If you’re not contrite, you must be Gleick

Heh, it seems it touched a  sensitive spot. Tom Nelson pretty much nails this one. In response to a tweet made today by self admitted document thief Peter Gleick where he promotes this story:

Gleick_tweet_fooling_people

I made this response which Tom Nelson picked up on.

Peter Gleick: Stop “attacking” me by reminding people about that incident last year when I was caught stealing documents (and almost certainly forging another one)

Twitter / PeterGleick: @wattsupwiththat Ah, YOUR …

Watts Up With That ‏@wattsupwiththat
@PeterGleick for your next trick, “how to fool people using document theft”
Gleick responds:  @wattsupwiththat Ah, YOUR standard trick: when you can’t respond to the science, attack and insult the scientists. Classy.

Flashback:  Study: Gleick Forged ‘Fakegate’ Memo | Heartland Institute

March 14, 2012 – A computer analysis of the “climate strategy memo” at the heart of the widely publicized global warming scandal called “Fakegate” concludes disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, is the most likely author.

Les Johnson adds a dose of reality:

Les_johnson_tweetCapture

55 thoughts on “If you’re not contrite, you must be Gleick

  1. I think the met office would be very interested to know that Pete the Heat thinks they are cherry picking data when they say there has been no warming since the turn of the century…

  2. Does Peter Gleick accuse the following people of making “false” claims and being “misleading”??

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    —–

    Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”

    —–

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

    —–

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    —–

    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

    —–

    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”

    —–

    Dr. James Hansen – The Economist – 30th March 2013
    “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” . . .

    —–

    And head of the IPCC Pachauri

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

  3. Skeptics are so unreasonable. ~sigh~ You steal and probably forge documents just one time, and suddenly you’re that guy who steals and probably forges documents.
    /sarc

  4. Poor Picked on Peter. He breaks the laws and then whines about it. But he is no different than any other criminal in jail. Just ask them – they were picked on!

  5. Gleick says: “… climate changes isn’t happening,…”

    He may be a thief but he makes up for it in grammar.

  6. The only argument Gleick has ever had was the one he made up himself, talk about a straw man.. Why on earth would anyone want to employ someone in a position of trust or even as a toilet cleaner when they openly admit they had committed fraud. He should be in prison. WHy was nothing done about these criminal acts. Or has a precedent been set. Fraud is now ok boys ?

  7. Does Gleick still believe that warming is accelerating like a hockey stick? Can he show any evidence for it?

  8. And I see that Gleick has appointed himself as a “climatologist” – again:

    “WASHINGTON — Climate change may increase the risk of extreme rainfall in the tropics and drought in the world’s temperate zones, according to a new study led by NASA.

    “These results in many ways are the worst of all possible worlds,” said Peter Gleick, a climatologist and water expert who is president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland research organization. “Wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier.”

    Source [h/t Skiphil via BH unthreaded]

    And speaking of this firebrand “water” guy and his connections … [shameless plug alert] … Gleick’s little fiefdom popped up as a footnote in the source material of a recent post I did on the UN’s March 22 flurry of activities on the waterfront:

    Of word salads and firebrands on the UN waterfront

  9. “You steal and probably forge documents just one time …”

    I lost my virginity once …
    … never again!

  10. 10,000 years of a descending sine wave of which the latest peak has been twisted into a global disaster swindle with countless forecasts of dangerous warming with little to no hope of the slightest reprieve from nature while any appeal to considering longer time frames ridiculed or ignored and now we’re the ones cherry picking?

    OMG!

    Ok, let’s evaluate different timeframes of the temperature records and see which ones support the position that something unusual is happening:
    10 years: Nope.
    100 years: Perhaps.
    1000 years: Perhaps, if you look at the data just the right way (1 tree = world, etc.).
    10,000 years: Nope.
    100,000 years: Nope.
    1,000,000 years: Nope.
    10,000,000 years: Nope.
    100,000,000 years: Nope.
    1,000,000,000 years: Nope.

    Who is it again that’s cherry picking?

  11. You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.

  12. Dr. Peter Gleick was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Ethics and Integrity when he committed wire fraud. He is still a free man.

    May 6, 2013
    Former APG Employee Sentenced for Wire Fraud
    “A former administrative aide at Aberdeen Proving Ground was sentenced to six months in federal prison and ordered to pay $107,493 in restitution on Monday for wire fraud in connection with the misuse of a corporate credit card.”

    http://essex.patch.com/articles/former-apg-aide-sentenced-for-wire-fraud

    Shouldn’t Peter Gleick be behind bars?

  13. Yes, Jimbo, he should be. Looks like they let him out on work release to pay off that $107,493.

  14. If saying “it hasn’t warmed for 17 years” is cherrypicking, than a statement like “worst Hurricane to hit XXX for 75 years” is also cherrypicking.

  15. If the educated elitists actually were simply interested in truth and justice, and had a consistent set of values, such as scientific values, the occurrence of unexpected events would not throw them into disarray regarding their talking points.

    With this extended plateau of global temps, they all have not yet received marching orders. So, their messages will vary greatly.

    Is there a plateau, or is perception of a plateau dependent upon cherry-picking data or not interpreting correctly? They have not yet achieved 97% consensus on this.

    I am following the same absence-of-talking-points phenomenon as the Gosnell tragedy unfolds. Memes include: ‘we in the media are not covering it because nothing interesting is happening,’ and ‘we have been covering it – you just did not notice. ‘ Some abortion advocates have claimed that Gosnell was committing infanticide, unsanitary abortions, and dangerous anesthesiology because of the meddling of pro-lifers who have put up barriers, while others have claimed his abhorrent practice was just an anomaly, and some have simply claimed that the life-or-death decision of how to treat a child who survives outside the womb following abortion procedures as a matter to be decided between a woman (anesthetized) and her provider.

    These failures to coordinate memes reminds me of the movie Raising Arizona, in the bank robbery scene, when our protagonists tell the patrons to both freeze, and get on the ground:
    The innocent-bystander old farmer asks, “Well, which is it young feller? do you want me to freeze or get on the ground? mean to say, ifin i freeze, i cant rightly drop. and ifin i drop, im a goin to be in motion, you see.”

    Well, which is it young feller? Are temps rising, or have they plateau’d?

  16. aaron says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:32 am
    “You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.”

    Now let’s imagine Peter Gleick has not forged the document but found it in the mail, with no further letter. Not knowing who sent it. Doesn’t know whether it’s authentic.

    So the first thing he does is he sends it to that warmist blog and pretends he’s an anonymous whistleblower.

    Ok, Peter Gleick says that is what he has done.

    In other words he claims himself to be a perfect idiot, yet at the same time he wants people to still take him seriously when he pontificates about climate science in Forbes?

  17. I must give Peter Gleick credit though for his incredible chutzpah. He’s a real agitator with no regard for the truth or his own documented lies at all; if he’s bought and paid for he is real value for money.

  18. Thanks Hilary! May I emphasize that not only is Peter Gleick a demonstrated liar, fraudster, and forger, but he is also an incoherent hysterical Alarmist:

    Peter Gleick on “these results are in many ways the worst of all possible worlds”

    Peter Gleick as the anti-Pangloss!

    This deserves some serious mockery for the ludicrous hyperbole.

    Voltaire in his “Candide” famously mocked excessive optimism with a character named Pangloss who continually proclaimed “the best of all possible worlds” in the midst of every catastrophe. This was based very loosely upon the philosopher Leibniz arguing that God would have created the “best of all possible worlds.”

    Now we have Peter Gleick declaring “the worst of all possible worlds” to be imminent in the midst of countless improvements to human health, quality of life, and longevity. Someone call the Rational Optimist fire brigade Captain Matt Ridley!

    WASHINGTON — Climate change may increase the risk of extreme rainfall in the tropics and drought in the world’s temperate zones, according to a new study led by NASA.

    “These results in many ways are the worst of all possible worlds,” said Peter Gleick, a climatologist and water expert who is president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland research organization. “Wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier.”

  19. From the Forbes article:

    “…The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. …”

    Um? Pachauri says that it has stopped, so do most of the climate scientists. They believe that it will start again, of course, but they’re in agreement that it’s stopped. Which makes them “lying, ignorant, etc…”

    Which, of course, we already knew…..

  20. The alarmist wagon is well and truly circled.

    If the ‘climate science’ community were even halfway honest, they’d have disowned Gleick, Lewandowsky, and similar peripheral crackpots like Naomi Oreskes long ago. They’d be keeping the Bill McKibbens and George Monbiots at arm’s-length lest their hyperventilation go off on a damaging tangent.

    But they’re (mostly) not, so they (mostly) haven’t, and (mostly) won’t.

  21. I love the Peter Gleicks of this world – soap opera for the Hollywood face lift crowd. Which is exactly why they need our oil sands – gotta keep churning out the plastic.

  22. I pick just one cherry, take a nibble, and see nothing but Gleick’s thievery. You can’t forget that type of “cherry picking”.

    I’m betting Martin Luther King Jr. would evaluate the content of Gleick’s character and find him wanting.

    Now, what was Gleick mumbling about the climate?

  23. That is an incredible response Peter left. Beyond reality!

    What is it in these activists minds that makes them reject reality?

  24. aaron says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:32 am

    You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.
    ——————

    Could we not determine this using then well known climate science practice of ‘consensus’. So if we are nearly all agreed, then that is clearly a scientific fact and becomes ‘Gleick’s Law – unto himself’

  25. philjourdan says: Poor Picked on Peter. He breaks the laws and then whines about it. But he is no different than any other criminal in jail. Just ask them – they were picked on!

    He’s not “no different than any other criminal in jail” , those in jail did not get preferential treatment from the D.A and got damn well prosecuted for their (alleged) crimes.

    One would have thought that Gleick would have the good sense and common decency to keep his mouth shut on the subject of “both false and misleading”.

  26. In essence Peter Gleick is saying “STOP DOING TO ME WHAT I DO TO YOU!”

    Something about a Golden Rule comes to mind …

  27. Why does anybody give a tuppeny dam’ what “Mr” Gleick thinks any more? He has been thoroughly discredited, proven to be a liar and crook.

  28. Jimbo says:
    May 7, 2013 at 9:54 am
    Does Peter Gleick accuse the following people of making “false” claims and being “misleading”??
    Thanks for reposting those lines from the CRU emails. I read the “Institute of Physics Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry on Climategate” at Talbloke’s talkshop and it is indeed always good for a repost, especially for those who learned only later about climategate (there still are people who lived in a CAGW bubble until recently):

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/flashback-institute-of-physics-submission-to-parliamentary-inquiry-on-climategate/

    “Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)”
    “What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?”

    Paul Homewood says:
    May 7, 2013 at 10:01 am
    You don’t have to cherry pick a start year. Using 1997-2011 as the baseline, GISS figures show that 2012 was bang on average.
    Yes indeed, pretty cool way of showing the reality, thanks for that!

    …“Fakegate” concludes disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, is the most likely author.
    Oh yes, that forged document, and the assumption who wrote it.
    I remember Steven’s speculations at Lucia’s Blackboard about the terms in which the fake document was written, long before anybody knew who had stolen the other documents.
    It may still make an interesting lecture, almost like a Sherlock Holmes story:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/

    see also comment #89946

  29. @ Greg Goodman says:
    May 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Yea, I realized as soon as I hit the post key, that my logic was flawed. After all, they are IN JAIL, and he is not. So he is not like every other common criminal. He is worse.

  30. Gleick has been a pimple on the the tookas of California’s ruling body for decades. Spreading deceit and lies while being enabled by Democrats and media in San Francisco.

    But Admad is right. This isn’t about the discredited Gleick anymore. This utterance and everything Gleick will say in the future is an indictment of Camalla Harris.

    Proof that when there is a Democrat in the office of Attorney General of California there is no such thing as justice.

  31. “…when you can’t respond to the science, attack and insult the scientists.”

    The hypocrisy would be laughable if the if there weren’t actual human beings suffering as a result of their deceit.

  32. I just remembered a survey made here in Australia of academics appearance.When young neophytes they are all clean shaven. When middle range and mediocre they all sport beards. When they go past the ”Look at me I am a scientist” stage they are once again clean shaven. The survey concluded that it was something to do with maturity and/or abilities.

  33. When you can apply a dog and send a check that isn’t a scientific organization: it’s a money laundering scam

    posing as a scientists’ organization.

    Watts proved it.

    The same way he proved Al Gore switched those thermometers during ’24 hours of climate angst’

    or whatever that was called when Al Gore switched thermometers after the CO2-filled jar,

    was cooler by a couple of degrees.

    That’s the same experiment Anthony Watts repeated and the CO2-filled jar,

    was cooler by a couple of degrees.

    ====
    Sou says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Not as good as posing as a dog to sneak membership of a scientific organisation;

  34. Phil Jourdan (re: May 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm)

    Your logic, as to your essential point @10:18 (which Goodman ignored), that criminals blame-shift, was NOT flawed.

    Both those who get punished by jail time and those who are punished only by public opinion do not accept responsibility for their crime.

    By quickly conceding Goodman’s new point (which did not negate yours), you proved that you are both logical and humble. What a COOL person you are!

  35. Sou, you must be a special kind of ignorant if you imagine that the “Union of Concerned Scientists” is a “scientific organisation.” No qualifications for membership, specializes in bleating and whining for political activism…. obviously, a renowned “scientific organisation” to be sure.

    Sou, are you mendacious or merely ignorant?

    [note: don’t engage this person – she’s a persona non grata attention seeker – mod]

  36. Matt S., Thank you! That was fun. I needed a good laugh.

    (and TAKE A BOW whoever created that music video — nice work!)

  37. Peter Gleick,
    If you are reading this then please take note. I am on your side. I feel your pain. I will care for you in the community – just remember to take your multiple medications. I agree with you that the world continues to warm and the IPCC and Met Office graphs LIE – just like you. You don’t need to be a climacriminalotologist to know this. Also you must stay off ‘da herb’. :-)

  38. I don’t know what Sou said but you should let some of their comments slip in sometimes. IF sou was defending a self confessed liar, document fabricator and wire fraudster (who should be in jail) then sou is a highly suspect person.

  39. Cherrypicking is fine — but only if you belong to the holy brotherhood of climate alarmists, that incestuous cult which encourages confirmation bias, lack of transparency, arrogance, elitism, tribalism and dogmatism.

  40. Is Sou Peter Gleick?

    [Reply: Not sure. But he/she also posts as “A. Crowe”. — mod.]

  41. Gleick, like Mann is wonderful.
    In all honesty I could not have made either of these “Poster children for CAGW” up.
    The more publicity they are granted the more their cause sinks into oblivion.
    Why is Peter being shy? I sort of expected him to be posting here by now, explaining that criminal behaviour is only such, when the heretics do it.All messiahs of the cause get a free pass for ethics.

  42. Why is it that alarmists only think it is “cherry picking” when the dates selected don’t show warming, but when a different set of dates do show warming, then those are the only acceptable scientifically valid dates to use and that is not somehow cherry picking too?

  43. The labeling of the present temperature trend as “cherry-picking” is the last refuge of the global warmers. If twenty years hence, global temps are half a degree cooler, they will still be chirping “cherry-picking”, like a chorus of crickets. There is little chance that warming will resume anytime this decade, but global warmers cannot admit that even to themselves for the pain it would cause them: It is akin to smashing your cherished idols.

  44. In reply to:

    Jimbo says:
    May 7, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
    [A] “Yes, but only just”.
    —–
    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

    And head of the IPCC Pachauri

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

    William:
    It appears the Warmists have changed their minds.

    There is no need to worry about a lack of warming for 17 years, although they do appear to be getting sensitive to the skeptics who keep bringing that inconvenient fact up.

    It will be interesting to hear the stories and tall tales that will be concocted to explain global cooling.

    There are past cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. As it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted it is a no brainer to predict cooling. There are the first signs of cooling.

    Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years

  45. aaron says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:32 am
    You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.
    ———————————–
    I wonder if Dr. Lew and his sidekick could run a survey for our lying buddy Pete?
    They could ask about Peter Gleick’s science ethics.
    cn

  46. Jimbo… Really like the info you provide. Open question for all…

    Is there one overall document or video (or a few) you might use as an introduction to counter claims of extreme climate change? What might they be? A group is making the classic alarmist claims about increases in climate extremes, to prop up their agenda for funding radical political agendas. Thank you. Any favorite documents, videos, graphs or links would be appreciated.

  47. Hey, Ben, good question. From all his excellent posts, Jimbo is the one to ask. Suggestion: try watching the “Recent Comments” in the left margin above on this page. Put your Q in all the threads Jimbo comments on… MAYBE he will see your Q. I’m sure if he sees it, he will answer.

    Wish I could help. All I can say, is use Bing.com to search the internet for videos.

  48. The Los Angeles times had an article about a new NASA report that was commented upon by a Peter Gleick. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/04/nation/la-na-nasa-climate-20130504[/url] Sadly, my comment was censored by them. I’m at a loss to know why. My language was courteous, my comments factual.
    Perhaps it was the Paragraph: ‘Was this comment by Peter “identity theft” Gleick? I mean the environmental activist who first denied then later admitted impersonating impersonating a Heartland Institute Board member to illegally obtain confidential documents, wrongfully circulated them and misrepresented their contents? If not, don’t you owe it to him to distinguish the two? What is this Peter Gleick’s connection to NASA?’

    Thinking of Warmists who censor debate, does anyone know what’s happening with Tamino? He hasn’t posted since April 19.

Comments are closed.