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.
Email sent. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Is your organization tax-exempt?
I await your response.
Thank you.
Chris B
Neo, would be far more likely that Gleick invented a time machine, went forward in time to meet the future Gleick etc….
The fun thing is: Black, Romm, Grauniad etc. etc. deliberately stay silent about the high likelihood that Gleick was the forger. Everyone of them brings Gleick fairytale. Megan McArdle has already mentioned Mosher’s analysis… it will build up from there. Need I say Fox and WSJ? The liberal media will once again look biased and dimwitted.
This is getting ridiculous. That Time article doesn’t even have it’s facts straight.
The article says that the 6 documents from Heartland were sent from an anonymous source to 15 people. BZZZZZT! Wrong. Gleick purloined those 6 documents and sent them to 15 people. The fact that Time knows Gleick is at the heart of this shows that those documents didn’t comes from anyone anonymous (unless you count the unnamed Heartland secretary) and they didn’t go to 15 people.
The “anonymous” email was the fake Heartland document that everyone knows Gleick wrote himself.
The journalistic world needs a really good scrubbing.
John Hinderaker: ‘So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.’
People are calling Gleick a liar to his face.
(Just reporting what is happening!)
“You don’t need to see his identification.
These aren’t the papers you’re looking for.
He can go about his business.”
{paraphrase}
SteveE says:
I find this argument funny, it reminds me of the scene in Father Ted where Tom robs a post office saying “Tis my money father, I just can’t be bothered to fill out the forms”
Your analogy, while certainly amusing, is inapplicable. There is a difference between taking money and copying information. The difference is recognized in law with the distinction between theft of real property vs violation of intellectual property (i.e. copyrights). In this case, the property rights to the Heartland documents are held by Heartland. The property rights to emails of public servants working on public computers on the public dime are held by the public.
Also, it is a bit odd to speak of “can’t be bothered to fill out the forms” wrt the Climategate emails, when one of the the fundamental transgressions the Climategate emails exposed was the illegal evasion of formal requests for information – requests from people who had, in fact, filled out the forms.
Sent to P. Institute. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Is your organization tax-exempt?
I await your response.
Thank you.
Chris B
The Time article states:
“his actions have hurt not just his own professional reputation but the cause of climate science as well.”
This reveals the root of the problem. What is the cause of climate science? Is it to observe, experiment, develop hypotheses and theories that explain the phenomena; or is it to convince the world to stop burning fossil fuels?
Sent to the P. Inst. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Is your organization tax-exempt?
I await your response.
Thank you.
Chris B
I can’t get the Heartland Institute video to play, but based on the accompanying text it appears they are directly naming Gleick as the author of the faked memo. If they have made that charge against him by name, things have gotten much more serious. Public accusation of specific criminal acts by named individual(s) is grounds for a libel/slander suit if you can’t back it up.
Such an accusation moves this issue past any possible “I was blinded by excessive zeal in a noble cause” kind of defense. If true, it establishes actual and deliberate malice. The legal peril for acts with deliberate malice is substantially greater than for those merely reckless.
I hope if they are making this charge that Heartland is acting based on good legal advice and more importantly, solid forensic evidence.
Anthony,
As shown by Gleick’s action and the supporting of it by his fellow activists, there is an insignificant threshold between their cause’s righteousness and its willingness to condone illegal/unethical behavior in support of it. We saw this with UEA/CRU (Jones and all) wrt FOIA. We see this with Mann/UVa wrt FOIA and the investigation into misuse of grant funds. We saw this from CG1 & CG2 docs showing prominent climate scientists purposely subverting the IPCC process for their activist purposes. We see Hansen’s leading by example in protest illegalities. Etc.
In that context, the immediate and eager use of a ‘scorched earth’ approach by IPCC-centric-CAGWists in their confrontation with independent thinkers (aka skeptics) is important to understand.
It is not war. It is misleading to cast the climate science dispute in terms of military analogy/terminology. Instead, I suggest it is more productive to say there is a conflict of the most fundamental premises and consequent intellectual approaches which gives many climate scientists deeply conflicting concepts of the scientific process, professional integrity and objectivity.
As the climate science dispute evolves, if (as is currently happening) there is a progressive significant erosion of the CAGWist credibility in our culture, then our culture must be prepared to handle a ‘scorched earth’ response from them.
Preparation by discussion is sufficient. Open venues like this are necessary vehicles.
John
I bet you a pound to a penny that my beloved Mr Richard Black was one of the 15.
DirkH says:
“Click on those little checkbox thingies for the last 10 years and you can see that current temps are record low. Use Channel 5, closest to the surface. Ch 04 is broken. HTH.”
Yeah, and last week temps were up and smack bang in the middle of the range – and next week they will be up again. Up, down, up ,down…
However Europeans still insisting on making airlines to comply with their silly green measures to limit “carbon emissions”. They are increasingly becoming not more “green” but “gray”, the color of death, the color of a dying economy.
I would suggest Russia to cut its “fossil gas” supply to Europe so as to make them realize what would they feel being totally GREEN 🙂
I am tired of reading that Gleick “failed to live up to” his own high standards, something asserted in the Time article. Failing to live up to a standard is when you don’t do due diligence before publishing a claim (ahem, DeSmog), or maybe when you look the other way when you could have prevented some sort of wrongdoing. What Gleick did was to shatter these ethics in the most blatant and forward way possible.
Further, failing to live up to a standard requires that the person at issue adhered to that standard in the first place. That raises an issue far more important than the inept fakery exposed in the last few days: What if Peter Gleick, and other alarmists, are just as dishonest as this current scandal makes them look? What if the devotion to ethics is just a convenient cover? That’s not to suggest there is a coordinated conspiracy afoot; the alarmists probably believe they are largely ethical creatures, and also that they are defending true science from braying Neanderthals—but their willingness to fudge data, manipulate statistics, leave mistakes uncorrected, and apparently commit fraud to advance their point of view is awfully suggestive of a worldview where ethics are a convenience, not a core conviction.
I am now even more interested in what those unreleased ClimateGate files have to say. Whoever has them, if there is something indicating outright fraud, releasing them as GleickGate unfolds could be a devastating one-two punch..
[snip. Non-stop insults. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris B says:
February 22, 2012 at 11:13 am
Perfectly appropriate. Please post any response received.
Megan McArdle has a THIRD article up about this incident:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-most-surprising-heartland-fact-not-the-leaks-but-the-leaker/253449/
Yes TRRB I do expect he was one of the 15 and boy is he getting ripped in comments on his Guardian post this morning.
BBC Blacks’s take:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17126699
What a wimp.
The BBC Pension Fund is tied to future Carbon Trading. They have an investment i promoting global warming and carbon credit/emission trading.
@JEM
“yawn – Gleick’s proven just how trustworthy his public statements are. Let’s have some evidence.”
Gleick came out as the guy who got his hands on the documents.
[SNIP: Quit trying to divert the thread. -REP]
Richard Black may have written a tepid article that dodges the real issues while managing to rehearse his criticisms of the GWPF and Heartland, but the commenters aren’t having any of it. He’s being mauled. I wonder how many emails/tweets he got inviting him to comment versus the number of angry responses he’s now received? If his motion were put to a vote I reckon he’d lose by a margin so huge you’d be able to see it from space.
Dr. Gleick, almost everything you need to know about life can be learned from Star Trek:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hQbeHaBSIk&w=480&h=360]
It’s not called the First Duty for nothing.