Commenter FP writes:
Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page:
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml
It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?
It had read as the page screencap shows:
(from Google cache here)
Chair
Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California
Now reads:
I have a screen shot from this morning.
Tastier than my PopTart
Peter Gleick is quite simply a fanatic. “A fanatic’s real strength is that they’ll never give up, never rethink their position, are not proportionate and above all; don’t know when to stop.” It’s the “don’t know when to stop” bit that always delivers the self-inflicted mortal wound in the end.
Predictably, they’ll defend him heroically all the way to the gates of the penitentiary and damn the reputation damage. It springs from that essential self-righteous arrogance that has always plagued them. Their whole movement is by now crippled by assorted Albatrosses like Gleick, Pachauri, Hansen and Jones hanging around its neck.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/fakegate-claims-its-first-scalp/
I maintain web pages at my institution, and when a controversial personnel issue comes up my initial quick response is to make just such an edit until the dust clears, then recode the page with all the new information when it is all settled. Thus, I don’t make too much of the fact the change was a comment out the offender sort of deal. Reworking a page is a good deal easier if I can just change the name and title to the new occupant of the position and uncomment the code.
Andrew30
February 21, 2012 at 9:23 am
They lie and they know that they lie, and we know it too.
###
No they don’t know they lie, after all its not a lie-lie, it exposing a deeper truth. These greenie also can not remember from one moment to the next. This is how their brains work:
Greenie: “HI is anti-science and wants to brain wash our kids!”
Human: “How do you know?”
Greenie: “Its in the leaked documents.”
Human: “Which one?”
Greenie: “This one.”
Human: “But this is a fake.”
Greenie: “Not really. It just highlight the anti-science agenda of HI who want to brain wash our kids. Focusing on the one document that might be a fake distracts from the deeper truth about HI.”
Human: “And what’s that?
Greenie: “HI is anti-science and wants to brain wash our kids!”
Human: “How do you know?”
Greenie: “Its in the leaked documents.”
…..
So, they just “commented out” the listing. Easy to reverse as soon as the dust settles …
The resignation/firing I’m waiting for is the Pacific Institute, his day job. Food stamps time for Peter!
I wonder, if this incident will arrive at Wiki and all the countless AGW [$something]watch.org sites.
Ok, hope dies last…
This says much more about AGU than about Gleick himself. How could he have been on AGU’s integrity committee, given his well-known advocacy position? How could they have ever considered him a neutral arbiter of fairness and scientific integrity?
AGU had better get more thorough in scrubbing its web site and “disappearing” all those bad actors in the best spirit of the Soviet Empire and the Ministry of Truth.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
I suppose we will have a hearing, much like we witnessed at East Agila’s CRU and Penn State.
Brian Adams @11:13 – I agree completely. That AGU would include someone on an integrity board of this type speaks very powerfully about the current leadership of the AGU, and what it says is not flattering.
Owen in GA: “I maintain web pages at my institution, and when a controversial personnel issue comes up my initial quick response is to make just such an edit until the dust clears, then recode the page with all the new information when it is all settled. Thus, I don’t make too much of the fact the change was a comment out the offender sort of deal. Reworking a page is a good deal easier if I can just change the name and title to the new occupant of the position and uncomment the code.”
I agree that using comments for a potentially-temporary webpage change is an easy and obvious approach that makes some sense. But would you really just dump a prominent person from your website and make it look to the world (other than the few of us who bother to look at the code) like the individual was never involved with your organization and never existed? Say one of your Board members gets embroiled in controversy, do you quickly hop on your webpage and quietly excise him, without comment, explanation or press release?
This is an opportunity for AGU to take the high road — issue a press release distancing themselves from Gleick, stating categoricaly that they do not condone the behavior, that it is inconsistent with AGU’s principles and policies, and that they stand for integrity and have asked him to resign. This is the kind of PR approach that makes sense. Not holding my breath . . .
Will he lose his seat in the National Academy of Sciences?
Rogelio says:
Nearly ALL the AGW believers and “climate scientists” we are talking about here, are at my guess about 30′ish, a time when your fanaticism is at its peak especially over politics, social issues which AGW has become.. Let us remember in the 70 80s when a HUGE crowd of youngish people everywhere though socialism was great!. Most of them now probably think it was a bad joke!
No – it looks like many, if not most, have managed to place themselves in positions in government, education, and various bureaucracies in such a way that they are able to disseminate their propaganda “officially”. They didn’t give up, and they didn’t change their ideas. Neither with the warmist crowd.
http://tinyurl.com/83crwgq
“expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair”.
I wonder why he thought that?
That’s why their funding of Heartland was for healthcare.
That’s why the Koch brothers helped fund some of the BEST project.
@Eric – Yes, on the web page they get disappeared as soon as they leave the position. Sometimes their entry is replaced by the comment “VACANT” and sometimes they are just commented out until someone fills the spot. All I care about is the current information on the web site is current. I leave the press releases to the PR department, but in academia there does seem to be a knee-jerk, circle the wagons ethic that is irritating even to those inside the institution. It is as if the leadership has forgotten that transparency only hurts a short while whereas the stink of coverup stays with you for a long time. People suspect there is a good deal more going on under the surface when an organization isn’t open in their dealings. Usually it is just thin skinned administrators not wanting to stand up to a little embarrassment, and there really isn’t anything going on “under the surface,” other times where there is smoke there is fire.
Now this wouldn’t be the first time I have seen and ethics commission have ethical problems at the top – it seems it is always the fox that volunteers to guard the hen house.
I love how the warmists always try to paint those that demand strict compliance with the scientific method as “unscientific”. What a bunch of s.
“Gras Albert says:
February 21, 2012 at 7:52 am
I wonder will The National Centre For Science Education, who recently appointed Peter Gleick to it’s board as spokesperson on Climate Change & Education, follow suit.
it’s view on this matter can be found here
http://tinyurl.com/77w4urh
Surely he must resign.”
That link has changed now. Resignation tendered and accepted. Getting hard to keep up with this story, its moving so fast.
I’ll try one or two links at a time.
DJ says
Funding sources for 2009 here. Customers include public sources of money from California, Florida, and US Environmental Agencies, NOAA, United Nations Environment Programme. I think that means that maybe a little FOIA sun light might be available.
And,so far,the silence from the BBC…is deafening!
Seen this movie too, too many times….
The half-hearted apology.
Off to rehab.
The inevitable sympathetic media soft-ball interview complete with ‘victim of his own compassion for a dying planet (David) fighting big-obstructionism villains (Goliath)’ storyline.
And bwalah….Peter becomes a pop-culture icon.
Time to change the script. File criminal charges. I’m getting sick of hearing myself say it but yet once again; Until someone is made an example that fraud will not be tolerated by the courts and actually serves time, this CAGW siliness is not going to stop.
And now (always perpetually late to the truth), Andy Revkin throws Gleik under the bus? Wasn’t Revkin earlier in the week claiming the fake document was in fact real? Who is going to demand Revkin own up to his own involvement in this mess? Politico? Right. What an incestuous bunch of spineless weenies the cause attracts.
Post normal science: re-write your web pages and simply pretend it never happened! Just like the hockey team disappeared the MWP! What does this imply about the ethics of AGU?
just how do these who-did-it revelations change the truth of the bulk of the documents. In particular the public document 990 which has been incorrectly completed
although i like #fakegate as a term I think #failgate is more appropriate