Since I have started updates here, I’ll keep this post as a “sticky” – new content will follow below it and linked within updates. – Anthony
UPDATE 71: 3:27PM In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.
UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.
UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.
UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online
UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate
UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.
UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).
UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.
UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.
UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.
UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million
UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.
UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.
UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition). My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.
UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.
UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”
UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.
Loved this part:
Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.
UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review
UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals
UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?
UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here
UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails
UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.
Oh, the ironing.
UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.
UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.
UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:
EPA, do you know where your grants are?
Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.
The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.
UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.
UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.
UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.
UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.
UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home”
UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.
UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?
UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.
UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.
UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.
UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.
UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers
UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.
UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:
And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier.
UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html
UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.
UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:
On September 4 2011 I posted
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California, involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue. Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.
UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.
UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate
UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm
UPDATE25: 8:18PM 2/21 Willis Eschenbach writes An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen asking et tu AGU?
UPDATE24: 8:10 PM 2/21 Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute gives a video interview with the Wall Street Journal. He accuses Gleick directly, saying:
Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”
h/t to THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another Climate Scandal
See also this additional update: http://heartland.org/press-releases/statement-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-regarding-wall-street-journal-onl
UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.
UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment” Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.
UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21 Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner
UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces
UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.
UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes
UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus a supporting editorial. Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?
UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.
Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign
Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.
UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):
Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose
Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis. He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.
UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here
UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.
On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.
UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here
UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page
UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.
UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.
UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents
For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.
These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.
UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:
Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.
Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.
UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:
No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.
UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:
Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html
Integrity of Science
The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.
UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here
UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here
UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony
UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.
As many of us had surmised, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is the Heartland document leaker. He has issued this statement:
Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick
See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes:
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post,
…
(Added 7:25PM PST) One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).
Peter Gleick’s HuffPo blog here.
For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.
Worth the price of admission … haven’t had this much fun in a long time.
REPLY: There’s not one thing fun about this. It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Train wrecks might be fun to watch on old film clips, but in real life train wrecks, people get hurt. – Anthony
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/02/gleickgate-climate-change-activism-takes-a-big-step-backward/#comment-122062
Eric Berger aka Science Guy –
“It’s been a few days since the controversial leak of internal Heartland Institute documents, which revealed what we already knew: This is a partisan organization keen on sowing dissent about the prevailing scientific view of climate change.”
Really? Lame…
Bob Ward waffles on without mentioning the f (fake) word at The Guardian
I very much look forward to seeing the results of the discovery process. I would not be surprised if there is evidence that more individuals than Dr. Gleick were involved in this specific activity. I would also not be surprised if there is evidence of other potentially problematic activities by Dr. Gleick and colleagues.
Bruce
Forgot the link to Bob Ward
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack?intcmp=239
[snip – you’ve been banned for threadbombing yesterday]
Anthony,
What a really sad state of affairs has this CO2 AGW orthodoxy become, from manipulated data to climategate 1 & 2 to exaggerated claims of cause and effect to the never ending dog whistle of the impending apocalypse by worshipers of the fourth horseman.
What person, other than someone seriously unhinged, would break into someone’s house just to find out what the homeowner is thinking ?
On the other side of the coin we can see with absolute clarity that the dogmatic mantra of the Mann’s, Jones’s, Hansen’s and Gore’s et al of this world are the cause, and the Gleick’s are the effects.
Given that peer pressure and self-regulation has failed, is it not time for all Government funding for this so called science discipline to cease until and to such a time as clear and unequivocal development of guidelines and standards are established regulating the scientific practise & procedure and to deter any publically funded political advocacy.
In no other field that I can think of would this type of behaviour be tolerated, in fact a reasonable person can assume that some of these so called elites of this particular field would be completely unemployable in any walk of life.
Gleick’s supposed ‘prominence’ in the CAGW universe can be summarized thusly:
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”
And, for him, it paid off. As he got more aggressive, more willing to throw aside the bounds of scientific restraint in favor of full-throated bomb-throwing agitation, his standing rose quite visibly.
We will now see some serious high-speed backpedaling among those in the pseudoscientific community happy to follow Gleick over the parapet so long as he was the one in the lead.
Sorry if this has already been raised…..
Surely anyone, let alone a journo, who received a “hot” document anonymously by post would take immediate steps to start a paper trail: keep the packaging with the postmark; record date and time; etc.?
Considering the harm these people have done to science, our standard of living and even the health and well being of millions of people, it can’t be wrong to take some joy when the bad guy blows his own legs off. Anthony, you take the brunt of it, and thank you so much for that, but we have all been injured by this scam.
Gleick demonstrates a common truism.
Sometimes, very smart people make very stupid decisions, because they think everybody else is stupid.
Isn’t it ironic?
“And while all scientists (and all people) make mistakes, good ones acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and refine our knowledge. Bad ones dig in their heels, defending a faulty paradigm to the bitter end.” — Peter Gleick
It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.
Please note that I do not include the question of the faked document. Meanwhile, I am not impressed by the argument about release of confidential personal information either: it has the whiff of hypocracy.
Boy, the gutter snipe trolls are out in force today–this whole sordid affair must REALLY be getting under their skin!
And as far as this Mr.Gleick becoming a martyr as some have asserted, that’s a highly questionable attribution–the primary definition indicates one must suffer death rather than denounce his or her religion for the word “martyr” to be applied. Now, without a doubt the CAGW meme is a religion, but will Mr. Gleick “suffer death”?
Not physically, but most likely professionally. However, he certainly has contributed to the death of his “religion”, CAGW. He can take great pride in that accomplishment, should he ever wonder what his legacy will be.
So let’s celebrate the title “Gleick the CAGW Martyr”–may he ever be an example to other CAGW acolytes:
“A martyr’s disciples suffer more than the martyr.” –Friedrich Nietzsche.
The defense of Gleick in some quarters is similar to the defense of Roman Polanski by some in Hollywood. Dr. Curry has an interesting point when she states that Gleick is confusing integrity with loyalty to a cause. In Polanski’s case, some people are so wrapped up in defending the right to artistic expression that they perceive the prosecution for rape of Polanski as an existential threat to the entire community of artists. I am not comparing what Polanski did to what Gleick did — Polanski’s acts are in a totally different ball park. But I am noting the similarity of Gleick’s defenders to that of Polanski’s defenders. We saw the same mind-set from this group when they defended Mann and Jones. People are conflating academic freedom with blanket immunity for academics for any and all acts in service to the cause.
When will these devils stop lying? I can only hope that one day, we will see the more serious AGW peddling fraudsters behind bars. Keep up the good work Watts.
Gleick is lawyered up. He and they will have seen the many accusations that his statement is phony, that it does not explicitly state that he is not the author of (or contributor to) the fake document. Especially the accusation in terms by HI.
The longer Gleick and his advisors ignore these accusations rather than slapping them down, the more the accusations sound valid.
On the other hand – the longer the nonsense carries on, the deeper into the doo-doo people like DeSmog and LGF are digging themselves.
Its win-win ?
Recent interview with Michael Mann falls between the start of this controversy and Gleick’s fake pseudo confession:
http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/02/21/3
Mann does not yet know in this interview a few days ago that his close ally and “Team” member Peter Gleick would be implicated. Thus, Mann helpfully states that he would “never support” illegal action in the release of docs….
Why is this helpful? Because it puts such a leading light of the CAGWarmists in direct contradiction with the current “heroic whistleblower” meme of the Smog Blog and friends. Mann’s quotation can be thrown in their lying faces.
I’m sure someone else has mentioned this, but I don’t have time to go through 350 posts.
Is this the only thing that Gleick has lied about, distorted, invented, subverted, . . ? I would be very surprised if it is not just the first time he got caught. His employer(s), in the interests of science and ethics, should hire a disinterested third party to review all of Gleick’s files, writings, research and correspondence. They would have legal authority to do so since technically they own everything he has done while employed there. Any lawyers out their needing work?
Over at the Slate they are calling Michael Mann ‘the designer of the Hockey-Stick graph’…. Which is absolutely spot on. ‘Fabricator’ or ‘arranger’ would have worked as well. ‘Data Bender’ or ‘manipulator’ maybe less so. Good time for the AGW gravy train, on the defensive since their machinations was given the sun light test by FOIA, to crawl out out from inside their Belin-ish bunker.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2012/02/michael_e_mann_s_the_hockey_stick_and_the_climate_wars_.html
I just read James Delingpole’s hilarious take-down of Gleick in “The Telegraph.” Delingpole quotes an extract from an article by Gleick which contains a link to the following page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (Global Warming & Other Change Myths).
I was wondering if anyone has a good link to a critical review of the one-line “refutations” put out by Skeptical Science. How many are correct, how many are flat wrong and how many are dubious or half-true at best?
Michael J says: I suspect that any reports of the death of Mr Gleick’s career may be somewhat premature.
I seriously doubt that because as Judith Curry so succinctly points out-
‘Apart from the “why” of the climate wars, the “how” needs to be looked at also. It seems that those fighting to defend the IPCC consensus never read the Art of War. Translated to the climate war, Sun Tzu’s principles might look something like this:
■Outsmart your opponent so that battles aren’t necessary
■Pick your battles carefully.
■In the course of your battle, don’t lose the moral high ground.
■Divide and conquer; don’t give your enemy cause to rally together and combine forces
■Overconfidence can be fatal to your strategy
■If the campaign is prolonged, the resources will not be equal to the strain
■If you know your enemy, you can win battles without a single loss’
To which I would say-
Farewell Sir Gleick because you should have known full well your ‘enemy’ was privately financed at a fraction of that of ‘yourselves’ and as such why on earth would you want to pick a battle on that ground? You were after all supposed to be fighting a noble battle on your advantageous scientific turf and perhaps could be forgiven for not accepting a kind invitation by HI to do so under their banner. Perhaps, but then you go and compound your fatal error and lose any high moral ground by fakery and subterfuge. Game set and tournament. RIP dishonourable knight and remember noble knights all, if the campaign is prolonged even the massive resources of the Big Climate round table will not be equal to the strain.
The HI holds the high ground on this one. They invited him to speak shortly before this episode and he declined. Utterly astounding as it undermines anything he now says.
In an amazing case of the pot calling the kettle black, some of the money behind this scandal is claimed to come from George Soros.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents
“The only way to win is to not play the game” — WOPR
Towards the bottom of the NCSE article they mention he offered to resign his pending board position and they accepted his offer.