great or small, on industry, banking, mining, landed property, the arts, and even their means of relaxation and amusement, like dancing and music – everything, indeed, except on the toil of the people and the work of their hands? Have they not endlessly multiplied public services in order to increase, at the people’s expense, their means of livelihood: and is there today the father of a family among them who is not taking steps to assure his son a government job? Have they ever voluntarily taken a single step to correct the admitted inequities of taxation? Have they not for a long time exploited their electoral privileges? And now they are amazed and distressed that the people follow in the same direction! But when the spirit of mendicancy has prevailed for so long among the rich, how can we expect it not to have penetrated to the less privileged classes?
    ~Frederick Bastiat, 1801 – 1850, Economist

    Sounds just like today, doesn’t it?

  150. What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?

    Well, since the ELF does just that, and their members feed regularly at the Greenpeace/WWF/Sierra Club/PETA trough, I’d say, “Duh.”

  151. pat says:

    not a major online publication by any stretch of the imagination, but note the second link and what it promises next week:

    10 Dec 2010: Cornwall Free Press: Does Big Oil Control the Media too? by Richard Komorowski – Science is an academic discipline. It does not engage in activism…
    http://cornwallfreenews.com/2010/12/does-big-oil-control-the-media-too-by-richard-komorowski-december-10-2010-cornwall-ontario/

    1 March: Cornwall Free Press Ontario: Climategate Backfires on Climate Science Denial Industry by Richard Komorowski
    The main “scandal” about Climategate, however, was not the leaked documents and emails, but the hacking of a University of East Anglia server. The truth is that none of these documents were leaked, they were *stolen.* …
    The Mushroom Cloud
    One of the key fragments from the stolen documents that the global warming denial industry has been pushing is the following, from an email written by legitimate climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”…
    The truth is that Trenberth was commenting about a recent paper he had published, in which he was trying to balance the world’s energy budget, the same way an accountant would balance a set of books…
    The theft of the UEA documents had nothing whatever to do with exposing “corrupt science”; the motivations were political and financial, in common with terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda. If the world’s governments took climate change seriously, and took genuine steps to try to avert a (not too distant) ecological disaster, many huge stakeholders (particularly the fossil fuel industry) would stand to lose a lot of money…
    Denialgate – Revenge of the Nerds
    Unfortunately for Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute, and the climate science denial industry in general, the real science got its own back last week, albeit through some unorthodox means. A number of sensitive Heartland documents were “leaked” to a leading climate scientist, Peter Gleick, detailing Heartland’s budget and many of its activities, including climate science denial and attempts to force K-12 science teachers to teach climate science from their perspective, and lobbying the US Government and elected US officials.
    This will be next week’s article.
    http://cornwallfreenews.com/2012/02/climategate-backfires-on-climate-science-denial-industry-by-richard-komorowski-march-1-2012/

  152. Greg Laden is an ass, he has now added the following to his post:

    (It has come to my attention that even some serious sciency type people who understand climate change, and climate change politics, are taking this conspiracy theory seriously. It is a conspiracy theory, produced for your amusement and, admittedly, as troll bait. If it turns out to be true, of course, I will delete this parenthetical remark! That is all, please carry on.)

  153. pat says:

    desperation on the cusp of madness:

    3 March: The Economist: Carbon prices – Breathing difficulties
    A market in need of a miracle
    THE European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world’s biggest carbon market, has two main aims. One is to restrict the carbon-dioxide emissions of the 11,000 companies trading on it to an agreed cap. The other is to give these firms an incentive to invest in clean technology. On the first count, thanks to the economic malaise, the ETS is a success: its participants’ emissions are well below the current cap. On the second, for the same reason, it is failing wretchedly. Oversupplied with permits, the market has tanked…
    The situation is about to get worse. The EU is in the process of selling an additional 300m permits to raise cash for green energy projects, adding to oversupply. It is also about to introduce a new regulation on energy efficiency, which will further reduce emissions and which was not factored into the current cap. Matthew Gray of Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that by 2020 the ETS will have an accumulated surplus of 845m permits, against a planned cap that year of 1.8 billion permits.
    Investors in green technology are pleading for intervention to prop up the carbon price…
    In December, when the carbon price fell well under €7, a committee of the European Parliament recommended three possible strategies: withhold—or “set aside”—an undetermined tranche of permits from the market; withhold 1.4 billion permits; or tighten the cap. On February 28th a higher-powered committee approved the first strategy. It will now be voted on by the parliament; if passed, the details will be negotiated with member states.
    This is a familiar sort of Eurofudge. The simplest thing would be to tighten the cap, so that the carbon price rises to somewhere between €15 and €30, the range regulators had in mind for it. Yet this would be furiously resisted by heavy emitters such as Poland, which burns lots of coal. And it would set a meddlesome precedent, another way to deplete investor confidence. To address that worry, the set-aside would ideally be no bigger than the reduced demand for permits resulting from the energy-efficiency rule, which is the ostensible reason for acting.
    That would be a modest measure: the carbon price actually fell in response to the committee’s announcement. And even then it will require fraught negotiation. Meanwhile, the market’s overseers are left dreaming of a sudden economic upturn or a new American or Japanese cap-and-trade scheme to boost demand for ETS permits—in short, for a miracle.
    http://www.economist.com/node/21548962

    ——————————————————————————–

  154. dp says:

    D. Patterson blurted:

    It can well be imagined what other people may think about your efforts to dictate what you believe …

    Romm – is that you? So, don’t you think you should wait a bit for me to actually dictate something before you call for my beheading? So far I’m only discussing my personal opinion and actions I’m willing to take. If introducing an opinion becomes equivalent to efforts to dictate then we’re all headed for the chopping block. See you there.

  155. Ray Boorman says:

    It is telling of the Gleick defenders that they all claim he did not do it for personal gain. You can’t tell me that his elevation to chairman of an AGU committee had nothing to do with his profile as an AGW campaigner. Maybe no money came from it, but this position upped his prestige, resulting in the offer of a directorship at another NGO. No personal gain? And despite his lack of ethics, the AGU have not cancelled his membership, as far as I know. So maybe when the heat dies down they think he can be rewarded again. It’s like James Hansen – he makes money & gains prestige by using his prominent US Government job to promote himself as an outspoken AGW campaigner. Gleick was hoping to increase his profile even further, which would probably also increase the Government funding of the NGO he heads. You can’t tell me that doesn’t amount to personal gain. If his NGO gets richer, he gets a bigger salary, more clout as a lobbyist, etc, & the whole cycle continues till he retires as a multimillionaire instead of a low grade earth scientist.

  156. Dave Worley says:

    “UPDATE78: 11AM 3/1 A new documentary about water by the makers of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ features none other than Peter Gleick. h/t to the Daily Bayonet Weekly Roundup.”

    Folks just love drama. This new water film sure looks dramatic.
    Maybe the Hollywood version of drama is just not satisfying for folks any more.
    Today folks want drama that appears to be real (backed up by science).
    It looks like scientists are the new Hollywood, and they seem to have taken a liking to their new dramitic role.

    Unfortunately, scientists like Peter Gleick cross the line, leaving the science far behind.

    …….or maybe it’s fortunate that our children have such obvious examples as Gleick to teach them the value of skepticism.

    Wonderful revalations lately.

  157. higley7 says:

    Gleick’s apologists will never really criticize him or even view him as tarnished. They will always spin it as a good thing.

    As long as they perceive that he lied, cheated, and stole for the Cause, they have no problem. Heaven forbid that a skeptic make a tiny error; then they start warming up the gallows.

  158. higley7 says:

    Imagine the idea that Gleick is the head of a board of ethics for scientific integrity. The average person would have problems realizing that someone is such a lofty position would have the integrity of pond scum. It’s basically another way of packaging the lies and propaganda.

  159. Dave Worley says:

    I just love Gleick in the water documentary, telling us all what we would do “if we were smart”.

    Sorry Peter, takes one to know one.

  160. WWW says:

    Is this all “too much”? If Anthony had perpetrated a comparable fraud against one of the AGW fanatics the entire skeptic side would be buried under a kiloton of tar by now. In addition this is NOT an anomaly. The average citizen needs a huge amount of feedback to counter the decades of misinformation the Warmist Alarmist community has spread world wide. The hubris Gleick has displayed here is also in evidence in all of the “Climategate” malfactors. This has been made possible because the mainsteam media has been able to ignore every action by these charlatans as not being newsworthy. We absolutely must bring this to the attention of the average voter by whatever means we can. We have played by the civil rules for years while the other side has had its way with the truth.

  161. ferd berple says:

    UPDATE79: 12PM 3/1 In Politico’s Morning Energy, NCARS’s Kevin Trenberth excuses Gleick’s criminal behavior as “advocacy”.

    How is this any different than killing doctors that perform abortions, and justifying it as preventing murder? It the ends justify the means, then genocide is an acceptable solution to the harm done by over-population.

    Where do you draw the line?

  162. Katherine says:

    In the same Politico’s Morning Energy:
    An FBI spokesman says that the bureau’s discussions with the Heartland Institute over the theft of stolen climate documents remain in a very early stage, but the spokesman stressed it cannot be called an investigation. “We cannot conduct a criminal investigation unless there is a clear allegation that a federal criminal statute has been violated,” Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office, said via email. “Based on what we know so far, there is no evidence that has occurred.”

    The FBI is either playing its cards close to the chest, or they need a clue-by-four.

  163. MattN says:

    Laden’s “theory” that Heartland orchestrated the entire thing by personally sending Gleick the documents is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. I think I am actually dumber now for having read that. I hope Gleick uses that defense in court. I will laugh until I throw up….

  164. John another says:

    Thank you Katherine for “clue-by-four”, an elegant turn of phrase.
    Lest we forget, the White House is the Chicago Machine and all that it implies.
    That includes DOJ ergo FBI.

  165. R. de Haan says:

    FakeGate Beats DenierGate in Google War Desmog Disaster Spreads
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/fakegate-beats-deniergate-in-google-war-desmog-disaster-spreads/

  166. BT says:

    Consider this just published in GSA Today:

    A human-induced hothouse climate?

    David L. Kidder, Thomas R. Worsley
    Dept. of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA

    ABSTRACT
    Hothouse climate has been approached or achieved more than a dozen times in Phanerozoic history. Geologically rapid onset of hothouses in 10^4–10^5 yr occurs as HEATT (haline euxinic acidic thermal transgression) episodes, which generally persist for less than 1 million years. Greenhouse climate preconditions conducive to hothouse development allowed large igneous provinces (LIPs), combined with positive feedback amplifiers, to force the Earth to the hothouse climate state. The two most significant Cenozoic LIPs (Columbia River Basalts and much larger Early Oligocene Ethiopian Highlands) failed to trigger a hothouse climate from icehouse preconditions, suggesting that such preconditions can limit the impact of CO2 emissions at the levels and rates of those LIPs.

    Human burning of fossil fuels can release as much CO2 in centuries as do LIPs over 10^4–10^5 yr or longer. Although burning fossil fuels to exhaustion over the next several centuries may not suffice to trigger hothouse conditions, such combustion will probably stimulate enough polar ice melting to tip Earth into a greenhouse climate. Long atmospheric CO2 residence times will maintain that state for tens of thousands of years.

    http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/article/i1052-5173-22-2-4.htm

  167. Theo Goodwin says:

    Someone should ask Trenberth if a felony conviction would harm Gleick’s career. Do scientific institutions employ convicted felons as principal investigators? Do they employ them as ethics officers? Greenpeace is not a scientific institution.

  168. Just an engineer says:

    I have one question for Mr Gleick. “Would you commit perjury in a Congressional hearing?”

  169. Joe Ryan says:

    As Donna Laframboise says, what will it take? Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Lying and stealing and misleading are OK so long as they help advance a good cause. What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?

    What needs to be pointed out to the public over and over again is that these same apologists apply the very thought processes to their scientific work.

  170. Jeremy says:

    WOW WOW WOW. Peter Gleick connections – connected to John Holdren the Science Advisor for President Obama. As well as former California Governor Jerry Brown. Data for Peter’s PHD thesis was provided by James Hanson.

    I suggest someone screen captures this page before it gets deleted.

    See

    https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2009/gleick-profile.php

    Peter, in the fall of 1974, took up studies at Yale. It was a time of transition and change in America. The prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s had given way to the first energy crisis and a strengthening national movement to protect the quality of our water and air. Peter caught the wave of environmental awareness just as it was beginning to build.

    In 1978, after receiving his B.S., cum laude, with distinction in engineering and applied science, Gleick headed west to the University of California, Berkeley, to further his education and research at the Energy and Resources Group.

    While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). “It was clear to me even then that water was an underappreciated and understudied resource, and a source of real future problems,” Gleick says. Holdren is now the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and President Barack Obama’s science adviser.

    After receiving his master’s degree, Gleick was offered a job working as the deputy assistant for energy and environment to California Governor Jerry Brown in Sacramento. In this position, he learned the value and importance of science for informing and influencing policy, as well as the political limitations on using science in the public arena. In 1983, he returned to Berkeley to get his Ph.D. At a time when most people hadn’t even heard the term “global warming,” he was researching likely impacts of climate change on water resources for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1986.

    Gleick’s dissertation turned out to be the first detailed analysis of how climate change would affect water resources in the western U.S. And, not too surprisingly, one of the world’s leading climatologists, Jim Hansen, the scientist dubbed “the grandfather of climate change” and a presenter at Nobel 43, Heating Up: The Energy Debate, in 2007, provided data integral to his dissertation. “That work really taught me how vulnerable our water resources are and how interconnected they are with our society, our economy, and our ecosystems,” Gleick says. It also made him want to continue his water research.

    That same year, Gleick was awarded a post-doc fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation to investigate the connections between climate change and international security. During this time, he realized that what he really wanted was the opportunity to conduct research and write on interdisciplinary topics related to the environment. The only problem was that very few places in the mid-1980s supported truly interdisciplinary research. So, out of frustration and a youthful belief in pushing the envelope, Gleick and two friends from grad school began talking about establishing an independent research institute. “Our concept was rooted in this fundamental idea: that environmental issues are not purely technical or purely economic or purely political, but all of those things, requiring an interdisciplinary approach,” he explains. “That’s the way we were trained in graduate school.”

    Of course, creating an interdisciplinary institute would be an ideal way to research and think and write about a broader vision for a sustainable world. But the notion of creating a new organization and securing the necessary funding to survive was heady, a little far-reaching in the eyes of some of their friends, and risky. But Berkeley prepared them well. “We talked about it for a year,” Gleick recalls. “We designed plans and looked at budgets and basically just thought about the idea.”

    In 1987, the Ploughshares Fund, a small San Francisco foundation interested in new thinking about global security, took a chance. They offered Gleick and his partners a small, $37,000 grant. “It allowed us to put together a board of directors, get non-profit status, and start work, and that’s about it,” he says. But it was a beginning and they started by looking at climate change, environmental resources, and the risks of conflict, working out of a two-room cinderblock office near the Berkeley campus.

    Sustained by his postdoc grant, Gleick burned the midnight oil. At the water’s edge, he and his friends decided to dive full on into the Institute. “Very quickly we got another research grant to do a climate change study for the Office of Technology Assessment, the agency that used to provide independent science advice to Congress. (Newt Gingrich led the campaign to close that office in 1995.)

    Those first two grants helped launch the Pacific Institute. While his two co-founders returned to academia, Gleick stayed the course and hasn’t looked back. He continues to serve as the institute’s president and director of its water program. Throughout the years, his work has led him to the top of the environmental science field and in 2006 Gleick was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The Pacific Institute, meanwhile, has grown to 20 employees and is now recognized around the world for producing some of the most authoritative and valued research and policy work on a very broad range of water issues, from the local to the global levels.

    Today, Gleick is heralded as a one of the world’s experts on water, “arguably the world’s leading expert on water,” as the San Francisco Chronicle put it. Beyond the impacts of climate change on water resources and security, he has studied conflicts over water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people globally who do not have access to safe, affordable, reliable water and sanitary conditions. In 2003, he was awarded one of the no-strings-attached MacArthur Foundation “genius” grants for his work on water resources.

    The author of The World’s Water (Island Press), the biennial series on the state of the world’s precious resource, Peter Gleick has published more than 100 journal articles, studies, and book chapters on water. He regularly testifies before the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, informing them of his findings and policy recommendations. He also serves as a major source of information on water issues for the media and has been featured in various documentary films, including Earth2100, Running Dry, and Flow: For Love of Water, which screened at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.

  171. vidkunquisling says:

    “Tragedy” is a word much abused and deformed by the media today. You’re using it inappropriately in conjunction with Gleick because he lacks the requisite gravitas to be tragic. “Bathos” is the word you’re searching for.

  172. philincalifornia says:
  173. Neo says:

    I’ve always had great respect for the field of ethics that is grounded in the works of Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More, but I must say the James Garvey piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper on “Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?” lowers the bar considerably.

    What always seem to punctuate these sort of discussions is that in a field, such as climate science, which, much like religion, is filled with so many known unknowns, clarity can only be achieved through “belief.”

    Instead of a clear headed view of ethics, Garvey acts like a “religious minister for hire,” selling his services to the presumably highest bidder, which I guess in this case is to whomever issues the largest government research grants or probably more correct .. the Church of Climate Science. Had this been a discussion of the ethics of WWII, his logic would work for equally for both the “Axis” or the “Allies.” What is missing is the discussion of why the Church of Climate Science is in “the right.”

    Unfortunately for the Church of Climate Science, which unlike the Roman Church which has had two millenia to wander in the wilderness and hone it’s ethical “beliefs,” climate science is a new “belief system” which will have it’s share of saints, sinners and more than a few persecuted Galileo-types. Eventually, even Garvey may come to realize that even the “beliefs” of Climate Science will and should encounter campaigns against teaching it in schools, especially when the “science” hasn’t held up to critical review.

    But currently, he rallies with much the same line as Medieval crusaders that “God is on my side” with the familiar twist that “science is on my side” even when it no longer holds true and has been replaced with mere “belief.” Let us hope that the science isn’t blotted out by the religion.

  174. M Courtney says:

    I have has a response from the BBC to my complaint about bias in the coverage of Fakegate by Richard Black.
    It read “Thank you for contacting the BBC.
    Unfortunately, we can find no record of your original contact being received by us. Therefore, we would ask you to re-submit your complaint via one of the below methods…”

    As I had repeated my original complaint in my follow up request that reply that requires me to re-submit seems a little superfluous. But I guess they need to keep me jumping through hoops until the complaint is out of date or something.

    I’ve re-submitted as they asked. This is the third time I’ve submitted thes complaint. The next step will be to complain about the complaints procedure, if they don’t actually consider my complaint.

    Which was,
    “The article was biased by way of selective reporting.

    Richard Black refused to report on Climategate until the story was cold as he was unsure of the providence of the leaked emails. This was quite justifiable.

    However, in this story the documents were stolen and at least one was fabricated. Again his established procedure would be proven to be justified. Yet he abandoned that practise.

    To avoid bias (and fulfil his duty as a journalist) he should have checked his sources and consulted with DeSmog Blog, Heartland Institute and Watts Up With That. He did not do those things.

    Instead he misled his readership in order to disparage a competitor’s website (Watts Up With That). This is a clear bias against the winner of the Science Blog of the Year. As a less lauded science and environment blogger himself the motivation is suspect.”

  175. Frosty says:

    Very interesting article, which indicates links between Gleick, Ross Gelbspan, and the original “fossil fuel funding” diatribe

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html

    “The name of Ross Gelbspan indirectly figures in the WSJ editorial. A 1995 Harper’s article cited in the editorial was written by Ross Gelbspan. The stolen Heartland Institute documents first appeared on the internet at the enviro-activist blog site Desmogblog. Its star blogger is Ross Gelbspan.

    The door opens wider with the revelation that Pacific Institute scientist Peter Gleick confessed to inappropriately acquiring the documents. A little digging reveals a still-current Pacific Institute web page dating to April 2004 titled “Science, Climate Change, and Censorship” (backup link here), where Gleick says this about skeptic climate scientist Pat Michaels: “He is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.” Farther down that page is a prominent reference to Ross Gelbspan.

    Compare Gleick’s quote to a 10/29/99 Yes magazine article by Gelbspan, titled “The Global Warming Crisis,” where Gelbspan describes fossil fuel industry education efforts:

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html#ixzz1nxIn8i1T

  176. pat says:

    Frosty –
    the Russell Cook article on Geldspan/Gleick/Gore is right on the money. CAGW would have been dead and buried post Climategate 1.0, if it weren’t for the almost monolithic MSM simply refusing the drop the memes.

    why isn’t the MSM asking Gleick for a copy of the so-called first documents he alleges he received in the post and, if possible, the envelope they came in?

    why isn’t the MSM asking Gleick for the names of the 15 he sent the documents to?

    why isn’t the MSM asking Gleick anything???

  177. Typhoon says:

    UPDATE77: 6:50PM SciBlogs resident crank Greg Laden has a wild conspiracy theory according to Mr. Worthing who writes: Meanwhile, on another planet…Greg Laden suffers from a shortage of oxygen to the brain…

    Later adds a footnote, without a time stamp, claiming it was posted as “troll bait” thereby further cementing his reputation as a complete loser.

  178. Stacey says:

    Donna LaFramboise’s post is superb and she asks the question “Where do you draw the line”

    My answer would be that if the person is intellectually bankrupt and has no moral boundaries then there is no linethey can possibly draw.

    The Levinson Inquiry into the conduct of the press and particularly the Murdoch Press demonstrates that if the cause is a good story then no line is drawn. So if the cause is a good cause no line is drawn?

  179. Jeff Condon says:

    The blackboard has linked ot an interesting post by James Annon

  180. theBuckWheat says:

    “What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?”
    Or bombs filled with nails? Bill Ayers is now a respected professor, at least in some fashionable circles. To the left, all things are possible as long as they advance the agenda.

  181. Jeremy says:

    Quote: “While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). ”

    reference: https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2009/gleick-profile.php

    And who is John Holdren mentoring today on important “scientific” issues affecting Americans?

    As “science” adviser to President Obama, the answer to the above question should be self evident.

    reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

    Scary.

  182. Brian D Finch says:

    According to John Horgan:
    ‘Kant said that when judging the morality of an act, we must weigh the intentions of the actor. Was he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick’s lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous.’

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/02/24/should-global-warming-activists-lie-to-defend-their-cause/

    Precisely the same argument could be advanced in defence of Adolf Hitler’s crusade to make the world safe for humanity as defined by himself,

    On the other hand, using the weapons of the Enemy means that the Defender of the Light will inevitably become the Enemy himself.

    It was for this reason that Gandalf and Galadriel refused the ring of power when Frodo offered it to them.

    I suspect Messers Gleick and Horgan would have happily taken the opprtunity to save the world as they feel it should be rather than as it actually is.

  183. The Forbes article is excellent.

  184. Unattorney says:

    The harm of fakegate is it distracts all attention from the hundreds of billions funding the green fantasy groups.There really is a small group of far-left climate maniacs who now control hundreds of billions of federal funding.Over a thousand groups that the Tides Foundation helped start are now receiving federal funding.

  185. Matt says:

    re. UPDATE83

    Well perfect, if Gleick’s actions put him in one boat with Bradley Manning, then he needs to go to prison now! Uh, I think someone has shot himself in the foot :P

  186. Richard S Courtney says:

    M Courtney:

    At March 2, 2012 at 12:05 am you write:

    “I have has a response from the BBC to my complaint about bias in the coverage of Fakegate by Richard Black.”
    etc.

    Matt (I am assuming the post is from you and if it is not then I apologise to you and to its true author):

    As you know, I have been fighting for the application of science in ‘climate science’ since the ridiculous ‘AGW hypothesis’ began to gain acceptance in the arly 1980s.

    I (and others who joined the fight) repeatedly lost ground until the Copenhagen Conference two years ago when the scare met the beginning of its end. The scare is now in its death throes and its advocates are in a ‘bunker mentality’. Gleick’s theft and lies are an example of the increasingly deperate tactics of those in the bunker.

    Importantly, the BBC has been a major adovcate of the scare since the 1980s and Richard Black is the BBC’s main ‘frontman’ for promoting the scare.

    Advocates of the AGW scare have lied, smeared and defamed throughout the history of the scare. Good scientists have had their careers trashed because they argued for science and not the scare. Indeed, the BBC ended the television career of Prof. David Bellamy because he refused to advocate AGW on TV.

    Gleik seems to heve been the only known thief among the AGW advocates. But in other ways his activities are similar to those of all other leading AGW advocates including the BBC and especially the BBC’s Richard Black.

    So, did you really ancipate any other reply to you than the one you obtained from the BBC?

    Dad

    PS As you can see, I am getting my computer system problems sorted.

  187. M Courtney says:

    Well Dad, I agree. R Black is a desperate fanatic who sees his cause and livelihood sink round the U-bend at the same time. Also, I think the BBC will lie, dissemble and Gleick to avoid acknowledging it. But on the bright side it’s good to see you have an internet back, Dad.

  188. Coach Springer says:

    I’m gagging a bit on Columbia Journalism Review’s likening Gleick to Ellsberg and Manning.

    1) They were insiders and leaked information. He stole information and disseminated it.
    2) He’s not the little guy. He’s the establishment.
    3) Their enemy was the government. His enemy was a private organization dedicated to limited government.
    3) They aren’t accused of disseminating false information. He did.
    4) They never preached ethics. He preached ethics and knowingly did the opposite.
    5) The press had reason to be suspect of the false infomation and rushed ahead without so much as a question. Some of the media continue to run with the false information or make the same conclusions while acknowledging the document was not “authentic. With Elllsberg and Manning (actually Wikileaks), they made sure they had some valid documents before they pounced.

    Ellsberg had a mistrial and was most certainly gulty of serious crimes. Manning is on his way to conviction and possibly life improsonment. It will take a few steps upward for Gleick to reach Ellsberg and Manning satus. It will take a few more steps upward for Columbia Journal Review to reach the journalistic standards of that Murdoch rag that was publushing information in Great Britain that they knew was true because they were illegally eavesdropping.

  189. kwik says:

    From the Forbes article;

    “That is why Gleick’s Fakegate memo is actually a perfect metaphor for the entire fabrication of global warming. It and the entire Fakegate scandal provide a window, much like Climategate did, into the global warming movement, and what we see is ugly indeed. Peter Gleick’s misconduct is repeated a hundred times every day, in the same dishonest, cynical, and corrosive way, by global warming advocates around the world.”

    Ouch !!!

  190. AlexS says:

    Columbia Journalism Review makes what was expected, defended the people like them: Gleick.

  191. dbleader61 says:

    I think it’s unfortunate that we ended up referring to this as “Fakegate”. I will always think of it as Gleikgate”.

    Alliteration over assonance and identifying the perpetrator for posterity is preferred.

    :)

  192. Jeremy says:

    Gleik’s wrote this with John Holdren (Holden is currently Obama’s Science Adviser.)

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.71.9.1046

  193. Gary Hladik says:

    Update 80, “An appreciation for the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast” led me to The Incredible Bread Machine, which I’m reading now. Thanks, Anthony!

    http://mises.org/books/incredible_bread_machine.pdf

  194. Andrew McRae says:

    Proper science must justify CAGW before the politics can afford a martyr.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/fakegate-the-sound-of-a-meme-collapsing/#comment-986241

  195. Truthseeker says:

    Here is a comment from an IPCC expert reviewer from an article in the Scientific American (November 2010) talking about Judith Curry challenging the climate orthodoxy.
    ———–
    The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure

It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational average can be derived.



    Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two

.

    The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted. 



    Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.

No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.



    It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting any future climate behaviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.



    There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.



    After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud.
    ————
    The link to the article and comments is here. You have to navigate to comment 14 by “Iconoclast”.

  196. cedarhill says:

    Columbia should keep it up and crank out as many journalists they can. The NYT and WaPost will just accelerate into bankruptcy. Not even material fit to catch bird droppings. If it weren’t for the internet commenting about them,90% of the world wouldn’t even know they still exist.

    Oh, and it’s a true shame that Holder “Fast and Furious Gun Runner” is the AG.

  197. dwright says:

    create a “global warming curriculum for K-12 schools” that would teach students—incorrectly—that “there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather.”

    Sorry might be the wrong thread, but bringing up controversial issues is the best way to teach SCIENCE.

    WUWT is wrong with that?

    dwright

  198. dwright says:

    If course if you want to create a brain dead sycophant, be a dirty trick sore loser.
    dwright

  199. The Guardian is getting worse: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers

    It uncritically quotes the hockey team’s center forward of accusing sceptics of a “crime against humanity” then complains of “hate” directed against him.

  200. Hot under the collar says:

    Re Press Coverage:
    Next week in our new Journal, ‘BS Bias Guardian BBC Times’, (with sincere apologies to similar named titles without the BS), headlines include;……….. ‘Genocide! Can we justify it to reduce CO2 emissions?’…………’Sleazegate! How The Tooth Fairy Took One For Us and Reveals Heartland Institute Has Money’ …………..’Justified! Skeptics Burnt At The Stake For Calling Us Religious Zealots’………….’How Debating Global Warming Causes Global Warming, a Peer Reviewed Special! …………..’Weather! How We Can Blame any Weather Event On CO2 Emissions’……….’Insane But True, Run From The Hills! A New book shows how all hills will collapse when the ice holding the hills together melts due to global warming’…….
    (Other titles are available).

  201. With respect to No 86 refering to an article in the Orange County Register by Steven Greenhut. the article is a balance view of the sad Gleick affair. I would, however, make one quite fundamental change.

    There is no equality between the Climategate emails and the Heartland hack.
    The two well-known reasons are the size of the revelations (5000 emails against nine documents), and the importance to the science (scientists having considerable biases against a suggestion that opponents are willing to fund a cause that they believe in).

    The third is directly analogous to a criminal case. In the US (following on from English common law), the prosecution must substantiate the charges (or accusations) with evidence. The accused then has the lesser task of showing the case is flawed. In science it is the same. A scientist must substantiate the arguments made. This should be able to withstand some basic scientific criticisms. The Climategate emails showed the scientists to be like a prosecution that tries to win its case by withholding and manipulating the evidence, suppressing contrary evidence, manipulating the jury and then denying the accused a defense. The Heartland hack shows the defense is limited in scope, and that the prosecution cannot analyse the evidence. (The alleged strategy document clearly does not fit the Heartland style and contains errors. Many of the alarmist commentators then repeated the juicy bits in the fact document, without a simple checking procedure).

  202. Allen says:

    Re update 85. At the end of the Chicago Tribune article is a mischaracterization of science. Do its practitioners “marshall evidence” as the rhetoricians do, as if support to an argument? Not really, unless you think “science” = political advocacy. And I think the writer of the article does!

  203. afizzyfist says:

    WUWT don’t you think its time to make a list of the organizations, people, journals, scientist’s, web sites… etc who perpetrated and continue to perpetrate this fraud for posterity’s sake. Also to recognize lukewarmers and turncoats hahaha

  204. AJStrata says:

    I think Gleick and his apologists did skeptics a huge favor:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18155

    They are now the conventional wisdom that will be replaced by better, more thought out scientific investigation into Global Climate. They rang the alarm bells, and the scientists and engineers answered. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.

  205. RACookPE1978 says:

    AJStrata says:
    March 4, 2012 at 7:21 am

    A small – but very important – correction is needed:
    I think Gleick and his apologists did skeptics a huge favor:

    ..

    They are now the conventional wisdom that will be replaced by better, more thought out scientific investigation into Global Climate. They rang the alarm bells, and the scientists and politicians and academia answered with full faith and conviction in the new Crusade to demonize life, energy and the world’s economy. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.

    (We engineers were both laughing at them, and cursing them, at the same time for their murderous dogma.)

  206. John West says:

    A poster @ JoNova:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/monbiot-steal-things-and-be-a-democratic-hero/#more-20636

    memoryvault
    March 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm • Reply
    As far as I can tell, according to the Moonbat’s logic and reasoning, the members of The White Rose Movement got exactly what they deserved, and Eugene Grimminger, who financed them, got off lightly.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

    Why did a regime that controlled the media consider The White Rose Movement passing out pamphlets a threat?

    Why does Peter Gleick and those that support him consider Heartland a threat?

    BTW: Eugene Grimminger’s decision to finance The White Rose Movement cost him his wife’s life.

    Yes, Heartland has every reason to protect its donors from fanatics.

  207. Dave says:

    the ancient Greeks had it nailed.
    Hubris and Nemesis – that’s Gleik.

  208. Jeremy says:

    In 2008, Peter Gleick, one of the top “15 People the Next President Should Listen To” says “Deal With the Water Crisis Now”

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-10/sl_gleick

    Hey Mr President, “Gimme your Money Please”

  209. David Ball says:

    I keep coming back to; All Gleick had to do was ask.

  210. Matt says:

    re. Al Gore in schools:

    In the UK, first a court found that his documentary factually wrong in part; and then, I believe the advertising and standards body ruled that the entire thing isn’t scientific at all !

  211. schnurrp says:

    I think I’ve satisfied myself as to how a “genius” like Gleick would have looked at the information he was able to gather and think he had something important enough to risk his career over: drunk, high, or something in the water!

  212. Chris B says:

    Jeremy says:
    March 2, 2012 at 6:49 am
    Quote: “While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). ”

    According to Wikipedia:

    “Holdren was involved in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager in 1980. He, along with two other scientists helped Paul R. Ehrlich establish the bet with Julian Simon, in which they bet that the price of five key metals would be higher in 1990. The bet was centred around a disagreement concerning the future scaricity of resources in an increasingly polluted and heavily populated world. Ehrlich and Holdren lost the bet, when the price of metals had decreased by 1990.[5]”

    “Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[21] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[22] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23] [24]”

    Too bad they couldn’t find more objective science advisor.

  213. Stefan says:

    There’s an idea/analysis re. left v. right: the left thinks people are poor or disadvantaged by an unfair society, so the left typically want to fix the broken society: increase taxes on the rich and help the poor who were victims of an unfair system. The right tends to emphasise the other side, the individual: people are poor because they are lazy, so: let’s increase incentives, increase rewards, and remove obstacles to individuals succeeding, have less regulation, etc.

    Where this links to CAGW and their narrative of “well funded oil shills” is that they are emphasising the system as the problem — a left viewpoint — so they believe that if only the common people would get proper education and proper scientific knowledge, they would do the right thing, and reduce CO2 and consumption etc., and the reason the system isn’t educating them properly must be due to a flaw in the system, namely: oil companies have too much power, bad politicians have too much power, bad groups are manipulating the media, manipulating schools and education, and spreading misinformation — the system us full of misinformation — consequently the common people are victims to this and they end up unaware of the environmental problems.

    As a few people gave remarked, it is odd that the big well funded anti-AGW movement doesn’t appear to actually exist — rather it is individuals who are making all the noise.

    But the basic left narrative is that problems exist because the system itself is broken. Not because individuals are at fault, it is the system at fault — problems are always due to the system. So they keep lashing out at “the system” of well funded shills, not realising it isn’t really there.

    So certain is the left of its narrative that it must be the system to blame, that it seems, they even can resort to inventing or manufacturing the evidence of “big disinformation campaigns.”

    The left kinda struggle when they encounter individuals who say, “well I thought about it by myself and found the evidence lacking”. Their take is that the individual must have been affected by misinformation from oil companies. It just doesn’t fit their narrative. Individuals, when properly supported, are basically good, in the left narrative.

    I’m not saying I’m left or right — they both have half the picture, although at different times, one half can be more useful that the other, rather, I think it is interesting how they see this as a battle against a bad system, and keep looking at the “message” and the “education” and why in their books it is downright UNETHICAL to say something that is technically true but could be appropriated by “misinformation” campaigns. This is why they are so obsessed with “the message” and “the cause” and forget to just report the science, as it is, naked, with all uncertainties clearly stated.

    But because they are so used to thinking in terms of the system, they don’t really register the individuals who are just deciding stuff for themselves, it all flies under their radar, and kinda blindsides them.

  214. MarkW says:

    “Too bad they couldn’t find more objective science advisor.”

    You assume they wanted an objective science advisor.

  215. Jeremy says:

    Chris B.

    Wikipedia says, “Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children”

    I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.

  216. LamontT says:

    Update 89 is pointing to page 2 of the story and not page 1.

  217. Chuck says:

    From the WaPo article:

    Hansen said he was compelled to reenter the public debate after policymakers failed to act, and he contemplated the prospect that his granddchildren could face a drastically altered planet once they reached adulthood.

    According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close? So far nothing disastrous has happened. For these guys when their predictions fail they just push the date further into the future. They’re just like fortunetellers. “Forget my failed predictions from last year (or last decade) and believe what I say now.”

    “Integrity is the source of every power and influence we have as scientists,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    My eyes glaze over and I tune out when anyone quotes the UCS as an authority on anything.

  218. Copner says:

    > According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close?

    My dad is 71. One grandchild is 11. One is 2 months.

  219. Copner says:

    > According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close?

    My dad is 71. One grandchild is 11. One is 2 months.

    n.b. My dad is not James Hansen!

  220. Chris B says:

    Jeremy says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:57 am

    I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.

    ________________________________________

    From the Wiki article:

    “Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[1] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] ******He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]*****”

    Ya, and Peter Gleick is a board member at Heartland.

    Liars.

  221. Chris B says:

    Chris B says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    Jeremy says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:57 am

    I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.

    ________________________________________

    From the Wiki article:

    “Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[1] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] ******He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]*****”

    Ya, and Peter Gleick is a board member at Heartland.

    Liars.

    ______________________________

    Rather, Holdren believes that unelected bureaucrats have that exclusive right. Moreover, why would he need to endorse a policy of which he is the prime mover. It would perhaps require Big O’s endorsement though.

  222. Katherine says:

    Chuck says:
    March 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    My eyes glaze over and I tune out when anyone quotes the UCS as an authority on anything.

    You didn’t miss much. Despite a display of attempted evenhandedness, WaPo obviously drank the Kool-Aid along with the whitewash of Climategate. But, yeah, as soon as I saw the UCS quote, they lost all credibility with me. They even let stand Hansen’s claim that he retired from the limelight after his Senate testimony in 1988!

  223. Jeff Wiita says:

    The latest update article in the Washington Post dated 3/5 clearly shows that the professional organizations of the AGU and the AAAS are a lost cause and are seriously damaging the scientific community and the scientific process. It is going to take a generation or more before the general public considers to trust science again. Scientists are becoming the new age, used cars salesmen of the 21st century.

  224. Richard says:

    These so-called researchers/scientists are nothing but activists posing as scientists.

  225. DirkH says:

    Jeremy says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:57 am
    “I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.”

    Wot! You don’t like what Colorado professors for environmental philosophy and ethics suggest?
    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/global-warming-and-over-procreators-what-about-coercion-asks-eco-professor/

    I guess you’re not into Environmental virtue ethics, then…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_virtue_ethics

  226. kwik says:

    I agree with Les here;

    http://www.lesjones.com/2012/03/02/an-analogy-of-what-peter-gleick-did-in-fakegate/

    It really is the same as the Piltdown man fraud. But took shorter time to expose.

    So….could we combine “Piltdown” with “Fakegate” ….hmmmm

    …PiltdownGate…..Piltgate….PiltFakeGate…FakePiltGate….FakeDownGate…..nah…give up.

  227. Fail says:

    Agree

  228. hunter says:

    I originally thought this was just a stunt by Gleick that turned into a crime. Now I think it was probably a group of AGW insiders, including journalists, other academics, and activists, who were assisting Gleick in this. Revkin’s silence on this implies very serious things about his role.

  229. Richard S Courtney says:

    Hunter:

    At March 7, 2012 at 5:34 am you suggest:
    “I originally thought this was just a stunt by Gleick that turned into a crime. Now I think it was probably a group of AGW insiders, including journalists, other academics, and activists, who were assisting Gleick in this. Revkin’s silence on this implies very serious things about his role.”

    I have simpler explanations.

    Gleick seems to be the only advocate of belief in catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) who has been exposed as a thief. But in all other respects his behaviour is seen to be typical of those who support “the cause” of promoting that belief. The ‘Climategate’ emails reveal – in their own words – that promoters of “the cause” use (as their normal practice) lies, smears and defamations of those who question that belief. Eventually a promoter of “the cause” was likely to go ‘a bridge too far’, and Gleick did.

    Messrs. Revkin and Gleick has each constructed a career on the basis of their promotion of “the cause”. So, anything which challenges belief in CAGW is a threat to their careers and reputations. And there is an interaction of those who share that belief. The shared belief of Revkin and Gleick requires that they avoid diminishing the credibility (however low) of each other because that risks damage to the credibility of them both.

    Hence, it is against Revkin’s personal interest to say anything about the origin of the fraudulent document unless Revkin can give assurance that Gleick did not compose it. So, Revkin’s silence is a clear indication that Revkin is not sure Gleick did not compose it. Indeed, Revkin’s silence implies he suspects Gleick did compose it.

    Richard

  230. TallDave says:

    Q: What’s the difference between Michael Mann and Peter Gleick?
    A: Mann’s fraud was peer-reviewed.

  231. Steven Kopits says:

    Might we consider dropping Gleick from the sticky post position? It’s getting a bit old, I think.

  232. Jeremy says:

    “Steven Kopits says:
    March 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Might we consider dropping Gleick from the sticky post position? It’s getting a bit old, I think.”

    Most of the MSM has not apologized or published retractions yet for lying about Heartland. Why should we forget?

    I propose the Gleick affair deserves its own special permanent place as a graphic and permanent link in the right hand column of WUWT.

  233. pat says:

    am wondering where the original Politico article by Alex Guillen is. there is no link on junkscience, and this is the only piece by Guillen on Politico for the same date junkscience has for the Rohrbacher piece, 6 March:

    6 March: Politico: Alex Guillen: In break from GOP, Dean Heller goes green
    Sen. Dean Heller is taking the road less traveled among GOP candidates: The Nevada Republican says he’s better for clean-energy interests than his chief Democratic rival…
    “There is bipartisan agreement, like it or not, in Nevada that, hey, it’s sunny here a lot of the time and so we have to do something with renewables,” said Jon Ralston, a television host and political columnist for the Las Vegas Sun.
    Supporting renewable energy is virtually a requirement for Nevada politicians, he added, although that can lead to sticky situations for a Republican. “Now, of course, that brings us to the question of what does that really mean that you support it? How far do you go with tax credits, tax incentives, before you get called a crony capitalist by the Republicans who love to use Solyndra as their talking point? It’s a difficult issue for Heller.”…
    With the economy as the leading issue in every campaign, Heller and other Republicans who back federal support for renewables have so far couched it as an important part of recovery efforts.
    “Renewable-energy development could lead to thousands of new jobs in Nevada at a time when the state leads the nation in unemployment,” Heller campaign spokeswoman Chandler Smith told POLITICO.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73681.html

  234. Article in Reason Magazine (reason.com): March 2, 2012, Steven Greenhut
    Saving the Earth, One Fraud at a Time
    The latest embarrassment for global warming activists
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a-time

  235. corporate message says:

    I found this incredible Gleicky thread . pfew !

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/12900/

  236. John Whitman says:

    UPDATE92: 7:30PM 3/6 NYT’s Andy Revkin speaks of the fake memo issue, but basically tells people asking why he’s silent on the issue to go suck eggs (my interpretation). Harold Ambler has the details here.

    – – – – – –

    I just posted this over at Harold Ambler’s blog ‘Talking About the Weather’ in his March 6, 2012 post ‘Revkin: I’m No Worse Than the Norfolk Constabulary’.

    John Whitman says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 8, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Revkin’s silence may be compared to the ‘silence of the lambs’ (see movie). Why isn’t Revkin bleating like an innocent lamb at Gleick to answer questions about responsibility for the forged ‘Fakegate’ strategic document? Revkin is not bleating for that because he is a lamb that has already figuratively been journalistically slaughtered by his editorial shepherds at the NYT. That explains his silence . . . . . . n’est ce pas?

    John

  237. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Writeup of Fakegate and Gleick on first page of this American Spectator piece, including details of Heartland’s assembled legal team.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/07/romneys-pending-sell-out-on-gl

    Otherwise things are quiet. Guess you’re not going to get to 100 updates unless something large breaks.

  238. Niels says:

    Preparations are afoot:

    March 05, 2012
    Joseph Bast
    Gordon B. Nash, Jr., will head the legal team assembled by The Heartland Institute to represent the organization in connection with Peter Gleick’s fraudulent conduct, Heartland President Joseph L. Bast announced today.

    More here: http://news.heartland.org/press-releases/2012/03/05/fakegate-heartland-announces-legal-team

Comments are closed.