Quote of the Week: The Gleick tragedy continues at AGU…

qotw_cropped

Steve McIntyre has returned from his holiday trip and points out how the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has taken up the Gleick tragedy at the 2012 convention, as if the prodigal son had never committed a crime. He writes:

If I was hoping to think about more salubrious characters than Lewandowsky, Mann and Gleick, the 2012 AGU convention was the wrong place to start my trip. All three were prominent at the convention.

But the most surprising, even astonishing, appearance was by Peter Gleick himself. Gleick did not simply return, but was honored by an invitation to speak at a prestigious Union session.

Although McPhadren had stated that Gleick’s “transgression” would not be “condoned”, AGU’s warm welcome to Gleick shows that McPhadren’s words meant nothing, because AGU has in fact condoned Gleick’s actions.

Full story here

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

I left this comment at Climate Audit:

What a sad commentary on professional ethics, which seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.

In looking at the hallway photo, the first phrase that popped into my head was “pencil necked Gleick” with apologies to wrestler Freddie Blassie

“Blassie came up with his famous “pencil-neck geek” catchphrase early in his career to describe a fellow carnival performer known as “The Geek”, who bit the heads off chickens and snakes. Blassie described this geek as having a neck like a stack of dimes, and that he was a real pencil-neck geek.”

Readers may also recall the song.

I suppose the current circus isn’t far from “professional wrestling” where a wide variety of tricks are employed to ensure a predetermined outcome.

The matches have predetermined outcomes in order to heighten entertainment value, and all combative maneuvers are worked in order to lessen the chance of actual injury.[2] These facts were once kept highly secretive but are now a widely accepted open secret. By and large, the true nature of the performance is not discussed by the performing company in order to sustain and promote the willing suspension of disbelief for the audience by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude.

So, which character will be the AGU heavyweight champion this year? “Pencil Necked Gleick”, “Mighty Mann”, or “Lewy Lewy”?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Quote of the Week, Satire and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Quote of the Week: The Gleick tragedy continues at AGU…

  1. James Ard says:

    The travesty isn’t that the AGU invited a criminal to speak at their conference. The travesty is that they are still pushing the lie, for what reason I have no idea.

  2. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan says:

    I’m convinced that they think the rest of us are that stupid. First, Al Gorzeera. Now that haughty pretence of Gleick on the podium (“I’m a climate scientist”[and therefore pure as the warming snow]). What a load of horsehockey.

  3. Doug Huffman says:

    Ahh, well used word, salubrious is, as it seems so often associated with air and the absence of meteorologists’ meteorites.

  4. Vince Causey says:

    When the leaders of society not only fail to condemn unethical or criminal behaviour, but actually laud it because it suits their own designs, then this can only serve to embolden other Gliecks.

    There was certainly a time, when the knowledge of Gliecks actions became widespread, that supporters cringed and bit their lips – they supported his actions but thought “he’s gonna get it now – he’ll have to pay some price for that,” and “I wouldn’t risk that.”

    What will they be saying now? “Wow, the guy’s a hero. I want some of that.” And so the hounds of Gliecks have been unleashed. We reap what we sow.

  5. HankHenry says:

    Is commentary on a person’s appearance helpful?

    REPLY: generally no, but Mr. Gleick has done real personal damage to me by his actions, so I think I’m allowed a bit of artistic license in painting pictures with humor. – Anthony

  6. Tim Maguire says:

    Perhaps the best a layman like me can do is be glad that there are scientists out there trying to wrestle science away from the political activists.

    May you win before they do more damage. Afterall, what can one say to the creationists about the science of evolution when some of the creationists’ most vocal critics also manipulate science for political purposes?

  7. mpainter says:

    One of the many aspects of the global warming scam is that it serves as the feed trough for PhD physicists, of whom there is a glut on the job market. Their main hope is global warming and climate modeling, with the billions of dollars that are poured into these feed buckets. Otherwise their employment prospects are dim. It is naive to expect these guys to turn their backs on the likes of Gleick, Mann, etc. because these figures represent the pinnacle of their aspirations.

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    “Pencil necked Gleick”. Apparently he never wrestled in high school or college–or if he did he was so fantastic that he never spent any time on his back, counting ceiling-mounted light fixtures. On the other hand, I can tell you all about gymnasium light fixtures from back in the 1960s: wattages, fixture and lamp types, etc..

  9. JC says:

    It is shocking how many believers still refer to the Gleick mess as a “sting operation”.

  10. Matthew W says:

    “as if the prodigal son had never committed a crime.”
    If a “crime” is committed and no one is charged, is it still a crime.

    The wheels of justice move move slowly, but has Gleick been charged or will he ever be charged?

  11. James Ard says:

    Bob Tisdale, I know exactly where you’re coming from. Except, none of that time was actually spent on my back. My neck was always capable of keeping my shoulders off of the mat.

  12. pat says:

    Pretentious liar that bought his way into science circles.

  13. Matthew W says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    January 6, 2013 at 8:11 am
    “Pencil necked Gleick”. Apparently he never wrestled in high school or college–or if he did he was so fantastic that he never spent any time on his back, counting ceiling-mounted light fixtures. On the other hand, I can tell you all about gymnasium light fixtures from back in the 1960s: wattages, fixture and lamp types, etc..
    =========================================================
    I wrestled one year in Junior College. (I hated wrestling but did it just for the phys ed credit)
    We had a meet that included NCCA Division 1 schools.

    I remember shaking hands and if it was physically possible, I was counted out in less than 3 seconds.

    the “Dorsal Vapor Lock” was my best move.

  14. michael hart says:

    For some bizzarre reason I can’t help thinking of the name “Naughtious Maximus” when discussing the Gleick Tragedy:

  15. Paul Bell says:

    That’s just the way it is. Members of the club defend their own no matter what. Look to today’s football game – we will have to endure the endless paeans to Ray Lewis of the Ravens and what a great player he is – of course “the murder charges against Lewis were dismissed in exchange for his testimony against Oakley and Sweeting, and his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of justice” That is: he changed is story and ratted out his buddies after he got caught.

  16. chris y says:

    “By and large, the true nature of the performance is not discussed by the performing company in order to sustain and promote the willing suspension of disbelief for the audience by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude.”

    ROFLMAO!
    This should be in the running for the best description ever of the IPCC!

  17. Chris B says:

    HankHenry says:
    January 6, 2013 at 8:04 am
    Is commentary on a person’s appearance helpful?

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

    Any suggestions as to how citizens ought to protect themselves against wrong-doers, lauded by their clique, who have materially injured others, and who are not prosecuted for breaking the law?

  18. Chris B says:

    Tim Maguire says:
    January 6, 2013 at 8:08 am
    Perhaps the best a layman like me can do is be glad that there are scientists out there trying to wrestle science away from the political activists.

    May you win before they do more damage. Afterall, what can one say to the creationists about the science of evolution when some of the creationists’ most vocal critics also manipulate science for political purposes?
    ==========================
    Are you referring to Young Earth Creationists or anyone who does not believe the Universe magically appeared out of nothing? There is a difference.

  19. James Ard says:

    Not to throw the thread completely off of the rails, but the mods are being generous today. I can’t take the Ray Lewis love. I haven’t cheered for the Ravens since Lewis’s badass possee killed that hairdresser and his 5’5″ buddy. No hard feelings if this is deemed too off topic.

  20. John Whitman says:

    It was my first participation in an AGU activity and with the general membership.

    One if my expectations was to meet some fresh new young scientifically open and somewhat independently spirited people. I found one in the 5 days. Tiny step, but it was a step.

    Another of my expectations was to see many of the notable proponents of alarming AGW by CO2 live in close proximity. I wanted to do that because that does give a unique sense of people. Mission accomplished, I saw 12 of them at the AGU meeting. I was intrigued by the personality types. I noticed a certain general defensive wariness as if they were sensing some unexpected criticism from unidentified sources . . . just my perception.

    Another expectation was to meet for the first time two of the most notable bloggers critical of research on CAGW; several of the ones who have the most open policies for balanced discussion. I wanted to get a personal sense of them and to thank them. Mission accomplished. It was very pleasurable . . . I sensed some somber strength and calmness .

    Another expectation was to have experiences of the AGU meeting processes with the idea of more actively contributing in the 2013 fall meeting. I will try my best. : )

    I was saddened by the one sidedness of the climate science; it was a droning monologue. However I think that one sided AGU paradigm is very vulnerable to any individual grassroot vocal appeals for more balance of scientific perspective. If the AGU organization comes to be seen as anti-individual they would suffer some loss of prestige.

    There was a comical element. It was John Cook chairing a session on science communication and in that session having Zeke Hausfather give positive views (but no negative views) about Cook’s blog. Funny, in a morbid way . . .

    John

  21. John says:

    “The travesty isn’t that the AGU invited a criminal to speak at their conference.” Glieck was investigated and no criminal charges were ever brought against him. In fact the Heartland Institute couldn’t even find enough evidence of wrong doing to bring civil charges. While I’m sure the commentators here have their own opinion on Gliecks actions they are no doubt also grateful to live in a country where they are judged by an independent judiciary and not by blogs.

  22. D Böehm says:

    John, wake up. Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.

  23. mpainter says:

    John says: January 6, 2013 at 9:16 am
    While I’m sure the commentators here have their own opinion on Gliecks actions they are no doubt also grateful to live in a country where they are judged by an independent judiciary and not by blogs.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now, I have to smile. Gleick, Mann, and the whole global warming crowd are judged on blogs like WUWT and do you suppose that they are grateful?
    Ha!- they hate them and never miss a chance to sneer at blogs.

  24. Ken Hall says:

    I believe that it is the obligation of the wronged party, when faced with a criminal, to make official complaints to the authorities, and if ignored to take appropriate lawful action against those authorities and to seek lawful redress in the civil courts against the person who committed the crime.

    If the The Heartland Institute has failed to push the issue, in the face of official reluctance to press charges, then they should still be pushing hard to have glieck charged or sued in court.

    Otherwise Glieck can feel vindicated and the Heartland Institute have nobody to blame but themselves. The Heartland Institute should have gone after Glieck with the tenacity of a pit-bull and never given up. Complain to the police, get a crime number, complain if it is not investigated properly, make a complaint to superior officers, complain to another force and push for an investigation into the failing force and so on. A crime in criminal and common law was committed and the Heartland Institute are entitled to remedy at law.

  25. TomE says:

    For the same reason that I cheer ever time a linebacker puts Michael Vick on his back. Some crimes are not forgivable.

  26. atheok says:

    “Bob Tisdale says:
    January 6, 2013 at 8:11 am
    …”

    Sounds like you wrestled in the same league as Joe Bastardi. I may have this wrong, but I understand Joe to have made thread counts using his count times three while waiting for the ref to call his opponent down.

    For years, until my late forties, I was known as Killer because of a wrestler from Baltimore. I never once told anyone my nickname was Killer; but somehow someone would use it and then everyone would follow. Like little John was named little because of his size, I got Killer in a reversal role… and something about my tactics…

    Wrestling is fun. But I went for the swim team, as the wrestling coaches I knew believed in hardship, (far beyond hard exercise), and winning. Besides, they had more than enough flyweights already. When a flyweight throws a body slam, not only is nobody watching, but nobody turns their head; when a heavyweight is slammed, the whole gymnasium rattles dust from the rafters. All good clean fun; unfortunately that still leaves the bad Gleick taste of this topic in my craw…

    So many organizations and publications have gone to the darkside. Makes me wonder if a reference chart showing organizations/publications and timelines/actions might clarify how far each organization will go to protect their investments in bad science. Sort of a who’s who and how bad…

  27. Dwayne Kellum says:

    Gee, it seems like a good time to review one of your previous posts:
    **********************
    Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance
    Posted on December 18, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball

    A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
    .
    .
    *********************
    So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.

  28. John Archer says:

    D Böehm to (a different) John:

    John, wake up. Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.

    If only John Dillinger had [b]admitted[/b] to robbing banks I’m sure illustrious organisations like the AGU would have pleaded to let him keep the money and have the freedom to spend it. Provided he promised them a slice of the action, of course.

    No problem in Gleick’s case though — he gave them the whole f###### cake up front. Sorted!

  29. Taphonomic says:

    I didn’t renew my AGU membership this year for various reasons. Reading this confirms that I made the correct decision.

  30. John M says:

    John, it appears you know as little about the “Gleick affair” as you do about how many homes 90 acres of solar panels can power.

  31. normalnew says:

    There is a list going to the moon and back of ways to get at Glieck for what he’s done, so there is no need, or any gain, in commenting on his apperance. Neighter is it the smartest or most effective way of shining a light on this mans ethics.

    examples:

    1. He’s using his smartphone to find out what AGU actually stands for.
    2. He’s arming the self-destruct sequence for his briefcase, to defend all those important draf… eh documents from the evil deniers that have been spotted.
    3. He’s meassuring the co2 level to see how, too many, people are in the room
    4. He’s reading the wiki entry on ethics
    5. He’s reading WUWT
    6. He’s googling ‘sceiesn ehtcis mehtod’
    7. He’s retweeting the Lew retweet of He-Mann’s tweet on the evil deniers
    8. He’s playing the popular smartphone game: Where is my water https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.disney.WMWLite
    9. He’s looking up the word “condone”

  32. Random Thoughts says:

    Glieck is grateful he lives in a country where the media carries the ACGW water. Like most liberals (Rangle, Clintons, Dodd, Corzine), he can violate the law and then throw a party celebrating his lawlessness. The only rule is not to mess with someone further to the left.

  33. Berényi Péter says:

    “Glieck was investigated and no criminal charges were ever brought against him. “

    I see. So Gleick had resigned as Chairman of the AGU Committee on Scientific Ethics for nothing. Would you care to start a mass movement to reinstate him?

  34. zbcustom says:

    What is a “cognitive psychologist,” survey fraudster and ethics manipulator doing at the AGU.

  35. Billy says:

    Dwayne Kellum says:
    January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am
    So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.
    ————————————
    Yes Anthony and WUWT have absolutely no credibility. It is just an Ad Hominem attack site. That is why trolls like you don’t bother to post here.

    sarc off/

  36. richardscourtney says:

    Dwayne Kellum:

    re your post at January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am.

    There is a world of difference between
    (a) “labeling” a person
    and
    (b) acknowledging a person is a self-confessed fr@udster, thief and distributor of forgery.

    That you fail to see the difference suggests that you share the ‘ethics’ of Glieck.

    Richard

  37. John F. Hultquist says:

    Matthew W says:
    January 6, 2013 at 8:19 am
    “The wheels of justice move . . .

    . . . or not, in strange and mysterious ways. For example, Ken Lay of Enron infamy, from a legal view, never committed a crime, has never been indicted, nor tried, nor convicted. Not withstanding that a sane person might have the idea that all of those things are true.

  38. D Böehm says:
    January 6, 2013 at 9:19 am

    John, wake up. Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.

    Did I miss something? What exactly did Gleick admit doing? He has never admitted to forging the document, has he?

  39. Another Ian says:

    Around the time of Watergate there was a quote from Harry F. Truman that went along these lines

    “When a person does wrong and knows it, that’s one thing.

    When a person does wrong and doesn’t know the difference, that’s entirely something else”

  40. John F. Hultquist says:

    John Archer says:
    January 6, 2013 at 10:07 am
    If only John Dillinger had [b]admitted[/b] . . .

    Oops! Near the top of this page, on the right under thumbnail photos of folks, is a blue rectangle with a link to Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT. Near the bottom of Ric’s guide (in a gray block) is a section on formatting.

  41. John says:

    - D Böehm says:
    “Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.”

    Indeed he did. So if what he did was a crime why were there no charges against him? He admitted it in writing it’s not like they were short of evidence. Why weren’t the Heartland Institute able to make a civil case.

    Anyway, that wasn’t the point. The point is that this article seems to suggest that the AGU should prevent a man who has been convicted of no crime from continuing his job. It is not the place of the AGU to judge or administer punishment. If he’s committed a crime then it the job of the judiciary to judge and punish that crime. I don’t agree with what Glieck did but it’s not up to the AGU to punish him. They must act like he’s done nothing wrong unless the judiciary say otherwise, and they haven’t. The alternative is mob justice and I don’t want that, do you?

  42. Shouldn’t that be “horsehockey shickt”

  43. The other Phil says:

    I’m with HankHenry, don’t stoop to their level, stay classy. This wasn’t classy.

  44. Wayne2 says:

    @Michael J Alexander: Gleick did not explicitly admit it. His confession was a lawyerly-worded paragraph which threw around pronouns until it wasn’t clear exactly what he was admitting to.

    But that doesn’t matter. The timeline shows clearly that he did forge the document. First, the collection of documents comes out. There was no suspect for the documents, which claimed to be a leak from an insider. But a couple of people, looking at the forged document saw the fingerprints of Glecik all over it and called him out. Within three days, he had confessed to being the “insider” and had his lawyerly-worded “confession” released.

    Note, it was the forged document that led suspicion to him, not the other way around. If he had confessed to stealing the documents and then the rumor arose that he had forged one of them, we could well be reasonably confident that the forgery accusation was an attempt at spin. But it was the document that led to him — someone who was formerly rather obscure and as the head of the AGU Ethics Committee would have been the last person anyone would suspect.

  45. John F. Hultquist says:

    Another Ian says:
    January 6, 2013 at 11:58 am
    a quote from Harry F. Truman . . .”

    Would that be Harry S. Truman?

    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/speriod.htm

    [Actually, it would be Harry S Truman. ☺ — mod.]

  46. D Böehm says:

    Michael J Alexander,

    Gleick admitted his wrongdoing. Why would you question his confession? He was punished for it, as you can see in numerous articles here.

    Read up on the whole sordid story. Gleick has no ethics. He is a true scoundrel and reprobate. Why he isn’t hiding under a rock in shame is a sad commentary on the corruption of society.

    If you or I did what Peter Gleick did, we would pay a high price. But since Gleick is a pet of the climate alarmist movement, his unethical actions get him a free pass.

  47. manicbeancounter says:

    Steve M’s posting is certainly worth reading. He is back to his understated form. Rather than trying to forget the Dr Mann, the AGU have honoured him. Rather than censoring, or at least distancing themselves from, Peter Gleick, they have embraced him. To cap it all, the AGU have invited a psychology professor whose most recent work, with extremely low scientific standards, gives an excuse for ignoring the anomalies and criticisms of the science. In short, faced the choice between defending dogma and the promotion of better standards – scientific, statistical and moral – they chose the former over the latter.

  48. clipe says:

    I was up very early this morning and noticed….

    Mann himself was honored as a new AGU Fellow for his achievements in orientation-neutral and low-verification paleoclimate reconstructions, with special citation to his innovative use of upside-down sediments and success in popularizing reconstructions with verification r2 of 0.

    So did Willis E.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/#comment-391232

  49. john robertson says:

    The mark of personal character is how far one will continue to defend the indefensible.
    Climate-gate set the standard and many have self incriminated against that backdrop.
    As the internet never forgets, I see little reason for further forbearance toward fools.
    Gleick just set the standard even lower. The Australian Musicologist even lower, 10/10?
    We do not have to destroy these fools as much as stand witness to those who support and encourage them.
    I cannot fix stupid, but they shall not have authority over me.

  50. u.k.(us) says:

    Dwayne Kellum says:
    January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am

    So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.
    ===============
    Make no mistake, it is on their radar.
    Yours too, eh.

  51. Kaboom says:

    If this isn’t the signal for any members of the AGU with an ounce of self-respect as scientists to cancel their membership they are truly guilty by association.

  52. Gail COmbs says:

    At this point I do not see that there are any actual scientific organizations left. All there are are Ole’ Boys Clubs and it is starting to become very obvious to everyone.

    If the scientific organizations do not start cleaning up their acts and actually ENFORCING some sort of code of honor/ethics what is left of their reputation will be in tatters from which it will be difficult to recover.

    Organizations, universities and funders had no problems in blocking publication, refusing funding, or firing those who did not tow the line. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski is a case in point.

    Here is a quick pull of the internet from googling “science fraud”
    US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds: Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    A pooled weighted average of 1.97%… of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% …. for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices….

    NETHERLANDS: Dean may face data fraud charges
    fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him.

    Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006 when he worked at the University of Groningen. In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him….

  53. Gunga Din says:

    “The Prodigal Son”. That parable isn’t so much about the son as it is about “The Forgiving Father”. (He had more than one son to deal with.) The prodigal son came back to his father.
    Glieck admits his wrongdoing? Or does he just admit he got caught? Did he admit his wrongdoing was wrong?

  54. ntesdorf says:

    Peter Gleick, himself, admitted his wrongdoing. However, comments about his weird appearance are too close to the tactics of the CAGW Warmistas to make me feel comfortable. It’s all a bit like mud-wrestling. Let’s get back to Science.

  55. David L says:

    They are nothing more than a den of thieves. As my dad loved to say, “One lies and the other swears by it”.

    I hope that it’s true that there is no honor amoung thieves.

  56. Justthinkin says:

    Perfect example of why morals,instead of ethics,should be taught very early on.

    Ethics says it is wrong to have sex with your neighbour’s wife,but you do anyways,because you can get away with it.

    Morals say even if you want to have sex with neighbour’s wife,you do not,because in your gut and soul,you know it is wrong.

  57. Max Hugoson says:

    Obiously, the AGU is trying to find BIGUS GLEICKUS to speak at the next meeting! (Sorry, apologies to Monty Python, I did not wish to be disrespectful of their art.)

  58. Paul Jackson says:

    Seems to be a few misconceptions about Ad Hominem Attacks. It is basically saying that a logical argument is false based on the arguer’s character flaws, rather than the merits of the arguments. In fact a total D-Bag can be and often infuriatingly correct as well as pathetically incorrect, correctness or incorrectness has no correlation with the arguer’s degree of D-Baggery. Someone like Peter Glieck maybe perfectly able to make accurate accesments on scientific ethics in non-personal cases, yet be absolutely blind to his own ethics short-comings, and how they neccessarily hurt his cause.
    In an argument certain assumptions are often made, one assumption is frequently that the base data upon which the arguement is constructed is correct to the best ability of the researcher to assemble, if the researcher has particular character flaws that undermine the confidence of the assumption the base data is correct, pointing that out is not an Ad Hominem attack, but a necessary caveat.

  59. johanna says:

    Justthinkin says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Perfect example of why morals,instead of ethics,should be taught very early on.

    Ethics says it is wrong to have sex with your neighbour’s wife,but you do anyways,because you can get away with it.

    Morals say even if you want to have sex with neighbour’s wife,you do not,because in your gut and soul,you know it is wrong.
    ——————————————————-
    No.

    To simplify what is a complex question, morals are internally held values (and can’t necessarily be taught). By definition, they have to be believed by the person, not just able to be recited or even lived by.

    Ethics are externally defined values such as medical ethics or scientific ethics, and they should be taught to every practitioner in the relevant field. They needn’t believe in them, but they are required to abide by them if their profession or other relevant body is doing its job properly.

    In the case under discussion, there seems to be a dearth of both.

  60. Caleb says:

    You can judge people by whom they associate with. When people fail to draw any sort of moral boundery between themselves and people who have admitted they did wrong, (without confessing wrong is wrong, but rather people who spoke of their misdeeds in a bragging manner,) then they are condoning such behavior.

    The sheep are being seperated from the goats.

  61. Chuck Nolan says:

    Is the American Geophysical Union (AGU) an arm of the SEIU?
    I wonder?
    cn

  62. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Gleick looks the very model of a stereotypical academical.

  63. E.M.Smith says:

    And you shall know them by their deeds….

    I’d also add “and the company they keep”.

    At least now it’s obvious to everyone what ‘the game’ is all about.

  64. Bob Tisdale says:

    atheok says: “Sounds like you wrestled in the same league as Joe Bastardi…”

    Joe was good enough to be on the varsity wrestling team at Penn State. I did not wrestle in college.

  65. johanna says:

    ” I did not wrestle in college.”

    Presumably one has to be American to comprehend the implications of that statement, although the possibilities abound.

  66. Mickey Reno says:

    Those of you who applaud Glieck,now, share in his disgrace.

    This is my prediction: future historians and anthropologists will excoriate the work and memory of all who voluntarily smear themselves with Glieck’s taint. They will be equally unforgiving to those who practice their “science” with the vigor of a Lewandowsky, or the advocacy of Mann. These men will give names to the famous case studies of alarmist propaganda, and will join the other famous political propagandists in history.

    That’s my prediction.

  67. Dwayne Kellum says:

    To Billy and richardscourtney:

    now you engage in ad hominen attacks of me? Based on what?
    Billy, how exactly do you know I am a “troll”?
    Richard: how exactly can you conflate my ethics with Gleick? I have no interest in him – my only purpose was to attempt to redirect what appears to be a lot of interest and energy towards something more useful and productive.
    The difficulty I have with this blog is that the type of assertions and unsubstantiated claims made on this relatively simple topic leave me with the suspicion that this is the level of scrutiny brought to all discussion topics here. Any deviation from the dogma is met with the type of “scorched earth” response I see here and in other threads.
    Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Peter Gleick – I am generally uninterested in his work and the curfuffle involving Heartland. But, it seems this blog and those that post to it want to make a point to the climate science and climate policy communities. I see this thread and many many other like it as making that impossible. I am just trying to point that out. I don’t see why that should cause such anger, really.

  68. I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t “pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The Heartland Institute, let me explain why.

    Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious violations of federal law he committed.

    Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago, along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public decide if justice has been served.

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

  69. trafamadore says:

    James Ard says:”…the AGU invited a criminal to speak at their conference…”

    But wouldnt it be ironic if the criminals who released the climategate emails were in that very audience? Could be, given that they are probably climate people…

  70. D Böehm Stealey says:

    trafamadore,

    The Climategate leak was done by an insider who had access to the data and emails. Therefore it was not a crime. Unless you believe that “Harry_Read_Me” came from outside. How anyone could believe that is beyond me. But then, some folks believe in faeries.

  71. mfo says:

    @Jim Lakely

    I feel like someone who has turned up at a party after everyone has gone home.

    Have Heartland’s counsel considered whether the actions Gleick has admitted to may have transgressed the California Penal Code? In particular whether or not California Penal Code, Sections 528.5 and 530 could be applied.

    528.5:
    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense…”

    530:
    “Every person who falsely personates another, in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character receives any money or property, knowing that it is intended to be delivered to the individual so personated, with intent to convert the same to his own use, or to that of another person, or to deprive the true owner thereof, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so received.”

  72. trafamadore says:

    D Böehm Stealey says: “Climategate leak was done by an insider who had access to the data and emails. Therefore it was not a crime.”

    Very funny. That must be why the group that hacked in was so forthright afterwards.

  73. D Böehm Stealey says:

    trafamadore:

    Really? “The group that hacked in”?

    Name them.

  74. trafamadore says:

    Anthony Watts says: “Although McPhadren had stated that Gleick’s “transgression” would not be “condoned”, AGU’s warm welcome to Gleick shows that McPhadren’s words meant nothing, because AGU has in fact condoned Gleick’s actions.”

    You might view it that way, but wouldnt not allowing Gleick to speak be a form of censure? It is a scientific meeting, I think, and scientists are free to present their work there. Do you think he should be censured by the scientific community? Now if he was talking about the Heartland release, I might agree with you, but I bet he was not.

  75. D Böehm Stealey says:

    trafamadore:

    You made an assertion. Now, name the hackers.

    You also say:

    “…wouldnt not allowing Gleick to speak be a form of censure?”

    Absolutely. Gleick deserves to be censured for his admitted wrongdoing. Enablers and apologists like you only add to the corruption in the climate alarmist industry.

  76. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @JC

    >It is shocking how many believers still refer to the Gleick mess as a “sting operation”.

    I thought of it as a ‘stink operation’. It is what polecats do, isn’t it?

    Re ethics and morals: Virtues are the foundation of ethics and morals. Virtues can be taught. Would that we all had more of them :(

    Which of us is better than the rest? We could just as well take our time to discuss something of value.

    Thanks Heartland for the explanation of why there has been no prosecution. Curious, to say the least. Verily we are patient.

  77. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    At January 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm you say and rhetorically ask

    … wouldnt not allowing Gleick to speak be a form of censure? It is a scientific meeting, I think, and scientists are free to present their work there ,,,

    No! Scientists are NOT “free to present their work there”.
    Some scientists are allowed to present their work at an AGU Meeting but most are not.

    Permission to present work at an AGU Meeting is an honour and a privilege awarded by the AGU.

    Not awarding such an honour and privilege is NOT a “form of censure”. If it were then most members of the AGU would have suffered a “form of censure” from the AGU.

    Gleick has provided no scientific work of exceptional merit but is a self-confessed criminal. Perhaps you would care to explain why you think any organisation should provide Gleick with an honour and a privilege.

    Richard

  78. trafamadore says:

    richardscourtney says: “Gleick has provided no scientific work of exceptional merit but is a self-confessed criminal.”

    Point 1: I suspect most scientists think Gleick no more a criminal than you think the people that hacked the Climategate files are criminals; what most scientists say publicly may not be what they think. However, before you judge them too severely, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

    Point 2: Gleick has provided no scientific work of exceptional merit? Let’s see, the guy publishes regularly in top journals and has over 50 peer reviewed pubs, has been asked to talk to congress and the public. Sorry, that IS exceptional, very exceptional.

  79. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    You are being silly in your post at January 8, 2013 at 12:29 pm.

    It provides your two fallacious points but not the explanation I requested.

    So, I repeat, being enabled to speak at an AGU Meeting is an honour and a privilege. Perhaps you would care to explain why you think any organisation should provide Gleick with an honour and a privilege.

    And I address your two points .
    1.
    The person who leaked the climategate emails is not a criminal.
    But Gleick is a self-confessed criminal.
    (And I don’t see a criminal when I “look in the mirror”).
    2.
    Gleick has published a lot of rubbish in several journals but he has published nothing of great merit, and you cite nothing of exceptional merit which he has published.

    Please provide the requested explanation because your doing that would wipe the egg from your face.

    Richard

  80. Gail Combs says:

    What allowing Gleick to speak has done is convinced me that “Science” in the USA should be defunded as soon as possible. It has convinced me to such and extent that I will start doing my best to make sure it happens including seeing a Congressman I am friends with this week.

    It has also convinced me that all the science groups promoted/ supported by the US government like the Chemical Society (I quit in disgust) should also be disbanded.

    We need to cut spending well, there is a nice big useless bit of spending we can now cut. Let the Peter Gliecks go work for a living for a change…. Oh that is correct he has a consulting business that includes a Shell oil VP.

  81. johanna says:

    Well, well, if it isn’t trafamadore – who has repeatedly been snipped in the past due to providing invalid email addresses.

    Gleick is a self admitted liar and deceiver. Why you would want to defend him is between you and your conscience.

    But the AGU went further than that. They “rehabilitated” him and gave him a podium – which, as Richard C. and others have pointed out, is not available to everybody. This was within months of him having to resign as head of their ethics committee because of admitted unethical behaviour.

    The contortionism required not to “get” the point here is worthy of Cirque de Soleil.

  82. trafamadore says:

    richardscourtney says: “The person who leaked the climategate emails is not a criminal.
    But Gleick is a self-confessed criminal.”

    Well, there are different ways to look at this. The people responsible for the data breach at the University of East Anglia may be heros to you, but the Norfolk police are looking for them, or at least were, and I suspect those “brave” people remain anonymous because they wish not to be prosecuted. Gleick, on the other hand, stepped forward.

    In following their consciences, both did wrong, but Gleick gets some credit for not being a coward.

  83. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    I see you are still wriggling at January 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm.

    I yet again repeat
    Being enabled to speak at an AGU Meeting is an honour and a privilege. Explain why you think any organisation should provide Gleick with an honour and a privilege.

    You have abandoned one of the two ‘red herrings’ you introduced to evade providing the explanation. But you continue trying to equate the legal action of the climategate leaker with the self-confessed criminal actions of Gleick. If that ‘red herring’ were true – it is not – then it would be irrelevant.

    I again ask you to justify your support of Gleick being permitted to speak at the AGU Meeting. And I thank you for your continued evasions which are sustaining attention on the matter.

    Richard

    PS Are you Gleick?

  84. mfo says:

    Trafamadore-

    Gleick did not bravely step forward. He tried to conceal his identity in such an incompetent way that he was identified and forced to admit wrongdoing.

    Gleick used impersonation and deception to steal documents from a private organisation, including private personal information, and passed them on for publication. Regardless of his ability as a scientist he should answer for this in a criminal court.

    “Remember the old adage you can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.”

  85. trafamadore says:

    richardscourtney says: “I again ask you to justify your support of Gleick being permitted to speak at the AGU Meeting.”

    Well, I would haf to see the abstract he submitted to judge that, maybe you can find it for me. For a conference, the chair of a session has the only semi “honored” position and he or she selects speakers for the session based on the abstracts. It would seem that someone disagrees with your hypothesis that Gleich has done nothing of interest lately.

    You know, the guy works on water, what could be more boring than that? And he gets Nature and PNAS papers? I bow to him.

    And I find it hilarious that you have difficulty equating stealing documents from East Ang. and Heartland. All you have convinced me of is that Gleick is not a very good crook.

  86. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    At January 9, 2013 at 6:30 am
    1.
    You persist in your refusal to provide any justification for your assertion that the AGU was right to give Gleick the honour and privilege of addressing an AGU Meeting.
    2.
    You continue your laughable attempt to equate the actions of the climategate leaker with Gleick’s fraudulent misrepresentation, theft, and dissemination of a forgery.
    3.
    You do not answer the question as to whether you are Gleick.

    In the light of Gleick’s past behaviour, your ignoring the question of (3) together with points (1) and (2) add credibility to the hypothesis that you are Gleick. Hence, until you state your true identity such that it can be checked, I shall adopt the working hypothesis that you are Gleick: i.e. a contemptible and self-confessed liar, fraud and thief.

    Richard

  87. trafamadore says:

    richardscourtney says: “I shall adopt the working hypothesis that you are Gleick”

    I am honored.
    But I am curious as to the tests you plan to use to disprove your hypothesis,
    or the alternate, that I am some other sort of scoundrel.

  88. richardscourtney says:

    tr@fam@dore (probably Gleick):

    I see that at January 9, 2013 at 8:17 am
    you still fail to provide any justification for your assertion that Gleick deserved the honour and privilege of speaking at an AGU Meeting
    and
    you attempt another ‘red herring’ about the matter.

    No rational person except Gleick could think Gleick deserved the honour.

    So, please provide the justification for you asserting that Gleick (you?) deserved the honour.

    And – to answer your question – I don’t need any additional evidence that you are a “scoundrel” than your attempts to post on WUWT using a false email address which repeatedly got you ‘snipped’ by the Mods.

    When you have repeatedly misrepresented your email address then there is no doubt that you are capable of misrepresenting your identity. Gleick is a self-confessed liar and you have demonstrated that you are a liar (perhaps because you are one and the same).

    When you provide the required justification of your assertion and some evidence of your true identity then you will have removed the severe doubt as to the reason for your assertion that Gleick (you?) deserved the honour and privilege which the AGU gave him.

    Richard

  89. Anthony Watts says:

    @ richardscourtney trafamadore is not Gleick, his IP traces to Michigan, Gleick is in Berkeley, CA

  90. richardscourtney says:

    Anthony Watts:

    Thankyou for the information you provide at January 9, 2013 at 8:54 am.
    My hypothesis is disproved. Thankyou.

    While writing, I take this opportunity to say I hope your business trip is proving worthwhile, and I ask you – for the sake of your family – to not over exert yourself.

    Richard

  91. trafamadore says:

    Anthony Watts says: “trafamadore is not Gleick, his IP traces to Michigan, Gleick is in Berkeley”

    Darn. Well, scoundrels do live in Mich…

    richardscourtney says: “your attempts to post on WUWT using a false email address”

    Well, it’s the same one I am using now; I think I might have accidentally used my uni email address sometimes (which is good as well), but I dont like to use it on unofficial business. Whatever. and “trafamadore” without the “L” is great, I like it thankyou.

    In terms of Gleick and honors, it appears no matter what I say, you wont agree or, I suspect, even see my pt of view. I certainly dont know the person whom invited him to speak, nor do you, and so we will never know. You cant imagine a reason he could speak… but I can for the rather simple minded reasons I gave.

    In terms of outright censure of Gleick, that is usually only reserved for falsification of data and other scientific crimes. Breaking and entering doesnt clear that bar.

    In terms of the East Ang. robbers, whom you hold in high esteem, you seem to be incapable of believing the Norfolk police were investigating them for anything but to congratulate them. But they stole. like Gleick.

    Now I dont think Gleick should have done what he did, but I think the way things go, that it was a brave thing to do, and I dont know if I would have come out afterwards if I had done the same thing, that is to say, I would probably be more like the skulking East Ang. robbers. And I must admit I might think the highly of the East Ang. robbers if we ever find out how they did it and who they are, even though I do not agree with what they did. You know the Boston Tea Party was basically stealing, yet many believe it was a good thing.

    In both cases, it seems it is you who are incapable of seeing other people’s views, not me. Maybe you should lighten up a little.

  92. D Boehm Stealey says:

    trafamadore,

    On January 7, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    I challenged you:

    You made an assertion. Now, name the hackers.

    Of course, you didn’t answer the challenge because you can’t.

    Clearly the Climategate I & II leaks were an inside job. Have you read the Harry_Read_me_file? Why would an outside hacker redact the names from the file if the ‘hacker’ was from outside?

    No, it was an insider who was simply protecting himself. The same redactions were done in both Climategate dumps. You can go on believing your ‘hacker’ nonsense, but that only means you have no common sense.

    You also say: “In terms of outright censure of Gleick, that is usually only reserved for falsification of data and other scientific crimes.”

    Oh, really? So if Gleick committed armed robbery, or financial fraud, or was a child molester, he would still be welcome? Where, exactly, do you draw the line at wrongdoing? Which crimes does Gleick get a free pass on, and which get him barred? There are plenty of scientists who would love the opportunity to make a presentation, but not enough time. Why should the reprehensible Peter Gleick be rewarded at their expense?

    The fact is that you are just an apologist and an enabler of wrongdoing that you would be squealing like a stuck pig over if it were done to you. Look up the definition of “hypocrite”, and maybe you will understand.

Comments are closed.