AGU, Gleick, Climate Science, and Baseball Steroid Use

Please Turn Around, Dr. Gundersen, You’re Blowing Your One Chance!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was ruminating about Peter Gleick, and the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity, when I came across a very apropos quote. This is from another arena of life entirely, that of professional baseball. No one was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year. Voters seem to have been turned off by the steroid scandals, which involved some of the players eligible this year. The pitcher Curt Shilling was what you might term “collateral damage”—he had nothing to do with steroids, was always clean, and yet he didn’t get in to the Hall of Fame this year. Shilling has his supporters and detractors, but yesterday he made one of the most mature comments I could ever imagine. I can only hope that climate science holds players as honest and responsible about their own profession as is Curt Schilling. He said:

“If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn’t do as players — which is we didn’t actively push to get the game clean — this is it.”

“Perception in our world is absolutely reality. Everybody is linked to it. You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

“Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it. As a player rep and a member of the association, we had the ability to do it and we looked the other way, just like the media did, just like the ownership did, just like the fans did. And now this is part of the price that we’re paying.”

curt schillingIn the same way that selective blindness happened in baseball regarding steroid use, mainstream climate scientists and the AGW supporting blogosphere and the media and the journals and in the latest example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), all of them have “looked the other way” regarding such things as the scientific malfeasance of the Climategate folks, and more recently the actions of Dr. Peter Gleick. Let me briefly review the bidding of the Gleick saga.

Dr. Peter Gleick was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Ethics and Integrity in AGU Scientific Activities. As he tells the tale, he received a document from an anonymous sender purporting to come originally from the Heartland Institute. He wanted to verify the accuracy of the document. So far, so good. At that point, it seems like a man with integrity would go to Joe Bast at Heartland and say “Hey, Joe, I got this crazy letter. Is any of this true?”. If Peter was rebuffed there, he could consider other options.

Not Peter. Instead of taking the straight path, he went corkscrew. He called up some poor hapless secretary at the Heartland Institute, and impersonated a Company Director in order to obtain confidential company Board of Directors briefing papers. There’s a technical name for that kind of action. It’s called “wire fraud”.

Now, if Peter’s tale were true, about wanting to verify the accuracy of the document he’d received, you’d think he’d look at the actual papers he obtained through wire fraud. Then he’d compare the authentic Board briefing papers to the document he’d received, and then throw the document he’d received in the trash.

Why? Because it was an obvious forgery. Both the style and the content, including critical details, differ radically from the other documents he had, documents he knew were authentic for a simple reason—because he had stolen them himself.

Once he saw that the document he’d received was fraudulent, you’d think Peter would have stopped there and destroyed everything. But not our Chair of Scientific Integrity. Corkscrew wins again. Instead of taking it all straight to the shredder, he took the document, mixed it in with the authentic documents, and secretly and anonymously emailed them all to various recipients without any mention that one of them was fraudulent.

Now, I don’t know if there’s a crime in the latter part. Stealing secret business documents is one crime. Is revealing them to the public a second crime, particularly when there is one known forgery added to the bunch? Distribution of a forged document? I don’t know about crime, but I do know … that’s slime.

Fast forward a few months. After being exposed and having no other way out, Peter confessed to all except forging the initial document, and he may be right. It doesn’t matter. None of it justifies wire fraud and an attempt at scurrilously damaging Heartland’s reputation by his circulation of a very deliberately deceptive package of documents including a known forgery.

So Dr. Gleick resigned from the Task Force. He’d demonstrated he didn’t have enough integrity to be Chair of the AGU group charged with considering and encouraging Scientific Integrity. He was replaced as Chair, presumably by the person among the other Task Force members with the next highest amount of integrity. This was a woman named Dr. Linda Gundersen.

In a post I wrote almost a year ago, called “An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen“, I congratulated Dr. Gunderson on what I saw as a difficult post to fill. I pointed out the very public nature of her promotion, due to the precipitous and most theatrical pratfall of her predecessor, Dr. Peter Gleick. I also noted that she had a huge opportunity, which was to start by having the task force consider the lack of scientific integrity of her predecessor.

You have the opportunity to actually take a principled stand here, Dr. Gundersen, and I cannot overemphasize the importance of you doing so. Dr. Gleick’s kind of unethical skullduggery in the name of science has ruined the reputation of the entire field of climate science. The rot of “noble cause corruption” is well advanced in the field, and it will not stop until people just like you quit looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist. I had hoped that some kind of repercussions for scientific malfeasance would be one of the outcomes of Climategate, but people just ignored that part. This one you can’t ignore.

Well, I suppose you can ignore it, humans are amazing, anyone can ignore even an elephant in the room … but if you do ignore it, in the future please don’t ever expect your opinions on scientific integrity to be given even the slightest weight. The world is already watching your actions, not your words, and you can be assured that those actions will be carefully examined. If you let this chance for meaningful action slip away, no one out here in the real world will ever again believe a word you say on the subject of integrity.

I cannot urge you in strong enough terms. Do not miss the boat on this one. The credibility of your panel is already irrevocably damaged by the witless choice of your first chair. The move is yours to make or not, the opportunity is there to take the scientific high ground. You will be judged on whether you and the Task Force have the scientific integrity to take action regarding Dr. Gleick, or whether you just take the UN route and issue a string of “strongly worded resolutions” bemoaning the general situation.

Now, lest you think that my claim that “the world is already watching” in the quote above is mere hyperbole, I suggest you google ‘Dr. Linda Gundersen’, no need for quotes. Note that the most highly ranked link, first on the Google list, is my post “An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen” here on WUWT.

I closed that post by saying:

I am hoping for action on this, but sadly, I have been in this game long enough to not expect scientific integrity, even from scientists who sit on scientific integrity task forces … and I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

In any case, my warmest and best wishes to you, Dr. Gundersen. I do not envy you, as you have a very difficult task ahead. I wish you every success in your work.

w.

In short, I did what I could to let her know that I wished her success, that her actions in this regard wouldn’t go unnoticed, and to encourage her to take the path of scientific integrity and at a minimum to perform and make public a non-adversarial inquiry into, and the lessons learned from, the downfall of her predecessor.

I thought that it was critical to deal with Glieck’s actions because they perfectly exemplify a huge problem in climate science, called “noble cause corruption. This occurs when someone is so convinced of the correctness and the importance and the nobility of their cause that they start shading the numbers, just a little at first, not much, just highlighting … and in the later stages of noble cause corruption they may well find themselves manufacturing the numbers wholesale, without any idea how they got to that point. It’s not your usual kind of corruption, the kind for money or fame. Instead, it’s corruption in the service of a “noble cause”, as they tell themselves. The problem, of course, is that noble cause corruption is still … well … corruption. Lethal and antithetical to science.

Climategate revealed that beyond fudging the numbers, some climate scientists were so convinced that they were saving the earth that they were willing to secretly commit a variety of highly unethical and even illegal acts in the furtherance of their noble cause. That’s the end result of noble cause corruption that starts with shading a few numbers, or as I sometimes call it as regards climate science, “Nobel cause corruption”.

Now, a year later, I find that my pessimism regarding Dr. Gundersen was wholly justified. Steve McIntyre went to the latest AGU meeting. He discusses some of what went on in a post worth reading, entitled “AGU Honors Gleick“. Dr. Gundersen, it seems, has done absolutely nothing regarding l’affaire Gleick. Well, not quite nothing. Sounds like she did a very credible impersonation of Pontius Pilate, wherein she washed her hands of the whole business, says it’s nothing to do with AGU in the slightest. No reprimand, no UN-style “strongly worded letter”, no commentary. No discussion of the issues exposed by the affair, no interview with the currently un-indicted Dr. Gleick to try to clear the waters, not what Steve McIntyre calls the scientific equivalent of a “one-game-suspension”, not even some vague, plain vanilla statement deploring the kind of actions without mentioning any names. Nothing.

Now that would be bad enough. But it gets worse. The AGU leadership honored Gleick by inviting him to make a presentation! That’s double-plus ungood, as the man said.

It’s bad enough that the AGU leadership did not censure him, or even discuss his actions in the abstract to see what lessons might be learned.

It is a whole other message, however, to invite him to speak. That is an honor. That sends that message that the AGU understands poor Dr. Peter. It says he took one for the team, and that wire fraud in the defense of a noble cause is no big thing … So much for the scientific integrity of the AGU, in this case at least they just showed they have none at all.

Finally, remember, this is not just some ordinary member of AGU that has done something totally lacking in integrity. It’s not even just an AGU official who stands self-condemned of a huge ethical lapse. Heck, it’s not even just a member of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity being found with his hand in the cookie jar. This is the Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity, caught red-handed and self-confessed … and Dr. Gundersen says this has nothing to do with the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity or the AGU?

Really?

In any case, Dr. Linda Gunderson, in a move that I truly don’t understand, has now taken one for the team as well. She has stood as the steadfast bulwark against the malevolent creeping scourge of scientific integrity, by refusing to even consider the process whereby she got the job that she holds …

Ah, well. I suppose it must have earned her, if not the respect, at least the gratitude of her colleagues. They must have been afraid for a minute that she might do something. Glad that’s straight. Her name must serve as a beacon of hope among wire fraudsters everywhere, at least the ones with integrity. I just hope that keeps her warm at midnight, when she considers the cold wind of history whistling through the shredded remains of her own reputation …

Finally, it’s not too late, she could pull out of the nose dive. Dr. Linda could still do the right thing. She could still open a discussion about noble cause corruption, and what it has done to the field of climate science. She could still talk about the increase in scientific fraud, and what that means to science itself.

Heck, every good theoretical paper needs an example. So she could even talk about how noble cause corruption and blind fanaticism blighted first the Climategate unindicted co-conspirators, then Dr. Peter’s career, then Dr. Linda’s career, and eventually has cast a shadow over the AGU itself …

Alternatively, she could write up a piece and publish it here on WUWT, I’m certain Anthony would have no objections. She could tell us all just why she has done nothing regarding Dr. Gleick’s actions. That’s what I’d do in her shoes. Well, no, actually if I were in her shoes, I’d open a non-adversarial inquiry, to see what we could all learn from Dr. Peter’s fall. But my point is, the game’s not over yet, she could pull through, and I would be very happy to see her do so.

Or not. She could do nothing. But it’s not just her. The problem is the silence of all the rest of the lambs. As Curt Schilling said,

You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

Dear friends, science is in trouble. Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise. If the AGU is unwilling to stop honoring those who actively promote forged documents, then why should anyone place any credence any of them? People are becoming disillusioned, losing faith and trust in science because of the unethical, unscientific, immoral, and sometimes even illegal actions of people like Dr. Gleick and the Climategate crowd … and Dr. Linda Gundersen and the AGU leadership seem to have put themselves firmly in the camp that Curt Schilling called those who “didn’t actively do anything to stop it”.

I’m not made that way. Now I admit, I can’t do much, any more than many of us can … but I will not go gentle into that good night, and I encourage you not to either. This is me raging against the dying of the scientific light. We all need, in Curt’s words, to “actively push to get the game clean.”

w.

APPENDIX: The actual charge of the AGU Task Force, from here:

Task Force on Ethics and Integrity in AGU Scientific Activities

Charge

The Task force will:

• Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies.

• Based on this knowledge update AGU’s protocols and procedures for addressing violations of its ethical principles

• As appropriate revise and augment AGU’s current ethical principles and code of conduct for AGU meetings, publications and for interactions between scientists with their professional colleagues and the public.

• Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles.

• Consider whether AGU should adopt a statement of ethical principles as a condition of membership or for participation in certain activities of the Union. If so, develop a recommendation on how the principles would be applied to AGU members and or participants in AGU activities.

About these ads

209 thoughts on “AGU, Gleick, Climate Science, and Baseball Steroid Use

  1. Well argued post. The closing comment “I will not go gentle into that good night, and I encourage you not to either. This is me raging against the dying of the scientific light.” is excellent and is the reason I keep arguing and posting, and have done for over 12 years. It is almost as though we are witnessing the reversal of the enlightenment. The “benightment” of science, caused by…climate change!

  2. Willis, it would seem you missed this:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-global-warming-hot-list-for-2013

    In February, confidential documents intended for Heartland’s board were leaked, showing a network of payments to climate skeptics and funding for a school curriculum designed to cast doubt on climate science. In a Grisham-esque turn, prominent scientist/activist Peter Gleick admitted obtaining the documents by posing as a Heartland board member and apologized for his ethical lapse.

    He apologised, so that’s all right, then. /sarc

  3. I think we expect too much from academia. While interned as a graduate student there were plenty of examples of less than honorable activities among the professors and students, across disciplines and universities. I had first hand accounts of professors presenting false and wrong data at national conventions. The student who collected the data told them it was wrong because if mistakes she made but the professor didn’t care, she still wanted to tell the story. Later this prof was made president of an ivy league school.

    A friend of mine while a post doc couldn’t replicate the results of prior students. He found out that the prior students fabricated the results and brought it to the attention of his professor. The professor, a lead person in his field, told him to mind his own business. The case was brought before the professional organization and after a few bitter years was quietly swept under the carpets.

    Academics is not a noble profession. They are in their own little sick and twisted world.

  4. And I’m sure It wouldn’t interest anybody, outside of a small circle of friends …

    — Phil Ochs, 1940 – 1976

  5. I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?

  6. Well, he did lose his job. I’m trying to remember, did Heartland bring any civil action against him?

  7. Good to see that if US sport is not more ethical than US science and academia, then it is at least more aware of it’s failings.

  8. Expecting an admission of any sort of wrongdoing, even “noble cause corruption” sounds like a case of “hope over experience” to me. Well we can but hope.

  9. Actually you come top in Bing to. Mind you the next spot after the WUWT banner is for a Gynecologist named Gundersen. But they are all looking after c***s aren’t they

  10. @ThinkingScientist:

    Yes, exactly. I was wondering about this, so did a long dive through the various philosophical roots of what was, and what science is becoming, and from what roots. It’s long, but gets there. From the conclusion here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/isms-ocracies-and-ologie/

    In Conclusion

    We’ve taken a very broad sweep of the -isms of this world, a few of the -ologies, and even an -ocracy or two.
    [...]
    For the traditional path to America as founded, it is not a very long, nor tortuous path. The Ancient Regime, to The Enlightenment, with perhaps a light seasoning of Naturalism in the sciences.

    For the other paths, that lead through oh so many failed experiments of history, there is a broad and deep kaleidescope of names, of -isms, of advocates and ideation. Clarity and success, not so much…
    [...]
    For folks not so interested in The Socialisms, but interested in restoring America, I hope this brief survey lets you rapidly focus on what to promote, and to some extent what to avoid. The review of The Socialisms will give a more detailed list of things that have not worked so well… and connections to their philosophical roots.

    My bias is to the side of The Enlightenment and Naturalism. I’ve seen little to indicate anything since then has been an improvement… So simply knowing that lets me not be so ‘buffaloed’ if someone starts to spout about “humanist positivism” or the superiority of “moral relativism in the post-modernist reductionist age”. I can simply look at them and calmly state: “I prefer the liberty and humanity of a Naturalist Enlightenment as it works much better.”

    The “Naturalist Enlightenment” philosophy is being actively subverted and replaced by broken world view based on bad roots like “humanist positivism” and “moral relativism” which hold such broken ideas as that there is no actual right and wrong, so as long as your motive was pure, so was your action. You can see the result of that… I lauds noble cause corruption.

    In a follow on piece I looked at the philosophical roots that lead to the socialisms (that feed into those ‘alternative’ philosophies):

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/

    This is where, after tracking it all backwards through history I reach the first seed, then recapitulate the journey forward in summary:

    And with that, we reach the final end of the beginnings of Socialism. In a work of fiction, aimed at an indirect criticism of the King, resulting in an “Off with his head” moment.

    So now you know.

    Now, just for fun, “play it forward” in your mind. From a work of fiction, to attempts at real world Utopian Communes that regularly fail, to Mr. Mills ideas about control, to a 1/2 finished economic theory about value and labor turned into a base belief, to a Marxist twist into a struggle of the classes (class warfare) and on to the USSR – Stalin and the various purges, Fascism, Nazism and The Progressive push for euthanasia and forced sterilizations, eventually to Mao and The Cultural Revolution (one could toss in Pol Pot and the Khmer rouge for another 3 million dead… but that would be piling on…)

    It is no less than a frontal assault in coordination with a ‘5th column’ on the ideals of The Enlightenment. That is the “root cause” of it all.

  11. Bravo22C:
    I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?

    Totally agree. And if Heartland have given up on this, can they just explain why? We had plenty from Heartland at the start saying, essentially, “we’re working on it”. Since then, effectively nothing.

  12. For what it is worth Al Gore’s Book “Earth in the Balance” was written by ex- EPA Administrator Carol Browner. She is notorious for wiping the EPA computer files despite a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth requiring the agency to preserve its records.

    Hubby just picked up a copy at a thrift store for $0.50. My husband (a technical writer) thought it was very well written so he went digging to find out who actually wrote it.

    Carol Browner, BTW is a lawyer not a scientist. Obama selected Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Grist describes Browner as President Obama’s former “energy czar”

  13. Good post Willis.
    The mantra it’s not just bad men that make bad things happen its he good men that do or say nothing fits here very well!

  14. “Nobel cause corruption” only covers some of it , other actions can be directly related to the professional and personal benefits they brought to those that did them . Minor academics became big time players with easy access to research funds and position that otherwise they would never have seen . Some have even turned their advocacy into nice little earners by charging lots of cash of ‘interviews and speaking engagements.

    But the overall issue to to true , not just the actions of those that did which is the problem but of those that did not but said nothing about those that did . Indeed in the longer term its that problem that may cause most damage to science in general when it comes to public trust.

  15. Bravo, Willis.
    You and Mr. Shilling echo the pithy “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Generally attributed to the ever relevant Edmund Burke.

  16. Perhaps Gleick could follow Lance Armstrong, & have an “unburdening session” with Oprah Winfrey

  17. Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:

    You each query why the Heartland Institute (HI) has not brought charges against Gleick. All your points were answered in a recent post on WUWT in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/quote-of-the-week-the-glieck-tragedy-continues/

    To avoid you needing to find it, I copy that post from a HI representative below.

    Richard
    ———————-

    Jim Lakely (Heartland Institute) says:
    January 7, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    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

  18. Great article Willis.

    However, Climate “Science” missed its opportunity to “come clean” on many previous occasions – the most important of which was the movie that helped Al Gore get rich, “An Inconvenient Truth”. I remember that this was a required “science” movie that my son HAD TO WATCH in grade school(!!), even with all of its mistruths and exaggerations. Hardly anyone in the Climate “Science” community said a peep. There was too much on the line – mainly money and rock star-like fame. Then came the Nobel prize and more money. The greed and fame won the day (and still win the day) with these people.

    So, having the AGU honor Glieck after all of his completely unethical behavior is just more of the same. In fact, I think it speaks volumes about the ethical standards of the AGU itself. Perhaps those AGU members who wish not to be associated with this will complain, but I doubt it. There’s too much money involved…

  19. If the US Attorney is refusing to go ahead with the prosecution against Gleick, for whatever reason, then Heartland must bring a civil case.

  20. But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.

  21. Craig Biggio had 3060 hits, and didn’t get voted into the Hall of Fame. We wuz robbed.
    Maybe he should change his name to Kardashian.

  22. In our society today wealth and fame outweigh integrity. Only chumps play the game straight, that includes politics, business and sports. It is a sign of the times. Not a good sign but a sign none the less. Carbon credits anyone?

  23. It has become clear that the AGU is not a honourable organisation. It has gained a proven record of encouraging corruption.

    So why do people stay members? There are social benefits; it is the sign of respectability in the field and it has a noble heritage plus, I’m sure the conference was fun.
    But that does not match the shame from partaking in the disgrace.

    The analogy to membership of the Communist Party in Stalinist Russia seems apt.
    Why haven’t people resigned yet?

  24. “Now, if Peter’s tale were true…”, and that’s a very big IF!

    I hope other readers are all aware of the Gleick/Heartland story because the way Willis has told it here has been very kind to Gleick, who almost certainly doctored up that one document himself to make amends for the ho-hum real Heartland documents.

  25. David L says:
    January 10, 2013 at 4:07 am

    …..Academics is not a noble profession. They are in their own little sick and twisted world.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You completely missed the point. Academia SHOULD be a noble profession. They SHOULD be held to the highest level of morality and ethics because these are the teachers of our young. As the role models of the next generation their morality and ethics are critical.

    The fact that you give them a pass and shrug your shoulders show just what type of ethical decay sets in when Academia is NOT held to high standards.

    It is the reason I say the whole mess should be defunded. Academia has proven they are Michael Manns, Peter Gliecks and Jerry Sanduskys. The fact that Academia covered-up for these men and who knows how many others shows they whole edifice is rotten to the core and should be dismantled.

    Climategate and Gundersen’s actions show even when caught read handed the Academics feel they are gods and not answerable to lesser men. They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings. If we scream loud enough and raise enough of a fuss Congress WILL defund Academia because they are looking for a bone to throw to the rank and file.

    Gundersen’s actions just gave us more ammunition to make those demands, if not in this administration in the next.

  26. “Now, lest you think that my claim that “the world is already watching” in the quote above is mere hyperbole….”

    Sorry, Mr. E. I think that statement goes against the point you are trying to make. It is patently obvious that the world is NOT watching. If only it were. In this matter and many others. Not one person in a thousand on the street in the UK could tell you who either Peter Gleick or Dr. Gundersen are or even what the initials AGU stood for. Not even the narrower scientific world is watching. Even the even narrower climate science world is only watching with half an eye or deliberately averting their gaze.

    That is the problem.

  27. Willis,
    What a masterful expose. How long does it take you to write essays that methodically eviserate delinquents.

    { Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 4:52 am

    Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[61][62][63] although the commission’s web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.[64]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner }

    Therein lies the “Noble cause” of not only Carol, but Gleick and Gunderson.

    For some perspective, this type of scientific behavior is not new. While at a major University twenty years ago, I knew associates who would skew the numbers slightly to make a study with ~5.4% significance into one with ~4.98%, or 10.5 to 9.7. This would give them another three or four years on the dole. Or submit bogus expenditure receipts to the granting agencies. I’m suggesting it occurs more than one could imagine.

    “Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it.”

  28. While it all probably started with ‘noble cause corruption’, I’m afraid it has now grown into ‘pocket book corruption’. With, as someone has stated previously on this site, some 80 billion dollars at stake or already spent and every university in the country with a department of ‘Climate Science’, there is just too much money involved to worry about minor issue such as scientific integrity.

  29. re richardscourtney says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:

    The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
    Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.

  30. Bravo22C says:
    January 10, 2013 at 4:16 am

    I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Heartland is trying for criminal charges first but the government is refusing so far.

    The reason why is Wire Fraud is a serious offencse if you do a search you find it bundled under:

    The 2011 FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

    These sections address basic forms of property offenses: theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting (other than offenses involving altered or counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States), insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. (Arson is dealt with separately in Chapter Two, Part K (Offenses Involving Public Safety)). These guidelines apply to offenses prosecuted under a wide variety of federal statutes, as well as offenses that arise under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

    §2B1.1. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States

    (a) Base Offense Level:

    (1) 7, if (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to this guideline; and (B) that offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more…
    .
    .
    .
    15. Cross Reference in Subsection (c)(3).—Subsection (c)(3) provides a cross reference to another guideline in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a general fraud statute, and the count of conviction establishes an offense involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly covered by another guideline. Sometimes, offenses involving fraudulent statements are prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or a similarly general statute, although the offense involves fraudulent conduct that is also covered by a more specific statute. Examples include false entries regarding currency transactions, for which §2S1.3 (Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements) likely would be more apt, and false statements to a customs officer, for which §2T3.1 (Evading Import Duties or Restrictions (Smuggling); Receiving or Trafficking in Smuggled Property) likely would be more apt. In certain other cases, the mail or wire fraud statutes, or other relatively broad statutes, are used primarily as jurisdictional bases for the prosecution of other offenses. For example, a state employee who improperly influenced the award of a contract and used the mails to commit the offense may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. Such a case would be more aptly sentenced pursuant to §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions).….

    That may not be the correct section but it gives a feel for what Gleick should be facing if the US government was functioning under the Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Man.

  31. Thanks richardscourtney – I had missed that. I’ll admit I’m surprised that there is nothing more they can do.

  32. I remember when I first started reading this blog in 2007, most here (and especially Anthony) still felt that the warmists were simply mistaken, and that if they could just see the data and the models they would certainly change their minds. We could all still think of them in friendly terms, as fellow devotees of science who simply had misinterpreted the data.

    Now it’s impossible to deny that they know just as much as we know and they don’t care. They know because they are the ones who have to intentionally fake the data, intentionally slant the models, intentionally cover up and paper over the outright criminal behavior by their compatriots.

    They know they’re faking it all. They don’t care at all about that, because it is all in support of their true agenda, which can no longer be hidden.

    These people are not simply mistaken – they are our enemies, and the enemies of anyone who still cares for truth and decency in this world. We have to fight them in every way we can, without ceasing.

    Because that is how they are continuing to fight us.

  33. All: Under Obama’s (In)Justice Department, each regional prosecutor’s office is completely controlled by appointed (liberal democrats) subject to review and approval by Washington. Chicago is the heart of that empire, and is the most likely to be corrupt.

    “Discretion” therefore means “We will selectively prosecute you” if you are not a member of our political party, if you do nor support our liberal political party, or are doing things to our selected political party that make us look bad or feel uncomfortable. Thus, the Selective Justice Dept refuses to prosecute thugs photographed standing outside a Philadelphia voting precinct with sticks who were threatening voters – because those thugs were in the liberal party. The prosecutors attacked a conservative who asked a question in public embarrassing to the candidate, but refused to investigate the newspapers and politicians who released his private records and files that were used to humiliate that person.

    The InJustive Department today IS entirely political run, politically and racially biased, and WILL refuse to aid anyone who opposes their regime in Washington.

  34. Willis, another great post.

    One group that has been particularly guilty of letting the scandal pass whilst turning a blind eye are the churches. Many indeed have even jumped on the CAGW bandwagon in an attempt to try and be ‘modern’ and ‘with it’, i.e. supporting a perceived up-welling of “something must be done to protect precious Earth”, but have singularly failed to apply a critical eye to the issue such that ‘truth’ may prevail.

    I have particular interest in the Church of England, being my ‘home’ church, and in particular their ‘Shrinking the [CO2] Footprint’ programme that uncritically accepts the IPCC’s alarmist pronouncements. This program is endorsed by the Archbishops Environmental Council, so goes to the top. It will be somewhat of a humiliation for them when the full impact of the recent revelations by the UK Met Office and NASA that CAGW isn’t a problem after all.

  35. I know that using the “E” word is strongly discouraged but I am going to risk censure. Those people who are trying to eliminate, or at least water down, the teaching of, well, you know what, in our [public] schools have been making the case for years that biological and geological scientists have been excluding them so that their lack of scientific integrity could not be exposed to legislators and the general public. They have made the claims that the science of “E” biology is run by a cartelle of irreligious zealots… yada yada yada.

    The ultimate and inevitable downfall of climate science is going to damage science in general in far-reaching ways which will reverberate throughout our society. Those people are anti-science and they will exploit every opportunity to persuade people that every branch of science should be mis-trusted.

  36. Alternatively, she (Dr. Gunderson) could write up a piece and publish it here on WUWT, I’m certain Anthony would have no objections.

    That would never happen, as that would be an acknowledgement that WUWT exists and is relevant… something the AGU could never bear to do.

  37. Jeff B. says: @ January 10, 2013 at 5:30 am

    But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is simplistic.

    You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control.

    The socialists mistakenly think bankers are Capitalists but they are not. “Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers.” He drew this cartoon in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showing Karl Marx standing in Wall Street accepting the congratulations of the financial luminaries of the time such as J.P. Morgan (Owner of the US Media), his partner George W. Perkins, John D. Rockefeller, and Teddy Roosevelt.
    SEE: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

    The only winners for the last hundred years have been the bankers and their buddies. Both the socialists and the ‘capitalists’ have been played for fools. (Capitalism died with the passing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We all became serfs to the bankers at that moment.)

  38. “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

  39. Tom G(ologist) says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:45 am
    “Those people are anti-science and they will exploit every opportunity to persuade people that every branch of science should be mis-trusted.”

    If your science is based on TRUST it sure ain’t no science in the first place.

  40. Brilliant article.

    However, I’m going to suggest the problem is not limited to baseball and climate science. I submit that the same thing is happening throughout all of our social institutions. Government (at all levels), churches (naughty priests), universities (e.g. Penn), banks (e.g. sub prime loans), large corporations and more. Think about it! Sadly, you’ll probably find it heartbreaking but the fact is that all of our social institutions are failing us.

  41. “… didn’t actively do anything to stop it”.? The AGU/Gunderson actions and inactions go beyond doing nothing active. “Conspire with” and “cover up” would be more accurate, but then they might sue? As we are dealing with systemic corruption armed with money and lawyers, it’s easy to see how we can find ourselves doing less than truth would call for.

  42. Ed MacAulay says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am

    re richardscourtney says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:

    The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
    Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not necessarily.

    Heartland DID lose some big donors when the activists ‘swarmed’ them and they decided for business reasons to no longer donate to Heartland. That is a direct cause and effect that can be proven. The total went up because of all the little donors but you would then have to prove in court that the Glieck’s scam and not the bill board was the reason.

    This means you have to put each and every one on the stand and ask WHY. My answer would be I like the idea that they ran a billboard and they host true science conferences.

  43. One aspect of criminal behavior is that it is hardest to commit a crime the first time you do it. Once you get away with it, it is easier the second, third and all subsequent times you do it. Often this leads to the criminal into becoming more and more sloppy. At times it seems they want to be caught, because they become so careless and so outrageous.

    Why this occurs is a mystery to me. It seems the “conscience” becomes numbed, or even ceases to function. In spiritual literature I have heard it called, “Being given to your sin.” The individual loses the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, (and science and pseudoscience.)

    It is crucial to stand up to people going down this slippery slope. It is not any sort of kindness to allow them to get away with behavior that is self-destructive, and also is destructive to all they are associated with.

    Thanks for the good essay, Willis.

  44. Believe nothing that one reads or hears without verifying it unless it congruent to ones Weltanschauung (this later clause excuses the invincibly ignorant).

  45. Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?

  46. As E.M.Smith as pointed out in a somewhat roundabout fashion, this is going to be washed right down the drain along with all other shining examples of corruption. This is because the cause is more important than the minor crime of wire fraud and indeed more important than any crime upto and including the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people, this is the history of tyranny so many people ignore. These people have declared us enemies and they mean to have their way. There will be no magical moment of clarity where these corrupt tyrants suddenly come to their senses and become torch bearers for the cause of justice, law and order- for that is not their cause, their cause is to rule and by whatever means necessary is fine by them.

  47. Great post.

    Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.

    It appears to be a never-ending battle….

  48. “Craig Biggio had 3060 hits, and didn’t get voted into the Hall of Fame. We wuz robbed.
    Maybe he should change his name to Kardashian”

    Patience Mike – a lot of the mossbacks have first ballot phobia.
    /sarc actually, since the world is getting hotter and Bill James proved that batting averages go down in cold weather, his accomplishment should be more honored
    /sarcoff.

  49. Willis has the right targets in his sights – Linda Gundersen and each of us who is aware of some lapse in ethics among public and private actors. Pronouncements about grand conspiracies and theories will never set the ball rolling. Specific people have to be identified and confronted with their lapses.

  50. Schroedinger,

    Gleick engaged in official corruption, while Rawls exposed official corruption. Sorry you can’t see the difference.

  51. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:01 am …

    “You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control.”

    It would seem to me that you may have missed the point that the media don’t need to be controlled by anyone because nearly all of them ARE socialists and Democrats, and they no longer think it is their job to report the news but rather to actually create it.

  52. “Tim Clark says: January 10, 2013 at 6:00 am
    Willis, What a masterful expose. How long does it take you to write essays that methodically eviscerate delinquents.”

    I’ve been ruminating about Willis.
    Willis’ points are of course superb. But his level of skill in expressing them is astounding.
    I read a lot of stuff and frankly I cannot recall running across anyone else quite at his level.
    Many others are superb but Willis? It’s almost scary how good he is.
    Is it just me or do others suspect this guy Willis may be some kind of other world superior being? :)

    Pardon me Willis, but fess up. What are you? :)

  53. Ed MacAulay says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am

    re richardscourtney says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:

    The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
    Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.

    Yep.

    And if they sued for defamation or the like, then are they not doing exactly what many of us are critical of Michael Mann doing in his never ending pursuit to cleans the world of doubters via lawsuit? Sometimes, the best move is to let it go and move on. Gleick and the AGU have already damaged themselves more than any lawsuit could. Did you see the pictures of some of the presentations at their latest meeting, and many of the chairs were empty?

  54. Curt Schilling was not going to be voted into the Hall of Fame, even if steroids were not an issue. He is not a borderline Hall of Famer, and will get in within a few years, but he is not a first ballot guy either. He never won a Cy Young, but had 3 seasons good enough to win most years. His win total is low, but his postseason performance and other stats more than balance that.

    Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, and perhaps even Craig BIggio were robbed by steroids.

  55. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:01 am

    “You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control. ”

    No this is overly simplistic. Bankers hold no power over anything. The government holds the power over the bankers which then uses that power to exploit ppl. The bankers at least the government bankers are socialist to the core and are in fact the very definition of many types of socialism… fascism being front and center.

    The government backed socialist bankers are doing what the government socialists want period. This idea that the bankers are somehow controlling the government is a pure and unabridged joke. The government is ALWAYS the supreme authority. Now one could argue that the banks are the government… which would be a fine argument however thats untrue. At anytime should the socialists bankers lose favor with the socialist government they will be purge as always is a case.

    Socialists live in a fantasy world where if they’re prefect version of socialist doesn’t exist then its not “real socialism”. Of course “prefect” socialism is where said socialist is the top dog exploiting everyone else. Reality is that we live under a socialist system where the government through controlling the means of production(banks being the foremost) are attempting and failing to control the public. This is classic socialism of the fascist, corporatist, etc type.

  56. ” E.M.Smith says: January 10, 2013 at 4:49 am”

    Thank you very much for the links. Some very interesting reading awaits me when I get home tonight.

  57. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:01 am
    Both the socialists and the ‘capitalists’ have been played for fools. (Capitalism died with the passing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We all became serfs to the bankers at that moment.)
    ========
    It is surprising the number of Americans that are completely unaware that the Federal Reserve Bank is privately held and the books are not open to inspection by Congress. That in order to print money, the US government must first borrow the funds from the Federal Reserve Bank!!

    Think about this for a minute. The US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, but instead of getting actual money, this gives the US government the right to print money. Yet, in the process, the Federal Reserve has not actually given the US government any money, but the US government has given the Federal Reserve a pledge that they will repay the money they printed back to the Federal Reserve. This debt then becomes the responsibility of the US taxpayer.

    In case this all seems too fantastic to believe, it is because it is one of the best kept secrets in the US financial system. The Federal Reserve does not lend money to the US government, it gives the US government the right to print money, and every dollar printed is then owed back to the Federal Reserve. Which is a privately held bank, outside the oversight of Congress, owned by the richest of the rich in the world.

  58. I met Curt a couple of times whislt visiting the States. I didn’t know who he was at first and when he invited a dozen of us out to a restaurant I declined [busy] only to learn later he’d paid for everyone! Lovely chap.

  59. wws says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:29 am

    I remember when I first started reading this blog in 2007, most here (and especially Anthony) still felt that the warmists were simply mistaken, and that if they could just see the data and the models they would certainly change their minds. We could all still think of them in friendly terms, as fellow devotees of science who simply had misinterpreted the data.

    Now it’s impossible to deny that they know just as much as we know and they don’t care…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Two statements put what you said in a very clear light.
    The banker’s stake in CAGW

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

    This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.

    The IPCC mandate states:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to hang the human race. The IPCC assumes the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.

    Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

    The Bankers, CEOs, Academics, and Politicians know exactly what they are doing, and that is the complete gutting of western civilization for profit. The lament “it is for our future children” has to be the vilest lie they have ever told. since their actions sell those children into slavery.

  60. If you would like to read some comedy gold go to the AGU web site and look around.

    http://www.agu.org/about/strategic_plan.shtml

    Core Mission

    The purpose of the American Geophysical Union is to promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity.

    Core Principles

    As an organization, AGU holds a set of guiding core values:

    The scientific method
    The generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge
    Open exchange of ideas and information
    Diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas and approaches
    Benefit of science for a sustainable future
    International and interdisciplinary cooperation
    Equality and inclusiveness
    An active role in educating and nurturing the next generation of scientists
    An engaged membership
    Unselfish cooperation in research
    Excellence and integrity in everything we do

    When we are at our best as an organization, we embody these values in our behavior as follows:

    We advance Earth and space science by catalyzing and supporting the efforts of individual scientists within and outside the membership.
    As a learned society, we serve the public good by fostering quality in the Earth and space science and by publishing the results of research.
    We welcome all in academic, government, industry and other venues who share our interests in understanding the Earth, planets and their space environment, or who seek to apply this knowledge to solving problems facing society.
    Our scientific mission transcends national boundaries.
    Individual scientists worldwide are equals in all AGU activities.
    Cooperative activities with partner societies of all sizes worldwide enhance the resources of all, increase the visibility of Earth and space science, and serve individual scientists, students, and the public.
    We are our members.
    Dedicated volunteers represent an essential ingredient of every program.
    AGU staff work flexibly and responsively in partnership with volunteers to achieve our goals and objectives.

    Seems that they totally ignore the first bolded statement above and subordinate it to the second bolded statement where they appear to put, advancing the careers of shoddy scientists above good science.

    Probably the saddest comment is that the general public is totally sucked in by this class of operation where they put some high sounding name on an organization, and publish a few goals and objective statements and the gullible public swallows the bait and presumes that these published statements accurately reflect the true behavior and objective of the organization.

    It is only through the complicity of a corrupt and agenda driven media that allows this sort of thing to happen. If the media ever returns to good old fashioned journalism (you know the kind where they try to peer under the rocks to see what is crawling around in the dark) there will be 10-20 years of boom times for the media as they uncover scandal after scandal in our society.

    Sooner or later some paper or blogger will push the final button and trigger such a period of “muck raking” journalism as we had between 1900 and the end of WWI, which incidentally was one of the factors that tore down the progressive movement of the period.

    The only question is who will be this generations Julius Chambers, and Nellie Bly??

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

    Larry

  61. From the AGU Ethics Committee page:

    The Scientific Ethics Task Force is responsible for reviewing and guiding the Union s standards, principles, and code of conduct on ethics and integrity in scientific activities.

    Committee Charge

    Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies;

    Based on this knowledge, update AGU’s protocols and procedures for addressing violations of its ethical principles;

    As appropriate, revise and augment AGU’s current ethical principles and code of conduct for AGU meetings, publications and for interactions between scientists with their professional colleagues and the public;

    Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and

    Consider whether AGU should adopt a statement of ethical principles as a condition of membership or for participation in certain activities of the Union. If so, develop a recommendation on how the principles would be applied to AGU members and or participants in AGU activities.

    Work Plan

    To be determined

    There’s your answer, Willis. They currently don’t have any ethical standards and just haven’t gotten around to figuring out what unethical behavior looks like yet. Could they be waiting until Gleick can resume the chairmanship of the committee again?

  62. Irony abounds, everywhere the hand of bureaucracy goes unchecked.
    We get crooks and foolishly compromised academics lecturing us about ethical behaviour.
    Our watchdogs, or so they claim, in govt have attacked us.
    In the Bureaus lying, backstabbing and sloth are positive attributes.
    By choice these people have chosen to live off of the labour of others, while deliberately making it harder for us, their host, to engage in productive work.
    Socialism, rampant bureaucracy whats the difference?
    Both bloat themselves with wealth and power until they kill the society they live off of.
    Acting to damage the society you live in, is stupidity.
    Damaging a country you have sworn to protect is treason.
    In the political machinations of the UN I see an orchestrated attack on nation states.

  63. MangoChutney says: January 10, 2013 at 5:23 am
    If the US Attorney is refusing to go ahead with the prosecution against Gleick, for whatever reason, then Heartland must bring a civil case.
    ===============================
    Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.

  64. Caleb says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:47 am

    One aspect of criminal behavior is that it is hardest to commit a crime the first time you do it…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is called ‘crossing the line’ The first time a person strikes their spouse in anger it is difficult and usually just a slap, but once that line is crossed it is easier the next time and it soon becomes ‘acceptable’ in the person’s mind and escalates. The same principle applies to what we are seeing here. Worse as David L, January 10, 2013 at 4:07 am showed, if you have examples that society see this as ‘acceptable behavior’ it is much easier to ‘cross that line’

    After all why shouldn’t I cheat if everyone else including my teachers do? Humans have the ability to take a specific and make it into a generality so once society accepts any type of ‘cheating’ then it is easy to generalize ALL cheating is acceptable.

    We have now reach that stage.

  65. Excellent article, as usual.

    Willis starts it off with: “Please Turn Around, Dr. Gundersen, You’re Blowing Your One Chance!”

    But Gunderson was cherry-picked specifically because they knew she could be counted on to sweep the whole sorry episode under the rug. She is as ethics-free as Gleick.

  66. Our government is too busy chasing down 11-year old girls doing good deeds and, thus, have neither time nor interest in the behavior of those climate folks that are trying to save the whole world. See:

    http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/161065/158/Woodpecker-Saving-Daughter-Costs-Mom-500

    However, the Virginia State Police seem a little embarrassed – bless their little hearts.
    Part of the report says:
    Virginia State Police just released the following statement:

    “We have confirmed that the US Fish and Wildlife agent requested our presence when they served their federal summons. The trooper stood on the porch and said nothing. We had nothing to do with the charge.”

  67. Willis Eschenbach says: “Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”

    The number of retractions right now is 100 papers per million papers published. That is, I haf to read 10,000 papers before I hit one that might be retracted. (If only business people and politicians were as honest.) Also, the majority of papers retracted are for mistakes, not some experimental malfeasance. If you are suggesting that, like athletes doping, scientists that are politically active might be cheats, then based on the number of papers retracted, it seems you are 99.99% incorrect.

  68. Schroedinger says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The public PAID for that document and the IPCC PROMISED Transparency. Apples and Oranges.

    Also Gleick did his dirty with malice in mind while Rawls was protecting the general public from a bunch of scammers trying to hide the scientific data so they could spin it with the express purpose of making MORE money off the poor. In other words he was a “Whistle Blower”

  69. Gail Combs says:

    > They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings.

    With all respect Gail, they don’t forget. They know full well we can only elect someone to designate a bursar of his choice to hold the strings. That is quite different from being ultimately the ones in charge. Try to withhold your support from them — you’ll be immediately changed with tax evasion.

    The only solution I see is for us all to serve our social duties on rotation, like the citizens of the ancient Greek towns did. You’re drafted to serve as a bursar for the next four years; I am drafted to supervise public works, and Anthony becomes a tax collector. Or goes to fight the Persians. The idea sounds ridiculous, but the ancient Greek democracy evolved to be that way under strong selective pressures. The towns afflicted with corruption fell to the next town over the hill or to the Persians. The lack of competence was seen as a lesser problem than a person’s innate ability to become corrupt, and they were aware that power corrupts, and even knew how quickly, so the rotation terms were adjusted accordingly. I can imagine how that was not fun, and how slowly things were moving with everybody learning on the job, only to be expelled from it in a few years, but apparently that way of running things made them more resilient to external attacks and prevented them from forming a political class in their society.

    So when people mention that we have inherited our political system from the Greeks, I want to point out that we’ve only inherited some of the features but not the system itself. We have rotation, but it is not limited to a single term; we don’t have a universal mandatory participation of citizenry in the affairs of the state, and worst of all, there is no accountability.

  70. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:58 am

    It didn’t come across in my posting so it looks like I missed the point that “Academia SHOULD be a noble profession”. Agree it should be. It would be nice if it was. I just think it’s just never going to happen. It is what it is. There’s a culture there that isn’t going to change by one or two high profile incidents. That culture is deep, arguably established in the monestaries of the Dark Ages where the illuminati held the knowledge, transcribed texts in Latin, and kept the people stupid and the secrets for themelves, and it continues to this day.

    While we can all scratch our heads in disbelief over a person like Gleick and the people that cover it up, that’s the way they operate and I don’t think there’s a damn thing that can be done about it.

  71. I see that ‘trafamadore’ is defending Michael Mann’s hokey stick, and the upside-down Tiljander proxy he used in Mann08. That isn’t the way to get credibility.

  72. @Schroedinger, 7:49 am
    Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression [than Peter Gleick's, by implication]

    For argument’s sake, let’s assume Rawls did a wrong by leaking the IPCC draft documents. In what ways were those wrongs worse than Peter Gleick’s?

    Rawls didn’t leak them anonymously.
    Rawls might have broken a contract, but he did not commit wire fraud.
    Rawls did not traffic in fraudulent or forged documents, much less create them.
    Do you measure “worse” in units of megabytes? Poppycock!

    Let us return to the issue of the contract of confidentiality and the main point of Willis’s superb essay:

    Shilling: You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

    The only honorable way out of such as situation is to break confidentiality. The best course of action is to commit a wrong; doing nothing to stop it is morally worse.

    Finally, there is the common law principle of Contra proferentem where contract disputes are resolved against the party that creates the ambiguity or inconsistency.

    The IPCC is a totally transparent organization. It has experts drawn from every corner of the globe. Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage. The drafts that we write are peer-reviewed and reviewed by governments. Thousands of people are part of what some of these people say is a conspiracy? My God! This is a conspiracy on a scale that’s absolutely astounding!
    – Pachauri, “Rajendra Pachauri Interview”, The Progressive, May 2009

    Clearly, the IPCC is being inconsistent. It professes to the world public its total transparency and is “available for scrutiny at every stage”, but then demands confidentiality of Rawls and other participants at those same stages. It creates an inconsistency that should void a contract of confidentiality. Under those duplicitous circumstances, any person will be forced to choose one of three paths:
    1. to participate in the duplicity,
    2. to not do anything actively to stop it, or
    3. to act to stop it.

    Rawls chose well.

  73. Jeff B. says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:30 am
    But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.

    Step away from the keyboard and give it a rest. Give your opinions 20 years to grow up some more.

  74. O Olson says: @ January 10, 2013 at 7:58 am

    ….It would seem to me that you may have missed the point that the media don’t need to be controlled by anyone because nearly all of them ARE socialists and Democrats, and they no longer think it is their job to report the news but rather to actually create it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    AAHHH, but WHY in the USA is the media ‘socialists and Democrats’??? Think about it…. The media made money through advertising. Displease your advertisers and you are in a world of hurt.

    Here is an example. Farm Radio Broadcaster Gets the Boot After Exposing Monsanto’s ‘Goon Squads': Derry Brownfield was a veteran of farm radio reports, until he went after Big Ag and its Mafia.

    This means the Bankers and corporate CEO are in agreement with the media. Here is an example:

    Comcast and GE Complete Transaction to Form NBCUniversal

    Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture… The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,… J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors….

    Press Release: Comcast and GE to Create Leading Entertainment Company

    …. NBCU has obtained $9.85 billion of committed financing through a consortium of banks led by J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch and Citi….

    So explain to me why, if NBC is Owned by GE and Financed by J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch and Citi, it is run by ‘socialists and Democrats’ Oh, and while you are at it try and explain why GE CEO, Jeff Immelt, is Obama’s Jobs Czar.

    Change Looks Quite Familiar

    …“You would have difficulty finding a company that has outsourced more jobs and closed more American factories than GE,” Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing writes. “While they have slashed their American workforce to fewer than 150,000, GE has dramatically expanded its global presence, now employing over 300,000 workers worldwide.”

    Jeff Immelt has made it very plain his loyalties are not with the USA.

    India is exciting for American businessmen today: Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE
    ET Now caught up with Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE, for his views on a number of issues, including the significance of 200 American CEOs landing on Indian soil, outsourcing and GE’s plans for India….
    I am a globalist. So I am a big believer that basically it is a win-win game of global trade. But strategically for the United States, a great relationship with India is a real prerequisite and very important and I believe the President sees it the same way…. America Inc, have been good partners to global business leaders for generations…. We know how to make money in India for our investors, but we are also a good citizen. We know how to make money for India by investing in the people and the resources….

    You really have to pull aside the curtain to see who is actually in charge.

  75. geran said @ January 10, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Great post.

    Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.

    It appears to be a never-ending battle….

    It is a great post; up there with W’s best. It’s also a never-ending battle as any historian can tell you. There is no past golden age as some here seem to believe. Just the human condition…

  76. Schroedinger says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?

    Why? Did Rawls take steroids too?

    I suppose if I knew who Rawls was, or if I cared who Rawls was, that could possibly make some difference … but what do I have to do with a man I know nothing of?

    I love people who want to play the “tu quoque” game, often combined as in this case with a veiled accusation of hypocrisy. It always starts out with this false dichotomy BS along the lines of “Did I miss you criticizing Idi Amin for an even worse transgression—putting a head in his freezer? Or are you just being a hypocrite?”

    Actually, in life there are usually more than two possibilities …

    Mr. Shroedinger, somewhere, somebody named Rawls obviously did something you think is significant. But tell me … what does that have to do with me?

    Seriously. Even if Rawls locked infants in the orphanage and burned it down, why is it critical that I add my voice to the clamor of accusations? I know nothing of him. How will that help?

    So I’m sorry, but if Mr. Rawls truly needs chastisement and criticism, I fear you’ll have to man up, step up to the plate, and provide the necessary ration of odium and correction yourself, ’cause I never heard of him …

    w.

    PS—Don’t come back to tell me I should have heard of Rawls. I haven’t heard of him. Don’t come back to tell me I should google him. I don’t care about him, at least not at the moment. I’m talking about Glieck and baseball.

  77. “Benefit of science for a sustainable future” and there is the twist. You could have “benefit of science” and leave well-enough alone but they bend the knee and bow the head by adding “for a sustainable future” Meaningless boilerplate to most in the Miss Universe “World peace” joke kinda way. A sure sign of who’s driving the agenda to those engaged. The Pacific Institute of which Glieck is one of the Founders and after a short hiatus again the Director receives lots of funding from governmental agencies. Surely we have been served a nice slow under-hand pitch across the plate to hit. What the AGU and Pacific Institute have done in this matter an outrage and an opportunity.

  78. MikeN says:
    January 10, 2013 at 8:11 am

    Curt Schilling was not going to be voted into the Hall of Fame, even if steroids were not an issue. He is not a borderline Hall of Famer, and will get in within a few years, but he is not a first ballot guy either. He never won a Cy Young, but had 3 seasons good enough to win most years. His win total is low, but his postseason performance and other stats more than balance that.

    Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, and perhaps even Craig BIggio were robbed by steroids.

    I can’t say you are wrong on any of that. Everyone wuz robbed … it’s just that Schilling was unusually mature and eloquent about it.

    w.

  79. temp says: @ January 10, 2013 at 8:14 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress

    I suggest you read A PRIMER ON MONEY COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964

    (EVERYONE should read that report.)

    Temp, the key passage:

    The Federal Open Market Committee [The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers gc]
    There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]

    Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]

    [The Federal Reserve Slips its leash gc]
    In mid-August of 1950, however, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate and short-term Treasury bills jumped toward 11/2 percent, although there were requests from the Secretary of the Treasury and the President for the System to continue a low-rate policy. It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do….
    Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation. These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. …. At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy which aimed at maximum credit effects through minimum changes in interest rates….. the Federal Reserve people were quite sure that they could do a better job of running the country than the President, and with only slight increases in interest rates. … It then added another string to its bow- the “bills only” policy. … Henceforth when the Treasury issued bonds or medium-term securities, it was to dump these issues on the market and watch the natural consequences-first a drop in bond prices, then a gradual recovery as the market absorbed the bonds. Any private rigging or manipulations of the market were to go without interference from the Federal Reserve, as were any speculative booms or panics short of a “disorderly” market. The “bil1s-only” policy had only one reservation: The Federal Reserve would buy long-term bonds in the event that the Open Market Committee made a findings that the market was disorderly. [ full details starting on pg 103]

  80. Tom G(ologist)
    January 10, 2013 at 6:45 am
    ###
    “E” is not taught in school. Only a Marxists wet dream fantasy of “E” is taught, carefully crafted to support the agenda. Marxists pervert everything they touch and that includes ALL of the sciences.

  81. D Böehm Stealey says:”trafamadore is defending Michael Mann’s hokey stick, and the upside-down Tiljander proxy he used in Mann08. That isn’t the way to get credibility.”

    Am I? Or am I defending the many papers, with various methods and combinations of records, that look so similar to the original Mann results. And the fact that the few papers challenging him also had their fair share of problems. Problems are common in edgy science, where the methods are being made up as they go. The jury in science is interested in whether findings can be replicated using different data/methods, and it seems that that Mann’s results have largely passed that test.

    Even Mendel’s results with peas had problems.

  82. trafamadore says:

    “Am I?”

    You are.

    MBH98/99 and Mann08 have been thoroughly deconstructed. I could go into detail, but you can learn on your own at Climate Audit. Click on the right sidebar, on CA, then do a search. You could learn a lot, if you wanted.

    As for the totally corrupt climate peer reviewed journal system, read the Climategate emails, and A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the WUWT sidebar]. Speaking from ignorance about the journal system does not enhance credibility.

  83. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    “Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”

    The number of retractions right now is 100 papers per million papers published. That is, I haf to read 10,000 papers before I hit one that might be retracted.

    Thanks, trafamadore.

    First, clearly wherever you found those numbers, I would suspect they weren’t measured regarding climate science. I can’t recall even one climate science paper ever being retracted. Instead, what we see is that Steig gets the cover of Nature, and rather than being retracted, the correction is buried on p. 83 …

    Second, a paper is only retracted when the scientist either is forced, or has the honesty and the balls to admit he’s wrong, and retracts the paper. It’s often done under some implied duress. So we’d expect the rate to be low. The question is whether the rate is rising or falling.

    Third, are you truly trying to claim that the state of health of science is getting better? It seems like you are implying that. If so, you might try this, from the New York Times:

    Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers, Study Finds

    By CARL ZIMMER
    Published: October 1, 2012

    Last year the journal Nature reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers — a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature.

    Other studies have suggested that most of these retractions resulted from honest errors. But a deeper analysis of retractions, being published this week, challenges that comforting assumption.

    … etc., etc.,

    Fourth, what does this have to do with Gleick, or integrity, or any of the subjects of this thread?

    Regards,

    w.

  84. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am
    …..If you are suggesting that, like athletes doping, scientists that are politically active might be cheats, then based on the number of papers retracted, it seems you are 99.99% incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And as usual you are more full of horse apples than my entire barn. Even the New York Times has noticed the problem: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    ….A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) 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% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    SCIENCE DAILY: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study FindsUS scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

    The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn — and therefore officially expunged from the public record — between 2000 and 2010.

    A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).

    The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud…..

    The fakes were more likely to appear in leading publications with a high “impact factor.”

  85. David L.
    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
    ###

    Your understanding of history is atrocious, most likely the result of moonbat instructors. No, the problem is not Christian Monasticism, but the nature of Academia itself. Self important Academics, who can’t do, are bitterly jealous of those who can. But being self important, they feel that they have the Right to tell everyone else what to do

    BTW, that blessed period of time during the Age of Reason, with the establishment of the University system, was a historic fluke that was enabled by the very same Christian world-view you have been taught to denigrate.

  86. Lest anyone forget, WUWT commenter “UnfrozenCavemanMD” pointed out that “only 38 minutes elapsed between Gleick’s Epson Scan metadata timestamp and DeSmogBlog’s posting of the files”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/ncse-accepts-gleicks-resignation/#comment-899458

    In my February American Thinker article, I pointed out how Demsogblog is tied to the central efforts to smear skeptic climate scientists going back to late 1995: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html

    Gleick’s particular choice of Desmogblog and the timing of how quickly his material appeared there is something that needs to be checked out as thoroughly as possible.

  87. Gene Selkov says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Gail Combs says:

    > They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings.

    With all respect Gail, they don’t forget. They know full well we can only elect someone to designate a bursar of his choice to hold the strings. That is quite different from being ultimately the ones in charge. Try to withhold your support from them — you’ll be immediately changed with tax evasion….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually you just have to step away. My husband and I quit our high paying jobs ( over $100,000 plus in the 90’s) and now earn enough to support ourselves. We pay local taxes and sales tax and thats about it. As a small business I can earn exactly how much I want and that is BELOW the level where I have to pay Federal tax. Also much of what I earn is offset by deductions.

  88. @mpainter:

    Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.

    I disagree with this statement.

    It seems to me that if you can show that even a single donation has been lost due to the illegal actions of Mr. Gleick, that should be sufficient to sue for monetary damages. Whether other donors have come forward to contribute money does not mitigate the actual harm done to Heartland. these are independent issues.

    It is sort of like arguing that a bank robber is not culpable for the loss of money that he has stolen because new depositors have come forward to “replace the money” that he took.

  89. It is worrying when a baseball player is held up as an example of the standards which a senior, influential scientist, the chairman of an ethics committee no less, should uphold. And is unlikely to uphold. Because so far she has not.

  90. “He was replaced as Chair, presumably by the person among the other Task Force members with the next highest amount of integrity. This was a woman named Dr. Linda Gundersen.”

    Very droll Willis! :)

    I wonder how far down the chain they would need to go before finding a Chair with integrity.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am
    Willis Eschenbach says: “Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”

    The number of retractions right now is 100 papers per million papers published. That is, I haf to read 10,000 papers before I hit one that might be retracted. (If only business people and politicians were as honest.) Also, the majority of papers retracted are for mistakes, not some experimental malfeasance. If you are suggesting that, like athletes doping, scientists that are politically active might be cheats, then based on the number of papers retracted, it seems you are 99.99% incorrect.
    ====================================
    trafamadore – Next time try reading the whole sentence first before busting a gut to put fingertip to keyboard eh?

  91. Willis Eschenbach says:”Instead, what we see is that Steig gets the cover of Nature, and rather than being retracted, the correction is buried on p. 83 …”

    Correction. Corrections are not retracted papers, they are mistakes. Usually typos; sometimes embarrassing mistakes. But not usually evil.

    Willis Eschenbach says: “Second, a paper is only retracted when the scientist either is forced, or has the honesty and the balls to admit he’s wrong, and retracts the paper. It’s often done under some implied duress. So we’d expect the rate to be low. The question is whether the rate is rising or falling.”

    But it _is_ pretty low. 1 in 10,000 is really low. If you wish to argue it’s 10x higher in reality, then I would still say that 1/1000 is really low.

    If the rate is rising, and here I agree with you because you are correct, it is rising. It is about 10x higher now than in the 70s. So one question is when does it become a problem? Well, I would say, we are pretty far from any sort of problem level. So another question has to do with why it’s happening, and, I might have this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are suggesting that climate scientists are bending their scientific work because of their political activism. Tell me if I have that wrong. If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism. Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world? How much of his data has been shown to be incorrect; actually, how many papers mentioned in Climategate were retracted? It is possible that breaking and entering can be considered independent of science.

    I think this is where your sport metaphor breaks down. Lance Armstong is not under pressure because he stole samples from the UCI but because he cheated. Had he ONLY stole samples (I am making this up) he would have no trouble biking. So it is for Gleick. He can keep biking.

  92. A general note of personal venture…

    I joined AGU a number of years ago so that I could learn about earth’s climate. From the literature of paleo climatologists I learned a great deal. This part of climate science, in retrospect, has shown to me the value of objective inquiry using the scientific method. The climate of the last 2 million years is well known and worth everyone’s investigation because of the clear cycles of glaciation and the warming of inter glacial periods.

    I left AGU after discovering that its leadership had abandoned objective, thoughtful inquiry noted by the paleo climactic published papers, to the models based, politically biased assumptions of the current so called “climatologists”.

    It was a difficult decision because I had experienced the best of AGU, then found that the worst had taken over.

    This organization is now a political entity that I chose to no longer endorse with my dues or interest. My current belief and opinion, based upon years of observation is that like Dr. Gleick, it has allowed itself to become corrupt and devoid of any integrity.

    Why would we expect anyone within that structure so self police its integrity? Its has become a bad apple.

    If any reader is a current member of AGU, I suggest that you spend your cash and attention elsewhere. In my opinion, this entity has burned its good name and is living on fumes.

  93. Gail Combs says: “A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) 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% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices”

    Yes, I remember that famous paper well, the scientist is not a monk paper. I think you need to look at the questions in the survey, and then ask yourself if you have _ever_ made a questionable statement on your taxes, or have you _ever_ ran a red light. I mean, I would haf to say I have done one of two things that are ‘edgy’ in the old days, like photo dodge out the ugly background behind an embryo or stitch negative of two microscope planes together to make a prettier photo; technically that would be faking data, but the idea was to protray what my eyes saw. Nowadays, the journal companies have progs that detect that stuff, so no more. You just send in the ugly pictures, and be done with it.

    But I am comfortable with the apparent difference between the number of retracted papers and the percentage of scientists who have _ever_ faked a data point.

    Thankfully, science is ultimately selfcorrecting, so faked data doesnt live long unless it wasnt very important in the first place.

  94. Here’s my scenario for how payback will happen.

    After the powers that be run out of cans to kick, which might take two to four years, the looming economic crisis starts to bite, beginning with stagflation and accelerating into a depression.

    The Democrats can’t win enough votes by blaming it on Bush (although he’s blame-worthy–as is Clinton, etc.), so the GOP sweeps congress and eventually the presidency.

    Temperatures have declined each year since 2012.

    Congressional investigations are held.

    The Justice Dept. launches investigations and files charges.

    Privately funded lawsuits increase.

    Austerity is necessary. Climatology’s neck is on the chopping block (especially “impact” studies), as are government-funded initiatives to promote awareness, subsidize alternative energy, participate in international climate-related matters, cut CO2 emissions, etc.

    Big Academia gets what’s coming to it in the form of a severe cutbacks in student loan programs and “overhead”-laden NSF funding. Perhaps a law is passed, or an executive order is issued, or a court ruling is obtained, that makes it hard or impossible for employers to require a college degree for a job. Cut-loose academics are encouraged to take to the fields doing harvesting and learning from the people.

    This is something the warmists’ blind-eye enablers aren’t counting on. They think the go-along/get-along environment in which they flourish will just roll on forever, and that history is on their side.

    We needn’t do anything but tend to our knitting . . .
    . . . like Madame Defarge.

    [Temps going down since 2012? Mod]

  95. Willis Eschenbach wrote:
    At that point, it seems like a man with integrity would go to Joe Bast at Heartland and say “Hey, Joe, I got this crazy letter. Is any of this true?”

    Considering that Joe Bast is untrustworthy, why would a reasonable person rely on the word of Bast?

  96. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 10:33 am

    Meaningless junk.

    Simple reality check.

    Every bankster gets together and say “were taking control, black hitlers is our puppet and were going to put him in jail to prove were in control. FBI, DEA, ATF, US Military arrest blick hitler.” Black hitler say while waving and snapping his hand in front of his face “O no you won’t girlfriend, hommie don’t play that. FBI, DEA, ATF, US Military arrest the banksters.”

    Now who do you think is going to be arrested? 99.9% sure its going to be the banksters. The government ALWAYS has supreme authority period no debate simple reality. When the bankers stop paying off the government the government will purge them. Thats reality. The bankers has ZERO power outside of that which is granted to them by the government. KEY WORDS “granted to them by the government”. Like everything else the government gives… it can quickly UNgive.

    The bankers are merely a front for the government, they are 100% controlled by the government, the government 100% endorses what they are doing… which is why they are allowed to do it.

  97. geran said @ January 10, 2013 at 7:53 am

    ….Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.

    It appears to be a never-ending battle….
    The Pompous Git says: @
    January 10, 2013 at 10:17 am
    It is a great post; up there with W’s best. It’s also a never-ending battle as any historian can tell you….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Agreed. And it is those who win who get to write history. Think Richard the III.

  98. Gail Combs says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:58 am

    Climategate and Gundersen’s actions show even when caught read handed the Academics feel they are gods and not answerable to lesser men. They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings. If we scream loud enough and raise enough of a fuss Congress WILL defund Academia because they are looking for a bone to throw to the rank and file.

    I know you meant “red handed” here, but perhaps getting caught “read handed” means found in possesion of a banned book? I suppose better that than “reed handed” (ouch!). :-)

    However to your point I really don’t see defunding academia as even remotely possible. Here in Georgia the “solution” to address the undeniable failings of the K-12 public schools was to pass a lottery to fund “hope scholarships” so the same institutions which couldn’t impart basic competence and useful skills in twelve years now get funded to continue their failings for another four. The results were absolutely predictable: high school grade inflation so more students would “qualify” for the scholarship, more students going to college and ultimately failing instead of entering the job market and picking up useful skills that way, and of course increased costs for colleges and universities creating recurring funding crises with the scholarship program, necessitating yet more funding. But if you even whisper that maybe the program should be scaled back, the howls of outrage are deafening.

    Heck, even under the over-hyped pressure of the “fiscal cliff” we couldn’t get agreement to cut out the windfarm subsidies.

    Besides, if we’re going to dream about defunding useless parisitic bureaucracies we should concentrate on the most important target first: the UN.

    I’ve rather sadly come to the conclusion that to paraphrase Pogo “the enemy is us”. We like our pork and politicians have honed their craft of serving it up to us and making us believe we can’t survive without it.

    It’s also rather sad that a professional athlete is not only more honest than a whole organization of professional scientists, but more perceptive as well. Unless of course I hear that Schilling hired a PR expert to write that statement for him …

    Well even if he id, it still shows more common sense than Dr. Gundersen has.

  99. trafamadore says: @ January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am

    I do not cheat on my taxes and I have told my boss on more than one occasion I would not falsify data and put it on a Certificate of Analysis so a bad/questionable lot of material could be shipped. I have been fire for that ‘offense’ more than once.

    I have taken a stand on honor and have put my job on the line so don’t give me your crappy weasel wording trying to twist things.

  100. Jake Diamond,

    You appear to be bearing false witness. If Joe Bast is untrustworthy, explain how, exactly. Be prepared to document your assertion.

  101. Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. There are many more examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity. He is not trustworthy, and the suggestion that Peter Gleick could have relied on Bast’s word is laughable.

  102. Jake Diamond,

    Joe Bast gave his opinion. But you are bearing false witness because you assert that you know the facts. You do not. Your statement purports to others that you know the truth. That is bearing false witness.

  103. trafamadore comment at January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am is a classic example of exactly what is wrong with science today. The point of view that everyone cheats and cheating ‘a little’ is OK. However cheating has no place in science as it is antithetical to science. If you are going to cheat at science why don’t you just go rob a bank instead.

    As this Introduction to the Scientific Method states:

    The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

    Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, “Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.” In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.…..

    III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

    As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist’s bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes “common sense” and “logic” tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

    Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find “something wrong”, such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist’s expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.….

    In other words weaseling and questionable research practices are NOT SCIENCE!

  104. Gleick took complex, premeditated, abnormal criminal actions. A man like this, short of psychological and moral rehabilitation, can simply never be trusted. But the “team” is protecting their hit-men; the team must win, after all. He did his job and tried to score some doped-up runs.

    Frankly, Gleick won, because I think the Heartland smear stuck. Most of the media ended up complying, ignoring……after all they are on his team.

  105. DesertYote on January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am
    David L.
    January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
    ###

    “Your understanding of history is atrocious…

    BTW, that blessed period of time during the Age of Reason, with the establishment of the University system, was a historic fluke that was enabled by the very same Christian world-view you have been taught to denigrate.”

    I studied European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 18th century. Also, I was raised a strict Roman Catholic.

    Those two facts opened my eyes and left me far less impressed with religion. Inquisition anyone? Crusades? Burn the witches? Galileo’s home imprisonement for his sciwntific views? The list is endless.

    I love touring the Medieval torture devices in the basements of the churches. What are they doing in there?

  106. Stealy wrote: Joe Bast gave his opinion.

    No. Joe Bast made an assertion as if it were a fact. He didn’t preface his statement with “in my opinion,” or “there is reason to believe that.” He stated quite plainly that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. Of course Joe Bast couldn’t prove that statement, but he nevertheless made it. That is one of many examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity.

    You should probably drop your argument at this point because you’re just making a fool of yourself.

  107. Willis,

    Your article stimulates a needed discussion.

    Whether one agrees with any, some or all the aspects of your appeal for integrity within the AGU and in climate science generally, it is important for bloggers like you to keep very very public the discussion of what integrity is and why it is critical to the scientific process. Thank you.

    If I take professional scientific integrity to mean the intentional consistency in and between ones ideas, acts and ethics, then I find both Gleick and Gundersen have compromised their integrity significantly. I think that Gundersen’s loss of integrity is far greater than Gleick’s. Gleick’s act wrt HI is inanely stupid and blatantly fraudulent and he had to resign his chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Gundersen, as the current chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity has retreated from the subject of Gleick’s integrity while he was an active AGU leader. In a leadership role focused on integrity, Gundersen avoids a major lack of integrity case. Gundersen’s integrity lapse has a much greater negative impact on trust in science than Gleick’s. Gleick stealthily undermined scientific integrity as an AGU integrity leader; Gundersen, as a current AGU integrity leader is showing the public AGU’s open disinterest in scientific integrity. Gundersen is far worse than Gleick when it comes to causing more lack of trust in science.

    Gundersen’s behavior as an AGU integrity leader is a publically displayed shrug and a wink and a smirk and a whisper to Gleick ‘we don’t care’.

    John

  108. By the way, speaking of ethical behavior, in the interest of transparency and honesty, WUWT posts that deal with topics relating to the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast should include a statement that discloses the financial support Heartland has provided to Anthony Watts.

    [Reply: And why should that be? No alarmist blogs provide such a statement. And in this case Anthony was paid for work performed -- unlike the payola that other blogs receive. — mod.]

  109. Gail Combs said @ January 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    And it is those who win who get to write history. Think Richard the III.

    And Marcus Tullius Cicero said:

    Nescire autem quid antequam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum

    Translated: “To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.”

  110. Jake Diamond,

    As Gail Combs shows, chapter and verse, you appear to be the fool in addition to bearing false witness.

  111. RomanM says:
    January 10, 2013 at 11:04 am

    @mpainter:

    Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.

    I disagree with this statement.

    It seems to me that if you can show that even a single donation has been lost due to the illegal actions of Mr. Gleick, that should be sufficient to sue for monetary damages.

    Nope. Heatland would have to show it had incurred very substantial financial damage, and show that most all of the info leaked by Gleick was false. In this case neither is provable. A good majority of the docs are factual, and HL, given it’s substantial and provably undamaged ability to raise funds after the fact, almost certainly did not sustain enough financial damage to meet a minimal threshold for damages.

    Again, do we really want to go the Mann route, lawyering up every time there is a perceived wrong done against us?

  112. Gail COmbs wrote: Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis

    That would be a remarkable feat of clairvoyance if true. Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him.

    In any case, a third party opinion does not constitute proof.

  113. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says: @ January 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Gail Combs says…
    …….
    However to your point I really don’t see defunding academia as even remotely possible. Here in Georgia the “solution” to address the undeniable failings of the K-12 public schools was to pass a lottery to fund “hope scholarships” so the same institutions which couldn’t impart basic competence and useful skills in twelve years now get funded to continue their failings for another four.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually individuals are defunding schools.

    ….State funding for elementary and secondary education is generally distributed by formula. Many states use funding formulas that provide funding based on the number of pupils in a district. Some formulas are weighted based on different factors such as the number of students with disabilities, the number of students living in poverty, or the number of students for whom English is a second language. The allocation for students with different types of needs can vary significantly depending on the funding formula. ….

    http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance

    Home schooling removes students from the head count (according to the scuttlebutt) and The increase in the percentage of homeschooled students from 1999 to 2007 represents a 74 percent relative increase over the 8-year period and a 36 percent relative increase since 2003

    And how the government is fighting back

    Also I was talking of defunding Academics as in colleges and Universities.

    Will it happen? I do not think so because Main Street does not run this country we just like to think we do.

  114. Willis, what you’re calling “noble cause corruption” is well-known in philosophy as Plato’s “Noble Lie.” In his Republic, Plato wrote that “The lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful.” In other words, Plato’s idea was that lies told in support of some allegedly virtuous idea were themselves virtuous or noble. The promoters of CAGW frequently employ Noble Lies.

  115. Jake Diamond,

    Proof is for mathematics. This is corroborating evidence; the kind of expert testimony that is routinely used in court.

  116. Jake Diamond, “Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. ”

    Utterly false. There is boatloads of proof that Gleick forged the memo. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/ And there are numerous other postings about that same time documenting Gleick’s history of deceit and dishonesty.

    No one with the slightest intellectual honesty defends Gleick.

    Here’s a question for you, posed by Willis in July of 2011: “When members of your scientific community lie, cheat, and steal to further their own ends, should other members refuse to say anything bad about the wrong-doers?” Got an answer?

  117. Noble cause corruption, don’t you know! The AGU have degenerated to the point that they need a man of Gleick’s ability.

  118. [snip. If you want to be that critical of Anthony Watts, go elsewhere. There are plenty of thinly-trafficked blogs where you can be unpleasant. — mod.]

  119. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Gail COmbs wrote: Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis

    That would be a remarkable feat of clairvoyance if true. Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him.

    In any case, a third party opinion does not constitute proof.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Speaking of proof. I always back up what I have said.

    SO where is your PROOF that “Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged “ NOT a statement that Mr Bast thinks he did but a flat out statement that he did and that statement has to be ” several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him. ”

    If you can not provide that specific statement WITH A LINK to the whole article you are just blowing smoke.

  120. Robert Sheaffer says:

    January 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Willis, what you’re calling “noble cause corruption” is well-known in philosophy as Plato’s “Noble Lie.” In his Republic, Plato wrote that “The lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful.” In other words, Plato’s idea was that lies told in support of some allegedly virtuous idea were themselves virtuous or noble. The promoters of CAGW frequently employ Noble Lies
    =========================
    Also known as propaganda

  121. trafamadore: “The jury in science is interested in whether findings can be replicated using different data/methods, and it seems that that Mann’s results have largely passed that test.”

    What complete drivel. You reveal yourself to be either willfully ignorant or mendacious. Every so called “study” that claimed to replicate Mann’s phony Hockey Stick was looked at by Steve McIntyre (when the authors were forced to stop their deliberate violations of the Scientific Method and cough up their data and algorithms). All were by cronies of Mann (aka the self-styled “Hockey Team”), used the same phony statistical method (short-centered PCA), or used the same cherry picked proxies (Sheep Mountain, Graybill, strip-bark trees, Yamal, ad nauseam). Often multiple combinations of those deceits.

    Real science is done by those who follow the Scientific Method. “Climate scientists” refuse to do so.

    And by the way, the correct spelling is “Tralfamadore”

  122. It’s been suggested there be a “steroids wing” of the baseball HoF. Perhaps there will eventually be a Climategate/Mann ghetto where all AGW pseudoscience goes to die.

  123. Gail COmbs wrote; SO where is your PROOF that “Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged “ NOT a statement that Mr Bast thinks he did but a flat out statement that he did and that statement has to be ” several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him. ”

    Check around the 1 minute mark in the embedded video. Joe Bast clearly states that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. Later in the video, Bast makes several further untrue statements–par for the course.

  124. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    By the way, speaking of ethical behavior, in the interest of transparency and honesty, WUWT posts that deal with topics relating to the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast should include a statement that discloses the financial support Heartland has provided to Anthony Watts.

    – – – – – – – – –

    Jake Diamond,

    Is it time for some parody?

    The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid, but heck, I will give it a try with you.

    How about a unilateral policy of transparency and openness?

    Your comments suggest that you are the kind of sharp open-minded chap who would be interested in an agreement between us. The agreement would be for you to first agree to provide any of your private info that I request of you and in exchange I need provide nothing to you in return? I will only tell you what info you must give me after we sign our agreement.

    Let’s do it!

    Are we having fun Jake Diamond?

    John

  125. Jake Diamond,

    Thank you for posting that excellent Wall St. Journal video. It certainly does not support your belief. There was nothing wrong with what Joe Bast said. He was corroborated by experts, and there is additional corroboration in a related video here.

    I understand your desperation to shift the spotlight from the execrable Peter Gleick to the upstanding and honest Joe Bast, whom I’ve met. But your games will not work on this “Best Science” site. Run along now to tamina, or some other alarmist blog. Their handful of head-nodders would love to see you attack the victim of Gleick’s wrongdoing.

  126. Jake Diamond:

    If your lies about Joe Bast were right – I have met the man and I know they are not – then, so what? The AGU has not honoured him.

    Gleick is a liar, a criminal and a fruad. And the AGU has honoured him.
    That is the subject of this thread.

    Your mendacious trolling in attempt to distract from the subject is reprehensible.
    Nothing more need be said about your posts which tell much about you and nothing about anything or anyone else.

    Richard

  127. ***
    Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    By the way, speaking of ethical behavior, in the interest of transparency and honesty, WUWT posts that deal with topics relating to the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast should include a statement that discloses the financial support Heartland has provided to Anthony Watts.
    ***

    Private money donations are none of your’s or anybody else’s business. But wait, I forgot, you guys have the ethics of transparency regarding public funding completely switched around.

  128. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm
    “Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. There are many more examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity. He is not trustworthy, and the suggestion that Peter Gleick could have relied on Bast’s word is laughable.”
    ==========================
    I don’t even have a horse in this race, but my reading of the form indicates an admission of guilt from one participant, whereas the other is only being accused of deceit.
    Proof of the accusations would be appreciated greatly.
    You said “there are many more”, so give me one.

  129. John Whitman wrote: The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid

    Actually, what seems incredibly stupid is equating ethical behavior to unilateral disarmament.

  130. I also wish National Geographic would stick to the field of geography and science, and not mysticism and false marketing.

  131. Ed MacAulay says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am

    re richardscourtney says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:

    The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
    Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.
    —————-

    Here’s another way to deal with Glieck: If it is in fact true that donations to Heartland have gone UP since l’affaire Glieck, Heartland should acclaim him for raising funds for them, and further give him a (small) cash award. From then on, according to Mannian logic, he can safely be dismissed as a tool of the Koch brothers. End of Glieck.

    — Bad News

  132. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    John Whitman wrote: The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid

    Actually, what seems incredibly stupid is equating ethical behavior to unilateral disarmament.

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    Jake Diamond,

    I love it and it is precious that you naively extend my parody; my parody that looks at your comical original Mannesque-like attack dog comment toward our host.

    Au contraire, mon ami. Your unilaterally hostile behavior toward our host makes you a likely ethically vulnerable candidate for agreeing to sign my offered agreement to you for your unilateral openness and transparency . . . . . n’est ce pas?

    On an optimistic note: Do not worry yourself Jake, with a little more open exposure to sites difference from SkS-like sites, even a Mannesque-like attack dog such as you can be gently taught to wag their tails and roll over on their backs.

    . . . . and the parody of Jake Diamond continues . . .

    John

  133. I see that Jake Diamond is continuing his “Oh look! A squirrel!” attempt to take the spotlight off of the despicable Peter Gleick — the topic of this thread — and shift it to the honest straight shooter Joe Bast.

    Sorry, Jake: FAIL

  134. Commenting at WUWT is an interesting exercise. Moderators apply the site rules selectively, allowing personal attacks on some and not allowing them on others. Also the “baseless, unsupported character assassination” is applied when the moderator doesn’t like an opinion and ignored when the moderator agrees with the opinion.

    So let me try again… In my opinion, Joe Bast is untrustworthy. His history of less than truthful remarks, misleading statements, and unethical behavior in my opinion supports this conclusion.

    [Reply: You are free to post elsewhere if you don't like the site Policy here. Also, I note you have no specifics supporting your ad hominem attacks on Mr. Bast.— mod.]

  135. thingadonta says:

    January 10, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    I also wish National Geographic would stick to the field of geography and science, and not mysticism and false marketing.
    ========================
    national geographic started its transmorph decades ago when it started accepting advertisements.
    The transition is complete and it is just another slick, mass-appeal glossy, with both eyes fixed on advertising revenues.

  136. John –
    Your reading comprehension fails you. I’ve expressed no hostility towards Anthony Watts. I’ve suggested a reasonable standard of ethical behavior to which ALL writers and blogs should adhere–disclosure of conflict of interest. Frankly it’s astounding that you are so confused on this point.

    [Reply: Not true. A hostile comment of yours personally attacking Anthony Watts was snipped. — mod.]

  137. Trafamadore: The jury for science may be one thing, but the jury for a paper is something else. Mann’s methodology has been found to be incorrect. Do you agree that, as one of the many inputs of the jury of science, that papers that have bad methodology should be withdrawn…at the very least, so that someone else doesn’t make the mistake of thinking the methodology is sound?

  138. Schroedinger said:

    Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?

    Ah, you must be talking about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum climatology. Peter Gleick is at one and the same time a forger and a hero, so long as we don’t observe his actions -too closely.

    Stop making self-indignant, irrelevant points. And stop molesting cats.

  139. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    ”Instead, what we see is that Steig gets the cover of Nature, and rather than being retracted, the correction is buried on p. 83 …”

    Correction. Corrections are not retracted papers, they are mistakes. Usually typos; sometimes embarrassing mistakes. But not usually evil.

    trafamadore, I hesitate to even reply to someone whose reading skills are so poor, but I soldier on. My point was that the Steig paper deserved a retraction. That’s the part where it says “… rather than being retracted …”. I know what a correction is. It got a correction, not the retraction it deserved, and certainly not the revised cover image of Nature it would have in a just world …

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    “Second, a paper is only retracted when the scientist either is forced, or has the honesty and the balls to admit he’s wrong, and retracts the paper. It’s often done under some implied duress. So we’d expect the rate to be low. The question is whether the rate is rising or falling.”

    But it _is_ pretty low. 1 in 10,000 is really low. If you wish to argue it’s 10x higher in reality, then I would still say that 1/1000 is really low.

    You say the rate is low. I say “we expect it to be low”, and you come back to tell me “But it _is_ pretty low”.

    Yes. I know that.

    I say again. Since retractions only occur when an honest scientist hits an honest mistake or when someone is forced to retract, WE EXPECT THEM TO BE LOW. Can we get past the fact that it is low? That’s not the statistic of interest in any case.

    You could think of it as like prison breakouts. On the night when the siren goes off a few miles from your house and the Warden says “We have 10,000 high-security violent prisoners, and only two of them escaped”, does the fact that the numbers are low make you feel safe? Absolute measurements are not everything.

    If the rate is rising, and here I agree with you because you are correct, it is rising. It is about 10x higher now than in the 70s. So one question is when does it become a problem? Well, I would say, we are pretty far from any sort of problem level.

    Mmmm … I see. You think the number of retracted papers is the problem. It’s not. It’s the symptom of a growing rot in science. The worrisome thing is, as the NYT article and Nature point out, that more and more of the retractions are for fraud. That’s why I said that

    Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.

    From advocative slanting of data and conclusions and pal-review all the way up to actual fraud, all of the symptoms of both ordinary corruption and more particularly noble cause corruption are a rising problem right now, across the board. Nature magazine sees that. Reputable scientists see that. Blog readers see that. The New York Times sees that. The problem is particularly bad in climate science, where many of the main players have been shown to be totally corrupted, datasets and computer code is routinely withheld, and journal editors are pressured not to print opposing views. So yes, everyone sees that the rising incidence of fraud and improper advocacy and the associated loss of the public trust in science are increasingly problematic.

    Thanks for stopping by to tell us you don’t see it as a problem. You’ll pardon me if I pay no attention.

    So another question has to do with why it’s happening, and, I might have this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are suggesting that climate scientists are bending their scientific work because of their political activism. Tell me if I have that wrong. If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism.

    We’ve seen both scientific malfeasance and political activism, acting both singly and in concert, far too many times now for me to mix them up. I know I usually don’t. If you think I accused Glieck of bad science, point it out. I thought I just called him a crook.

    Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world?

    I didn’t call Gleick out for bad science. I called him out for crime, of mail fraud, and for circulation of forged documents. I called him out for lack of scientific integrity. I didn’t, but I should have called him out for industrial-strength stupidity, pulling a caper like that when he’s the big boss of the Scientific Integrity panel. It is sadly emblematic of the headset of far too many mainstream AGW supporting scientists, many of whom look on him as a hero. And I called out Dr. Linda Gundersen for ignoring Gleick’s actions, despite the fact that that is one of the specific jobs of her Task Force on Scientific Integrity, of which he was the Chairman

    Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, the meetings of Dr. Linda’s Task Farce must be hilarious, trying to work around “he-who-must-not-be-named” … but I digress.

    How much of his data has been shown to be incorrect;

    I don’t understand. Gleick is a minor researcher, I don’t know what you are talking about regarding “his data” being correct or not, I have no clue about that. That’s never been the issue. The issue is that the Chair of the Task Force on Scientific Integrity has committed mail fraud and distributed a forged document, in order to try to discredit the scientific arguments of his scientific opponents. He can’t attack the science, so he attacks Heartland to impugn the science.

    Does that sound like “scientific integrity” to you? It’s just another in the unending string of ad hominem (or in this case “ad fundingem”) arguments so beloved of AGW supporters. He’s trying to swing the scientific discussion by using both stolen and forged documents to attack the people on the other side.

    Now I don’t know if you call that scientific malfeasance, to try to illegally and immorally and improperly influence a scientific discussion. Maybe not. But whatever name you put on Gleick’s actions, I call them crooked and scientifically dishonest, with no more integrity than a snake has hips.

    For me, he is a scientist using illegal methods to try to anonymously influence a scientific discussion in his favor. I call that scientific malfeasance. YMMV, doesn’t matter, he’s a fraud and a passer of forged documents.

    … actually, how many papers mentioned in Climategate were retracted?

    You must be new to the field. They don’t retract papers in mainstream climate science. Take Mann’s clique as an example. The Team™ just says that they have “moved on”, and that there are newer, shinier things to focus on. They refuse to discuss past mistakes, they say they are over them, nothing to see here folks, move along now … so no, no retractions.

    It is possible that breaking and entering can be considered independent of science.

    No clue what this means.

    I think this is where your sport metaphor breaks down. Lance Armstong is not under pressure because he stole samples from the UCI but because he cheated. Had he ONLY stole samples (I am making this up) he would have no trouble biking. So it is for Gleick. He can keep biking.

    My sports metaphor doesn’t contain Lance Armstrong, so it cannot break down because of Lance or whatever he did. That is your personal contribution, and the fact that your contribution has broken down has nothing to do with me.

    My sports metaphor says that we all need to “actively push to get the game clean.” Sorry you don’t like it and you think it’s all broken down, but that’s what I plan to do, and I invite you to join in.

    w.

  140. Jake Diamond,

    I know Joe Bast. He is an honest man, unlike the deceitful cartoonist John Cook of the Unreliable blog SkS.

    Your ad hominem attacks against Joe Bast lack corroboration. Your personal hatred is unsupported by verifiable facts. Your assertions are nothing but your personal opinion, and are worth as much. But no more.

  141. trafamadore said:

    If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism. Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world?

    To claim that Gleick’s political activism does not taint him as a scientist is absurd. It contradicts Gleick’s own thinking. He forged a document to taint skeptics and their scientific view with political activism.

    Whether he personally typed the fake document is almost irrelevant. He is still a forger.

    Placing an orangutan jaw with a Neanderthal skull is an act of forgery;
    Placing a fake signature on a genuine document is an act of forgery.
    Placing fake experimental results in with genuine ones is an act of forgery.
    And placing a fake document in with genuine ones is an act of forgery.

    It is a sad day for the integrity of science and journalism, when Willis and others have to resort to baseball analogies or similar, to try to make the willfully blind see what should be manifestly obvious.

  142. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Willis Eschenbach wrote
    At that point, it seems like a man with integrity would go to Joe Bast at Heartland and say “Hey, Joe, I got this crazy letter. Is any of this true?”

    Considering that Joe Bast is untrustworthy, why would a reasonable person rely on the word of Bast?

    Aw, jeez, another random internet pop-up with an uncited, unsupported, nasty accusation. Why is it you guys specialize in personal attacks? If you don’t trust Joe, that’s between you and Joe. Claiming that Joe can’t be trusted without giving any specifics, on the other hand, is just low-down character assassination. Are you a politician running a negative attack campaign?

    In any case, your reading skills need honing. Point out to me where I said you should rely on Joe Bast’s word. I said nothing of the sort.

    I said the first step of a reasonable man would be to go show Joe the document and ask him about it. I also said “If Peter was rebuffed there, he could consider other options.” Given that in this case the document actually was forged, I suspect Joe would have given Peter chapter and verse showing exactly where the document was wrong, I mean it was pretty obvious … and if Peter had good reason to be unsatisfied with Joe’s answer, then he could consider other options.

    But we won’t ever know, because Peter chose corkscrew.

    All the best,

    w.

  143. Willis Eschenbach says: “My sports metaphor doesn’t contain Lance Armstrong, so it cannot break down because of Lance or whatever he did.”
    Opps, maybe I should explain, Armstrong is a bicyclist that makes his living bicycling, like baseball players make their living tossing their balls about. You see, he illegally used EPO to boast his O2 capacity to cheat similar to the baseball players who in your metaphor used steriods to boast their strength and cheat. But, after your long monologue, I can understand your failure to get it, that’s okay, I understand.

    You know, based on your rant, you would think us scientists could just sit about repeating other people’s work and finding irascible results. In fact, at the beginning of papers we ofter actually do repeat a wee bit of someone’s work to set up our experiments. You know how often I have found fishy results? Never. Zippo. Nadda. And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$. So I dont know how empty you think the science ethics glass is, but from my perspective in the trenches it’s always been pretty full. No, you wont get that one either. Nevermind.

    The bottom line is that you want scientists to crucify Gleick when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.

  144. John Whitman says:
    January 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Willis,

    Your article stimulates a needed discussion.

    Whether one agrees with any, some or all the aspects of your appeal for integrity within the AGU and in climate science generally, it is important for bloggers like you to keep very very public the discussion of what integrity is and why it is critical to the scientific process. Thank you.

    Appreciated.

    If I take professional scientific integrity to mean the intentional consistency in and between ones ideas, acts and ethics, then I find both Gleick and Gundersen have compromised their integrity significantly. I think that Gundersen’s loss of integrity is far greater than Gleick’s. …

    Indeed, for a couple of reasons. First, Gleick’s was from noble cause corruption. Gundersen’s is from ordinary corruption. Well, as I write that I may be misjudging her, she may think she’s saving the world from Thermageddon™ as well … but that’s not the main reason.

    Also, Dr. Peter’s actions were done (it seems to me) in the heat of some intellectual passion. Dr. Linda’s, on the other hand, strike me as much more calculated. But that’s not the main reason either.

    The main reason is that his transgression is over and done, while hers is ongoing. Every meeting, on some level, they have to deal with not dealing with it.

    It also, however, offers her an unparalleled opportunity—she still can take action and reclaim her reputation. She still could pick up the torch and move forwards. That’s what I wanted to point out to her. My original title is now the subtitle, and I think Anthony’s title is far better … but my intention was to let her know she still has a chance.

    w.

  145. Jake Diamond says:

    January 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    John –

    Your reading comprehension fails you. I’ve expressed no hostility towards Anthony Watts. I’ve suggested a reasonable standard of ethical behavior to which ALL writers and blogs should adhere–disclosure of conflict of interest. Frankly it’s astounding that you are so confused on this point.

    – – – – – – – –

    Jake Diamond,

    Again, I revert to my parody of you. Will you agree that what you unilaterally ask of other private organizations and people means they can unilaterally ask it of you as a private person? Will you agree to my request for you to unilaterally provide me with private info that I request of you? Using your ‘logic’, my request to you is so I can make sure you are being ethical in commenting here and that you do not represent an ethical / moral / legal conflict of interest in your comments here? Will you agree to my probing of your private affairs as you are of Anthony?

    You are a parody in real life by your question to Anthony. Please stop pretending. Your question to Anthony is specific enough to clearly indicate that you already know the answer that he has long since previously provided. And you know that the answer to your question is already in the public domain on this site for almost a year.

    HI has a fundamental right to privacy under the US constitution. Anthony’s site, private life and business have a fundamental right to privacy under the US constitution. And both of them admirably withstood the jerkwater-like l’affaire Gleick, that simpleton of all frauds. AGU legitimacy is damaged already by condoning him.

    John

  146. Schroedinger says:
    January 10, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?

    Schroedinger, I commented on this above, saying I didn’t know who Rawls was. However, upon reading the rest of the thread, I see he is the man who leaked the IPCC documents. So now I can answer your question.

    Yes, you did miss me criticizing him, although I didn’t know his name at the time, but I criticized his actions. It was on Judith Curry’s blog a week or so ago. I had to say it two, maybe three times, as I recall, before Mosh and others would stop bugging me about it. I said then what I will say to you now.

    The reason that I am not a reviewer for the IPCC document is that I knew I could not live by their onerous privacy agreements, because I disagree with the rationale for their very existence.

    I am a man that considers it a very large wrong to break my given word. To me it is a huge thing, and so I make every effort to keep my word. I didn’t know if I could do that if I were an IPCC reviewer, so I opted out.

    So I do strongly disapprove of what Rawls did. I think it was wrong to say he’d keep it private and then divulge it. It is not an action that would cross my mind once I’d agreed to keep it private, absent very unusual circumstances. Which is why I didn’t sign up.

    However, a much larger issue to me is that I also think it was totally wrong of the IPCC to keep the drafts and reviewers comments private. That’s sooooo last century … put the drafts up on the web and let everyone comment. The IPCC doesn’t have to pay any attention to the comments, but what the heck, they might actually learn something.

    So yes, I see it as a transgression. For me, because I prize my word, it would be a mortal sin to make public something I had agreed to keep private. I can see for others it’s a venial sin. That’s their business—every man has to live his own life and make his own peace with the man in the mirror every day. So I can’t argue levels of transgression, that’s angels on a pin. But for me, no, it would be very wrong.

    Sorry I didn’t recognize Rawls’ name. In the prior discussion at Judith’s blog it was his actions rather than his name that I was responding to. If I read the name it didn’t stick.

    Regards,

    w.

    PS—Next time, please have the courtesy, not to mention the wisdom, not to say “did I miss you doing X, or are you a hypocrite?”. Apart from being unpleasant, it’s the fallacy of the excluded middle.

    In fact, you did miss me doing X. Meanwhile, I’m thinking “What kind of jerkwagon accuses me of possibly being a hypocrite without first getting the facts”?

    In addition, even if I hadn’t spoken about him, that certainly doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Perhaps as in this case, the subject is of little interest to me. He did it, I wouldn’t, so what? Or perhaps I just haven’t enough information to make a comment. There are plenty of other possibilities, that’s the “excluded middle” in the name of the fallacy.

    So as you see, your claim, that either you missed my comment or I am a hypocrite, is logically false to start with … how dumb does that make you look? And how unpleasant? That’s your opening salvo, your first comment on the thread? Do you realize how that makes you look?

    So unless you approve of having people look on you as a jerkwagon, I’d advise a gentler approach. You know, some kinda thing like “Hey, willis, have you written about Rawls, the guy who leaked the IPCC documents?”. Then I could say “Yes, I wrote about it at Judiths”, and you could avoid looking foolish for accusing me of hypocrisy when I’d already spoken on the subject, and I could avoid thinking you’re a jerkwagon for blithely tossing “Or are you a hypocrite” into a peaceful conversation without a scrap of evidence … there’s no reason for that kind of thing.

  147. Gleick did what he did in an attempt to damage Heartland’s donor base. Admitted identity theft and alleged forgery in the name of noble cause

    Here is Aus, less than 1 week ago, a self-identified “anti-coal activist” mocked up (ie. allegedly forged) a digital facsimile of a major bank’s market notice of withdrawal of loan facilities to a coal miner, purportedly on the grounds that the bank (the ANZ) had withdrawn the loan facility due to the anti-environmental aspect of coal mining. This person then emailed this alleged forgery to various well-known journalists from the financial press

    Some of these journalists, obviously wishing such a press release to be true, tweeted it around without compunction or fact-checking. Others published it on their website with a very incompetent fact check: to wit, they phoned the mobile number quoted on the alleged forgery and were greeted with said “activist” pretending to be a bank spokesman. This they took as true, since they wanted to believe it was

    The resultant damage on the ASX reached over $314m in an hour or so

    So, we have alleged forgery and identity theft with the malicious intent of financially damaging a publically listed company, and this succeeded. Seems familiar … and the parallelism continues:

    The Aus Green Party (actually in a formal coalition with the current Govt in federal power !) has been making statements published in the MSM to the effect that “noble cause” applies here (ie. it’s OK to commit forgery, identity theft and malicious property damage in the name of nobility). The very same journalists, who may well be regarded as accessories after the alleged fact based on their completely incompetent “fact-checking” prior to publishing, are now busy publishing articles to support this “noble cause” and also to dilute their own accountability (eg. only a “hoax”)

    The Aus corporate cop, ASIC, has seized the “activist’s” laptop and mobile (gee, eh) and say they are investigating. The Aus Federal Govt has said absolutely nothing, and is unlikely to because their own coalition partners are aggressively pushing the noble cause muck in the MSM

    Although these alleged crimes carry maximum penalties of 10 years jail and $0.5m in fines, we in Aus suspect that the eventual outcome will be the equivalent to a stern warning for a “silly, stupid hoax”

    As with Gleick, if no hard accountability is imposed, this may well result in further copy cats. Such is noble cause corruption

  148. [Temps going down since 2012? Mod]

    It was a hypothetical element in a scenario of future events, of which a financial/economic crisis was the major hypothetical element. But I think it’s more likely than not that temperatures will fall over the next four years.

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

    Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Gail Combs wrote: Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis

    That would be a remarkable feat of clairvoyance if true. Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him.

    Stephen Mosher had earlier analyzed the “fingerprints” of Gleick’s writing style and other clues in the forged document even before Gleick admitted to being the person who had forwarded the documents to alarmist websites. It was posted on Climate Audit, but I forget to save the link. I include a shorter post of his below.

    Mosher
    Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s see.

    According the Gleick he is sent a document. That document gets most the facts largely correct. Down to the dollars that Singer earned.

    So that person has access to the documents. The real numbers. That is how
    they can write the document.

    And that person decides the best evidence to send Gleick is a memo?
    undated, unsigned.. and leaves Gleick to find the supporting documentation?

    MAKES NO SENSE, unless that person were trying to trick Gleick, BUT if they were trying to trick him they would have sent him a MORE FAKE document.

    A: you have to believe an insider with access to the real docs, sends Gleick the worst evidence.

    B: you have to beleieve in a really stupid trickster

    C: gleick wrote it.
    ===========

    In addition, there are these considerations:

    Russ R. says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    Similar writing styles…
    Opening by stating the purpose of the letter:
    ………….
    Overuse of dashes:
    ………….
    Accidental overuse of the word “and”:
    ========

    Russ R. again:
    He says he recieved an anonymous document. He doesn’t say the “anonymous document” was the faked document.
    …………..
    He claims he didn’t alter any of the documents sent to him. He doesnt say that the only documents he sent were the ones sent to him. He says he didn’t alter the “anonymous communication”, but he doesn’t identify it, nor does he confirm that he sent it.

    Consistent with what Gleick has claimed are several scenarios that leave him the author of the faked memo – a fact he has not denied:

    his lawyers have very carefully chosen for him to not claim that he didn’t write the Fake…
    =============

    The other Phil says:
    March 3, 2012 at 5:28 am

    One point hit me very forcefully, and it deserves repeating.

    Gleick claims his subterfuge was intended to determine the veracity of the strategy document. Once he managed to convince Heartland that he was a board member, and successfully asked for material for board members, he should have simply asked for that memo.

    If he had explicitly asked for it, Heartland only had three options:
    1. Send him the memo, thereby providing rock-solid confirmation.
    2. Admit it exits, but inform him that the distribution is limited and he is not on the list. That still would be good confirmation that it was real.
    3. Deny that such a document existed.

    The third option doesn’t help Gleick, but importantly, if the document actually existed, it was not an option open to Heartland. Companies can be selective about what material goes to what board members, but they cannot outright deny that something exists. They can, and do legitimately say, “sorry that doc is only available to such-and-such subcommittee” but they cannot tell a board member that a strategy document simply doesn’t exists.

    Gleick would have asked for the document if he honestly thought it might have been real, because that would help determine the truth. However, he has no interest in asking for the document if it isn’t real, because the certain answer will not serve his purpose.
    ===============

    David Ross says:

    The obvious conclusion (which other evidence supports)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/

    is that Gleick did not have a copy of a “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” when he was phishing Heartland. He did not have a copy because he (or whoever the forger was) had not written it yet.
    ………………
    He did not even ask for information specifically about “climate” or “strategy”. But he did specifically phish for information on board members. Neither Gleick nor those who have posted these documents on the web have made any attempt to remove personal information about the Heartland board members or staff, exposing each of them to a campaign of hate and intimidation. Perhaps that was what Gleick wanted all along.
    =============

    Alan Wilkinson says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    Gleick was asked directly by both Anthony and Roger Pielke (Jr) if he wrote the fraudulent strategy paper. He has refused to answer both. Instead he called in the lawyers.

    The implication is crystal clear.
    ============

    JJ wrote (not on WUWT):

    At this point the best confirmation that he wrote it is the fact that he hasn’t denied writing it, despite the fact that his greatest legal exposure lies with that act.
    ============

    copner says:
    March 23, 2012 at 6:50 am

    … by inserting himself in the climate strategy document – as the main enemy of Heartland – and is acknowledge even by them as a great scientist – he suddenly becomes the “goto guy” for information about Heartland’s evilness.
    ============

    Robert Murphy says:

    Whoever fabricated the above—and many people think it was Gleick himself, which would explain the odd attention he receives as opposed to more famous “warmists” such as Al Gore or James Hansen—must imagine all opponents as Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons, chanting “Ehhhhhxcellent” while eating a bald eagle stew.

    Gleick’s lawyerly statement said that he received it in the mail–but that left open the possibility that he mailed it to himself–or mailed it to someone who mailed it back to him. That would have been a smart thing to do, to create a misleading trail of evidence (i.e., an envelope mailed from a far-away city).

    J. Diamond says:
    In any case, a third party opinion does not constitute proof.

    No, but there are shades of gray and shades of probability. Joe Bast wasn’t just wildly guessing—he’d read comments like the above.

  149. Trafamadore said:

    And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$.

    This comment show you are prone to accepting the propaganda launched against the Koch brothers, rather than the truth. They are actually very interested in science. They’ve been providing funding for NOVA and other PBS programs for years, including a show a couple of years ago on evolution. There is no indication that they put any pressure on anyone working on the BEST project to come up with results more to their liking. Rather, they simply wanted a better accounting for the temp record, and they accept what the results are, which is scientific by its very nature..

  150. Once again we hear the tired old ‘equivalence’ argument.

    trafamadore wrote:

    The bottom line is that you want scientists to crucify Gleick when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.

    No, the bottom line is, Gleick could not find anything really damning in the documents he phished, so he forged one with suitably damning quotes. Those are the quotes that the complacent/compliant media focus on.

    Nobody has forged any emails from the UEA and tried to pass them off as genuine because the ones that were released are damning enough all by themselves.

    People like you turn a blind eye to Gleick’s transgressions, just as you did with those of ‘the team’ at UEA.

    You talk about crucifying.

    Tallbloke, a blogger who received early word of the release, had his house raided and searched by the police who were (I kid you not) liaising with the U.K. anti-terrorism unit.

    vs.

    Gleick -lauded at the AGU, as if nothing had happened.

  151. Heartland can claim damages if its directors, officers, and donors were harassed, and some donors withdrew. Offsetting benefits don’t count. I.e., suppose you were mugged and $25 stolen, and spent $1000 in medical bills. You could still sue for pain and suffering, plus the medical bills, even if, thanks to a sympathetic story in the media, $5000 in donations poured in from the public.

  152. @Jack Diamond:

    Watts isn’t paid for his blogging. A Heartland document describes a request he made last year for funding for a different project:

    “Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com. Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.”

    Watts later reported on the progress of this project:

    “Using the funds provided with the help of Heartland’s private donor, I hired a specialist programmer familiar with NOAA systems to trap and convert the NOAA sat feed data to look like any other hourly station (like ASOS hourly stations at airports etc) so that we’d be able to start the visualization and comparison process. This is just one phase of the project before it is ready for public consumption. When finished, there will be a website free and open to the public that will allow tracking and visualization of temperatures from the CRN right alongside that of the regular surface network”

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

  153. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:

    “My sports metaphor doesn’t contain Lance Armstrong, so
    it cannot break down because of Lance or whatever he did.”

    Opps, maybe I should explain, Armstrong is a bicyclist that makes his living bicycling, like baseball players make their living tossing their balls about. You see, he illegally used EPO to boast his O2 capacity to cheat similar to the baseball players who in your metaphor used steriods to boast their strength and cheat. But, after your long monologue, I can understand your failure to get it, that’s okay, I understand.

    I guess my writing is not clear. The phrase “cannot break down because of Lance or whatever he did” doesn’t mean I don’t know who Lance is, or what he did. I know both, very well. It might have been clearer to say

    “My sports metaphor doesn’t contain Lance Armstrong, so it cannot break down because of anything Lance Armstrong might have done.”

    Here’s the deal. You can’t make up some cockamamie “extension” of my metaphor involving Lance Armstrong and argue against that. Lance is not my metaphor, he is YOUR metaphor. You are arguing against yourself.

    You know, based on your rant, you would think us scientists could just sit about repeating other people’s work and finding irascible results.

    Strange, I don’t recall ever saying anything like that. Given your prior misunderstanding, you’ll need to provide a quote of mine to substantiate your claim that e.g. I think you are interested in “finding irascible results” … although I do enjoy the image.

    In fact, at the beginning of papers we ofter actually do repeat a wee bit of someone’s work to set up our experiments. You know how often I have found fishy results? Never. Zippo. Nadda.

    Next time I see a paper of yours, I’ll be sure to remember that. … Oh, wait, you’re an anonymous random internet popup. I have no reason to believe you are a scientist in the slightest. That could be totally made up.

    But assuming it’s not, if you haven’t found “fishy” results, you’re not working in climate science. Here’s just some of the ones I’ve dealt with, not even all of them. Links to all of these are at my index page. And yes, it does need updating …

    REVIEWS OF DUBIOUS SCIENCE

    PDI: Elsner :: Historical measurements of hurricane effectiveness
    Tanganyika Revisited :: A discussion of the claimed changes in Lake Tanganyika.
    Anthropogenic Decline in Natural Gas :: On the claim that human extinction of megafauna caused a decline in animal flatulence.
    Waxman Malarkey 2: Impact Zone Australia :: Claims from the Waxman-Markey web site
    Waxman-Malarkey: Impact Zone US Northeast :: Claims from the Waxman-Markey web site
    Waxman Malarkey 3: Impact Zone Alaska :: Claims from the Waxman-Markey web site
    Waxman Malarkey 4: Impact Zone Ireland :: Claims from the Waxman-Markey web site
    Border Transgressions :: Claims about Mexico and climate change are shown to be unfounded.
    Of Rice and Men :: Problems with an analysis claiming global warming affecting rice yields.
    Dr. Curry Warms the Southern Ocean :: Looking at the data regarding temperatures in the Southern Ocean
    Eight tenths of a degree? Think of the Grandchildren! :: The absurdity of the climate threat.
    Save the Sunburnt Whales :: Claims of global warming causing whale sunburn are discussed, none too gently.
    Nature Unleashes a Flood … of Bad Science. :: Models and more models make scary predictions of floods, part one.
    Nature Magazine’s Folie a Deux, Part Deux :: Models and more models make scary predictions of floods, part two.
    News The Media Missed :: Why climate models are inadequate for analyzing the Arctic—no data.
    Models All The Way Down :: Another study where there is no data at the base of a stack of models.
    Mental Sloth and Joshua Trees :: A claim that the extinction of the ground sloths affected the climate.
    The Nuclear Winter of our Discontent :: Claims that nuclear tests disrupted the climate are discussed and discounted.
    Kilwa Kisiwani Gereza :: Bogus claims about the slow erosion of a historical building
    Reality Leaves A Lot To The Imagination :: NASA says the climate data isn’t up to the task of testing the models.
    Kill It With Fire :: Michael Mann once again tries to resuscitate his Hockeystick.
    Gotta Admire The Chutzpah :: No, the western snow pack isn’t melting, no matter how many people say so.

    So if you’re not finding fishy science, you’re not looking at climate science.

    You go on to say:

    And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$.

    Man, there’s so many wrong statements in that short paragraph, I’m not even going to touch it. I don’t think there’s a true thing in it.

    So I dont know how empty you think the science ethics glass is, but from my perspective in the trenches it’s always been pretty full. No, you wont get that one either. Nevermind.

    Ooooh, your “perspective in the trenches” … dude, you’re nothing but bunch of fine words on the internet. Claiming you are some expert because of your experience, when you don’t post under your real name? Pathetic. Like I’m gonna believe you’re some guy “in the trenches”? For all I know you’re a fifteen-year-old staying up late and posting from your folks computer.

    The bottom line is that you want scientists to crucify Gleick when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.

    Differences

    1. I don’t want anyone to crucify Gleick. I would like him to face some consequences for his actions. You might condone mail fraud and circulation of forged documents. Serious people don’t. I don’t want anyone to crucify Dr. Gundersen either. I wrote this post in part to point out to her that she has time to pull out of the ethical nosedive she’s in. I’m not some monster, just a guy.

    2. Nobody knows who released the data from East Anglia. Makes it hard to say much about them.

    3. The UEA documents revealed extensive wrongdoing, so bad that only the expiration of the statute of limitations precluded criminal charges being filed. As a result, the release of the data is clearly covered under the whistleblower exemption. It revealed rot and corruption at the heart of the leading lights of the AGW movement. Gleick’s actions, on the other hand, revealed nothing.

    4. I haven’t heard them described as “heroes”, nor have I described them that way myself. But I’m glad they did it. It revealed that Phil Jones had flat-out lied to my face about my FOIA request, and it showed him and others plotting behind the scenes to obstruct and finally deny my valid, legitimate FOIA request. Lowlifes one and all.

    5. One main difference is the UEA release revealed crimes, conspiracy, and malfeasance at a public institution, whereas Gleick’s crimes revealed nothing at a private institution … at the end of the day, there was nothing scandalous or terrible or wrong about what Heartland was doing. That’s the crazy part, Gleick auto-defenestrated over nothing.

    6. UEA is funded by taxpayer money. That’s why I can FOIA them, and why it was a crime for them to avoid my FOIA request. Their emails and their data are public documents. Heartland Institute is a private business. Their documents are private documents. I see no equality between revealing one, or revealing the other.

    Best regards,

    w.

  154. trafamadore says:

    January 10, 2013 at 5:43 p

    The bottom line is that you want scientists to crucify Gleick when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.
    =========================
    Gleick is manifestly guilty- he admitted it, but you won’t admit his admission. You lack any sense of the absurd, tramadore.

    I think here you mean “uphold” rather than “hold up” the “E. Ang. robbers”, unless you mean that we guys held up the hold-uppers. Hold on- did I say that right?

  155. Lots of trolls out here. I wonder what the trolls have to say about Peter Gleick’s review of Donna’s book about the IPCC.

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5

    Peter has had nearly a year to delete all the lies he made in that smear review of Donna’s book but clearly he either lacks the courage to retract it or he has zero integrity, possibly both.

  156. Willis Eschenbach says: “Here’s the deal. You can’t make up some cockamamie “extension” of my metaphor involving Lance Armstrong and argue against that. Lance is not my metaphor, he is YOUR metaphor. You are arguing against yourself.”

    and on and on. the metaphor distraction. But you havent articulated a response to the case that I was making, that Gleick should not be hit in the science world for public activism. Just like Armstrong would not be hit for stealing from biking organizations.

    Your long list of web articles are just web articles, written on the spot, no different that what you and I are doing. They are _opinion_ at the best and dont factor in the science papers they critique. You would be better to use the Gail Combs (sp?) approach and use real articles.

    “And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$. Man, there’s so many wrong statements in that short paragraph, I’m not even going to touch it. I don’t think there’s a true thing in it.”

    And pls, point out the long list of inaccuracies in that statement, because I am unaware of any. I would go on to say that the B.E.S.T study confirmed the temperature rise they set out to disprove.

    In terms of your list of differences between Gleick and east Ang, robbery, you only have shown Gleich to be a bad thief. And I am unaware of any factual proven problem with any of the science that was discussed in the East Ang emails as they exposed no scientific problems, only people discussing problems, including the FOI requests that someone has to pay for. Nevertheless, stealing from a public institution is still stealing. In terms of looking for wrongdoing in the Heartland release, that was not the pt, it was to see who was contributing to Heartland, right. And I was under the impression that much was learned. Finally, in terms of your vendetta on Gundersen, and even if some of your pt are valid, I am sure the you must realize that Heartland is not viewed favorable by most scientists (unless they work for industry), and many scientists view him as you do the East Ang robbers. Yes, shame lies on both sides. I think you can count on them to be easy on him.

  157. mpainter says: “Gleick is manifestly guilty- he admitted it, but you won’t admit his admission. You lack any sense of the absurd, tramadore.”

    hey…

    one person admits, the other skulks away and hides. I actually dont see the difference when they basically did the same thing. It would be _absurd_ to think anything else.

    And I admit his admission, really, and I dont agree with what he did. This is about penalizing him as a scientist for what is civil infraction, activism, for which, so far, he hasnt even been convicted.

    Whats the matter with “up hold”? easier to write than “hold on your shoulders”…

  158. rogerknights said:

    Heartland can claim damages if its directors, officers, and donors were harassed, and some donors withdrew. Offsetting benefits don’t count. I.e., suppose you were mugged and $25 stolen, and spent $1000 in medical bills. You could still sue for pain and suffering, plus the medical bills, even if, thanks to a sympathetic story in the media, $5000 in donations poured in from the public.

    That is a poor comparison, equivocating some calling you names and lying about you vs, say rape. These are two very different things. What occurred here is very different than a mugging. There is no pain and suffering (which is harder to win with in court than you would expect). Of the donors that might have stopped giving, HL would have to prove that they stopped giving based on that one forged document.

    Imagine going in front of a judge:

    HL “You honor, we seek to collect damages because Mr. Gleick and his alleged forged document caused donors X Y and Z to stop giving us money”.

    Judge: ” Can you show that the other documents, verified by your legal team to be authentic, could not have played a part in their decision?”

    HL: “No you honor”.

    Then wait until the defense team puts those donors on the stand, and they say they just were not aware of all the activities HL was involved in based on the info from the authentic documents. And then when they submit the ledger that shows HL ended up gaining more donors based on this entire incident.

    And lawyers are expensive, and in the US, unlike in England, loser does not pay for the tort expenses of the winner. As will certainly be the case of Mann’s attempt to heal NRO and Mark Styne, your proposed case against Gleick, even if they were to succeed, at the very least would end up costing HL much more than they could ever get back.

  159. trafamador, thanks for offering a portal to understanding the “consensus” mind. A decade ago I lost a friend to this CAGW madness and that was the inspiration for my own climate claims research. Amazing is the adherence to the Noble Cause principle. My friend is scrupulous in all his dealings but if you engage him on the climate issue, anything goes. Ironically I read most anything he recommends, never is the courtesy returned. We are indeed witnessing one of the greatest mass delusions in the history of man.

  160. Jake Diamond says:
    January 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    …….”I’ve expressed no hostility towards Anthony Watts. I’ve suggested a reasonable standard of ethical behavior to which ALL writers and blogs should adhere–disclosure of conflict of interest. Frankly it’s astounding that you are so confused on this point.

    [Reply: Not true. A hostile comment of yours personally attacking Anthony Watts was snipped. — mod.]
    =================================
    Either you have ethics or you don’t.
    No amount of “professional development hours” will change that fact.
    That said, Jake writes rather well of things he knows not.

  161. Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.

    More the latter in the list than the former.

    A retracted paper would be practically amazing in climatology because it would mean either someone was actually honest enough to admit they made false claims, or shockingly they were actually forced to admit such, as in some actual borderline penalty. Dishonesty like Mann’s hockey stick is generally never, ever retracted. Thus like either around 99.99% (if I recall correctly) or some other about-100% figure of climatology papers are never retracted.

    With extraordinarily rare fluke exceptions, one only sees retracted papers in more honest fields like medicine.

    For instance, in 2010, there was a blatantly BS study claiming phytoplankton declined by 40% since 1950 (about as absurd as if claiming 99% of land plants died last week with nobody noticing, for such was in complete contradiction to how such was utterly not seen in fish catches, how other studies of phytoplankton and chlorophyll trends found net increase in contrast, how plankton did well during warmer times and during higher-CO2 periods of Earth’s history, etc). That was not retracted but applauded and highlighted by the environmentalist operators of the Nature journal in a special press release, then spread to media outlets dutifully reporting the false propaganda to the public.

    A common claim of supporters of the CAGW movement is that deliberate falsehoods would be avoided by so-called scientists in order to prevent (mythical, vague, and imaginary) legal or academic penalties. But I’ve yet to see an example of anyone ever having been penalized for smoothly done dishonesty in support of their cause. I strongly suspect that, if one ever did, the media (with their average ideological and political biases) would be rushing to their support. Mann, Hansen, Gleick … none of them suffered any real net penalty, more like reward.

    Data manipulation can be as blatant as the GISS example in http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif (where a 0.3+ degree change is a huge deal in context when all of global warming is about tenths of a degree) and has no net negative consequences to those doing it whatsoever. I suppose they must discourage extreme sloppiness which would too obviously backfire on their cause (like fudging by 100 degrees instead), but that’s it.

    A common naive assumption is assuming honesty by default, but, while I like to think that probably more than 50% of people in existence (as in random ordinary people) are honest a majority of the time in day to day life, there’s no basis whatsoever for assuming honesty on subsets of the population like those least bothered by prior CAGW movement dishonesty and hence happily joining the effort.

    Part of led me to skepticism was interacting with groups of hardcore no-lifer activists on forums and wikipedia, realizing from experience that not a small minority but every last one I encountered were utterly dishonest (even when having no financial incentive to be so), then wondering why on Earth was I assuming their “professional” equivalents would be any more honest when financial incentives were added.

    Some fields have better people drawn to them on average, a majority more pro-human and moral in outlook, and do tend towards honesty. Medical research, while having some cases of fraud, is utterly different from climatology in that such has actually been penalized many times. But I’ve never seen comparable examples in activist-dominated climatology, only the opposite where someone with inconvenient honesty gets penalized for revealing truth that the public is never supposed to know.

  162. Have we missed the point of Jake Diamond’s vehement assertion that Peter Gleick did not forge the document that Gleick found which was written in Gleick’s style?

    It is so absurd to think that anyone else forged it but Gleick we must assume that Jake Diamond has additional information in his possession about this forgery. Information that is not available to Bast and the rest of us who didn’t forge it.

    Logically, I think we have a confession.

  163. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    “Here’s the deal. You can’t make up some cockamamie “extension” of my metaphor involving Lance Armstrong and argue against that. Lance is not my metaphor, he is YOUR metaphor. You are arguing against yourself.”

    and on and on. the metaphor distraction. But you havent articulated a response to the case that I was making, that Gleick should not be hit in the science world for public activism. Just like Armstrong would not be hit for stealing from biking organizations.

    I don’t understand that at all. I don’t get your point. I don’t see any parallel between Lance and Gleick. I don’t understand what “case” you are making. I don’t have a clue what Gleick has to do with “public activism”. Activism? We’re discussing crimes here, not “activism”.

    Sorry, my friend, but you are making no sense. You started by saying my metaphor was wrong because of Lance. When I pointed out Lance was your metaphor, now I’m accused of not understanding your metaphor … and you know what?

    You’re right. I don’t understand your metaphor in the slightest.

    Your long list of web articles are just web articles, written on the spot, no different that what you and I are doing. They are _opinion_ at the best and dont factor in the science papers they critique. You would be better to use the Gail Combs (sp?) approach and use real articles.

    You asked me to point out examples of bad science. Now that I have done so, you tell me that you don’t like them because … well, because I pointed them out.

    You sure you understand this “logic” deal?

    “And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$. Man, there’s so many wrong statements in that short paragraph, I’m not even going to touch it. I don’t think there’s a true thing in it.”

    And pls, point out the long list of inaccuracies in that statement, because I am unaware of any. I would go on to say that the B.E.S.T study confirmed the temperature rise they set out to disprove.

    No, thanks. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. I’m having enough trouble trying to explain 2+2=4 to you, I’ll leave algebra until after you grasp the simpler concepts.

    In terms of your list of differences between Gleick and east Ang, robbery, you only have shown Gleich to be a bad thief.

    Huh?

    And I am unaware of any factual proven problem with any of the science that was discussed in the East Ang emails as they exposed no scientific problems, only people discussing problems, including the FOI requests that someone has to pay for.

    Yes, I can see you are unaware of any of the problems with the science. However, there’s no need for this kind of special effort to inform us of the lacunae in your education, they are exposed whenever you speak.

    Nevertheless, stealing from a public institution is still stealing.

    Yes, as is stealing from a private company. Your point?

    In terms of looking for wrongdoing in the Heartland release, that was not the pt, it was to see who was contributing to Heartland, right. And I was under the impression that much was learned.

    Is your claim that Gleick’s actions were justified because of what he wanted to find out? Or because of what was learned? Really?

    You are going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that a man is justified in using mail fraud, because he wants to know who is funding a private company?

    Tralfie, I got really bad news for you. No matter how much you may want to know who funds a private company, it is illegal and immoral to use mail fraud and identity theft just to satisfy your prurient curiosity.

    And I love the sentence “And I was under the impression that much was learned” … really? How about you give us say half a dozen examples of these crucial things that were learned, so we can tell if your “impression” is correct.

    Finally, in terms of your vendetta on Gundersen, and even if some of your pt are valid, I am sure the you must realize that Heartland is not viewed favorable by most scientists (unless they work for industry), and many scientists view him as you do the East Ang robbers.

    Oh, please. I have no “vendetta” against Gundersen. I have done everything I can to support her and encourage her to first preserve, and now to salvage, her reputation. The fact that she seems determined on self-immolation is nothing to do with me.

    And now you are saying that Gundersen’s actions are justified because “Heartland is not viewed favorably by most scientists”? That’s a sick joke. Most scientists on this planet never heard of Heartland.

    Yes, shame lies on both sides.

    No, it doesn’t. That’s a pathetic attempt to assert equality. On my side I see nothing to be ashamed of.

    Your side, on the other hand, has a nest of rot and corruption centered in UEA, as revealed in Climategate, as well as a mail fraudster who (in your side’s alternate reality) is the go-to guy for Scientific Integrity. Oh, and your side has you. Plus a bunch of lambs who can be counted on to be silent.

    I think you can count on them to be easy on him.

    Since that’s already happened, it’s not really much of a prediction, tralfie …

    I’m not at all clear what your point is here, trafalmadore. So far your argument seems to be “but the other side did it too” … but they didn’t, and even if they had done so, that’s just the “tu quoque” logical fallacy. Are you defending Gleick’s actions? You sure you want to do that? Your choice, but me, I’m not that into applauding someone who is sliming opponents by sending out forged documents …

    w.

  164. trafamadore:

    In your post at January 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm you say

    us scientists

    Don’t be ridiculous!
    Anybody can read your posts on this and other threads which show you are as much of a “scientist” as a herring is a bird.

    Richard

  165. richardscourtney says: “Anybody can read your posts on this and other threads which show you are as much of a “scientist” as a herring is a bird.”

    Whatever you say, it must true.

  166. trafamadore says:

    January 10, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    mpainter says: “Gleick is manifestly guilty- he admitted it, but you won’t admit his admission. You lack any sense of the absurd, tramadore.”

    And I admit his admission, really, and I dont agree with what he did……Whats the matter with “up hold”? easier to write than “hold on your shoulders”…
    =======================================
    Okay, fine, but you appeared to be excusing him.

    and,
    let’s try it one more time:

    “when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.”

  167. @Gail C

    “The Bankers, CEOs, Academics, and Politicians know exactly what they are doing, and that is the complete gutting of western civilization for profit. The lament “it is for our future children” has to be the vilest lie they have ever told, since their actions sell those children into slavery.”

    I really appreciated you comment above and have forwarded the whole of it to a couple of friends. I find myself in a similar position relative to powerful interests who for the most part, can’t cut off my supply of bread because I am willing to live cheap. Money can’t be all that important – look at the sort of fingers most of it sticks to.

    I do have a comment on the issue of whether banks or governments have more power. Governments of the day usually have a very short term agenda and banks have a very long term one. It may surprise many that the only way to control global private enterprise is with global governance of global enterprise. The (failing) attempts at controlling global enterprise with national regulation are opposed heartily by…global enterprise – no surprise there. Who do you suppose funds media opposition to global governance? National governments? National private enterprise? Hardly. It is all about having two or three faces and using whatever is the bogeyman-of-the-hour to subvert international federation in any form – keep the pot boiling so to speak. What happens now? Whenever two people share a chocolate bar, shout “Socialism!” Whenever you see someone selling a homemade quilt shout. “Capitalist Pig!” There is a lot of noise designed to distract. Many powerful sectors think ‘they are so clevah'; that they are the tail wagging the dog, a dog with many tails!

    Global enterprise is very real and has very real consequences for everyone. I doubt that genie can be put back in the lamp. International regulation requires a forum for it. The elected parliament is a pretty good approach to creating one. The only effective alternative is Empire and that is not a viable model though there are still those who aspire to it.

  168. mpainter says: “Okay, fine, but you appeared to be excusing him.”

    Well. I shouldnt say, I guess.
    To be honest, given that the Gleick disaster happened, I am disappointed that it didnt take Heartland down more, as I have not really liked that place since its cigarette days. But you know that already, from a different thread.

  169. trafamadore says:
    January 11, 2013 at 10:30 am

    mpainter says:

    “Okay, fine, but you appeared to be excusing him.”

    Well. I shouldnt say, I guess.

    I don’t understand this. What shouldn’t you say? Why shouldn’t you say it? Why is it just a guess?

    To be honest, given that the Gleick disaster happened, I am disappointed that it didnt take Heartland down more, as I have not really liked that place since its cigarette days. But you know that already, from a different thread.

    No comment on Gleick’s mail fraud and identity theft, no comment on his forgery … you’re just disappointed that his illegal activities weren’t more hurtful to one of those on your personal enemies list.

    Man, if that is not the AGW supporting crowd in a nutshell. No more morals than a snake has hips. You don’t seem bothered by the fact that Gleick was a crook while heading up the AGU Scientific Ethics and Integrity Task Force. Instead, you’re just disappointed that he wasn’t a successful crook, that he didn’t inflict more pain on those you disagree with.

    AGW ethics, gotta love’m.

    w.

  170. Willis Eschenbach says: “No more morals than a snake has hips.”

    Well, Willis, you should work on justifying why legislation against 2nd hand smoke is bad for us all, I’m sure you would be fine with doing that. And maybe when you talk about morals, you should realize that some people take them seriously and act. And Gleick was certainly one of those people.

  171. trafamadore:

    Your entire post at January 11, 2013 at 6:25 am says

    richardscourtney says:

    “Anybody can read your posts on this and other threads which show you are as much of a “scientist” as a herring is a bird.”

    Whatever you say, it must true.

    Not so. I said “your posts…show”.
    Others can have opinions on it. And you don’t dispute it or question it.
    A scientist would ask for evidence of it.
    A paid troll would demean it.

    Quad Erat Demonstrandum

    Richard

  172. traffie (you don’t mind if I call you “traffie” I hope, as after all your posts I feel as though I know you well) – traffie, if what Gleick did was an expression of his morals, then you are admitting that lying, deceiving and misrepresenting are an integral part of his moral code. That works for me.

    And, since I have an attention span longer than that of a baby, your attempts to divert the discussion (ooh, squirrel … ooh, shiny … ) won’t work with me, nor, I suspect, with the vast majority of readers – and certainly not with Willis.

    You have contributed nothing to helping us understand why the AGU would not only refuse to address Gleick’s admitted malfeasances, but even elevated him to the podium – three times – instead.

    OTOH, you’ve made a strong contribution to our understanding of the calibre of person who brought this sorry state of affairs about.

  173. richardscourtney says: “A paid troll”

    I like that idea, at least the paid part. Are there such things? Someone else said I could be a 15 year old. I liked that one too. But the best was when someone said I was Gleick. That was cool until Anthony said I was from Michigan. Spoil sport.

    Anyway, I’m not really responsive to name calling, it’s quite fine. You dont think its demeans the name caller? I guess not…

    Oh, and scientists dont generally ask for unpublished or unpublishable “evidence” on blog posts, that would be silly. But, I do like Gail Combs reference to a real article, that was very good, and one of the things that I have campaigned for here. She is my hero of the week. Plus she doesnt cheat on her taxes, you see that?

  174. trafamadore says:
    January 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says: “No more morals than a snake has hips.”

    Well, Willis, you should work on justifying why legislation against 2nd hand smoke is bad for us all, I’m sure you would be fine with doing that.

    Since I’ve never in my life taken a position on second-hand smoke, I don’t understand this at all. Heartland Foundation has taken a position. What does that have to do with me? I do think the dangers of ETS are wildly overblown, but so what? This is about Gleick.

    In addition, who the hell are you to tell me what I “should work on”? I work on what I want, not what some random anonymous internet popup like you tells me I “should work on”.

    And maybe when you talk about morals, you should realize that some people take them seriously and act. And Gleick was certainly one of those people.

    Oh, my good gracious, tralfie, that’s hilarious. Glieck was acting out of an excess of serious morals? … that’s too funny, mon ami.

    w.

  175. Willis Eschenbach says: “that’s hilarious. Glieck was acting out of an excess of serious morals? … that’s too funny”……….Perhaps.

  176. trafamadore says:
    January 11, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says: “that’s hilarious. Glieck was acting out of an excess of serious morals? … that’s too funny”……….Perhaps.

    trafalmadore, you seem to be infected with noble cause corruption just like your man Gleick. Gleick is not acting out of an excess of morals. He is committing the mundane, boring mistake of thinking that the ends justify the means. He thinks he is justified in breaking the law because he is “saving” the world from some imaginary Thermageddon that has him all hot and bothered.

    I, on the other hand, think he is an ordinary crook and con man, who justifies his lawbreaking, con jobs, and ethical lapses any way that he can.

    You seem to agree with Gleick, your only concern is that Peter didn’t reach his ends, he didn’t hurt the people you wanted to see hurt. If he had, you’d think his actions even more justified.

    What you don’t seem to have grasped is that the ends very, very rarely justify the means in everyday life. Usually what happens is what happened here. Gleick has committed actual crimes, and seriously damaged his reputation, and to no end at all.

    And even had he achieved his ends, he still has to live with the crimes and the ethical transgressions that he committed.

    Finally, you haven’t acknowledged the damage he has done to your side, trafalmadore. Ethical honest scientists winced at his actions, but that’s not the problem. The problem was best enunciated by Megan McCardle, who said:

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    Gleick has done that already. You, by lauding his actions, have convinced me that you, like Gleick, think that your cause is more important than breaking the law, more important than telling the truth.

    So now the Gleick saga has a new victim. First Gleick, then Gundersen, then the AGU, and now you.

    Because truly, traramadore, at this point you’ve firmly convinced us you’d lie to achieve your goals … and as Megan said, now that you’ve convinced us of that, you’ve lost the power to ever convince us of anything else.

    All the best, don’t be surprised if people don’t believe you in future, why should they? You’ve already convinced us you approve of lying for your cause, and there’s no way to tell if you are lying, so there’s nothing left to say.

    w.

  177. trafamadore says:
    January 10, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Willis Eschenbach says: “Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”

    The number of retractions right now is 100 papers per million papers published. That is, I haf to read 10,000 papers before I hit one that might be retracted. (If only business people and politicians were as honest.) Also, the majority of papers retracted are for mistakes, not some experimental malfeasance. If you are suggesting that, like athletes doping, scientists that are politically active might be cheats, then based on the number of papers retracted, it seems you are 99.99% incorrect.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Basing the honesty of people in retracting papers on the fact they don't retract them.

    is the kind of non-thought that has you thinking Mannian Statistics is real mathematics.

    And that it's been warming the past 15 years.

    You haven't been able to have the news broken to you it hasn't warmed since 1998.

    Since 1998.

    That sums up modern AGW religion evangelism in perfect brackets:

    whether research or applied, if it's science, it means nothing to you. Belief means the thermometers are all broken, the whole world just don't know it, as we calibrate them.

    Everyone's working with laws regarding instrumentation that have been established hundreds, and thousands of years: but only those, who look into Mannian Statistics and see apocalypse for carbon sin are truly qualified to interpret.
    The readings of thermometers.

  178. trafamadore:

    Please keep your posts coming.

    They are complete evidence and example of the mindset which enabled the AGU to ignore Gleick’s behaviour and to honour him with a place on the podium of an AGU Meeting.

    According to you in your posts
    1. Truth is not important to what you call “scientists”.
    2. Evidence is not important to what you call “scientists”.
    3. Information is only acceptable when stolen, forged or published in a journal.

    And you are so deluded that you think your assertions will be accepted by rational people.

    Clearly, only an idiot or a paid troll would snow a thread with such nonsense as you do. And it seems unlikely that you are as stupid as you pretend to be.

    Richard

  179. trafamadore says: January 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    That was cool until Anthony said I was from Michigan. Spoil sport.
    ======================================
    but you yourself claimed origins in Buffalo, NY. , so you can’t be from both places,now can you? Such confusion is symtomatic of warming on the brain.

  180. trafamadore says:
    January 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says: “No more morals than a snake has hips.”

    And maybe when you talk about morals, you should realize that some people take them seriously and act. And Gleick was certainly one of those people.

    I think what we have here is proof that parallel universes do exist.

  181. trafamadore says:

    January 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    She is my hero of the week.
    ========================
    More warming on the brain- tralamadore does not know a hero from a heroine.

  182. Mike Alexander says:
    January 10, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    rogerknights said:

    Heartland can claim damages if its directors, officers, and donors were harassed, and some donors withdrew. Offsetting benefits don’t count. I.e., suppose you were mugged and $25 stolen, and spent $1000 in medical bills. You could still sue for pain and suffering, plus the medical bills, even if, thanks to a sympathetic story in the media, $5000 in donations poured in from the public.

    That is a poor comparison, equivocating some calling you names and lying about you vs, say rape. These are two very different things. What occurred here is very different than a mugging. There is no pain and suffering (which is harder to win with in court than you would expect).

    There is pain and suffering if the harassment gets personal, such as insulting phone calls and e-mails, personal visits and stalking, leaving dead animals on one’s doorstep, contacting ones friends, relatives, and business associates and with accusations of funding denialism, adding one’s name to some prominent online hall of shame, etc. That’s name-calling that goes beyond mere Internet posts.

    Of the donors that might have stopped giving, HL would have to prove that they stopped giving based on that one forged document.

    No, it would only be necessary to prove that they stopped giving because they were intimidated by the bad-publicity harassment they’d been subjected to.

    Imagine going in front of a judge:

    HL “You honor, we seek to collect damages because Mr. Gleick and his alleged forged document caused donors X Y and Z to stop giving us money”.

    Judge: ” Can you show that the other documents, verified by your legal team to be authentic, could not have played a part in their decision?”

    HL: “No you honor”.

    Then wait until the defense team puts those donors on the stand, and they say they just were not aware of all the activities HL was involved in based on the info from the authentic documents.

    You’re assuming a lot there. Few donors wouldn’t have been aware of Heartland’s involvement in the climate-change controversy. When I visited their website a year or so ago their home page was upfront about their activities, and their page devoted to the materials they’ve published and/or distributed makes clearer their position on such matters.

    And then when they submit the ledger that shows HL ended up gaining more donors based on this entire incident.

    But Heartland claims those donors mostly came in as a result of their billboard ad.

    And lawyers are expensive, and in the US, unlike in England, loser does not pay for the tort expenses of the winner. As will certainly be the case of Mann’s attempt to heal NRO and Mark Styne, your proposed case against Gleick, even if they were to succeed, at the very least would end up costing HL much more than they could ever get back.

    It’s likely that this is the reason they’re trying to offload the job onto the Justice Dept. But, even if it cost them $250,000 to sue Gleick, and they recovered little in actual damages, filing such a suit would be worthwhile, because it would allow them to use “discovery” to cast light on the origins of the fake document–and possibly to get a balance-of-the-evidence verdict that Gleick was responsible. Or that some other “worthy” in the warmist movement had a hand in it too. Such a verdict would tar not only his and the worthy’s reputation but the reputations of the organizations that have hired him and offered him invitations to speak for doing so–and take the shine off the halos of the persons (like Dr. Loo) and websites that eagerly trumpeted that document and/or defended him in the aftermath.

  183. Willis Eschenbach on January 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    trafamadore says:
    January 11, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    – – – – – – –

    Willis Eschenbach & trafamadore,

    Willis,this is why I previously applauded you for your main post. The discussion is reducing itself down to fundamental concepts of ethics and integrity. I thank you again. This is a vital topic about trust in science.

    trafamadore seems to have a typical ethics of pragmatism; ethics derivative of the pragmatist philosophies of people like John Dewey, William James, Charles Sanders Pearce and others since them. That ethics is intentionally subjective. What they hold is moral is only that which works to achieve goals. They say morals need not be internally consistent during the achieving of goals and each goal can have its own set of morals decided based on practicality. Thus we see Gleick & trafamadore. NOTE: pragmatist metaphysics and epistemology leads directly to their ethics . . . look them up. They are inimical to principle and ideals per se.

    Whereas, moral systems based on non-subjective thinking insist ethics must consistently apply to all acts in principle and are not determined by expediency. My ethics are of this form and I think some of the critics of trafamadore also have ethics of this form. There is a dominant tradition of ethics in this form going back >2400 yrs.

    Pragmatism is no friend of reason.

    John

  184. I do not agree that bankers control the media.
    I do say that modern media owners are mostly Gail Wynands (the troubled newspaper owner in the novel “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand). However media people can be lobbied.

    A major problem is with voters who have Gene Selkov’s attitude that nothing can be done. In fact voters can develop and elect better candidates.

    It is not easy – note the poor understanding of values demonstrated by the whacko candidates associated with some Tea Party supporters. A key problem is wanting to control people – religious conservatives like John McCain and [the last conservative to lose the US Presidential election – what was his name?] lost because of that IMO. Note for example that John McCain supported severe restrictions on campaign financing, a notion based on negative views of humans and disproven in reality. (US statistics show that restrictions on campaign financing benefit incumbents. US experience shows that spending money does not ensure election – many high-spending candidate wannabes got nowhere.)

  185. Caleb, you start an excellent discussion.

    I suggest that one reason is that many people are weak, they operate by peer pressure and fear of discovery, getting away with it greatly reduces both in their mind. That’s where the baseball player’s point works in general – shine sunlight on the bad.

    Keep in mind that the criminal has thinking problems, especially on ethics of life. Somehow they rationalize harming other people (whether it is fraud or violence). I suspect they are conflicted – they feel deep down that they do not know how to figure things out, so they may become more confused.

    John Ridpath attempted an explanation of where people go wrong initially – bad method for gaining and using knowledge, at the basic level, then building on that flawed foundation. As they are operating irrationally they have increasing difficulty dealing with their inner conflicts. (In a concise lecture titled IIRC “Faith, Force, and the Human Mind”, unfortunately no longer sold in tape/CD audio form nor AFAIK ever printed.)

    Increasingly I see it as what in popular language is called psychology. Something is wrong in their core beliefs. (Not to say that Gleick is mentally ill, at least in the usual sense of dysfunctional such as depressed, suicidal, or very confused. Psychologist Michael Hurd attempts to distinguish between mental illness and simple evil, in one of his articles on mass murderers, see http://www.drhurd.com.)

    A fundamental problem is that if one operates irrationally in one aspect of life, one has to rigidly compartmentalize to avoid irrational thinking in other aspects. Ultimately it is not possible, as one has corrupted the skill essential for human survival – use of one’s mind. Unfortunately many individuals will manage to live a whole life before it catches up with them.

  186. PS, when I wrote:

    There is pain and suffering if the harassment gets personal, such as insulting phone calls and e-mails, personal visits and stalking, leaving dead animals on one’s doorstep, contacting ones friends, relatives, and business associates and with accusations of funding denialism, adding one’s name to some prominent online hall of shame, etc.

    I was stipulating a hypothetical. I have no idea if the harassment has been that bad.

  187. A favourite quote is:
    “She had had the track guarded since its completion, but she had not hired the human chain she saw strung out along the right of way. A solitary figure stood at every mile post.
    Some were young schoolboys, others were so old that the silhouettes of their bodies looked bent against the sky………They had come, un-summoned, to guard this train.

    – Dagny Taggart, railroad executive in the novel Atlas Shrugged,
    riding in the engine cab during the first run of the John Galt line
    which many people were against for political reasons despite the need for it.

  188. Roger Knights wrote:

    There is pain and suffering if the harassment gets personal, such as insulting phone calls and e-mails, personal visits and stalking, leaving dead animals on one’s doorstep, contacting ones friends, relatives, and business associates and with accusations of funding denialism, adding one’s name to some prominent online hall of shame, etc.

    HI would not have standing. The actual donors would be the ones to sue. But that would be difficult, as they would have to the people who actually harassed them and left dead animals on their doorsteps, and I doubt Gleick would be that stupid.

    But, even if it cost them $250,000 to sue Gleick, and they recovered little in actual damages, filing such a suit would be worthwhile, because it would allow them to use “discovery” to cast light on the origins of the fake document–and possibly to get a balance-of-the-evidence verdict that Gleick was responsible.

    Um… No. That would be a dumb waste of $250,000 and a poor use of capital, just to expose someone of forging a document, especially when there is virtually no chance that that $250,000 could ever be recovered, and that everyone pretty much figures he did it. That $250,000 would be much better spent on something more worthwhile.

  189. To clarify for those not familiar with the strong-selling novel The Fountainhead, the character Gail Wynand published sensationalist material and the opinions of what today I call neo-Marxists and Post-Modernists.

    (Rather like David Black of the Victoria BC area who runs Black Press, traditionally a publisher of similar material. David Black owns many relatively small newspapers throughout Western Canada, Hawaii, and WA state. Not to be confused with religious conservative Conrad Black, who started the National Post in Canada, once ran a newspaper empire, and was targeted by scammers who he won in court against as well as by the US government. There is no doubt where Conrad Black and his spouse Barbara Amiel stand on political issues in general. Also in the Victoria BC area is the Times Colonist, formerly in Conrad Black’s empire then Canwest’s – both imploded, PostMedia picked up the pieces but sold the TC to Glacer Media of Vancouver BC who publish relatively small newspapers and agricultural publications throughout Western Canada. The TC editors are climate alarmist (people in Edmonton have the misfortune of the former editor of the TC moving to the Edmonton Journal.)

    Many publishers today ignore what their employees are publishing, even when it works against their business interests. Friends of their employees promote the mind-body dichotomy and Marxist economic presumptions in pressuring publishers to avoid “interference” with editors.
    A somewhat similar phenomenon occurs with charitable foundations, though often in the absence of the founder whose money they are living off of. (As the founder died – but even living founders ignore what the foundation that uses their money and often their name is doing. A related prime example is Warren Buffet who has “gone potty” in his old age, seemingly ignorant of the connection between what he supports and the rational thinking and hard work that got him started toward great financial success.)

    Now I have to explain the mind-body dichotomy. It is a bizarre notion that there are two worlds – one pure but unknowable except after years of study etc (such as by priests and the Marxist equivalent – including I suppose the ivory tower types we call climate alarmists, watermelons that they are), and the dirty one we live in. Application of that includes the distinction between money and ideas that neo-Marxists and Post-Modernists peddle. Those people deny the effectiveness of the human mind in sustaining life.

  190. Personally, I don’t make any distinction between an “athlete” who chooses to use chemical enhancement, to turn his body into something nature never intended, and another “athlete” who chooses to strap himself into a laboratory machine and have that machine turn his body into something that nature never intended it to be. Both are equally fake in my view; and just the nit pickiness of legality or otherwise, distinguishes them. Arnold Shwazenegger is no different from Barry Bonds, or Lance Armstrong, in my view

    They are in a business after all where the bottom line counts; they aren’t competing for the next induction into sainthood.

    Nobody has ever explained to me the scientific process by which Barry Bonds was able to hit, and keep on hitting the baseball, when other batters kept missing it, and how chemical enhancement improved his ability to actually make useful contact between bat and ball.

    I don’t know the exact statistics; but I would bet that there are very few basball players, who in a career the same length as Bonds, received more intentional walks from pitchers who were too lilly livered to pitch to them. He actually hit those 73 home runs, in a year when he was given a large number of free first bases.
    So he still cheated; but he also had a great skill. If you can’t hit the damn ball, it doesn’t matter how big you are.

    I personally pay no heed to the olympic games, now that they are all professional workers just doing a job.

Comments are closed.