Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper

Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper.

See the screencap for the Institute of Physics page: 

Gleick_IOP

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board

With the lack of scruples by IOP in leaving a self admitted cyber criminal like Gleick on their board, no wonder the sort of junk such as Cook et al. gets published there.

h/t to Poptech

About these ads

67 thoughts on “Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper

  1. ..and thank you for calling out the web of pal-reviewing, self-perpetuating warmistas. The MSM isn’t paying attention, but since they are a house of cards holding each other up it will be a mighty crash when it comes.

  2. I guess this organization is ok with theft, perjury, and forgery as qualifying behaviors and strengths for the position….

    Hmmmmm… I wonder why that does not give a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

  3. A quote from Cook in the leaked SkS forum files:

    “I’m a strong advocate for revising old SkS rebuttals. Not the blog posts – just the rebuttals which are our encyclopedic reference. Peter Gleick has told me they need revising and updating and I agree.”

    Isn’t it nice to have friends in high places?

  4. IRS like stuff in the end. Pitiful really>>>>

    Vote, if you don’t, this stuff happens.

    Hello ?

  5. I checked out the IOP’s membership requirements. Looks like $25 bucks and an email address and you are a member. If I had a cat I would join it up. My dog has too much class for such nonsense.

  6. Myles Allen also appears on the board. Lately though he is showing signs of looking for a soft landing (the Otto paper, a blog or column deploring the waste of money on useless energy proposals).

  7. I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession and deprive the rightful owner. Making an unauthorised copy of something is not theft or “stealing”.

    What Peter Gliek admitted to having done would better be described as fraud, wire fraud to be more accurate. Now fraud is a far more serious offence that making an unauthorised copy of a document (which clearly he did not do himself anyway).

    Why let him off so lightly? What he admitted doing would be better reflected by “Self admitted fraudster “.

  8. Peter Gleick in NOT a “cyber thief”. He is an Anti-Science Skeptic Politically Active Consensus Rebuilder. Who did as political activists committed to their cause have done for centuries, he merely bypassed inconvenient laws that protected the obviously-guilty to extract what he could portray as the truth for the benefit of the public’s perception of his political cause.

    Why wouldn’t the IOP want an investigative activist who is willing to doggedly pursue what can be made to appear as apparent truth, as part of their fair and impartial editorial board?

    Gee, what do you expect IOP to start doing? Complain when activist scientists steal the hard work of skeptical researchers for purposes of preemptive denouncement and slander?

  9. If history really is written by the victors then a world where Cook and his ilk are treated as heroes is not one I would look forward to.
    Thanks to you Anthony, and many others here, that may not come to pass.

  10. And in other Gleick news … Gleick’s little fiefdom recently launched a new, improved website … and …. wait for it … a blog!

    May 29, 2013, Oakland, California: The Pacific Institute, celebrating 25 years as one of the leading nonprofit research organizations advancing solutions in environmental protection, economic development, and social equity, has launched a new, updated website at http://www.pacinst.org highlighting critical issues of the world’s water and environmental and social justice. [...]
    [...]
    [...]Another exciting new feature is the new Pacific Institute blog, Pacific Institute Insights [...]

    A few things appear to be missing from this new, improved website …

    First, they seem to have dropped (or perhaps they haven’t yet updated) the link to their “Advisory Board” (which still lists the late great communicator, Saint Stephen of Stanford as an In Memoriam member). Then, again, perhaps they’ve simply decided to drop the whole Advisory Board! [And yes, I do have a back-up .pdf of this page]

    Second, a June 6, 2012 “PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT” of welcome back to Gleick appears to be all that is left of their history of Gleick’s highly unethical record of cyber-theft, impersonation and promulgation of a forgery.

    And last, but not least, there is no mention (that I could find on the site) that on May 8, Gleick, (or perhaps someone using his name and) describing himself as “Pacific Institute, President Member, US National Academy of Sciences” had given his “endorsement” to the grandiosely named “Scientists’ Consensus” on “Maintaining humanity’s life support systems in the 21st century”.

    This “landmark Statement” was an exercise in over the top hyper-alarmism, if ever there was one! [For details, pls see: Crisis of the week: the biosphere … new “Statement” percolated, circulated and endorsed]

  11. Regarding the house of cards… You can all rest assured that I have also been calling out (to friends) that this AGW bubble will indeed crash. The longer the charade, the worse the crash! Just as the 2001 dot com that I called in 2000, and the housing market bubble that I called in 2004 (a few years early I know). I also called the US debt bubble a few years ago. I put my money where my mouth is so I lost almost nothing during the roller coaster rides by pulling out early and putting money back in the market as it started recovering. Yes – I know I was lucky… bunch hunches are sometimes good. It’s gonna be bad when interest rates normalize!

    PS – I know I am not alone on these guesses… but in CA, no one around me except some fiscal conservatives, gives me credence.

    And I know Leif would tell me it’s all a bunch of nonsense. And technically he’d be right…

  12. faboutlaws on June 4, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    Maybe I’ll sign my dog up. He has no class. He poops anywhere.

    Thanks for coffee through nose on phone! :-)

  13. There seems to be a misunderstanding here concerning what the Institute of Physics is all about. Obviously, it’s based on a different definition of physics, which means more than one physic:

    phys•ic (ˈfɪz ɪk) n. 1. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative.

  14. Anthony, Mods

    I think my comment 1326491 of 10:20 p.m. seems to be stuck in moderation – but may have landed in your spam trap (Akismet is not too fond of comments with 5 links, as I recall)

    Perhaps you could fish it out for me.

    Thanks,
    Hilary

    [Reply: fishing expedition successful. Comment rescued & posted. — mod.]

  15. Another demonstration of the fact that in our society there is no such thing as white collar crime.

  16. People like Peter Gleick languish so helplessly in a self righteous sense of their own moral rectitude that they are simply unable to admit that black is black and white is white, even when it is shown to them.

    And their friends, if they have them, will meet the slightest challenge to such a person with arrogant indignation, quite irrespective of the merits.

    Criticism in the face of such moral certitude is simply incomprehensible to the principal and an occasion of offense for the acolyte.

    So I am not surprised!

  17. Cook Survey would not pass advertising standards.
    67% expressed no opinion whatsoever, so how can 97% support AGW, only by using ‘Whiskas’ style statistics, thankfully these are no longer allowed by advertising standards.

    Remember when 8 out of 10 cats preferred Whiskas. Advertising standards asked the cats directly and got answers something like “well, 8 out of 10 of us cats prefer Whiskas to actually chasing mice” and “97% of us cats prefer Whiskas to getting run over by a truck.”

    Of course this resulted in Whiskas changing their slogan to ‘8 out of 10 cat owners who expressed an opinion said their cat preferred Whiskas”.

    Cook should do the same, it should be rephrased to …

    “97% of some scientists in fields related to climate science, who expressed an opinion and represented a very noisy minority far outnumbered by those who expressed no opinion, believe humans are playing some part in climate change”

    It doesn’t have the same ring to it, but it is much closer to a true statement.

  18. Cook’s 97% was made for the Bonn Climate Change Conference. however, how on earth does the following turn up on Minnesota Public Radio?

    5 June: Minnesota Public Radio: The Public Circuit: There’s a science to our faith in conspiracy theories
    In a recent Salon.com interview, University of Western Australia researcher Stephan Lewandowsky talked about the psychology of conspiracy theories…
    The New Yorker magazine dove into the topic in April, reporting on Lewandowsky’s work and delving into “motivated reasoning.”…

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/06/05/daily-circuit-conspiracytheories

    could it be because on the same page is listed to the right of the article:

    On the radio:
    Michael Wood: Ph.D. candidate and associate lecturer, University of Kent, and an expert in the psychology of conspiracy theories.

    jeez & others discussed Wood as “reviewer” then not-reviewer of the Lewandowsky paper on one of anthony’s Lewandowsky threads:

    jeez says:
    …Here are the original reviewers before the editor apparently added himself. (This in itself is very troubling and may need to be reported to the head of the Journal).
    Here are the reviewers of this paper:
    Michael J. Wood, University of Kent, United Kingdom…etc

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/lewandowskys-latest-smear-paper-gets-pulled-from-the-journal-website/

  19. Skeptical Science and Peter Gleick have degenerated into a “lobbying” promotional agents of CO2 disaster scenarios.
    Increasingly the public distrust this phony analysis.
    I fear for the damage to real science that will be sure follow .

  20. - Myles Allen : Deluded extreme Climate Activist proclaiming “I am a scientist ! I am”
    (but he’s getting RECENT flack from other activists for supporting CCS)
    – Maohong Fan : Books : “New Coal Gasification production”, “Environanotechnology , Rate Constant Calculation for Thermal Reactions .
    – Googling with the word “denier” or denialist” brought up thousands of pages for one of these people, and almost zero for the other ..guess which ?

    – Ever noticed that the people shouting that others are “DENIERS” are simply PROJECTING the fact that they are “ECO-NAZIS” themselves

  21. As the world’s recognised water expert, Peter Gleick has every right and should be applauded for being on the Executive Board of the IOP, the Institute of Plumbing. He is welcome to come to my home and to shovel s**t from my blocked toilet pan anytime he likes.

    My apologise in advance to the truly ethically professional Institute of Plumbing, or the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering as I think they are now known.

  22. From a more relaxed point of view we should be glad with this journal and Cook’s contribution as it is a completely rotten lifeboat for those still on the Titanic. Or as Delingpole said about Davey: ‘Therefore to stand at a lectern and invoke it to support your case is a bit like calling on phlogiston theory to support an argument on combustion, or like referring to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support the case for a two-state solution in Palestine’.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220113/ed-davey-makes-the-silliest-speech-ever/

  23. I don’t know why you persist in attacking Gleick or the people who employ him. Sure, he is everything you say and probably more but the fact remains that his reputation remains untarnished within the circles that matter to him because the heartland institute allowed him to walk away from that debacle absolutely scot free.

    They did not have the courage of their convictions in that matter. I’ve still never had a reply as to what happened to monies solicited for a ‘legal fund’.

  24. Greg Goodman said:
    June 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession and deprive the rightful owner. Making an unauthorised copy of something is not theft or “stealing”.

    Well, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal has a differing view.

    [steel] verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun verb (used with object)
    1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
    2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

    Also, I think the music industry and the software industry have a view more in line with the actual definition of ‘to steal/stolen’ when it applies to unauthorized copies, not just physical possession. I’m not sure where you acquired your definition of ‘to steal/stolen’, but I seem to find there is a certain group of people who seem to change the definition of words to suit their current situation. Global warming, climate change, climate disruption anyone?

  25. zootcadillac says:
    June 5, 2013 at 3:43 am
    “I don’t know why you persist in attacking Gleick or the people who employ him.”

    You say because Heartland doesn’t sue Gleick (or maybe they do but I don’t know about that) we should stop calling out liars? That makes no sense.

  26. zootcadillac demonstrates he’s either having a “senior moment” or otherwise demonstrating a curious type of forgetfulness (perhaps related to pharmaceutical consumption) when he says on June 5, 2013 at 3:43 am:

    I don’t know why you persist in attacking Gleick or the people who employ him. Sure, he is everything you say and probably more but the fact remains that his reputation remains untarnished within the circles that matter to him because the heartland institute allowed him to walk away from that debacle absolutely scot free.

    They did not have the courage of their convictions in that matter. (…)

    On the 1 year anniversary last year, there was a WUWT post on the matter, Heartland releases the Peter Gleick legal briefing.

    The reason prosecution was not pursued was given in the very first comment:

    Heartland Institute (@HeartlandInst) says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:07 am

    Regarding possible civil litigation: Heartland’s lawyers warned us that if we filed a civil suit against Peter Gleick, they could not guarantee that our donors would be protected from subpoenas won by Gleick’s attorneys from a sympathetic (liberal) judge. All of the donors identified in the stolen documents could receive threatening letters from Gleick’s lawyers demanding that they surrender correspondence, emails, notes, receipts, etc. Obviously, that would be devastating to our future fundraising efforts, and a violation of our pledge of preserving the privacy of our donors. So we made the difficult choice to not pursue civil litigation.

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

    Heartland could have tried for their pound of flesh from Gleick, at the cost of their donors being bled by the bucket. Heartland did right by their donors, swallowed their pride, and let getting payback from Gleick wait for another day.

    BTW, zooty finished with:

    I’ve still never had a reply as to what happened to monies solicited for a ‘legal fund’.

    Since Heartland’s legal counsel didn’t do that briefing for free, if you consider the issue long enough, then you might consider yourself to have at least part of the answer.

  27. Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper.

    Why the surprise?

    Seems like SOP for the alarmists.

  28. ***
    is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP),
    ***

    As we’ve seen recently, the goobermint’s policy nowdays is to promote unethical law-breakers.

  29. It’s not important whether he forged the memo. What’s important is that we keep accusing him of doing it, so that we can forget what the leaked documents revealed. Mission accomplished there, guy-who-is-paid-by-them.

  30. Looking at the list of names on the Environmental Research Letters editorial board page, I see:

    1 Editor-in-chief
    10 Executive board members
    32 Advisory board members

    …for a grand total of 43 board members. Can this large gang be anything other than pals supporting pals?

  31. “Ryan says:

    June 5, 2013 at 5:52 am”

    It’s not important that he forged the memo? Are you for real? Try forging any publically released statement in any private company falsely claiming anything about anything and see how long you will stay out of court being sued!

  32. LOL @ “Ryan”

    So, you’re accusing “us” of making up an accusation? And continuing this accusation in order to cover up something?

    You have no idea how hilarious that is, do you?

    But, clearly, there are a lot of things you have no idea about.

    The “leaked documents” revealed nothing in any way incriminating, or even important. The only thing that sounded “incriminating” was the fabricated crap. And it’s pretty obvious that Gleick was the fabricator just by comparing his abundant examples of writing style with the fabricated document.

  33. “Ryan” said on June 5, 2013 at 5:52 am:

    It’s not important whether he forged the memo.

    This is like Hillary’s ‘Why does it matter who screwed up on Benghazi?’ As a well-known long-standing principle of American law, with roots going back to Biblical times, once the bodies are buried then how they died ceases having all meaning.

    What’s important is that we keep accusing him of doing it, so that we can forget what the leaked documents revealed.

    They revealed absolutely nothing spectacular, or hardly noteworthy.
    “Ryan” then said:

    Mission accomplished there, guy-who-is-paid-by-them.

    This, to me, sounds like you just accused Anthony Watts, whom you just described as being paid by Heartland, of posting this piece as an obfuscation tactic, to make people forget what was in the STOLEN documents.

    Yo, pinhead, if he wanted people to forget, he’d just stop posting articles about Gleick. Ignore Gleick, we stop talking about him, the Heartland docs stop being brought up when talking about Gleick because we’re not talking about Gleick.

    Dear God, you’re such a freaking moron.

  34. CodeTech says:
    June 5, 2013 at 6:28 am

    CodeTech, it revealed something VERY important. The giant disparity of funding between the skeptics and the alarmists. I do not think I have to spell out which side gets very little funding.

  35. “So, Ryan, enlighten us, what did the documents reveal? Go ahead.”

    That a large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government and blogosphere to foster doubt about the dangers of unregulated GHG release. Do you really think we would know who was funding the surface station project or why if the leak hadn’t happened?

  36. Ryan,

    Careful. Dr. Lewandowsky might take exception to your nefarious conspiratorial ideation and write a paper.

    :p

  37. Ryan says:
    June 5, 2013 at 7:05 am

    Do you really think we would know who was funding the surface station project or why if the leak hadn’t happened?
    _________________
    You mean, we finally figured it out? Does Anthony know?

  38. “Ryan says:

    June 5, 2013 at 7:05 am

    That a large amount of *previously-undisclosed* money flows into the government and blogosphere to foster doubt about the dangers of unregulated GHG release.”

    Like CAGW, do you have evidence to support that statement?

  39. Ryan the leaked documents revealed nothing except that Gleick had nothing. Except for an obviously fake memo that he added to the mix but that didn’t come from The Heartland Foundation. It didn’t show any vast infusion of secret money into the blog sphere nor did it reveal any other secrets.

    And Surface Station is funded by Anthony not anyone else. Nothing Gleick stole showed it was funded from anywhere else. All that is revealed is that Anthony sought and recieved some funding to pay for a computer programmer to work on a different project. About 40K which is very reasonable for such a project I might add.

  40. From “Ryan” on June 5, 2013 at 7:05 am, bold added:

    “So, Ryan, enlighten us, what did the documents reveal? Go ahead.”

    That a large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government and blogosphere to foster doubt about the dangers of unregulated GHG release.

    You think “Big Fossil” is paying off the government, so it will cast doubt about “the dangers of unregulated GHG release”? The EPA has been on the warpath against fossil fuels due to worry about “unregulated GHG release”, they’ve mandated the ethanol gas over concern about “unregulated GHG release”, they’ll be upping the mileage standards AGAIN because they want to regulate the ‘unregulated GHG release” even more.

    Considering what is really happening is the government is fostering doubts about the doubts about “the dangers of unregulated GHG release”, apparently that “large amount of previously-undisclosed money” wasn’t anywhere near large enough to sway the action it was intended for.

    Do you really think we would know who was funding the surface station project or why if the leak hadn’t happened?

    You still don’t, since the “surface station project” has a little “Donate” button on the right toolbar to collect funding, and you will NEVER have those records.

    Only thing Anthony got money for from Heartland was a user-friendly website to distribute the info from the new Climate Reference Network, and he only got half of what he requested, which you would have known if you had paid attention when the info from the STOLEN documents was released.

    My apology for letting facts get in the way of your conspiratorial ranting. Please continue, your ludicrousness is approaching entertaining.

  41. Wow, I’m up to TWO posts caught in the “moderation” basket at once!

    If I get three or more pending at once, what’s the prize?

  42. Ryan,
    If you think the memos Gleick stole show “large amounts of previously undisclosed money” flowing to support the cause of skeptics, you clearly suffer from a reading comprehension disorder.

  43. hunter says:
    June 5, 2013 at 7:42 am

    Ryan,
    If you think the memos Gleick stole show “large amounts of previously undisclosed money” flowing to support the cause of skeptics, you clearly suffer from a reading comprehension disorder.
    _____________
    The absurdity of statements made here by Ryan disclose that he is either:
    a) Someone having us on- a troll
    b) Completely intellectually corrupt and probably a sociopath, or worse

  44. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 5, 2013 at 7:41 am

    Wow, I’m up to TWO posts caught in the “moderation” basket at once!
    If I get three or more pending at once, what’s the prize
    ==================================================
    A Laurel, and Hardy handshake.

  45. Mods.. Comment stuck in the bit bucket?

    MikeH says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 5, 2013 at 4:04 am…

    Still not viewable several hours later. Sorry, I don’t know what comment number it is.

  46. Luther Wu says:
    June 5, 2013 at 7:49 a
    _____________
    The absurdity of statements made here by Ryan disclose that he is either:
    a) Someone having us on- a troll
    b) Completely intellectually corrupt and probably a sociopath, or worse

    Perhaps if we had a poll, one of those choices would get that magic 97% consensus number.

    Especially if you add:

    ” c) All of the above”

    :)

  47. Question for Ryan:

    Q: Which is bigger – $100 or $1,000,000?
    a) $1,000,000
    b) $100
    c) It depends on whether it’s for “consensus science” or actual science. If the $mil is for the “consensus”, and $100 is for actual science, then $100 is bigger.

    My guess is your answer is “c”, right?

  48. Two years ago after my liver had basically kissed itself goodbye I found myself in a hospital and then three weeks in a nursing home/rehab center. For most, a nh/rc is their last stop in life but I was guaranteed to leave. The professional people at the home knew this but the CNA’s did not therefore they treated me the same miserable way they treated the other ‘inmates’ (that’s a more literal description than one thinks), half of whom suffered from age-related dementia. For that reason the CNA’s thought they could get away with breaking all the rules. Those rules were put in place through long human experience and regarded such things as privacy, and respect for individual rights.

    Now, the CNA’s not only thought they could get away with it they, indeed, did get away with it. I mentioned to a friend that I wondered if the home’s directors were aware of this. He stated point blank that the directors had to be fully well aware and that they sanctioned it. If they didn’t approve of that behavior it would have stopped. Some of this behavior, by the way, bordered on illegality.

    I think of this when I think of Gleick, and the IRS scandals. They’re all one and the same and they indicate a complete lack of respect for privacy and individual rights. And, ultimately, it comes straight from the top.

    Those people should be careful. They may find themselves in a nursing home one day. Then they’ll truly understand the laws of nature.

  49. Luther Wu says:
    June 5, 2013 at 7:49 am

    The absurdity of statements made here by Ryan disclose that he is either:
    a) Someone having us on- a troll
    b) Completely intellectually corrupt and probably a sociopath, or worse
    —–
    c) Hi, Peter!

    Onose. I must have constipiritorial ideation to suspect that Peter G. would engage in internet trolling of this site.

  50. Bryan says: “Skeptical Science and Peter Gleick have degenerated into a “lobbying” promotional agents of CO2 disaster scenarios.”

    There has been no degeneration of Skeptical Science. It sucks just as much as it ever did.

  51. I hear O.J. Simpson is looking for part-time work he can do from “home”. Maybe some legal journal could hire him.

  52. Greg Goodman says @ June 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    “I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession…”

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

    This is probably the wrong forum for non-lawyers to argue the point, but based upon the attached definition, “physical possession” is not required for “stealing” to have occurred. Anthony’s usage appears to be correct.

    From Dictionary.law.com:

    theft
    n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is “petty theft,” but it is “grand theft” for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with “larceny.” Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

  53. Ryan says @ June 5, 2013 at 7:05 am
    That a large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government and blogosphere to foster doubt about the dangers of unregulated GHG release. Do you really think we would know who was funding the surface station project or why if the leak hadn’t happened?
    ======================================================
    Three thoughts for Ryan (which may be more than he’s had in quite a while…):
    1. Even if the accusation were true (eg: large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government), what is wrong with perfectly legitimate private-funded free speech or scientific inquiry?
    2. If Ryan thinks private money corrupts, but not public money (ie: academic funding), he’s willfully naive – look at [government] estimated Medicare fraud of 20-30% – try finding a share-holder owned insurance business operated like that.
    3. People who don’t deal with huge sums of money frequently get lost in absolute value vs relative value: $1 or $2 million dollars is a lot of money in absolute value; it’s trivial compared to the $50-$100 billion (depending on what nations you include) of government funding.

  54. “Ryan” has really opened my eyes. Some people are actually willing to knowingly donate their own money to dispel lies and disinformation that misleads the general public. I thought the only proper way to raise money for and/or promote an agenda was to throw ethics out and use a government bureaucracy, taxes and/or collect donations for organizations that hide their true agenda. Who knew?
    (What’s the proper way to insert a “sarc tag”?)

  55. Greg Goodman says:
    June 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession and deprive the rightful owner. Making an unauthorised copy of something is not theft or “stealing”.

    What Peter Gliek admitted to having done would better be described as fraud, wire fraud to be more accurate. Now fraud is a far more serious offence that making an unauthorised copy of a document (which clearly he did not do himself anyway).

    Why let him off so lightly? What he admitted doing would be better reflected by “Self admitted fraudster “.

    OK, I’ll lift a copy of the CNC file for your cool, proprietary energy widget and start production right away. You shouldn’t have a problem with that, right?

  56. In my humble opinion focusing on Peter Gleick over the issues concerning the Cook, et al paper is misguided. Shouldn’t we be looking at and questioning Dan Kammen, the editor of Environmental Research Letters? I am somewhat familiar with Kammen’s past research and found his recent comment on the UC Berkeley Blog disturbing. Editor comments like these will surely lead to tough inquiries about editorial bias and questionable peer review in this situation.

    http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/05/29/the-story-of-a-presidential-tweet/

    Given the current scandals enveloping the Obama administration, I seriously doubt the President actually composed/sent the nonsensical tweet mentioned in Kammen’s blog post.
    Has anyone sent inquiries to Kammen on this matter as well as on the already well-known problems associated with the Cook, et al paper?

Comments are closed.