“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
An excellent list of deceitful tactics! I especially like “Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)”, under “Personal (Ad Hominem) Attacks”!
Did Gleick compose this list himself, or did he copy it from an uncited source?? 🙁
To the credit of Gleick’s list, it very thoroughly covers the omitted variable fraud that I documented in the first draft of the upcoming AR5.
Under “Misuse of Facts” it lists: “Selective Omissions of Data.”
Under “Scientific Misconduct” it lists: “Falsification (manipulation of research data and processes or omitting critical data or results)”
Under “Science Policy Misconduct” it lists: “Altering or Suppressing Information.”
Too bad this is an outline of the warmists’ modus operandi.
peter_ga says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm
“I am curious as to the single most inspirational piece of work that qualified him as a genius.”
His business card?
I’m not saying this is an inspirational work by him…
If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally rrelevant.
Did Dr. Gleick confess out of panic?
There he was, patting himself on the back at how cleverly he’d hoaxed everyone and how the Heartland Institute would suffer; sitting back, savoring the sweet music of the baying press-pack as it hounded its victim; then, out of the blue, the cold, terrifying shock of being identified and called out by name by people he despised!
It must have been horrible.
Before confessing, he set some of his affairs in order. One does suspect he views the Pacific Institute as his own private property, which is why he didn’t resign or request a leave of absence before committing to the modified limited hangout confession.
Of course, that’s reading it like a novel, but it’s the best I can come up with.
Sloppy work. He forgot to add criminal impersonation and fraud to his list.
@ur momisugly Sabril: You might be on to something with your narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis. Many commentators have asked, “how could anyone be so stupid?” I had asked myself the same question, but then I got to thinking: Maybe Gleick was taking mood altering pills? Maybe those pills clouded his judgement?
Gleick had convinced himself that the “anti-climate” community were the apotheosis of evil. He had worked himself up into a highly emotionally-charged state about that. Any rational person reading his recent articles and posts could see it. He was virtually foaming at the mouth and committing the very same logical fallacies that he so often accused others of committing; sometime several to a sentence. That’s irrational conduct.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the Dr. Gleick is/was crazy. I’m only noting that irrational conduct is often preceded by extreme emotional distress, mixed with mind altering substances. Of course, none of this excuses the crime.
Climate science is a good example of a “scientific elite” gaming the system to gain personal power and enrichment. But modern medicine is a much better example. The government estimates that Medicare fraud is something north of $70-billion a year. But they mostly only count direct criminal fraud. We pay three times more than Europeans for healthcare but we’re not healthier or better served. We’re also more likely to be killed or maimed by a doctor than by an automobile. The US medical industrial combine suctions off almost 20% of our economic output. It’s the biggest money-grubbing monopoly ever invented in the whole history of humankind. We should not be thinking about how to get every citizen covered by our hyper-expensive and dysfunctional medical system. We should be thinking about how we’re going to break up the entrenched monopoly and make medicine cheap enough for everyone.
Cough up, which one of you jokers slipped him his resume to read out at the Senate?
LOL…. What the hell was that?…. His bucket list?
Paul Coppin says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Gleick needs to tap a bit more BC bud. A LOT more.
That would make him an hydroponiclimatologist, I’m thinkin’…come to think of it……
Paul Coppin says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm
” 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.”
=====================
“No matter where you go, there you are.”
Thomas Moody
CE & PLS.
@Copner, thank you. I will listen to it in the next few minutes, as I clean the kitchen. I’m assuming it won’t need my full attention…
Hu McCulloch says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm
[….]
If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally rrelevant.
You’ve missed the point entirely (and the relevance…).
When his colleagues were discussing the requirement for a level headed genius to testify on ethics to the U.S. Senate, the consensus of a group of peer review process redefiners was….
I think it’s the sheer overwhelming force of the contra-factual “data points” they have to integrate into their personal and professional opinions and statements. At some point, somewhat different for each person, it just becomes too much.
BTW, there are three types of “data errors” to watch for:
1) Interpolated
2) Omitted
3) Altered
All require effort to create and hold in place.
I’ve sparred with Gleick numerous times at Forbes. You can tell his science background is weak. His undergrad degree at Yale was in Engineering and Applied Science. Sounds impressive, right? No. There are the rigorous ABET accredited degrees at Yale, such as mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering. And then the less rigorous non ABET accredited ones, like Gleicks’. So he ended up taking the “jock” type science and math courses. At Forbes he kept beating the drum about scientific consensus, not really understanding what is required to confirm a hypothesis under the rigorous tenants of the scientific method. But he has a PHD! So does the dufus Paul Ehrlich. And we know all the predictions of his that have “bombed” (bad pun).
Paul Copin: Why bother Anthony or the moderators with this question when you know they have a problem answering. Just do a Google on the man and you’ll find all the info you need.
RockyRoad says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“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?”
Maybe it is a hormone? Maybe you even know which one?
“GobbledyGleick”
(unashamedly stolen from a source I can’t remember – props to the orginator)
Hu McCulloch says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Paul Coppin says:
February 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm
“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…
If there were fraud in his dissertation, or if he cheated on his exams, that would be cause for revoking his PhD. But a little mid-life insanity is totally irrelevant.”
Glieck’s insanity (skulduggery might be a better word) came not in recent mid-life, but back on the day that he abandoned science for a cause. There are a lot of Phd.s out there that are equally guilty in this regard: people who do not understand that the diploma, of itself, does not bestow authority, but does bestow a lifelong obligation of honest dissertation. The crime is not simply that of getting caught but of abandoning academic obligation which is owed not merely to his alma mater, but to mankind.
It’s a self portrait in words.
@doubting thomas
“Maybe Gleick was taking mood altering pills? Maybe those pills clouded his judgement?”
That thought occurred to me too, but it seems Gleick’s misconduct lasted over a period of a at least a few weeks. So he would have had time to think about what he was doing while sober.
“Gleick had convinced himself that the ‘anti-climate’ community were the apotheosis of evil. ”
Another common behavior of people with NPD is “splitting.”:
From Wikipedia:
___________________
People matching the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defense mechanism. Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize his sense of self positively in order to preserve his self-esteem, by perceiving himself as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to his will or values as purely wicked or contemptible.
______________
This would also explain the book review fiasco, in which Gleick gave an extremely poor review to a book he perceived as being on the “anti” side of the debate seemingly without having even read the book. Assuming he suffers from NPD, there would have been no need in his mind to actually read the book since the book was “purely wicked or contemptible.”
Bingo! In my opinion you are exactly right. And it certainly is not just in high profile Climate Science fields, it is everywhere, lawyers, politicians, journalism, what have you. Lots of people ever since the 70’s would say: ‘Ah, what harm can come from all these diluted degrees? At least they’re working and they have self-esteem!’. Well, we are seeing the results first hand everywhere today, the seeds grew, flowers bloomed, reproduced, repeat again. Peter ‘Principle’ Gleick is just one of many, albeit the most obvious at the moment. But he is most definitely not the exception, he is the rule. I mean, does anyone really believe that Gleick is a worse person than Mann and other Greenies? I sure don’t. Heck, he probably still would be too tame for ‘Earth First’ and other Eco-Nazis. I mean, we all saw a glimpse into their sick minds with 10:10 ‘No Pressure’ last year.
Truth be told, you really can’t throw a rock without hitting an example of the Peter Principle these days. Their visibility is even higher due to social media which helps them to self-identify and garner publicity in ways that used to be impossible. This ultimately may be the ‘forcing’ that ultimately undoes some of the damage they have caused.
In a way it is our own fault. Lots of people chose long ago to entertain the arguments of these idiots, rather than laughing them off the scene like the clowns that they are. People willfully have chosen to ignore rather than challenge errors and propaganda when they encounter it. They’re too busy with football, basketball, iPhones and whatever distraction comes next. Meanwhile the inmates have taken over the asylum thanks to attrition and plain laziness.
J.H. says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
LOL…. What the hell was that?…. His bucket list?
============
Tactics – someone, maybe Gleick maybe not, has gathered together all the main points used, accurately, by the sceptics in their arguments against the faux science and vested industry funding, for the next big loud campaign to misdirect attention from the real culprits by the simple expedient of accusing the sceptics of these. What has been successfully used so far is “funded by fossil fuels”, but this is beginning to collapse on two fronts.
The AGWarmers are beginning to hear that it is ‘their side’ which gets all the big funding from oil and nuclear, and government, and even hearing that the whole shebang was set up and funded by them, and this is beginning to set up a discordant note in the brainwashing and so they need another distraction to stop any more looking too closely behind the now partially drawn back curtain, and, whereas before the non-coal big players were pretty much above the anti-oil skweeming they’d encouraged to get the greenies on board to further their own anti-coal agenda, it is now beginning to backfire on them because such as fracking is become viable etc. and the oil/gas companies now have to distance themselves properly from the coal industry, which was the name of their game all along, so they can go forth and fracking prosper without the greenie useful idiots interfering. They’ve begun doing this by creating a separation between coal and non-coal fossil fuels, fossil being the generic rallying cry. There was piece the other day about a new study which showed that fracking was oh so much carbon cleaner than coal.
As before, sceptics can show that this relentless screaming that ‘sceptics are funded by big oil’ is a lie and it’s actually the greenies funded by them and even that their greenie AGW movement was created by the oil companies themselves, such as CRU set up and still paid for by oil/nuclear to cook the temperature records, but now sceptics are going to be targetted by more such misdirection ammo, which they themselves have provided through discussions.
As before, sceptics can continue to show with actual facts and figures that these new memes apply to the AGWarmers and their corrupt science, but ‘big oil’ is counting on the sheer volume and range they’re planning to generate to drown this out. It’s all about keeping control of the useful idiots and getting the sceptics mired in arguments while they go on with their business with as little disturbance to their agenda as possible.
And there’s no getting around it, it doesn’t matter which political party in office, they wouldn’t have got so far and been so successful without having control of the process, setting up ‘apparent’ discord and different political policies merely part of the same game as is MSM involvement.
It is a war, but the only reasonable way, as I see it, to fight this practically ubiquitous control is by enlightenment, the spread of knowledge. When everyone, or enough to get the ball rolling, can see behind the curtain, can see through the illusion they’ve created to keep the useful idiots in thrall, they’ll be seen for the manipulative small percent psycho/sociopaths not very evolved critters they are..
..and maybe science can come up with some way of curing them… 🙂
Using Google to chase up the Gleick papers that Amy Ridenour discovered, I encountered a domain name http://www.integrityofscience.org .. but, if you click on it, you will find yourself redirected to Pacific Institute. They seem to have cornered the market in integrity. It’s a great page, though. You can email them to report integrity violations and make financial contributions:
Boy, for an expert in “Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process” he sure sucks at it.