Paraphrasing Forrest Gump, “Sometimes, I guess there’s just not enough adjectives to describe Peter Gleick“.
On Sunday, shortly after I heard about and announced the death of John Coleman, Dr. Roy Spencer and I had this short exchange on Facebook:
The first name that went through my head as I wrote that was Peter Gleick. It’s just too bad I didn’t write that prescient thought down.
Why Gleick? Well if you think of anyone who has been the most hateful, misanthropic, climate alarmist ever, one who believes so much in his own purity of thought that he lowered himself to commit a crime in the name of “the cause”, the only person that fits is Gleick. Not even the irascible Michael Mann comes close to that.
For those of you that follow his Twitter feed (I do, in the vein of “know thine enemy”) you can reach only one conclusion: he’s been taken over by the Dark Side, he lets the hate flow through him every day. Yesterday’s example:
This is right up there with what Climate Research Unit director Dr. Phil Jones had to say about the death of climate skeptic John Daly at the time of John’s death in 2004 Jones wrote (as revealed in the Climategate Emails):
“in an odd way this is cheering news.”
This disgusting, inhuman comment is not unique in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) climate science community because William Connolley (Stoat) commented on the passing of Dr. Bob Carter, that
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Gleick couldn’t even come up with an original thought, in fact, neither could Connolley, as the quote is attributed to Max Planck That’s quite an accomplishment for a man who lists himself as a MacArthur Fellow. I guess he’s never heard of “Never speak ill of the dead.”
For a moment, perhaps realizing what a cad he made himself look like, it seemed like Gleick might be backpedaling:
But then that thought vanished a short while later:
Sigh.
The hate this man has embraced knows no bounds. I pity his soul.
Dr. Peter Gleick has been a noted environmentalist, a writer of several books and papers, and climate campaigner who had chaired an American Geophysical Union task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” until it was revealed, right here on WUWT as the person who had embraced the crime of identity theft to trick the Heartland Institute into providing him documents in order to create a completely fake narrative in his zeal for supporting “the cause”.
You can read all about Gleick’s crime on this website: fakegate.org
Gleick, unfortunately, wasn’t prosecuted for that crime, likely because the federal attorney in Chicago was part of the Obama administration. So he avoided that.
But now, he’s been removed to “emeritus” status by the institution he founded, The Pacific Institute, who removed him as president after his conduct was found out.
Clearly, there’s no scruples there nor is there any integrity, and Gleick keeps proving day after day on his Twitter feed, what his hate has reduced him to.
I’ll never forget the one and only time our paths crossed, at an AGU meeting in December of 2014 at the Moscone West 3rd floor work table. He stared right at me, and his contempt was palpable.
It was so palpable, that right then and there, this image flowed through my mind:
Like I said, there’s just not enough adjectives to describe Peter Gleick, a man who hates others, even in death, because they have a different opinion on climate than he does.
On a more positive note. I knew John Coleman for years, he had an infectiously positive personality, and I know right now, wherever he is, he’s laughing at the pathetic attempt by Gleick to mock him in death.
John would have chuckled, smiled, and said something like this. “Some people, you just can’t reach“.
He really just didn’t give a damn what people like Gleick thought about him. Coleman’s second to last comment on WUWT said this:
I am old
I am white
I am a denier
Guess they are correct. I will die. So will the others. Then things will be settled.
Got it.
How prescient of John.
Finally, I have something to say about the person who authored the article that Gleick quoted, one Emily Atkin, who wrote:
Coleman was a television meteorologist, not a climatologist; he didn’t even hold a degree in meteorology. But conservative publications began to cite him as if he were an authority on climate science.
James Delingpole at Brietbart has a fantastic riposte:
What? You mean a bit like the way liberals worship the climate science authority of Bill Nye, the ‘degree in Mechanical Engineering’ guy?
UPDATE: not one to miss rolling in the mud, Michael Mann retweets this with a comment, I guess neither of them realize that Atkin self-describes as “infobabe” or having “kitty claws”, as seen above. Sheesh.
But, let’s be fair.
Atkin doesn’t have a degree in meteorology or climatology, neither does Gleick. Yet their overblown egos allow them to think they are far more capable of speaking about it and judging merits, than the man who spent decades actually doing the work, so much in fact that he was recognized with one of the highest honors by the American Meteorological Society.
In 1983, Coleman won the American Meteorological Society award for Outstanding Service by a Broadcast Meteorologist. The organization credited Coleman for “his pioneering efforts in establishing a national cable weather channel,” according to the AMS website:
Like I said, there’s just not enough effective adjectives for people like Gleick and Atkins.
We’ll always remember John Coleman as a unfailingly positive man, who touched millions of people, and who reached out with energy and intelligence to speak his mind without worrying what others thought of him. His legacy is of truth and honor, and I was honored to call him a friend.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps the most ironic thing in this whole story is that Geick has some position on some ethics panel.
On the bright side it is good that these [self-snip] reveal who they really are.
He’s an expert on ethics….
and how to evade them!
Just like so many in power, great or small…
Ethics are for grunts and drones.
The powerful exercise their immunity to the rules and flaunt their purchased compurgation openly.
Beware that word “ethics”, often a code word for politics.
And the left in my country claim to have more empathy and compassion than conservatives.
Well those things are cheap I guess.
Cheers
Roger
The left is full of empathy, but only for those who agree with them.
The left believes in free speech, but only for those who agree with them.
The left believes in due process, but only for those who agree with them.
Etc.
Like many other things the Left does in redefining words and society Geick probably has spent a good deal of time redefining ethics in some sick way. Those on the Left can neither define the word ethics but especially not honor. I tried too many times to make deals on public policy issue with those on the Left. They insisted we shake hands at the end of the meeting. What a joke. Several times within minutes of leaving the final meeting they had completely gone back on the deal and were attacking me personally to anyone that listen especially in the news media. Of course Geick’s version of what he calls science is some bizarre twisted view of the world. I will bet that if a scientific paper doesn’t include use of a supercomputer that Geick would reject any of its conclusions.
This is my first ever post here at WUWT…
I was blown away when I saw that tweet from Gleick. The level of disrespect knows no bounds.
But when you are on the side of the righteous and yours is the “true religion” then it serves those on the outside right what ever you say in your own sanctimonious way. It also helps for you to accuse those on the outside of exactly the same things you do to support your broken hypothesis
” that he lowered himself to commit a crime in the name of “the cause”, “
He didn’t lower himself at all.
He was ALWAYS at the bottom of the sewer.
How else do you think “ethics” people get anywhere.!
The fact someone who by their own words (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html … By Peter H. Gleick) had “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” should sit on an ethics panel tells you everything you need to know about the man.
“… By Peter H. Gleick) had “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” should sit on an ethics panel tells you everything you need to know about the man.”
It also tells you a lot about the people that would put him on an ethics panel
It’s similar to how North Korea ends up on the human rights panels at the UN every few years.
Plus Mugabe!
and about the panel!!
Gleick is so low, he could parachute out of a snake’s ar$e
Not an unusual reaction among a certain class of men toward their perceived enemy, unfortunately.
If men could see how deep is the Dark that is their heart, we’d likely die right on the spot.
The pencil neck is strong with this one. Was considering using my admin rights to massively violate blog policy with a long swearing invective, but the slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit isn’t worth the energy required to craft a good turn of phrase.
“the slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit ”
…
https://twitter.com/wattsupwiththat/status/406298804950798336
…
Maybe your should change your handle to “charles the loser”
Why doesn’t it shame you to be you Tommie?
Do you somehow enjoy making a foolish, public spectacle of yourself?
Tell me Mr sy computing, why is quoting this blog’s owner a “foolish public spectacle?”
How do you know that was an insult, and not a mere telling of factual truth, Tom B?
Pat, don’t you know that we are no longer permitted to tell the truth about our self declared intellectual superiors.
It might hurt their feelings.
Mr. Pat Frank, I don’t think you would appreciate it if someone called you a “piece of shit.”
…
However, not knowing you personally, could you please tell all of us what is the probability that someone calling you that was factually correct?
It’s quite possible that this Tom Bjorklund is not that actual person at the University of Houston, because this commenter is using a proxy server from this IP address in Portugal.
2.81.228.253
I suspect like Gleick he’s engaging in identity theft, appropriating Mr. Bjorklund’s name and publicly available email. Likely somebody we all know very well.
Poor Tom-child..
TRIGGERED like a petulant 5 year old having a tantrum
SO FUNNY !! 🙂
Tom, I suspect you left out the context of that exchange.
But “@Bentler See there you go, right to the insults. When you resort to name calling, you’ve lost the argument. Goodbye.” says it all.
“I suspect like Gleick he’s engaging in identity theft, appropriating Mr. Bjorklund’s name and publicly available email. Likely somebody we all know very well.”
So then…a liar as well as an hypocrite.
Typical.
Tom Bjorklund made this unfair comment since Charles the Moderator didn’t say it to Gleick’s face.
TB writes,
“Mr. Pat Frank, I don’t think you would appreciate it if someone called you a “piece of shit.”
Mr. Gleick should have been arrested for what he did, but YOU complain about an insult Gleick never heard!
Ha ha ha…
You need to slow down and think about what you write here……..
“You need to slow down and think about what you write here……..”
I think the evidence of this article with both Gleick and…”Bjorklund” (or whomever the liar truly is)…demonstrates that with some, “thinking” isn’t an option, but rather, reaction from the Dark is the norm.
I see that Tom Bjorklund completely ignored Mr. Gleick’s crime to complain about an insult here. One that Gleick never saw.
Meanwhile Gleick tweeted about Coleman in a hateful way, which you also ignored.
You ignored this too,
“Dr. Peter Gleick has been a noted environmentalist, a writer of several books and papers, and climate campaigner who had chaired an American Geophysical Union task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” until it was revealed, right here on WUWT as the person who had embraced the crime of identity theft to trick the Heartland Institute into providing him documents in order to create a completely fake narrative in his zeal for supporting “the cause”.”
You are an irrational hypocritical troll fella.
What? Peter Gleick isn’t a “… slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit ”
“Tell me Mr sy computing, why is quoting this blog’s owner a “foolish public spectacle?”
Before it was for another reason. But now it’s because it appears you’re doing it under the auspices of someone else, i.e., you’re a liar Tom…and you’re a thief…why are you a liar and a thiefTom???
Are you not ashamed?
Liars and thieves are a particularly despicable lot, Tom…
Fake Bjorklund,
Are you saying that calling someone names for committing crimes and mocking a man’s death is the same as calling names for reaching a different conclusion on cagw?
I assume you’re fake because I couldn’t imagine anyone posting the nonsense you do under their real name.
Interesting… Right after Anthony outs Tom Bjorklund he stops posting comments.
“Interesting… Right after Anthony outs Tom Bjorklund he stops posting comments.”
When you shine a light in the dark, the dark things run.
He has no comments held in moderation.
This is the most entertaining circle jerk I’ve ever seen.
Your idea of entertainment is revealing.
“This is the most entertaining circle jerk I’ve ever seen.”
And if I recall correctly, the ilks of thee are easily entertained…are you enjoying dancing to the organ grinder?
“Your idea of entertainment is revealing”….Hey, it’s your “living room”, just be sure to clean up the floor after all of the guests leave.
Yes Charles, maybe you should remove the “pencil neck” comment as a bit personal …although the rest of it from “but” has been proved accurate by Gleick’s own action.
TomB (whatever his real name) is a bullsh!tter, as is ToneB. They seem to tag-team – maybe they are the same person or collaborate in their BS. Evidence here:
&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportskeeda.com%2Fwwe%2Fgreatest-wwe-tag-teams-of-all-time-the-legion-of-doom&docid=m5p5REQgyxFs7M&tbnid=EN5bpo36jnhJ-M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwigwa6yy_DYAhUDyGMKHfs3BFYQMwj3ASgCMAI..i&w=516&h=521&hl=en-GB&bih=558&biw=1280&q=wwf%20tag%20team&ved=0ahUKEwigwa6yy_DYAhUDyGMKHfs3BFYQMwj3ASgCMAI&iact=mrc&uact=8
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/13/a-climate-history-lesson-extremism-of-stories-like-bomb-cyclone-is-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-2718292
Maybe they should get crazy outfits and appear on World Wrestling Entertainment. They would have more credibility there.
Moderator – the “image” of TomB and ToneB at the bottom of my post does not appear.
Is there an easy way to fix that?
Thank you for all your dedicated work.
[the links repeat back to an earlier thread that does have graphics (charts and plots) in the replies, but there is no obvious “repair” or image coming up appropriate to replies here. Recommend you think about it – given the level of emotion expressed here in this thread – and then try again. .mod]
The only time TB ever shows up is to whine about one of his idols not being treated reverentially enough.
Tom Bjorklund, no one enjoys being called a piece of shit, no matter the quality of their prior deportment or the malignancy (or not) of their inner being.
Some people may call me a piece of shit for my many skeptical posts about human-caused climate warming, but honest analysis doesn’t warrant ad hominem criticism, no matter whether the outcome is welcome or not. Therefore applying that pejorative to me on those grounds would be a gratuitous insult. As an aside, I stand by the integrity of my analyses.
Peter Gleick, however, self-admittedly stole documents from the Heartland Institute, falsely represented himself through email as a member of Heartland to obtain those documents, committed mail fraud in the commission of his crime, and finally knowingly and maliciously forged a document to assassinate the integrity of Heartland and the character of its directors.
In light of that, it does seem to me that Dr. Gleick’s behavior reveals him to be a piece of shit; not objectively of course, but allegorically as someone whose character is so degraded as to produce an ethical stench.
Given that, it does seem that Charles the moderator is well justified.
“Hey, it’s your “living room”, just be sure to clean up the floor after all of the guests leave.”
Surely your owner diapered you before the show???
You know you’re among friends here, Charles… You can say what you really think but I do admire and respect your restraint!
As for Gleick, I wonder if [pruned]?
I notice Tom is always around to pretend that only those who agree with him are noble.
PS: You have proven once again that you have no arguments, just shallow insults.
Interesting Mr. MarkW that appropriately quoting the owner of this blog is considered an “insult” in your mind.
One constant with little Tom, he insults others, while complaining about insults.
I notice you are trying to hide your shame behind technicalities.
All the more evidence that you know you are in the wrong.
LOL @ur momisugly MarkW….. ” behind technicalities”
…
I convey to you my sincerest apologies for pointing out a clear example of “name calling.” If you consider that to be insulting, so be it.
Tom B. is still ignoring Gleicks crime and hateful tweets.
How come?
TB complains about name calling and in the process engages in name calling.
In addition to being a liar, he’s also a hypocrite.
As for John Coleman, REALITY has been on his side with his chosen profession for a long time.
Gleick is very much on the LOSER side of reality, where Tom sits willingly
The Johnson has nothing to offer.
Not unusual.
I bet you have been in many circle jerks, Johnson.
Instead of “…….piece of shit” I now use “…..weaselly gd coprophagist”
That comparison is an insult to weasels everywhere. . .
…there’s just not enough effective adjectives for people like Gleick and Atkins
There is.
sy,
ouch!
but correct.
thanks. \no sarc\
MB:
I would never admit it if I thought I was the only one…
Argument by authority is the favorite logical fallacy of the climate alarmists. Besides, what exactly does one study in a climate science degree program besides social justice activism, grant writing, press release writing, and tuning a model to a desired output? I think a physicist, geologist or meteorologist would be a much better source on climate matters than a so-called climate scientist.
Agreed. “Climate Scientist” has become so tainted that it has become indistinguishable from “bullshit artist.”
The whole problem is the education system that started this whole mess. If Universities had refused to allow the word climate in the description of the actual degree name and if they had restricted any Environmental degree to students who had advanced degrees in physics,chemistry and also had a special so called “bar” exam that would cover any geologist and meteorologist who wanted to be involved with climate studies, then perhaps so called climate specialists would be competent. Instead what we got are 1000’s of PHd’s who are educated with a degree that demeans the real value of a PHd. Almost anybody can get a PHd now. It wasnt like that in the past. Unfortunately even those attempts might have failed due to the irresistible urge to use computer models. The earth is one system which you should never try to model with a computer. You will never get it right and any prediction from a computer model about the climate is always in danger of being so erroneously wrong that tragic solutions might be advocated. You cant do destructive real life testing on the earth as a whole like you can in studying other disciplines. This is the most widespread classic case of a possible nightmare succession of cascading messes that mankind will get into when virtual reality/artificial intelligence leads us down the wrong path.
Reading comments and insults on other blogs and comment section, it seems likely the True Believers live in the “Matrix” where models are reality, as is social media. Much like the fictional Matrix, they know not that they are there. They believe they live in reality. Their life is just repeating the mantras over and over again, following the Troll Manual and emoting. At times, I have to leave the discussions because the level of indoctrination and complete lack of understanding is frightening. Forget climate change, damage done to the science community is going to be far more damaging to society.
Have his children read the posts from this vile, self confessed …
They probably posted similar thoughts. Indoctrination of children is common—parents demand their children believe as they do. If the parent hates, the child hates.
allow me Charles. not only does he hate, he lies, like a turd in a bucket
He plumbs new depths in his depravity, all the while assuring himself what a noble creature he is.
Another “legend in his own mind,” to be sure.
Thinking about the appropriate adjectives that could describe this character, and those like him, it seems that he is now qualified to have his own word(s).
People who stoop to these depths are Gleicks. This mentality is Gleickish. Says it all.
Possible that she calls herself an infobabe with kitty claws to mock those that referenced her as such originally.
But Mann of all people, considering what he’s said about Judith Curry…talk about “sickening” and a “truly awful human being.” He needs to look in the mirror more.
Jiminy Gleick?
If you were Michael Mann-Child, would YOU look in the mirror?
Is her little doggy in the pic named kitty claws?
That dog is a coprophagist, I can see it in her eyes.
I understand that Mann isn’t disposed to being out about during the daylight or for that matter, being too far from a Court room. Using standard climativism criteria of causality, it would therefore seem unlikely that there is any reflection in the mirror to see.
I spoke with Gleick once, and he was both pompous and dishonest.
Paradigm shift? The shift is that apparently it is OK to mis-apply Kuhn’s paradigm-shift idea.
Amazing, how low a hatred of truth leads.
Don’t his comments qualify as ‘hate speech’? Can’t he be prosecuted for a ‘hate crime’? :<O
I have to admit that when Billy Boy was elected (with only 43% of the vote) I joked, “Where’s Oswald when we need him.” But it was a joke. No actual physical harm to him was desired or intended.
These people don’t joke, even though their “science” is.
I mean, sheesh! When Reagan died even reporters who said he was stupid and read stuff off of note cards admitted that he was really a pretty sharp cookie.
(My original intent in way of a reply to these people was to simply say, “Scum!”)
I’ve been critically re-reading Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
Kuhn used equivocal language in describing science, leaving it open to tendentious self-serving interpretations, most notably exploited by post-modernists and cultural relativists.
In Kuhn’s definition, a scientific “paradigm” is a consensus view that garners large numbers of adherents. This leaves scientific theory structurally indistinguishable from, e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
But scientific theory and axiomatic tracts have nothing in common, because scientific theory is subject to observation/experiment. It is independent of culture. Axiomatic tracts are irreformable.
In short, Kuhn misunderstood science and misrepresented science in his book. He is wrong about methodology, his “paradigms” do not describe scientific theory, and improved physical theories are accepted because they make better predictions, not because old-paradigm-clingers die out.
Apart from all that, Peter Gleick is an unindicted criminal. His accusations of others are just delusional self-exculpations of the ‘I’m OK because everyone else does it too‘ sort. They don’t Peter; you really are a creep.
Oh you flat earther.
of course the orthodox paradigm that IS a consensus view and IS subject to radical shift is of course ‘climate change’ itself
Read some of his passages, never could see why warmists are in a lather over him.
His writing is babble to me.
However even other disciplines are not immune to widespread fallacies. The next big fallacy that will be busted is DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER.
dark matter and dark energy are both hypothesis, not dogma, and proper scientific work is done (that is, experiments in search of those, with no taboo on killing candidates) .
Very similar to the old ether (the medium that would vibrates for light “waves” to exist).
Nothing common with CAGW shadow warming by GHG
Not sure if this is on topic, but: the equations didn’t give the right answer when given the actual parameters for energy and matter in the universe, but if you put in extra energy and extra matter that isn’t seen, they do. To me, this is not evidence for unseen energy and matter, rather, that the equations might be wrong or incomplete.
@Ron house
The equations that “might be wrong or incomplete” are no other than Kepler’s laws, the very same that translated into Newton’s laws and later Einstein’s theory. So you understand why the first thought was rather “we must be missing some matter, that would had to be dark, let’s look for it” than “the law might be wrong, let’s add some epicycles to have it working again, even if we have no clue about why nor how it works”; however, this idea is also worked upon (check “Modified Newtonian dynamics”). Then again, no dogma, no taboo.
Neither dark matter nor dark energy ever cost me a penny, and are never likely too.
I’m not convinced that either exists, and I wouldn’t care much one way or the other if both were proven or disproven conclusively.
A number of years back there was a guy who had a theory that gravity didn’t follow the r**2 law for really large distances.
Don’t assume that just because no problems with a theory have been found for several hundred years, that problems never will be found for them.
Einstein’s equations showed that for relativistic masses, Newton’s laws broke down.
Who’s to say that someday we won’t find similar problems at the other end of the scale?
No need to insult Aquinas and his Summa Theologica, which contains more truth than so-called Climate Science.
Hardly anyone studied climatology before 1988. It was a minority subject with far less substance than meteorology.
It’s like 5-aside football compared with the World Cup.
So why would the people who have spent a lifetime reaching the pinnacle of the subject be expected to take pride in being Peter Gleick’s undergraduates (or their equals)?
He was better than that.
Every corner of Gleick’s utterances speak to his stupidity… “…scientists who don’t accept the new reality eventually die off.” Brilliant twist of the brain.
I missed the memo where only certain scientist eventually die off. Can we expect this to be the mantra of their next marketing campaign? …”Become an Alarmist Scientist and Live Forever!”
How old is Gleick?
Ageless. Like a comic book arch villain.
If Gleick thinks belief in AGW is the Fountain of Youth, he needs only look in the mirror for irrefutable evidence to the contrary…
Dry skin, dry frizzy hair, sunken eyes, low body weight are all correlating signs of a physically sick human. Disparaging the defenseless, honorable dead is a correlating sign of a mentally sick and cowardly human.
[snip – cool it -Anthony]
Perhaps I could get away with saying that outer signs of unwellness permeate to his very soul, and mind.
Mr. Gleick doesn’t look very healthy, malnourished, his lack of hair on the top of his head and graying beard and diminishing eyesight indicate that his head is suffering from a lack of oxygen and nutrients. I’d suggest that he go in for a thorough medical examination. The prognosis for an improvement in his intelligence is not good, however. For a 75 year old man he doesn’t look too bad. He’s 61 or 62 though. I doubt that he makes it to 70.
Looking at the picture of a smiling Coleman as contrasted to the pinched, non-smiling Gleick…geez, what a contrast.
texasjimbrock , good observation. one is the smiling happy face of a man comfortable with life and loved by many. the other a face that exudes loathing and loneliness. i know whuich man history will look on more kindly. it won’t be the lying crook.
With respect to the comments, “He wasn’t even…”
But the extreme example of a patent clerk, kicking some butt comes to mind. (Einstein)
Or the French rabble rouser who didn’t make past 19 but created an entire area of math. (Galois)
Or the young Indian boy who could not do well in school because he just wanted to read mathematics books and by the time he was 16 knew things others didn’t and by the time he was 25 was in serious danger of being unable to communicate his ideas because he knew too much. (Ramanujan)
Each of these show that it takes no trained person to be brilliant and correct. There comments about needing a certificate on the wall is upsetting.
Yup, and considering the amount of “indoctrination” that passes for “education” these days, the insistence that one “needs” some “credential” to be listened to is even more upsetting than ever.
Ada Lovelace might be added to that list even though she had what some might see as an advantage in being Byron’s daughter.
Ada didn’t need a college degree. She was an aristocrat and privately tutored by top scientist and mathematician of her time – Mary Somerville and De Morgan
As all of us are, John Coleman was a flawed but great man.
Those who applaud his death are just … flawed.
All of us are flawed, not all of us are great.
After I hit reply I realized I could have said that better. I’ll try a combo.
“All of us are flawed, not all of us are great.
John Coleman was a great man.
Those who applaud his death are just … flawed.”
(Thanks, MarkW.)
The first lie ever told in “climate science” came from the academics who claimed they could model the earth’s climate with enough specificity to make public policy with. We don’t have specific names but only the claimed reliability that has resulted from their use that started this and has kept the $ bilions yearly gravy train that goes towards “climate research” funded by the taxpayers.
Since then, the amount of dishonesty resulting from this research and failed modeling attempts has grown exponentially because it’s necessary to cover-up the mounting evidence and data that is showing the entire hypothesis that CO2 is changing the climate is wrong if you don’t want to tell the truth and lose your federal funding.
Today, that amounts to having dishonest and disgusting morons like Gleick running around doing the dirty work of many of the others. It’s about protecting their fiefdom at all costs and at an increasing fever pitch to try and drown out those of us who can demonstrate how wrong they are with the real data.
And the real data is scary to them. Scary enough to manipulate it and resort to criminal activity as Gleick did with Heartland.
We should all take comfort from this by knowing that these people are never going to win their battle in the court of public opinion as these facts become known and surface persistently. There is simply no credible scientist that operates this way and thinks so foolishly that when an adversary of theirs dies, the truth is buried with him. It will only get worse for the other side.
John Coleman was a good broadcast meteorologist and had incredible street smarts about the climate. And creating the Weather Channel was one of his great accomplishments in his career. RIP, John. You are a true hero in fighting for the scientific truth about the climate.
Chuck, nice comment, though i have to disagree with one thing. There is no court of public opinion. (the public doesn’t give a damn about climate change)…