Josh on GleickGate

Climate cartoonist Josh of weighs in with this satirical cartoon which represents the ideal model climate scientist image.

This would be the first cartoon by Josh that I disagree with, because going through trash on the street has been upheld by courts as legal. Josh has updated the image to reflect how US law sees trash fishing. On a public street -vs- private property is different.

What Dr. Gleick did is not. In fact, Time Magazine had this to say:

And just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.

Related articles
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 21, 2012 7:25 am

Sorry to post off comment, but tips and notes keeps locking my computer up.
A reply from the Concerned Scientists in the WSJ:

February 21, 2012 7:28 am

It’s not only a firing offense, it’s a criminal offense.

D Nash
February 21, 2012 7:30 am

Yes, but he is stealing from the integrity trash can and that may not be illegal, but it is certainly immoral. Since he also tried to hide that it was a fake in the integrity trash we could get him on environmental laws for mixing in recyclables.

February 21, 2012 7:35 am
February 21, 2012 7:39 am

Might Gleick have been reading Kevin Mitnick’s “The Art of Deception”?
But he surely was not dumpster driving…

February 21, 2012 7:48 am

Rupert Murdoch was obliged to close The News Of The World, one of the UK’s most popular Sunday tabloids for what has become known here as “The Phone Hacking Scandal”. A very sordid affair and not dissimilar from this.

February 21, 2012 7:54 am

I laughed, and that is what a cartoon is supposed to invoke in a reader.

Roger Knights
February 21, 2012 8:13 am

Hey, guys, here’s a “dot” that just might be significant. A few months ago, in the Climategate 2 e-mails, Mann said that an investigative journalist ought to try to discover if McIntyre (and someone else, I forget who) was being secretly funded by a think tank.
Could this suggestion have “inspired” Gleick? I think it could have played a role.

February 21, 2012 8:27 am

It might be technically incorrect, but it is still funny.
More humor, please.

February 21, 2012 8:33 am

I dint know going through the trash on the streets was legal!! Just shows I should get Anthony to vet my cartoons more often 😉
The cartoon, tho’, is not of Gleick but your stereotypical climate scientist, as we have come to know and admire them: round, bearded and doing something suspicious.
I am not so interested in who did what (do we know for sure if Gleick faked as well as blagged?) but in the reinterpretation, on both sides of the Atlantic, of what have been criminal activities into something heroic. It mystifies me how Fakegate can be spun into something worthy of praise. But over here in the UK, Guardian journalists in particular have seen this all as a public interest coup not as something shockingly bad. Which is, itself, shocking.
Integrity binned. I rest my case.

G. Karst
February 21, 2012 9:09 am

I like Gleick’s Glitch better. There are too many Gates around. One even posts here often, but seems revealingly quiet now. GK

Doug Proctor
February 21, 2012 9:41 am

The point of real concern here is the fake document. Hypocrisy is an awkward charge, as the skeptics applauded the Climategate leaks/thefts (yea, government contracts make those e-mails technically part of public property, but socially we know that they were meant as personal property, and that is how we generally behave towards e-mails we send each other, even from work).
Whistleblowers: take care. You only gain when what you reveal is true. And even then, do not expect to be lauded from any pulpit but that of your friends. And not all of them: some have some things to hide, and from you,too.

Bill Parsons
February 21, 2012 10:21 am

Josh says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:33 am
I dint know going through the trash on the streets was legal!! Just shows I should get Anthony to vet my cartoons more often 😉

I like your cartoon.
I thought the point of the “Private Property” sign was to accentuate the nature of the crime committed, which was an invasion of private property. It seems to be a key distinction (and one which lawyers on both sides will be tempted to raise if this comes to trial) between what Gleick did, and what FOIA did (and I don’t claim to know the mechanics of either). Gleick (apparently) fraudulently broke into private property to take something belonging to a private foundation; FOIA (apparently) passed along information that (however it was assembled) belonged to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. The ironies are so numerous and so intense that (as another commenter intoned) “They burn!”
Not the least of these ironies is Gleick’s “moral high road” mentality, which certainly will serve him not at all in a court reviewing his actual behavior – as you have so aptly drawn!
Thanks again, Josh.

Bill Parsons
February 21, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Climategate II: Here’s Gleik responding to one of Phil Jones’ mass-mailing (I’ve omitted other addressees), in which Gleick claims scientists are actually “bending over backwards” to accommodate McIntyre and other FOIA requests as early as 2004. It’s not as if he’s staking out a heroic position, considering that Jones really seems to be mulling over just how little information he and Mann can possibly pass along.
date: Fri Feb 6 10:58:17 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: MBH Submission (fwd)
to: “Peter H. Gleick” , Mearns Linda O
Dear All,
So now it seems that we’re separating ‘providing the code’ from ‘running the code’. I
can’t see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike complies I suspect there will need
to be several sessions of interaction, which neither side will be very keen on. As I said
before I know the code will involve lots of combinations (for different periods with different
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the PC-type regression approach, that there
will be library routines. If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don’t want
McIntyre (MM) to come out and say he can’t get it to work after a few days.
So, it is far some (from?) simple. I’m still against the code being given out. Mike has made
the data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the original
paper – in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written.
As an aside, Mike is now using a different method from MBH98. Also, as an aside,
whilst we’ve been deliberating, MM have submitted another comment on MBH98 to another
journal. In this they say they have a program that replicates MBH98 (although it isn’t
very convincing that they have it exactly right, as they never show a like for like
comparison) , but most of the comment goes on about the results being different due to different combinations of proxies. The latter isn’t surprising.
It might appear they want the code to check whether their version works properly. If
this is the case, then there are issues of IPR. So, if they get the code, how do we stop them
using it for anything other than this review.
At 11:40 04/02/2004 -0800, Peter H. Gleick wrote:
Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that we’ve
bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to satisfy
persistent but inappropriate demands.

Rob Crawford
February 21, 2012 11:47 am

“Bill Parsons says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:57 am”
Interesting email. Just for my clarification: they were talking about how to provide source code in a manner that prevented the code from being executed, without being too obvious about it, right?
Coming from the professional software world, where the ideal is the ability to get someone up and running on code they’ve never seen before ASAP, this is mind-boggling. These people have no interest in transparency, replication of their results, or in being the least bit honest.

February 21, 2012 12:33 pm

When I think that once I was admonished because I dared find Scott Mandia ridiculous…

Steve in SC
February 21, 2012 3:15 pm

[snip – over the top – calls for violence not tolerated here – Anthony]

February 21, 2012 3:26 pm

Josh, Shouldn’t the pictured malcontent be wearing brown waders, red cape, blue tights with red underwear as outerwear, and be holding a hockey stick? Isn’t that the standard Climate Scientist Superhero™ uniform ala Scott Mandia?

Head Hunter
February 21, 2012 6:14 pm

A truly great man’s reputation was tarnished these last few days, and you have the audacity to lampoon him.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

February 21, 2012 7:17 pm

Evil men laugh when a good man stumbles.

February 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Head Hunter says: February 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm

A truly great man’s reputation was tarnished these last few days, and you have the audacity to lampoon him.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

We should be ashamed of ourselves? You have got to be kidding!
Gleick is the one who broke multiple laws. Gleick let the good names of the Heartland Institute, skeptical scientists and Heartland donors be dragged through the mud for the better part of a week. Gleick is the one who lectured us on “ethics” while he plotted his malfeasance. If anyone should be ashamed it should be Gleick!
Well there is one other group that should also be ashamed — those who continue to act as Gleick’s apologists. At this point, they are electing to be “accomplices after the fact.” Perhaps they should be even more ashamed than Gleick because they are continuing to participate in his mendacity even after Gleick has decided to admit his guilt (or at least part of his guilt.)

Head Hunter
February 21, 2012 9:08 pm

wermet says: If anyone should be ashamed it should be Gleick!
Now you are joking.
Gleick is the one who broke multiple laws…blah blah blah
Your point is?
When it comes to the homeland and of mankind, we can’t afford to ignore any plan for salvation. All plans, even totalitarian ones, must be considered. I think Gleick should be very proud of his work. We owe it to honor if not him, then those foloow in his steps. We will be naming buildings after him, I’m certain of it! He should certainly be able retire at this juncture, with full benefits and an honorable discharge.
Gleick is smart enough to not be the least bit ashamed of his actions. He is a grown man and is at least fifty years old. He has the respect of his fellow scientists. He may very well qualify for a medal of honor from Mr. Obama after the next election.
those who continue to act as Gleick’s apologists
I do not apologize for Gleick. Why should I, that is ludicrous. I applaud his efforts to bring down judgement from heaven on the masses of unwashed.
Gleick has decided to admit his guilt
He did no such thing. He testified to his bodacious exploits. He takes credit for them. He expects to be rewarded for them by either an appointment in the Obama cabinet, or to some other such position of high importance. Just like all of us.
By the way, Mr. Obama is a Christian, just like Gleick, just like we all are now. Do not dare belittle his power or resolve. He does not wield the sword in vain.
You should read up to become better informed. Modern thinking has made many of your views obsolete.

John M. Chenosky, PE
February 22, 2012 4:45 pm

HEAD HUNTER is an appropriate name for this clown. He’s hunting his head….and we all know where he can find it!!

derfel cadarn
February 24, 2012 7:30 am

Willing to push forth your agenda by lying ,stealing and cheating what is next murder. How can theft ever be associated with integrity? The question about whether there was falsification is moot the admitted proves that there is no limit to gain their ends and denial is no proof at all.

%d bloggers like this: