“Copner” alerts us in comments to this public document:
Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7, 2007 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Table 1
Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process
(source: P.H. Gleick, Pacific Institute, 2007)
There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process.
Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks
This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.
Demonization
Guilt by Association
Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)
You can read it here:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@DonV,
Were you thinking something like this?
[IMG]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/RandomPhate/Gleick13.jpg[/IMG]
Hello Kettle? Pot calling….
Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”
===================
(while they laugh up their sleeves at the rank amateur).
Pot, meet kettle.
I still want to know how much funding he got from me through the EPA.
I may have to go to confession for paying my taxes.
“False Authority
Including appeal to authority not competent to address issue”
This is my favorite, because it implies that appealing to authority competent to address the issue (such as himself) is OK. In his Forbes piece on the 2011 B.S. Award, Gleick praises Obama for saying that we should put our trust in climate scientists. He wants control.
Can we find out his PHD granting university. I too want to join the campaign to REMOVE his PHD.
Please, someone give us the Alma Mater for this rube.
Max
REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony
Someone at the U.S. Senate passed him the wrong script and he was mistakenly reading his resume.
Copner,
Good finds.
Your energy and persistent focus is awesome dude(tte). I hope I never have the pleasure of your persistent attention because of any misdeed on my part. I mean that as a
complementcompliment [NOTE: Corrected at author’s request. -REP].A toast to the study of Gleicks everywhere they may occur!!!
John
I think the Senate should invite him back in for an update.
I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.
There’s your money quote right there.
that as a
complementcompliment [NOTE: Corrected at author’s request. -REP]———-
Dear REP the moderator,
Thank you . Have a good Saturday night.
John
The only consistently catastrophic aspect of the AGW crowd is how the acolytes continue to crash and burn their own wonderful careers over something as controversial, indefensible and undefinable as “climate change”.
Is it the water? Is it the soap they use? Maybe the ragweed is blossoming. What gets under their skin to the point they self destruct? I can’t figure it out, but it must have something to do with mixing the heady alcohol of success with the prospects of fame and unlimited funding while the weather gods blow an ill wind on their house of cards.
It really is a sickening spectacle to see once grandiose gentlemen look at themselves in the mirror and fail to recognize the reflection. My heartfelt condolences.
After reading this post I was amused to see on the Pacific Institute website at least two presentations that appear to be PDFs of more detailed versions of the testimony referenced in this post.
I’m amused because, in it, Gleick attacks the institution I work for (actually, a blog post of mine) for committing an alleged “abuse of science” for criticizing – get this – Al Gore.
Gleick paraphrases our offense as an “Appeal to Emotion; Ad Hominem and Personal Attacks” and lists it as:
“Al Gore can’t be trusted on climate change because he lives an energy-intensive lifestyle. The National Center for Public Policy Research (2006)”
Yes, I criticized Gore (not in those words), but GORE IS A POLITICIAN. Not a scientist. One can claim he is also an investor, or a moviemaker, or a board sitter-onner, or a speech-giver, or an activist, or a man who loves himself a good massage, but he’s certainly not a scientist.
My naughty blog post can be seen at: http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2006/8/10/al-gores-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-philosophy.html
I do hope science will recover from my sin.
Gleick complains about a bunch of other people as well. There do not appear to be direct links to the pdfs, but they are on the Pacific Institute website and have the following two titles, if anyone wants to take a look to see who else misbehaved.
The documents are entitled: “The Integrity of Science: Identifying Logical Fallacies, Deceitful Tactics, and Abuse of the Public Trust,” American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Dec. 2006″ and “The Integrity of Science and Climate Change: Logical Fallacies and Abuse of Science,” SkeptiCal 2011, Dr. Peter H. Gleick
There, fixed that for ya..
Let’s stop playing the PC BS game, since we already know who wrote it.
Eric Dailey says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
He must be a pretty wily poker player. I know I wouldn’t want to try to discern whether he was bluffing with $100 riding on it.
I am curious as to the single most inspirational piece of work that qualified him as a genius.
Eric Dailey says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
I have yet to understand what made Gleick do his “limited hang-out” when he made his confession. Why did he out himself and not just keep quiet? Before he confessed there was only suspicion. I just wonder what drove his decision. I hope I will understand it sometime.
I would suspect its the two “ethics” appointments he was just taking on. He had to shut them down before he got into them. If he’d been ensconsed in those positions and then all this came to light down the road, he’d be even more deeply fried than he is now, if that’s possible.
Eric Dailey says on February 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
This intrigues me as well. Perhaps he was falling on his sword for someone else. After all, people can be as suspicious as they like. In the absence of proof, there is not a lot that can be done.
REPLY: Dr. Gleick’s PhD, earned many years before, has nothing to do with this incident, and such suggestions are baseless. I WILL NOT support any effort here on WUWT or personally. It is simply wrong. – Anthony
With respect, I don’t see why a PhD shouldn’t be subject to the same integrity standards as are P.Engs MDs and LLBs, and here, people who are trustees. There should be a formal censure for PhDs in working practice just like there.is for other professions. Heck, even I have a sworn oath for my official duties that carries criminal charges for violating…
peter_ga says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm
You’ve seen it. But he didn’t get away with it. Except he sacrificed himself as an example of what not to do. Good man, Peter Gleick.
I am gobsmacked. Wow.
Beware of Gleicks bearing gifts.
Seems to be some heavy discussions over on the Amazon threads on Gleicks review of two books: M.Mann and Donna Laframboise.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2XYU6ZBJOG200/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
Have a look,there is a bit of a war going over there.
With both this and Markey getting involved (without even knowing WTF he’s getting into – no doubt), I wonder if now might be the time to ask FOIA if the repentance has not been quite as extensive as could have been expected ??
Gwaaaarn FOIA, just another 20,000 e-mails – at random even !!!!
@Amy Ridenour
The 2011 presentation referred to can be watched online. Near the end of the 2nd video he promises to put the slides online at the Pacific Institute website, but I haven’t seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuIJ9n4HvI&feature=relmfu