Heartland Institute Calls on Oxford to Cancel Speech by Admitted Thief Peter Gleick

 

‘All Honest Scientists Should Be Outraged’

The Heartland Institute today called on Oxford University to cancel the April 24 “Oxford Amnesty Lectures” event featuring disgraced climate scientist Dr. Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, who committed theft, fraud, and defamation in the “Fakegate” scandal – all potential crimes and an affront to scientists everywhere.

Gleick is slated to deliver a lecture on “The Human Right to Water” at the prestigious university just weeks after he admitted to stealing the identity of a board member of The Heartland Institute to obtain confidential documents – including personal information of Heartland employees and board members – which he subsequently sent to environmental activists and sympathetic journalists.

On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted to using deception to obtain the documents and acknowledged that his intent was to expose Heartland’s funding sources and damage the institute’s reputation.

Gleick also distributed a “climate strategy memo” he and other environmental activists claim describes Heartland’s “secret strategy” to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change. The document is a fake created by Gleick or a co-conspirator, but Gleick has yet to confess to writing it and has not asked his allies in the environmental movement to take it down from their Web sites.

“All honest scientists should be outraged that Oxford University should honor Gleick with a guest lecture,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast. “The actions Gleick has admitted to having taken – lying repeatedly and committing fraud, and then denying responsibility and refusing to take corrective action – all make him unqualified to speak to students or as a scientist.

“The oldest university in the English-speaking world should be ashamed to associate itself with a bungling thief and scientific fraud,” Bast said. “John Locke, Linus Pauling, and Edwin Hubble must be spinning in their graves.”

In Gleick’s February 20, 2012 public confession, he admitted his actions amounted to “a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics.” Gleick took a “temporary short-term leave of absence” as president of the Pacific Institute, but he is still listed at the Pacific Institute Web site as “president.” The Pacific Institute relies heavily on government grants and support from the CISCO Foundation, Kaiser Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rockefeller Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Oxford Press and dozens of others.

Oxford Amnesty Lectures is a charity organization independent of Oxford University. The lectures are organized by Oxford faculty and held at the university’s Faculty of Law building.

For more information about the Fakegate scandal surrounding Peter Gleick, visit Fakegate.org, or contact Jim Lakely, director of communications at The Heartland Institute, at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.


The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.

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

105 Responses to Heartland Institute Calls on Oxford to Cancel Speech by Admitted Thief Peter Gleick

  1. theduke says:

    Not a problem. Just rename the building “the Faculty of Lawlessness” for the day.

  2. polistra says:

    “All honest scientists should be outraged.”

    No scientists are outraged.

    You can complete the syllogism.

  3. Roger says:

    The trouble again with this is that nothing is being done (as far as we can see, take back if I am wrong). It seems he is getting off scott free and this handwaving by Heartland is pathetic. Why haven’t they initiated legal proceedings? It’s the ONLY thing that will actually stop these people. Would not be surprised at all if Oxford does not even bother to reply and Heartland will look like weak puppies.

  4. Jeremy says:

    The organiser of the lecture by Peter Gleick is Bronwen Morgan.

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/aboutus/law-school-staff/person-details.html?personKey=LTvY0picxSPD8E9Vu9xj6IqERjOzj2

    Bronwen may be blissfully unaware of the clod of controversy surrounding Peter Gleick. If you decide to write to her please be courteous and polite.

    Email B.Morgan@bristol.ac.uk
    Telephone +44 (0)117 954 5333

  5. omnologos says:

    Oxford Amnesty, that is for the benefit of Amnesty International. I wonder what the human rights organization thinks of Bast’s right to see his good name cleared from Gleick’s faked document.

    Also past Oxford Amnesty lectures, lecturers and topics might provide food for thought by comparison with this year’s self-destroyed buffoon.

  6. gator69 says:

    Just dropped a note for the folks at Oxford, suggesting they rename the “Oxford Amnesty Lecture” the “Liar’s Club”, in honor of their April 24th guest speaker.

  7. Roger says:

    OT but the Huff Post has actually published the astronaut NASA story LOL
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html

  8. Lilith says:

    Time to write to the University, all you Oxford graduates out there…

  9. KnR says:

    This actual not a smart move from Heartland as he and his followers will love the ‘victim’ status this could give hi. And its better he does it , as his highly likely to go shooting off at the mouth and show what a fool he is .

  10. mwhite says:

    For you in the USA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0

    Piers Corbyn predicts severe tornado activity 22nd – 24th April

  11. omnologos says:

    HI has all the interest to look like weak puppies, as that destroys all arguments about Big Oil funding and allows them to be portrayed as as close to “grassroots” as possible.

  12. I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.

  13. I read this article and then called my older daughter to tell her about it. She’s an alumnus of one of the Oxford University Colleges. She’s called a number of her University friends, some already graduated and some still undergraduates. She has just called me back and informed me
    that a growing number of students, warmists and sceptics alike, are very upset about Gleick’s proposed appearance.
    They are most disapproving of his appearing at any function related to Oxford University, not because of his views on anything to do with the climate but because of his self-admitted
    dishonesty. The general consesus is that anyone with a reputation as tarnished as Gleick’s should not be permitted to address anyone within the precincts of the University.
    Daughter No.1 has promised me an up-date later this evening (UK time) on student feelings and what, if anything, is proposed to make their feelings known..

  14. O/T Steve Goddard has spotted some retroactive upward adjustments in the Envistat Sea Levels. (Well they would be upward, would not they).

    Perhaps Bob Tisdale might have some views.

    http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-data-corruption-worse-than-it-seems

  15. jorgekafkazar says:

    Birds of a feather flock together.

  16. JohnWho says:

    ““All honest scientists should be outraged that Oxford University should honor Gleick with a guest lecture,” …”

    Sign outside Oxford University:

    “Diogenes, don’t look here”

  17. Tonio says:

    Roger, it’s always dicey to second-guess others, but taking the same risk you did: Assume that Heartland knows what they’re doing and if they haven’t yet filed a lawsuit it’s for a reason. Perhaps there is a strategic reason for the delay. Perhaps they’re waiting for the government to file criminal charges against Gleick, which would make things easier for Heartland. There are doubtlessly things we don’t know.

  18. elftone says:

    Jeremy says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Bronwen may be blissfully unaware of the clod of controversy surrounding Peter Gleick. If you decide to write to her please be courteous and polite.

    Jeremy is absolutely correct, and brings up an important point: being polite costs nothing, and one tends to get more with a kind word.

    p.s. I love the idea of a “clod of controversy”… it describes his situation so well ;). Sorry Jeremy – couldn’t resist :).

  19. Sirius says:

    @polistra
    “So, there is no honest scientist.”
    Certainly at least one premisse is false…

  20. James Evans says:

    Well I’m an Oxford graduate, and I think Gleick should be invited to speak every hour on the hour. Let the merchants of dishonesty hoist themselves by their own petards.

    Disinviting people from conferences is the kind of shabby behaviour that warmistas get up to. Rise above it, I say. The more that Gleick and his ilk open their mouths, the more scorn will come their way.

    Trying to silence Gleick, on the grounds that he is a liar and a fraudster, is an utterly awful tactic. Let him speak. Encourage him to speak. Let the world know which causes this liar has been helping to prop up.

    Trying to stop him from talking is a cretinously bad idea, if you ask me.

  21. Chris B says:

    JohnWho says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:58 am
    ““All honest scientists should be outraged that Oxford University should honor Gleick with a guest lecture,” …”

    Sign outside Oxford University:

    “Diogenes, don’t look here”

    ______________________________________

    Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and slept in a tub in the marketplace. He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man.

    LOL

  22. Jeffrey Ziegler says:

    Hey Anthony, I think your site is invaluable – I visit many times per day – but isn’t there a way to ban these adverts that take over my audio system while I read an item? It seems to have started happening today. Very annoying.

  23. James Allison says:

    What fascinates me is that Gleick must feel no humility about what he has done. He and his ilk are such useful idiots to the Cause.

  24. tadchem says:

    No one is ever so worthless that he cannot at least serve as a bad example.

  25. jbird says:

    The Home Depot ad at the top of this thread keeps playing over and over. There is no way to stop it. I finally just turned off the audio on my computer to block it out. It was totally distracting for me while reading the comments here.

  26. pokerguy says:

    Lief writes :”I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.”

    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Let these folks hang themselves with their hypocrisy, bad acts, and genera lack of wisdom. I think this is a mistake…understandable though it is.

  27. Luther Wu says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am

    I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.
    _______________
    Agreed.
    However, I think it’s a good idea to let them in on Gleick’s little secret, just in case they missed it.
    Wouldn’t you agree?

  28. Luther Wu says:

    Oh, sorry- just realized that pokerguy already had Leif’s post covered…

  29. James Evans says:

    Seriously, my comment disappeared into the ether?

    I’ll try again. Someone above asked graduates of Oxford to complain about Gleick’s talk. Well, I’m a graduate of Oxford and I think Gleick should be asked to give a talk every hour on the hour.

    Disinviting people from conferences is shabby warmist behaviour. Let the bloke speak. Encourage him to speak. He is a known liar and fraudster. It will be educational for people to find out which causes this liar has been propping up.

    Censorship is a cretinous tactic.

    My original comment will probably turn up fifteen seconds after posting this.

  30. James Evans says:

    I will try once more, and then give up on posting here. Are my comments being moderated or something?

    Someone above asked graduates of Oxford to complain about Gleick’s talk. Well, I’m a graduate of Oxford and I think Gleick should be asked to give a talk every hour on the hour.

    Disinviting people from conferences is shabby warmist behaviour. Let the bloke speak. Encourage him to speak. He is a known liar and fraudster. It will be educational for people to find out which causes this liar has been propping up.

    Censorship is a cretinous tactic.

    My original comment will probably turn up fifteen seconds after posting this.

  31. Hate to be harsh on this, but rather than bleating like sheep, I would prefer to see Heartland get Gleick charged for his crimes.

  32. Gail Combs says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am

    I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.
    ____________________________
    So you approve of dishonesty among scientists and professors then?

    This is not about censorship it is about not allowing a known dishonest person to lecture students and there are certainly precedents set for removal of dishonest persons from the teaching profession.

    This is just one of many.

    The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession

    The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession are:
    Care

    The ethical standard of Care includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential. Members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.
    Respect

    Intrinsic to the ethical standard of Respect are trust and fair-mindedness. Members honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. In their professional practice, they model respect for spiritual and cultural values, social justice, confidentiality, freedom, democracy and the environment.
    Trust

    The ethical standard of Trust embodies fairness, openness and honesty. Members’ professional relationships with students, colleagues, parents, guardians and the public are based on trust.
    Integrity

    Honesty, reliability and moral action are embodied in the ethical standard of Integrity . Continual reflection assists members in exercising integrity in their professional commitments and responsibilities.

  33. Adam Gallon says:

    He should be perfectly free to speak, wherever he choses.
    Censorship of another’s point of view, is a trait that the “Warmists” promote, we shouldn’t follow their lead.

  34. DJ says:

    Sadly, it should be noted….

    http://www.oxford-amnesty-lectures.org/index.php?p=Newsletter

    His lecture is not an “official” university event.

  35. MindBuilder says:

    Even Heartland seems to mistake what Gleick’s main crime was. It was not that he obtained the documents by lying, it was that he lied to the public, who are the jury here, about being a Heartland insider. And he lied about having gotten the bad document from Heartland, which he later admitted he did not. Some might argue that he was acting as an ethical spy or undercover investigator like the ones our governments employ to lie for us. But there is no excuse for him to have pretended to the public to be a Heartland insider or falsely claim he got the fake strategy memo from Heartland. That is not like an undercover investigator lying to the criminals he is investigating, it is like an undercover investigator lying to the jury about the evidence at trial. It is much worse.

  36. MangoChutney says:

    Free speech should be defended. Gleick should be allowed to talk. As should any interested parties be allowed to turn up at the lecture and question Gleick about his unlawful activities.

  37. HankHenry says:

    He should be allowed to appear if he will debate or answer questions regarding his juvenile hijinks. It would be interesting to hear Gleick respond to a question about whether he regards his activities as culture jamming.

  38. MangoChutney says:

    Perhaps Heartland should attend, writ in hand to deliver at an opportune moment

    Hmmm, having said that, Gleicks views on water is something I agree with, so could the writ be delivered just after the Q&A section?

  39. Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:

    He wouldn’t be the first liar, cheat, thief or fallen angel to speak at Oxford and I doubt that he will be the last.
    It won’t do the students there any good to shield them from the realities of life. I doubt that they’ll give him an easy ride anyway.
    Sounds more like the Hearland Institute is trying to squeeze to more out of this lemon

  40. JD Ohio says:

    I would let him speak. He, like Mann, is so stupid that whenever he speaks he makes obvious errors. His errors and the failure of warmists to notice them or correct them are useful to the cause of climate realists.

    JD

  41. kakatoa says:

    Maybe someone could ask Dr. Gleick his thoughts on what went wrong with NOx emissions as recently noted-

    “Despite meeting more stringent regulatory standards for exhaust emissions during type approval, many Euro IV and Euro V heavy-duty vehicles equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems have significantly elevated emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during in-use driving, particularly when operating in urban traffic. In some cases, actual in-use urban emission levels may be as high as or higher than those from much older vehicles with engines certified to more lenient emission standards.

    These high “off-cycle” NOx emissions threaten efforts to improve ambient air quality in many European cities. And many developing countries, including Brazil, India, and China, have begun or plan to implement standards for new trucks and buses that are based on the European regulation………….”

    http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_WP18_urban_Nox_emissions.pdf?utm_source=ICCT+mailing+list&utm_campaign=4e4eea1879-Urban_offcycle_NOx_trucks_and_buses_10apr2012&utm_medium=email

  42. kbray in california says:

    Send an officer of the law like a sheriff or magistrate
    to serve legal papers on him during his speech.

    That would make it an “official” event, with fireworks.

  43. charliexyz says:

    I’m against censorship. That tactic is commonly used by leftists to prevent opposing views from being heard.

    OTOH, Oxford should ensure that everyone in the audience is told about about Gleick’s actions and that they are about to hear a liar and a thief.

  44. charliexyz says:

    I’m against censorship. That tactic is commonly used by leftists to prevent opposing views from being heard.

    OTOH, Oxford should ensure that everyone in the audience is told about about Gleick’s actions and that they are about to listen to a liar and a thief.

  45. Rob Crawford says:

    Saying he shouldn’t be honored with access to give a speech isn’t “censorship”. It’s free speech.

  46. Paul Deacon says:

    I am an Oxford graduate, and I have no inclination to ask the University to disinvite Gleick (assuming it is in their power, which is unlikely, power being well diffused there). I don’t see how freedom of speech is served by its suppression. And Gleick, like Hansen, is a buffoon who probably does much for the sceptic cause every time he opens his mouth.

    Your readers may be interested to know that I have spotted an obvious change recently. As an alumnus, I receive regularly the University and College magazines. For the last year or two, both were packed with loud pro-Global Warming propoganda, including lead articles. This appears to have suddenly ceased.

    All the best.

  47. Rob Crawford says:
    April 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    Saying he shouldn’t be honored with access to give a speech isn’t “censorship”. It’s free speech.
    Sounds like Newspeak to me: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

  48. John F. Hultquist says:

    So here I was, about to write something brilliant about allowing folks to speak. Even self admitted scoundrels might have something interesting to say. Gleick seems to know more about water than he does about ethics.

    Then I read
    Jeffrey Ziegler says:
    April 11, 2012 at 11:26 am RE annoying audio

    The solution, Jeffrey, is to turn your audio off.
    I have turned off most of the beeps someone thought I would like to hear also. The problem with audio is that there is no standardization so one thing hurts your ears and the next whispers. I now always start at zero and work up.

  49. Merovign says:

    You know, either a large number of people here have no idea what the word “censorship” means, or all my dictionaries were written by liars.

    Chill, people. HI isn’t “oppressing” anyone, they’re stating an opinion, as are all of you. They aren’t forcing anyone to do anything.

    Just saying “you shouldn’t associate with that person, they’re “x”” isn’t “censorship.” It’s advice. You can decide whether it’s bad or good advice.

    The cry of “censorship” here reminds me of Hansen having interviews every darned day claiming he’s not allowed to speak.

  50. R. de Haan says:

    This in my humble opinion is the wrong approach.
    We should keep the honor to ourselves and refuse to descend to the level of our opponents.

  51. pokerguy says:

    James Evans writes: “Disinviting people from conferences is shabby warmist behaviour.”

    Precisely. I thought these guys were smarter than this. Very disappointing.

  52. Billy says:

    There seems to some confusion about freedom of speech. Being inviited to lecture at Oxford or not is not the same as censorship. Billions of people in the world are not invited to speak at universities. Heartland, as the agrieved party and others are free to object to a lecturer on the basis of an admitted criminal breach of professional ethics. Of course, Oxford will make its own decision.
    Mr Gleick is free to speak and does so in many forums. Denial of a lecture invitation is not censorship.

  53. HankHenry says:

    kbray in california says:
    April 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm
    “Send an officer of the law like a sheriff or magistrate
    to serve legal papers on him during his speech.”

    In the idiom of these outrageous acts designed to create publicity, the proper form would be to send someone dressed as a sheriff – but not. To me, the annoying thing about Gleick’s stunt is that Gleick probably contemplated that he’d be found out but that nothing much would come of it, and those friendly to his point of view would rally around him. He resigned from the Pacific Institute which he himself founded. That’s a preposterously meaningless act.

  54. atmoaggie says:

    Speaking ot associations, dishonest science, and cancellations, here is my reply to the AMS nudge concerning membership renewal:
    ——————————————————————

    I’m considering it.

    …along with this: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

    Haven’t made up my mind whether or not to continue to be associated with that, yet. Maybe in September.

    Cheers,
    -[name]

    On 04/11/2012 03:11 PM, American Meteorological Society wrote:
    >
    > Dear Member:
    >
    > A review of our records indicates that your AMS membership has not yet been renewed for 2012. We hope that this is merely an oversight and that you wish to continue your association with the Society. We value your membership as we hope you value your affiliation with the only scientific and professional organization devoted to advancing the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.
    >
    > Here’s just a sample of what you’ll miss if you don’t renew:
    >
    > – A complimentary subscription to the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS)
    > – Greatly reduced subscription rates to world-class peer-reviewed journals
    > – A 40% discount on Weatherwise magazine
    > – Special privileges on our AMS Online Career Center
    > – Reduced registration fees for meetings, short-courses, and workshops
    >
    > Learn more about these and other terrific benefits by visiting our Web site at http://www.ametsoc.org/MEMB/benefitsof_membership.html then renew online today at http://www.ametsoc.org/memb/renewal/index.cfm
    >
    > If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Member Services Department by email at amsmem@ametsoc.org or by phone at 617-227-2425.
    >
    > Beth Farley
    > Director, Member Services
    > American Meteorological Society
    > 45 Beacon St.
    > Boston MA 02108
    >
    >
    >
    > [DO NOT reply to this email as the sender's account is not monitored. The American Meteorological Society is sending you this e-mail announcement in our belief that you have a continued interest in this topic. If you no longer have an interest or do not want to receive further e-mail regarding this topic please contact amsmem@ametsoc.org and request that your name be removed from this list.]
    >
    >
    >
    >

  55. atmoaggie says:

    Dang, “speaking of”, “speaking ot”, though apropos.

  56. pokerguy says:

    “Denial of a lecture invitation is not censorship.”

    Not in any formal sense. But that’s not the point. I’m only speaking for myself of course (and I did not use the word censorship) when I say it’s the tactics I object to. SOunds like something MIchael Mann would do.

  57. Power Grab says:

    >mwhite says:
    >April 11, 2012 at 10:47 am
    >For you in the USA
    >
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0
    >
    >Piers Corbyn predicts severe tornado activity 22nd – 24th April

    I have a note to watch for EQs and/or T-storms at longitude 97 on April 22 and 23.

    Gonna have to stock up on popcorn! :-)

  58. George E. Smith; says:

    “”””” MangoChutney says:

    April 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Perhaps Heartland should attend, writ in hand to deliver at an opportune moment

    Hmmm, having said that, Gleicks views on water is something I agree with, so could the writ be delivered just after the Q&A section? “””””

    So what specific views on water, that Gleick has do you agree with ?

    I see his lecture’s title is “The human right to water. ” but I wasn’t aware he had notable views on water.

    What is special about humans, that gives them a right to water. Do we have a right to emeralds as well ?

    But there actually is plenty of water; just as there is plenty of air. Nobody is required to stay where there is no water or no air. Certainly most other species would not stick around and put up with that; but I doubt they would demand a right to either.

    Certainly Mother Nature grants nobody or nothing any rights to anything.

  59. Hugh Davis says:

    Disinviting Gleick does not amount to censorship. No one is trying to silence him.
    No one is suggesting he should be prevented from speaking because of what he may wish to say in his lecture.
    The point being made is that a self-confessed liar and fraudster should not be given the honour of being a guest speaker in the environs of one of the World’s most prestigious universities.

  60. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am
    “I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.”

    As long as you would feel the same about censorship if it were the KKK or Nazis who were speaking, then I will agree with you. One must be consistent in these matters.

  61. @James Evans and others.
    With regard to my earlier post, I have heard back from Daughter No.1.
    She reports that most students are in favour of letting Gleick speak and then questioning him closely about various matters. Apparently many e-mails have been sent to whatever passes for the relevant authorities in Oxford commenting on Gleick’s history.
    There is still very heavy criticism about the usage of University premises by Gleick, most are NOT in favour of this. Other premises are being recommended.
    21:55GMT

  62. beesaman says:

    Let him speak, it highlights the cosy, if dishonest, world that some of these people move in…

  63. KnR says:

    Hugh Davis its not about what it is , its about what it looks like .

  64. Stacey says:

    Gleick should becaome a Member of Parliament, he’ll feel very much at home.

  65. mojo says:

    I believe Heartland has retained counsel in this – described as “Raptor-class Libel” lawyers.

  66. Bill Parsons says:

    Trying to silence Gleick, on the grounds that he is a liar and a fraudster, is an utterly awful tactic. Let him speak. Encourage him to speak. Let the world know which causes this liar has been helping to prop up.

    … and, I would add, which institutions are willing to sponsor, endorse, or invite him.

    In this instance, however, Gleick’s “right to water” schtick is a rather bland and uncontentious issue, (might as well go for a ride on your favorite hobby horse before getting back on the bucking bronco of global warming). So, notwithstanding the justifiable indignation of Heartlend, and the anger of many here, I don’t think his re-entry into the public scene is likely to rouse much consternation. Gleck will likely reprise his 2007 Pacific Foundation position paper, “The Human Right to Water”, which makes the case, under international law, for every human to have their basic needs met for water. I can’t disagree with much that he says there.

  67. Power Grab says:

    Is it possible that everything characters like Mann and Gleick do these days is simply to extend their so-called “15 minutes of fame”, or perhaps their ranking in a Google search? You don’t suppose they actually are going to run for office, do you? I’m thinking of the saying, “Any publicity is good publicity.”

  68. Graphite says:

    Gleick may have admitted committing an act that, if pursued to the full extent of the law, amounts to criminal fraud. But until that case is prosecuted, Gleick is free to continue making a living — which I believe he does by writing and lecturing on water use. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is firmly entrenched in British law — although even that doesn’t come into play here as Gleick is yet to be charged with anything.

    I say let him speak. The more times this guy opens his mouth the more chance there is that he’ll blurt out something that will tighten the noose he’s already placed around his own neck.

    Note: For those of you who climbed into Luther Wu on the NASA thread, I don’t mean a real noose; it’s a just metaphorical one.

  69. Zeke says:

    I am not from Queensland. An Australian would be better equiped to fully describe the horrors visited on a population when the government generates scary water drought models. “Water sustainability” advocacy, which the AGU is deeply involved in, allows government to increase its control of water and mismanage it grossly.

    For example, in Queensland, these gov’t drought water projections were used to approve and to build an incredibly costly desal plant, which is basically too expensive to run. As a result, water dams were kept at higher and higher capacity, and at the same time water prices continually went up to pay for the desal plant. When the floods – which were not predicted by the gov’t drought models – came, the dams were overflowed and there was great damage to life, property, and infrastructure for those living downstream. I personally believe that the events surrounding the bursting of Wivenhoe Dam, and the expense of the worthless desal plant, may be why Anna Bligh and Labor were voted out of Queensland so resoundingly. I have posted this as a reminder that Peter Gleick may no longer be AGU’s Chair of the Task Force for Scientific Ethics, but now he is on a Water Misery Tour, and “water sustainability” is another gov’t disaster in the making.

  70. D. Patterson says:

    Is it censorship, or is it something else like ethical responsibility? If Gleick were indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to Federal prison for one or more felonies such as fraud, theft, wire fraud, and/or other crimes, would you even hesitate to disinvite him from a professional speaking engagement? Would you consider the disinvitation of a convicted felon to in and of itself constitute censorship of the felon’s free speech, or would you consider something else like the deferral of the felon’s free speech until such time as the felon acknowledged and expiated the dishonorable crimes before the bestowal of honors to speak in an honorable forum? Are we to see a bizarre world in which dishonorable and criminal conduct is rewarded or protected while the honorable who refrained from criminal conduct are denied the same forum to make way for the dishonorable?

  71. Graphite says:

    Jim G says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am
    “As long as you would feel the same about censorship if it were the KKK or Nazis who were speaking, then I will agree with you. One must be consistent in these matters.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Let everyone speak. The more the KKK or Nazis open their mouths, the more they expose themselves to ridicule.

    It’s better to fight battles with words than with guns.

  72. Harriet Harridan says:

    This is the wrong way of going about things. Own goal by Heartland.
    Let him speak, encourage him to speak, make him keep talking …. and skewer him with questions.

  73. Ally E. says:

    I don’t think pulling the plug on Gleick is censorship so much as a cold splash of reality that his actions have consequences. Allowing someone like this to continue on as though nothing has happened is not the right way to do things. It encourages such people to do what damage they may and laugh about it while never ever taking responsibility. That’s not on in my book. “Not lowering oneself to their level” is, in fact, turning a blind eye and letting the crooks get on with it.

  74. Alan Watt says:

    Perhaps someone could get some T-shirts done up with one of Josh’s most excellent cartoons (for example this one) — after obtaining Josh’s permission of course — and distribute them to people willing to attend
    the lecture? It would make for interesting side conversations with audience members not aware of Gleick’s recent exploits.

    The irony here is what Gleick attempted was to interfere with Heartland Institute’s ability to present the climate skeptical view by falsely claiming they (and by extension all other climate skeptics) were paid stooges of fossil fuel interests. In other words he tried to infringe skeptics’ freedom of speech, which he now proposes to enjoy for himself courtesy of Oxford University.

    The text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    What Heartland does is provide a forum and the material means for people of like minds “peaceably to assemble” and engage in lawful activities to promote government policies they deem sensible and oppose policies they deem harmful. This is the essence of exercising meaningful freedom of speech and is at the very core of representative government. Speech may be free but printing presses cost money; the First Amendment right has little meaning if people cannot solicit and collect funds to support activities guaranteed by it. And nowhere is it stated that one must be “right” to enjoy the right to speak.

    Peter Gleick and his enablers tried to deny that right to those holding opposing views on “climate change” issues. There is simply no polite way to put it: he is a willing member of a gang of autocratic thugs. I do not advocate that Oxford rescind the invitation, but they should not provide him the podium to proseletyze while collaborating in his goal of denying it to others.

    If I were Heartland Institute I would call up Oxford pronto and request an invitation to speak at the same forum, seeing as how Gleick declined Heartland’s offer for an open discussion/debate before attempting to libel them. Perhaps the only way to actually have the debate is for a major University to host it.

  75. Bill Parsons says:

    @George E. Smith:
    April 11, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Re:

    So what specific views on water, that Gleick has do you agree with ?
    I see his lecture’s title is “The human right to water. ” but I wasn’t aware he had notable views on water.

    What is special about humans, that gives them a right to water. Do we have a right to emeralds as well ?

    But there actually is plenty of water; just as there is plenty of air. Nobody is required to stay where there is no water or no air. Certainly most other species would not stick around and put up with that; but I doubt they would demand a right to either.

    Certainly Mother Nature grants nobody or nothing any rights to anything.

    It gets complicated by governments’ claims to represent everyman, and their overreach in doing it. The issue isn’t made any clearer by rights of prior claim. Christopher Monfort is in Colorado today, discussing, in much more concrete terms than Gleick’s legal pontifications, a matter of water rights being brought by the Cattlemen’s Association against the EPA. Cattlemen think they should not have to suffer a dollar-a-head increase in grazing rights on public lands, even though the EPA wants to impose the fee to support what they claim is an infringement of the Clean Water Act.

    Gleick’s problem is that he thinks government is always right to impose such fees and fines under the auspices of representing “the people”. At the other end of the spectrum are independent cattlemen who think they ought to be able to do what they’ve always done and be left alone. I think cattlemen have a right to the water as long is it isn’t getting too polluted by cattle feces, but then what?

    In another instance, government tryies to regulate rainwater. A few years ago, a Colorado law said you couldn’t have a rainbarrel under your roof’s downspout because even the runoff fed creeks and rivers which ultimately belonged to others downstream by prior claim. The absurdities of government are abundant, but so are people who make these claims in support of rights based on prior claims. Governments probably need to settle such issues. Til then, I think I have a “right” to the water off my own roof – a right which I have not yet exercised, by the way.

    Regards,
    Bill

  76. peter_dtm says:

    Surely the ONLY thing to do is to encourage those in the area to attend and ask ethics based questions ?
    Ensure that the local media; (local) BBC etc are all made aware that a self admitted liar is giving a talk and thta it is hoped he will honour us by answering some questions afterwards

    Stephen Brown says:
    April 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    – his daughter & her friends seem to understand this; but they do need to be aware that the lecture theatre may be ‘prepared’ to prevent this happening

  77. Hot under the collar says:

    Maybe Gleick wishes to lecture to on ethics to Oxford students.

  78. RoyFOMR says:

    It is disgraceful that the Heartland Institute should be calling for the withdrawal of Gleick from
    the upcoming Oxford lecture!
    Oxford University should have cancelled as soon as Gleick revealed
    himself as a disgrace to Academia.
    That they need prompted into this action, by others, will be seen, by many, as Oxford University and alumni as applauding, supporting and sharing his flavour of moral compass.
    Maybe he played a “blinder”; possibly “noble-cause corruption” trumps integrity or is it just that
    the author of “Blott on the Landscape”, Tom Sharpe, was more documentor than satiricist?
    It was bad enough that the “establishment” ignored ClimateGate in both its current incarnations but
    to go shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm upon a public stage and with a self-concealed fraudster speaks volumes about what passes for academic neutrality in the twenty-first century.
    If “they” can’t even see the problems associated with giving Gleick centre stage then awarding Hansen the Edinburgh medal must be as acceptable, to “them”, as the easterly rising of the Sun!
    Birds of a feather flock together; How can you Dons sleep at night?

  79. RoyFOMR says:

    Apologies for the poor format and uncorrected lines of my last post; for that I lay the blame upon my laptop playing up!
    If I may be allowed a weak joke; Newton would have been shaken to the “Core”

  80. Hot under the collar says:

    Only the University or the ‘hosts’ have the right to cancel the invitation, but at least now they will know they have invited a self confessed fraudster.
    The more information the University has about the malfeasance and unethical behaviour of some of these alarmist scientists the more it informs on their weakening position.
    It’s funny Gleick and his ilk do all they can to stifle free speech of skeptical scientists and avoid debate, in contrast skeptics welcome debate. They can’t handle the truth as Gleickgate and Climategate has demonstrated.
    Will be interesting if it goes ahead or not.

  81. RoyFOMR says:

    I lay beneath the apple tree,
    when all at once it fell on me
    A lustrous fruit with pulp so white
    it tempted me to take a bite.
    At first I wondered why it fell
    but then decided, “What the h*ll”

    Extract from the diary of Isaac Newton, age 13 and one quarter shortly after reading P.G’s
    “Morality and Truth in Science – My part in its downfall” (Oxford University Press – 1984)

  82. TonyG says:

    Tonio says:
    Perhaps they’re waiting for the government to file criminal charges against Gleick, which would make things easier for Heartland. There are doubtlessly things we don’t know.

    They’ll be waiting a long time, then. Long enough for any action they take to be meaningless.

    Stephen Brown says:
    She reports that most students are in favour of letting Gleick speak and then questioning him closely about various matters.

    What is the likelihood, realistically, of students being allowed to ask those sort of questions?

  83. Hot under the collar says:

    Only the University or ‘hosts’ may cancel the invitation. It is possible the hosts had no prior knowledge of Gleickgate, at least now they will know they have invited a self confessed fraudster. If they had prior knowledge then it is disappointing if Gleick fulfills their ethical standards.

    Gleickgate and climategate demonstrate malfeasance and unethical behaviour of some alarmist scientists in an attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone who questioned their science or position. In contrast skeptics tend to welcome debate and now the ‘cat is out of the bag’ we must keep academia informed of alarmists hypocritical, unethical and weak position.

    Yes, disappointing if there was prior knowledge before invitation but useful PR from a skeptical perspective whether Gleicks lecture goes ahead or not. There should be an interesting question and answer section!

    You can’t make this stuff up!

  84. James Allison says:

    So many opinions….. The correct (boring) approach is to provide a summary about Gleick’s shenanigans to the event organisers and let them make the decision.

  85. MikeEE says:

    Leif and others,

    This isn’t an issue of censorship…that would be the case if he were rejected for his views or opinions.

  86. DirkH says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am
    “I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.”

    If I had to watch a lecture by a wire fra*dster and forger I’d prefer Kevin Mitnick. But that might just be me.

  87. DirkH says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    April 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    “So here I was, about to write something brilliant about allowing folks to speak. Even self admitted scoundrels might have something interesting to say. Gleick seems to know more about water than he does about ethics.”

    Actually I wasn’t that impressed. Björn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist has one chapter about the global water situation, unsurprisingly, he refuses to panic like Gleick, and it’s much more level-headed and rational than what Gleick spouts in his lectures – there are many on youtube if you must… Gleick is an alarmist and always earned his money with alarmism…

    And BTW, here’s a nice desal unit in a box…
    Spectra watermakers Aquifer 360 desalinator.mpg
    Hook it up to a solar panel and produce 8 to 16 gallons an hour. 2011.

  88. gnomish says:

    heartland is calling on, eh? is that a real job description? is anything valuable produced by calling on? I am aware that the activity requires donations and contributions to finance full time callers on but I am not aware of a single value produced by an of these little angster franchises.

    i really hope the ‘consciousness elevator activist bubble’ bursts soon. it would be a really good idea to get back to productive endeavors.

  89. Brian H says:

    Jeffrey Ziegler says:
    April 11, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Hey Anthony, I think your site is invaluable – I visit many times per day – but isn’t there a way to ban these adverts that take over my audio system while I read an item? It seems to have started happening today. Very annoying.

    FireFox with AdBlock Plus, and Ghostery.
    I don’t even see the ads, much less hear them.

  90. GeoLurking says:

    I think it goes a long way to illustrate the integrity that Oxford University has.

    That would be, “none.”

  91. E.M.Smith says:

    So, is there some magic incantation needed to get California to enforce it’s law on electronic impersonation, or is it only a Political Law, to be enforced only against those not in political favor?

    Is this one of those things that needs a politically motivated DA to be applied, or can any old citizen file a complaint?

    As I didn’t grow up under Socialism / Communism I’m not sure how all these Political Tool Only laws work….

  92. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jeffrey Ziegler

    Just set the volume control on “mute”. I leave it there unless there’s something I particularly want to hear, like a video clip. Generally never get bothered by unwanted Audio, as it’s turned off….

  93. son of mulder says:

    Let him speak. Broadcast it from the rooftops. Also broadcast the Q&A session at the end. Let’s hear the razor sharp, intellectually honest, cut and thrust for which Oxford is so famous.

  94. bill says:

    Even if you accept that there is a ‘right’ to water, that it is more than a fantasy from the heads of Gleick and his like – how will it operate in practice? Suppose some notoriously dry country like Niger has even less rain than usuall, and suppose the typically incompetent government fails to supply the population with bottled water. Then what? Does the UN send in some troops to arrest Niger’s president? Will the President’s bodyguard, whose well being depends on him staying in charge, just step aside? And moreover why not assume that the people of Niger have very little confidence in their government’s ability to provide anything (apart from death and taxes) and will make their own arrangements? Its easy to say one party has a right to water. Its more complicated when you have to look at the duty of the other party to supply it, and the consequences of failing in that duty. In practice, it would likely turn out to be just another mechanism whereby the high-minded can indulge their passion for kicking black mens bottoms and feel good about it, all the while diverting attention from great scandal to trivia like the President of Niger not being up to the job of dishing out water bottles.

  95. David, UK says:

    Jeremy says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:32 am

    The organiser of the lecture by Peter Gleick is Bronwen Morgan.
    Bronwen may be blissfully unaware of the clod of controversy surrounding Peter Gleick…

    You forgot the “/sarc” bit at the end, mate.

  96. Will says:

    George E. Smith:
    April 11, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    To deprive you of access to emeralds, even from now until eternity, would be a fruitless exercise.

    However to deprive you of access to clean drinking water for a period of just 7 days would certainly result in your definite and premature demise.

    Please keep your fallacies of logic to yourself.

  97. copner says:

    @HankHerry

    > He resigned from the Pacific Institute which he himself founded. That’s a preposterously meaningless act.

    No he did not resign.

    He requested a leave of absence which was accepted. The very terminology clearly indicates he expects to return to the Pacific Institute at some point in the future.

  98. Hot under the collar says:

    Sorry about repeat posts above and occasional typing errors. WordPress used to leave the post on my page under the statement ‘awaiting moderation’ (on my iPad) but it seems things have changed leaving one to postulate if I hit the ‘post comment’ button or the page refresh button by mistake.

  99. Hot under the collar says:

    It’s working again now.
    ..if I can just get it to fix my typing spelling and grammatical errors (oh deer).
    My penance is one hundred lines;
    I must not post comments when half asleep early hours of the morning
    I must not ………. : > )

  100. D. Patterson says:

    At what point did the special privilege to speak at an Oxford forum become transferred into a general right to speak at this Oxford forum without being deemed as censorship when denied? When do the rest of the Hoi Polloi get to speak at this Oxford forum, or is the Hoi Polloi subject to censorship for failure to engage in felonious conduct?

  101. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    There will be music on such occasions.

    I propose: La Gazza Ladra ouverture (the Thieving Magpie) by Rossini.

  102. Dave Worley says:

    He’s probably cheaper than Al Gore.

  103. Dave Worley says:

    Paul Deacon says:
    April 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Seeing an increase in “Sustainablity” bleating perhaps?

  104. johanna says:

    I’m, pretty sure that Amnesty organises these lectures every year; Oxford just hires them the space. It would certainly be a retrograde step for any university to start censoring the speakers at a function just because they have provided the organisers with a venue.

    I think that Heartland has missed the target here. By all means, bombard Amnesty with polite complaints about Gleick (noting that he was engaged for this gig before the scandal broke) – but zeroing in on Oxford is a mistake, IMO.

Comments are closed.