Gleick on camera before he exploded his world

From YouTube’s description:

A wide-ranging interview with Pacific Institute president and hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick. Gleick talks about global warming, the challenges climate change poses, the nature of climate change denial, why climate change education is important, and NCSE’s new role in defending climate change education. When: 12/19/2011. Where: Oakland, CA.

Steve Goddard on his blog points out that Gleick says “People have a fundamental trust of scientists”. That was then.

Peter Gleick: Climate change is happening


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Piling on, dude. We get it.
REPLY: No it is for balance, see the next update video. – Anthony


‘k, but you’re looking kinda bitter, here.

Gary Pate

The piling has not even begun for Gleick….

Steve (Paris)

Trust me, I’m a scientist and I’m here to help you…


What’s with the blinking?
From some quick googling (I don’t know how authoritative these hits are):

Blink rate tends to increase when people are thinking more or are feeling stressed. This can be an indication of lying as the liar has to keep thinking about what they are saying.

Rapid blinking blocks vision and can be an arrogant signal, saying ‘I am so important, I do not need to see you’.


Shifty eyes, too much blinking can suggest deception.

It’s not an eye disorder, since he only does it when he speaks.

Jeff D

He is so not going to look good in Orange….
Yeah, I went there… and after watching PG’s video for the first time I am pretty sure 2+2=5 and only decent, Gleick approved scientists should teach me about global warming // sarc off.

The map with the big red zit on it is distracting

How these loons can keep coming out with the “incredibly well-funded campaign” against them to blame for their bumbling phat-cat PR failures is beyond me. Were it true, it would be easy to demonstrate. But like CO2-driven warming, the supportive data keeps coming up missing.


Gary Pate says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm
The piling has not even begun for Gleick….

No doubt. There’s no question he’s his own worst enemy, but as compassionate skeptics we need to accept his defeat graciously and without assuming a Taminoesque vitriol. Bleick’s career is ended. Tamping his career’s grave with our witty shovels won’t make it more dead.

Sorry, but his hoighty-toighty attitude is in plain sight, especially when he claims reluctance to speculate on why deniers deny. “It’s beneath me” is written all over his face.

This feels a little like one of those videos you see that suicide bombers make just before heading off on their “mission”.
It makes me feel a little queasy watching it.

M Courtney

So we understand all the natural variation in theclimte from paleoclimate records and can distinguish (to within a 30 year window) the manmade signature in climate change?
Please can someone tell me when the next ice age will start? To within 30 years, will do. Anyone?
He must be lying again then.


I was a film tech geek in High School. One of the things we were taught was blinking. A normal person will blink 15 to 30 times per minute. News Anchors and other media figures who appear on TV are taught to blink more often than usual, generally around 31-50 blinks per minute(what Gleick is doing above). This is because a lack of blinking from a person on TV makes a person seem less approachable and more cold. It turns the audience off to the individual talking. Keep in mind when you are being filmed there is usually a lot of light on you from several different angles that can make you want to blink a lot more. A lot of people will fight blinking into the lights and blink less than they should which leads to the above perception.
All his blinking implies is that he has bright lights on him and that someone has told him to not fight the blinking. If Gleick was sitting in front of me and not on TV doing the same thing it would imply stress and all of the other plethora of things that can be read from excessive blinking, however for someone sitting in an interview this level of blinking is normal.

And the empirical evidence is where exactly? If the science community is so good at communicating the AGW hypothesis why is the sceptical community expanding so rapidly?

dc 51

Where’s the next video?

Philip Bradley

Most climate scientists criminals are delusional and unable to perceive and respond appropriately to reality.

Jeff D

I wish I could tell if he really believes this insanity he spews. My first guess would be no and it is a means for him to gain acceptance into a place where his self-importance gets stroked from all the warmist groupies and a grant funded paycheck that exceeds mine by a factor 10. However, if he really does believe this drivel I do have concerns for his mental health. His ego is huge and has been protected by the team for many years. With the loss of income, peer association ( he won’t be hanging out with Mike and Kevin in public anymore ), and all of the prestige that came with his position in the climate community I think someone who is close to him should keep an eye out. This complete and utter destruction of his life could make him a danger to himself and others. People have cracked for less and his behavior leading up to this incredibly stupid act adds to the concern.
His vile contempt and actions perpetrated on so many people keeps me from having any compassion for him, but I don’t wish harm to anyone.


It’s funny to see that WUWT is responsible for most views of that video…

Dave Wendt

When it comes to “climate change” I’ve always taken the position that the climate of the planet has been continually changing ever since that long ago time when it could be first meaningfully be described as having a climate. As far as I can tell this view is similar for most of the regular visitors here. Mr. Gleick and the CAGW crowd argue that all or nearly all of the observed rise in global temperatures in the last couple centuries is entirely due to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels and that no natural cause can possibly explain the change otherwise. Which of those positions would most logically fall under the rubric of “climate change denial”? I would strongly suggest that it is not mine. Yet Mr Gleick fills his entire spiel with repeated accusations that anyone who dares to disagree with him and his cronies is a “climate change denier”, all the while pimping for a theory whose clear logical implication is that, absent evil humans and their evil CO2 emissions, the planet would still be trucking along at the bottom of the LIA. If that is not climate change denial, I can’t imagine what would be.


You do realise this is a crime scene!


If you are aware of ‘micro gestures’ and how they can indicate if someone is lying then you can see that he is in this video.

Would anyone buy a used car from that man…? 😉
Brgds from Sweden

4 eyes

Would someone please challenge Gleik to prove the “well funded” assertions he keeps on making? Over the years of following the AGW show I have yet to see anyone present anything that resembles evidence of large funding or evidence of who is providing it. I reckon these guys say this just because they “believe” it. As someone committed to facts and evidence Gleik would do himself a favor not to make assertions he can’t support. Perhaps if he can’t find the time to dig out the evidence then one of the AGW bloggers might.

Juraj V.

“We look at the ice cores”
So what?
I can’t stand these liars.

Jeff Wiita

I’m sorry. I watched 59 seconds of the video and I started to get upset; therefore, I quit watching.


Peter Wardle says:
February 24, 2012 at 12:57 am
And the empirical evidence is where exactly? If the science community is so good at communicating the AGW hypothesis why is the sceptical community expanding so rapidly?

Some possible answers…
[1] It’s all the dastardly deniar ca$$$h at Heartland, it may only be $6.5M per year – but it sure is effective!!!
[2] Sceptics are cheap? (Warmists require $Millions and beach front mansions before they will shill…)
[3] Warmists keep on polishing the message, but for some reason, they just can’t get rid of the odour of what they are selling.

Jeff Wiita

I watched the next video on WUWT and John Coleman took the high road in his reporting. Keep up the work everyone and learn from the mistakes made by the alarmists.

Jeff Wiita

I have watched John Coleman’s video again and tried to think what Gleick could have been thinking to do such a crazy thing, and I’m beginning to realize that the Skeptics are renting space in the heads of the Alarmists at no additional cost (i.e. vacant space for rent, free). If that is the case, the Skeptics have won. It is just a matter of time, now.

Doug S

This video was shot in natural light with no TV lights. When he puts his head back, you can see the natural daylight from some nice big windows in the reflections of his glasses. If TV lights were present you would see their reflection. TV lights would also create a shadow of Peter on the back wall which we do not see. That’s my assessment anywho. I didn’t have a problem with his blinking and I believe Peter actually believes what he said.
Three things plague believers in CAGW IMO.
1.) They are unable, unwilling or just unaware of the metaphysical problems with their belief system. All of these poor chaps have accepted the bad science of the hockey stick and they base their belief system on a concept of accelerating temperatures (as graphically represented by the image of the hockey stick). They have accepted this idea as axiomatic and all other assumptions about the climate build upon this error.
2.) Global warming was sold to the public as one piece of a bundled package of social change. Gay Marriage, environmentalism, freedom of oppressed people, social justice, etc. Many pieces in the bundle are legitimate issues that enjoy popular support but decoupling the issues in the bundle is now difficult if not impossible. The pain for people to know, understand and admit to themselves that the bundle was flawed is very great. Here in the US many of our “liberals” have created their entire self image based on the bundle and calling any piece of the bundle into question is synonymous with calling their personal identities into question.
3.) The money is good for Liberals in academia. True believes in CAGW are guilty of projection when they rail against “well funded” dissenting opinions. It is abundantly clear now that the well funded opinions are exclusively rooted in the religion of global warming.
I do agree with the idea that at the end of this unfortunate episode in human history, the religious believers need to be given a way out the religion. A sociological and scientific path to salvation, an offer of unconditional surrender with compassion. The US Grant / General Lee agreement at the end of our US Civil war might be a good conceptual template for us to follow. After all, once these believers slip the shackles of their faux religion we still need to live next door to them.

Peter Plail

I gave up watching as soon as he conflates sceptics and anti-evolutionists. It’s that kind of apparently throwaway remark that is in fact carefully chosen to categorise sceptics into the creationist, pro-smoking camp without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
I suspect he would find a preponderance of people with more experience of life (ie older folk) and those with an engineering (ie practical, not theoretical) background in the sceptical camp.

Hot under the collar

You can tell easily when he is lying….
It’s when his lips move.


Jeff, agreed. Even the MSM is beginning to catch on that there’s something (they’re not quite sure what yet) going on. Gleick did us a huge favor. As Judith Curry recently put it, it’s like taking a huge gun (Gleick’s theft and probable forgery) to kill a bug (“expose” HI) and ending up shooting yourself.

dp says:
February 23, 2012 at 10:52 pm
> Piling on, dude. We get it.
The post isn’t piling on, however, some of the comments are.


4 eyes says:
February 24, 2012 at 2:44 am
Would someone please challenge Gleik to prove the “well funded” assertions he keeps on making?
Well he tried that himself, and see what trouble it got him into !!!!!!

I appreciate that some people have commented sympathetically with Mr. Gleik here. Conservtives are, by nature, pretty compassionate people. That said, piling on, is not inappropriate here. Unless sufficient public outrage exists I predict that the malefactor in this case will escape punishment for his attempt to destroy othe people! Mr. Watts has done nothing to harm Gleik yet he purposely tried to damage Anthony’s reputation simply because he does not like the beliefs and actions of Mr. Watts. The only way the warmist alarmist team will ever abide by the “Golden rule” is to see one of their fellow criminals serve hard time for hard crime. Perhaps we can see science rightly returned to the climate change work being done in the world.

John Cunningham

“No doubt. There’s no question he’s his own worst enemy, but as compassionate skeptics we need to accept his defeat graciously and without assuming a Taminoesque vitriol. Bleick’s career is ended. Tamping his career’s grave with our witty shovels won’t make it more dead.”
Au contraire, dancing on/pissing on his reputation’s grave is exactly what is called for.


I can’t begin to tell you how much I hate it when people put scepticism about CAGW in the same category as scepticism about evolution or gravity etc. The second they draw that parrallel, I know that they are either stupid, or intentionally lying.

John Greenfraud

Liar, liar, globe on fire. I swear.


“There’s no question he’s his own worst enemy, but as compassionate skeptics we need to accept his defeat graciously…”
who says I’m a “compassionate” skeptic? Not me.
“Bleick’s career is ended. Tamping his career’s grave with our witty shovels won’t make it more dead.”
As Clarence Darrow said, “I’ve never killed a man, but I’ve read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.” This is an intellectual vampire we are dealing with, after all – remember how many times Dracula came back? Don’t just tamp that career grave with a shovel, cover it with reinforced concrete!!!
Which is what will happen when Heartland pursues civil and criminal charges. The name “Gleick” needs to be known as a blot and a curse for all future generations.

“The truth is we don’t care about climate change we care about these other things … those are the things that are going to kill society and hurt us the most …” – Peter Gleick,
Oh my Gosh. Doomsday Soothsaying without substantiation at it’s best, not to mention an overt admission that they have lost the scientific battle over “climate change” aka CAGW by not caring about it!!!


I couldn’t resist. :->


The Climategate emails are the clearest possible evidence of a bunch of so-called scientists gaming the system. Expressing doubts in private and standing firm in public and conspiring to hide the evidence that confirms the true basis of their doubts. And how many of those careers are in tatters? Fraudulent investigations have swept away the stink and they go along with their heads held high demanding our trust and respect. If true science (skepticism) is ever going to prevail there has to be some killer instinct in this group. This is not piling on, it’s trying to crawl out from under the weight of a pile. Half measures will not do. Gleick is being paraded as a hero in warmist quarters and now is not the time to slack off or we will be buried ever deeper in the pile of warmist propaganda. And that propaganda is destroying whole economies and causing innocent little old pensioners to freeze in the dark. It’s despicable. Piling on indeed.

Jeff Wiita

I think it is time for members of the AGU and members of other science organizations to reconsider their position on AGW. I think there is legitimate ground to consider whether or not CO2 is a GHG. Dr. Tim Ball and others have raised a legitimate hypothesis.

Frank K.

dp says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:58 pm
dp – we’re not “piling on” – we’re having a good laugh at Gleick’s expense.
But speaking of expense, why is it OK for climate scientists to rip off the tax payer to the tune of billions of dollars in “research” while people continue to go without jobs, food, housing? The real reason the warmists like Gleick are going berserk is because they know the game is up this November. When a new president and congress take power next year in the U.S., they will begin the task of defunding the mammoth government climate machine, and redirect those funds to more important initiatives.


4 eyes says:
February 24, 2012 at 2:44 am

Would someone please challenge Gleik to prove the “well funded” assertions he keeps on making?

What I believe he’s trying to say is “truth funded”, but “truth” is something he has trouble getting his head around so he uses an alternate adjective–one that makes people sympathetic to his cause.
It really is pathetic.


Piling on? Of course. Pile on deep and hard.
A climate “scientist” advocating the wholesale transformation of the economy of the world and massive wealth transfers based on their bogus “science”, when they get caught in their lies and their unethical and dishonest biased activism, they should expect some serious piling on. They should not expect any less after their ubiquitous public arrogance, their constant character assassination of anyone sceptical by labeling them as science “deniers” (ala holocaust), their ruthless treatment of any and all dissenters, etc.
Damned straight. Pile on. Screw the politeness, nail these arrogant jackasses, one by one and pile on deep.
Gleick has been one of the worst in his arrogant maltreatment of sceptics. He’s a big boy. He knew the game he was playing.

Henry chance

Playing the tobacco card.
I have had video conferencing in my company for 20 years. We rent video time for depositions. Since Psych is one of my few actual college degrees, i studied deception in terms of testimony, body language and mannerisms. It adds several layers to what a merely written deposition transcript could reveal.
One should listen just to his words and detect hyperbole. “The importance of climate to society”
What? We have massive climate variations. Are they all relevant?


dp says:
February 23, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Piling on, dude. We get it.

There’s no such thing, imo, of too much emphasis on those who betray the public trust. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there can be forgiveness for doing so.
Scientists are held as trustworthy ethical truth seekers by the public. Betrayal of that trust should rightly hold perhaps the most serious social consequences possible.

Hot under the collar

After watching the video I now see why Gleick was paranoid that Heartland had invited him to their conference for “the entertainment”.


It would be bad for all if Anthony’s site becomes the skeptical form of Romm, Tamino, and other attack blogs. I’d far rather read Roger Pielke Sr.’s brilliant and take down of Chris Colose ( than watch blogosphere pit bulls pull the entrails from someone who has already done such a fine job of self destruction.