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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 23, 2012 10:52 pm

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

February 23, 2012 11:01 pm

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

Gary Pate
February 23, 2012 11:06 pm

The piling has not even begun for Gleick….

Steve (Paris)
February 23, 2012 11:17 pm

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

February 23, 2012 11:22 pm

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
February 23, 2012 11:28 pm

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.

February 23, 2012 11:36 pm

The map with the big red zit on it is distracting

February 23, 2012 11:37 pm

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.

February 23, 2012 11:58 pm

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.

February 24, 2012 12:04 am

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.

February 24, 2012 12:23 am

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
February 24, 2012 12:27 am

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.

February 24, 2012 12:53 am

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.

February 24, 2012 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?

dc 51
February 24, 2012 1:16 am

Where’s the next video?

Philip Bradley
February 24, 2012 1:28 am

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

Jeff D
February 24, 2012 1:46 am

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.

February 24, 2012 1:59 am

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

Dave Wendt
February 24, 2012 2:08 am

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.

February 24, 2012 2:12 am

You do realise this is a crime scene!

February 24, 2012 2:36 am

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.

February 24, 2012 2:43 am

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

4 eyes
February 24, 2012 2:44 am

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.
February 24, 2012 2:47 am

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

Jeff Wiita
February 24, 2012 3:46 am

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

February 24, 2012 3:51 am

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
February 24, 2012 3:56 am

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
February 24, 2012 4:10 am

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
February 24, 2012 4:30 am

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
February 24, 2012 4:35 am

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
February 24, 2012 4:43 am

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

February 24, 2012 4:56 am

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.

February 24, 2012 5:03 am

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.

February 24, 2012 5:22 am

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 !!!!!!

February 24, 2012 5:51 am

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
February 24, 2012 6:02 am

“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.

February 24, 2012 6:07 am

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
February 24, 2012 6:15 am

Liar, liar, globe on fire. I swear.

February 24, 2012 6:18 am

“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.

February 24, 2012 6:23 am

“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!!!

February 24, 2012 6:25 am

I couldn’t resist. :->

February 24, 2012 6:38 am

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
February 24, 2012 6:44 am

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.
February 24, 2012 6:58 am

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.

February 24, 2012 7:02 am

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.

February 24, 2012 7:39 am

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
February 24, 2012 8:11 am

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?

February 24, 2012 8:12 am

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
February 24, 2012 8:17 am

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

February 24, 2012 8:18 am

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.

February 24, 2012 9:10 am

I was reading the Examiner link and how Gleick’s lawyer is threatening to use discovery to “determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.” It strikes me as questionable a judge would tolerate this under Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 26(c)(1). The purpose of the crime/tortious act was to expose Heartland’s donors. The implication—if the discovery is not barred or sealed—is that someone like Gleick could use discovery to further/achieve the goal of his admittedly illegal act.
Quite frankly, if I was Gleick, I’d be terrified of discovery. The guy has already shown a stunning lack of judgment and these climate scientists don’t strike me as a discreet bunch. It seems possible, even likely, that he consulted with other individuals before doing this and that there might be some damning information in his email account and computer.

Jim G
February 24, 2012 9:20 am

I loved the “Gleik Tragedy” comment. We must not miss out on the humor of this situation. On that note, personally, not being familar with Peter Gleik, when I first hear about this entire affair I was under the impression it was a venereal disease being discussed.

Gary D.
February 24, 2012 9:31 am

Someone has to be down before you can pile on. I am not convinced Gleick is down. His defense team and his supporters seem to believe he is doing very well indeed.

February 24, 2012 9:42 am

I do find it odd he made this video by himself. It is as if he feels it is a way he can say what he thinks without being interrupted or challenged. Does he not have any friend who would pose as an interviewer? Or can he not tolerate to work as a team player with other warmists? Poor bloke, whatever is going on in his head is a mess.

Jim G
February 24, 2012 9:48 am

Gary D. says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:31 am
“Someone has to be down before you can pile on. I am not convinced Gleick is down. His defense team and his supporters seem to believe he is doing very well indeed.”
Never said or assumed he was “down”. Does not change the fact that the guy and his warmist movement are a joke or the humor one can find in the situation.

February 24, 2012 10:25 am

Had already seen it and thought that he epitomised insincere.

February 24, 2012 11:25 am

My impression is this joker is unstable and as his AGW fraud and criminal intent of the HI intrusion becomes more proven we may be looking at a suicide.

Mark Bofill
February 24, 2012 12:16 pm

@DP – My gut level reaction is much the same as yours. Unfortunately, I’m not at all confident that my gut is in fact correct in this case. We are civilized men; we do not comfortably or naturally think in terms of utterly destroying an adversary because it is foreign to how we handle conflicts in our civilized lives. It smacks of absolute convictions regarding one’s ‘rightness’, and gives one an uneasy feeling of potential unwitting fanaticism. As a result, I personally have no taste for it.
Speaking metaphorically though, it is probable that there really are monsters in the world; opponents who do NOT fight honorably, who do NOT think of a tomorrow when differences are settled, but think instead only of grinding us into oblivion today. I have no stomach for it, but I can’t say that I rationally believe it’s always the best course to let a defeated adversary up. They can surprise you.
Still, I try to remember that these CAGW scientists and citizens are people, even though they often appear to forget that skeptics are as well. Eventually, the CAGW matter will be decisively settled, and the people from both sides of the debate aren’t going to disappear just because the controversy is gone. Seeing as how they will still be there, we should hope to minimize hatred, hard feelings, and vendettas and plan for the day we can move on. At least that’s how I see it.
For what it’s worth, and no hard feelings to the moderators if they snip this; I know we’re off topic here.

Reg. Blank
February 24, 2012 12:45 pm

Gleick says in the video (from about 2:25-3:14):
I actually think that a large part of the current denial about climate change, political scepticism about climate change, is actually not truly about the science.
Now, the scientific community is almost unanimous about this. There are very few credible scientists that really say that climate change isn’t happening or that it isn’t due to human activities.
But, if it is happening, and if it is due to human activities, policy makers have to do something. There’s going to have to be a policy response to deal with, for example, the fundamental ways we produce and use energy. And that’s a very difficult question.
I actually believe that a large part of the climate denial is actually fear about dealing with the policy components of climate change.
If you replace the words “denial” and “scepticism” with “debate”, I wouldn’t particularly argue with those first two statements. I don’t think many round here would.
I do have a problem with the “something must be done to maintain the status quo at any cost” attitude. This policy and politics–not the science–seems to be the area where AGW supporters particularly want to avoid debate, yet it is exactly this that should be debated.
They seem to respond to any attempt to get a feel for the scale of any potential danger with suggestions that those questioning the results of their science are deniers and somehow anti-science. It is also, apparently, not possible for any change to have benefits.
I am not anti-science, a climate denier, or a climate sceptic. These seem to me to be emotive phrases to use in an ad-hominem fashion against the class of people who don’t have exactly the same world view as their own class. They can call me that if they like, but it really only reflects their own attitudes. I will happily say that I am quite sceptical about most things, so I don’t always automatically assume that everything I’m told is cast iron 100% correct. Also, just because I question something now doesn’t necessarily mean that I can’t believe or act on it at some point in the future.
The fear about dealing with policy (which should require debate) seems to be their fear.
It’s almost like climate science has Asperger’s syndrome.

Richard G
February 24, 2012 3:25 pm

If the piling on bothers you, avert your gaze when the actual pile driving starts.

February 24, 2012 8:43 pm

The subconscious head shaking subliminal “no” is done every time he says somethings he wants you to believe, that he does not himself feel is valid. The blinking for longer than normal shows he is sorting thoughts to come up with what he thinks you need to hear form him to be believable.
The false starts and stuttering, is him sorting thoughts that he doesn’t have fully formed in his own mind to peel off rapidly and fluidly. The whole production is a projection of poorly thought out ideas that he has not practiced presenting to others, outside of the group think party he normally converses with.
The interruptions and disjointed thoughts are a sign he is not well organized in his subjects, due to lack of knowledge of the facts and needed quotes to cite references to make a coherent statement that conveys fluid comprehension of the subject matter on his part.
I would give him low scores for honesty, integrity, and basic fund of real data based knowledge of the subject he is discussing, grade D+ barely passing.

Al Gored
February 24, 2012 8:48 pm

He even linked the questioning of climate change and evolution. Sooo predictable. And now the tobacco analogy and the well-funded campaign… merchants of doubt… He sounds like the standard IPCC parrot.
Yawn… must… sign… off.

Eugene WR GAllun
February 25, 2012 12:22 am

Why did Gleick do it? Putting two and two together he did it because he was about to assume the position of chairperson of the new Taskforce On Ethics And Integrity of the American Geophysical Union. WHAT A BULLY PULPIT! He intended to hit the ground running with a major issue to exploint.
Gleick was a man with a plan. Under the fancy title of “Taskforce On Ethics And Integrity” he intended to set up a “kangaroo court” (or if you prefer create “show trials”) that would be used to ruin the reputations of those who opposed the global warming movement. Heartland was to be his first victum. Heartland fit the bill perfectly. It had become a “hot topic” on the internet — a name known to liberals of many ilks (Heartland has fingers in many pots) and one already inspiring paranoid fantasies among those groups. Attacking Heartland was sure to generate immense publicity and with the help of the main stream media it could go national — with Gleick and his taskforce playing the role of “THE CONSCIOUS OF SCIENCE IN AMERICA!
Only one probelm — no smoking gun. Gleick was trying to create the smoking gun.
If you think what i am saying is an example of overwrought paranoric thinking — you don’t know much about how politicians operate. Joseph McCarthy made a speech in which he claimed to have in his pocket a list of the names of communists working in the state department. Never produced the list — didn’t need to. The rest, so to speak, is history. How many careers and lives did he ruin?
Politicians want an issue — any issue — and Gleick was trying to create one. But it all blew up in his face. When you lose your moral compass it is amazing how stupid highly intelligent people can be.
Anyway, committing wire fraud was really just a small first step in implementing Gleick’s much larger, utterly malicious plan.
Oh, and to end somewhat off topic — I think it could truly be said about the MacArthur Foundation that they give their genius awards to two distinct groups of people — people who should have been given the award twenty or thirty years earlier — and people who should never have been given the award at all.
Eugene WR GAllun

Hot under the collar
February 25, 2012 7:25 am

Is that an epson printer in the background?

February 25, 2012 10:34 am

So now you’re trying to conjure up guilt. You have nothing to say, right? Global warming is built on lies. Seeing some of the lying and hypocrisy exposed makes most people feel relief and indignation. But not you. Nope. In you it makes you defensive and want to make the people who are finding relief feel guilty.
What you are doing is called the losers limp.

February 25, 2012 11:34 pm

Amino – I don’t have any such affliction. Some days into this unraveling I noted the tone of the blog had swung hard over to a Romm/Tamino tone. I’d contributed my own snark, in fact. Then I got to thinking about all the work Anthony has done here and how much at risk his work is if this site develops along the lines of the two mentioned bloggers. Reading this very thread, if you ignore the specifics and focus only on the tone, you might just as well be on Tamino’s site. It is beginning to not look like the kind of place a well-lettered scientist might want to hang his hat.
Someone suggested if I am bothered to look the other way. There’s little chance given my life experiences I’m going to be bothered by what I read on a weatherman’s blog. But – this particular weatherman is THE weatherman that has done so much for the skeptic position, using his own time, life energy, and personal capital to make this the premier go to blog for the unborged. Nothing I say is in any way sympathetic to the team or their tactics, but I am raising the alarm of caution in too much end zone celebration. The Internet gives, the Internet takes, and if it becomes well-perceived that this is a den of pack dogs spoiling for new blood Anthony’s work will be shot down in flames.
I’m not even suggesting anyone let up on the pressure – but the subject of my caution that has ushered your embroglio was the unrelated videos of Gleick’s interview. Let there be no doubt, for a genius he is bat s**t crazy. But he’s done – finished. He is going to be taken apart in court and it is anyone’s guess what happens then. The continued roasting of him is only going to make this blog appear “bitter” as I said at the top, and Anthony risks, and you all are putting at risk, his self-investment and any clout he’s acquired while shepherding this blog to the top.
I’d hate to see that happen and I won’t be a part of it again. It is time to take and hold the high ground and move on to the next battle. The outcome of this one is settled.

March 19, 2012 1:41 pm

Regarding the subdebate here on sicoal equity . From the context of the whole sentence: The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and sicoal equity. it obviously refers to the well established notion of three pillars of sustanability . Sustainability concerns precicely that: environmental protection, economic development, and sicoal equity. Social equity in this context has precisely NOTHING to do with the notion of left political governance.Sustainability Its just a way of encompassing all relevant effects of any human activity such as running a buisness, building a brige, driving your kid to school, or whatever. Relevant in the sense that they do matter in some way, but they do not necessarily have a clear pricetag or liability label on them. To assess the sustainability performance of an activity lets take the example of driving your kid to school:In the economic sense you achieve a desired function: transporting kid from point A to B. You also suffer economically, e.g. you pay for the gas and incremental value-loss of your car due to the driving. There are also more indirect economic effects but these are easy enough to consider as they directly affect your wallet. Now, your drive also produce effects in the environment and often indirectly on sicoal equity issues. Such effects are often called externalities .In the environmental sense you emit some gases and rubber tire particles to the environment that have (small, but still) unwanted effects such as toxic effect on organisms (including humans), global warming counted as kg CO2-equivalents is typically added here as an undesired environmental effect. But no one is held accountable in terms of paying for these external environmental effects. By using your car you also take advantage of all emissions and resource extracted from nature in order to build the car, the roads, produce the gas, the motoroil, etc.The sicoal equity aspect just means expanding the effects from not only covering traditional environmental effects but also effects on you guessed it: sicoal equity, i.e. human sicoal phenomena that are considerered worthy of protection or establishment such as human rights, gender equity, ethnological equity, religouos equity, the right of kids to be kids, etc.If parts of your car was produced by child labour on a next to nothing salary, your kid-to-school drive can be considered have a bad impact on sicoal equity, given of course that you think underpaid child labor is a bad thing.Now comes the most difficult part: how to compare all these effects? For example, how big is the cost of 3 hour of child labour compared to the cost of toxic effects due to air emission of 0.05 kg benzene-equivalent? It is ONLY in this sense of how things should be valued that any discussion of political values such as left-right policies has any bearing on sustainability. The effects will occur regardless of opinion. But people value the effects differently and it is a matter of preference and subjective choice. It is not inherent in the idea of sustainability that anyone must have adhere to a certain preset idea of what is good or bad. Sustainability assessment only acknowledges that in order to know if it is sustainable or not you must include some idea of what is a desired state of things including sicoal equity issues. So, assessing the sustainability of a given activity only means looking at ALL these effects: economic, environmental, and sicoal good and bad paid for or not.Now, please do not confuse my post of taking a stance for or against the concept of sustainability or any specific value on externalities, sustainability is only a perspective on things. Clearly the concept attracts environmentalists as they put a high value on environmental and socal equity impacts and it is a tool to assess responsibility for these effects.

%d bloggers like this: