Guest post by Dr. Nicola Scafetta
I am following this story about Gleick vs. Heartland Institute. I believe I found something that might be useful and/or interesting.
To understand what happened in the mind of Gleick you need to carefully read the exchange occurred on Forbes between Gleick and Taylor in January. Apparently, everything started from this post by Gleick
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/05/the-2011-climate-b-s-of-the-year-awards/
where Gleick personally attacked known scientists who are critical of AGW and he also attacked you.Later James Taylor of Heartland Institute responded to Gleick here
First, you need to note the dates of Taylor reply (2012/01/12) and the date of the email sent by Gleick to Heartland which started a couple of weeks later on 2012/01/27. So the dates match.
Now you need to take into account that the article by Taylor is quite strong and solid, and very likely severely damaged the scientific credibility of Gleick who was proven not even having the scientific facts right and having his analysis of the scientific literature, in a particular of that that opposes the AGW theory, extremely superficial and unfair.
I would say that Taylor won the debate without doubts, and Gleick simply matured the idea of having a strong revenge.
Now you need to carefully read the comment by Gleick to Taylor’s article that you can read at the bottom on the Forbes’ article page. Gleick wrote
“I don’t normally respond to the posts by James Taylor — reading them makes my head explode. They are written as though from a completely different universe — some parallel universe where up is down, left is right, and global warming isn’t happening…. whew (though a careful reader of this post by Taylor will note that he accidentally acknowledges global warming is occurring). But since I’m the entire target of this rant, I thought I might offer a minor comment or two: He says I’m upset because so few people agree with me… Hmm, 97-98% of all climate scientists (of which I am one, and James Taylor is not) agree with me — climate change is happening, and it is happening because of human activities. Maybe no one at the Heartland Institute agrees (though they are paid not to), but I like the company I keep better. I will ignore the completely scientific nonsense that comprises the rest of his post, except to note the fine response by “cyruspinkerton” who sets Taylor straight about extreme events in 2011. Taylor must not read the news, or the science, either. I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that $7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus). And their 990 tax form doesn’t say either. [By the way, while my Forbes posts reflect my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Pacific Institute, all of the Pacific Institute’s financial records are public.] So, Mr. Taylor: let’s have the complete list of your funders.”
As you can see, instead of discussing the scientific facts that Taylor was addressing in his article strongly disproving Gleick, Gleick just wanted the names of the donors of Heartland Institute more than anything else, as if that was the most important issue.
Now you need to read the response from Taylor. At the end Taylor responded
“Finally, Gleick asks for the Heartland Institute to publicly reveal all the names of its donors. The Heartland Institute used to do so, while similarly appealing to other groups to do the same. However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors while simultaneously refusing to release the names of their own donors. It is funny how Gleick rants against the alleged harassment of Katharine Hayhoe yet remains silent about the harassment of people who disagree with him. This further reveals Gleick’s appalling lack of objectivity, as does Gleick’s call for the Heartland Institute to release the names of its donors while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of global warming activist groups have been far less transparent than the Heartland Institute. Of course, Gleick’s attempts to make Heartland Institute funding an issue while ignoring the less transparent funding reports of global warming activist groups with 10, 20, or even 80 times the funding of the Heartland Institute is a tired and sad tactic used by global warming alarmists who try desperately to take attention away from scientific facts and objective scientific data. I can see why Gleick views these scientific facts and objective data as a “parallel universe” that makes his “head spin.”
Now you need to focus on the key sentence in Taylor’s response:
“However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors”
At this point, Gleick knew what he could do to have his personal revenge against Taylor and the Heartland Institute . He simply needed to get the list of names of the donors of Heartland Institute and make it public in such a way that environmental activists and other extremist groups could use the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against those persons and damage the finance of the Heartland Institute. And in two weeks Gleick prepared his “smart” plan that we know.
In my opinion Gleick was simply blinded by a strong feeling of personal hatred against Taylor and just wanted his personal revenge against the person that so efficiently rebutted him in public. The irony of this story is that it was Taylor himself to suggest Gleick what he could do to have his revenge and to efficiently damage the Heartland Institute. ButGleick’s plan was uncovered…
In conclusion, the real reason why people like Gleick do not want to publicly debate with the AGW and IPCC critics is simply because somehow they know that they will lose the debate. And they get mad of it.
==============================================================
Addendum by Anthony
I would add that there is one other exacerbating factor that occurred on January 27th, 2012, and that is seen in this article on Forbes by Dr. Peter Gleick:
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal
Gleick writes:
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”
Then there’s this, Gleick was one of the signers:
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.
The NAS essay is here. The WSJ article is here
Seems to me that he was quite put out that WSJ would accept the 16, but not the 255. I see it as contributory to his anger that day, the day he decided to assume a new fake email identity and break the law.
It seems he also made his own bias very clear in an article where he asks readers:
Do you have an open mind?
It doesn’t matter what might be said or published, he claims we are wrong:
I’d say he’s now disqualified himself, and in spectacular fashion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On triggers and other things regarding triggers:
In this case frustration that the mankind caused climate change message was not 100% the law of the earth turned (triggered) this one an many many others to lies, fraud and illegal acts.
Same general population of the policical sprectum U.S. Democrat Party:
Eric Holder and theDOJ, ATF, FBI, DEA, Homeland defence, fast and furious gun running getting Border Patrol officers like Brian Terry killed and hundreds of Mexicans south of our border killed.
“Triggers) triggered.
Same general the ends justifies the means mental health problem.
What is there about Gleick not to like, he is the best thing since Mike’s nature trick and hide the decline.
GogogoStopSTOP says:
February 25, 2012 at 10:49 am
Over at CA, there’s speculation that the purloined ID is that of a certain former astronaut and congressman that Gleick I believe includes in his BSers list.
I’m concerned that this may step up to actual physical violence visited on ‘Deniers’. There was, if possible, an even more heated column at Forbes by a fellow alarmist named Zwick which was really quite remarkable: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/16/what-happened-at-heartland/
At a certain point, their anger and frustration, along with the zealot’s certitude of “the cause”s moral superiority, I fear will find its logical extrension in violence. I recall the assassinations of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by Supervisor Dan White in San Francisco in the late 70’s — over a political disagreement. Another Supervisor, now Senator, Dianne Feinstein, first came to national prominence for her indispensible leadership during that dark period. The political stakes are larger here by an order of magnitude.
I pray this doesn’t happen. I just am not aware of a pressure release valve in this situation.
If there isn’t an AA group called ‘Alarmists Anonymous,’ maybe there should be. But perhaps alarmism and hate toward contrary views is just a workday affliction, with evenings and weekends in merriment with awards and money aplenty. I asked Joe Romm this in a serious email, and he responded that I was a ‘sociopath’ ….
There are a lot of issues lurking behind bad, impulsive, self-destructive behavior such as this.
Double down or rehab? I fear it will be the former.
Could this be as simple as his thinking that the Court will get him that doner list? His lawyer said
“Dr. Gleick looks forward to using discovery to understand more about the veracity of the documents, lay bare the implications of Heartland’s propaganda plans and, in particular, determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.”
Time for input from readers who practice the Law to comment if this rash method will work.
How differently do his fellow travelers feel? Is Trenberth really that different? You committ yourself to an ideology, you get all the funding, you think you’ve got the whole world corralled, and then the central tenet of your ideology – that it is based entirely on science – fails anyway. I bet the church was mad at Galileo too. After awhile, all you can do is attack the people pointing out your naked emperor costume.
Limb, this is saw. How nice to meet you!
“I don’t normally respond to the posts by James Taylor — reading them makes my head explode. They are written as though from a completely different universe — some parallel universe where up is down, left is right, and global warming isn’t happening…. whew”. Quoted from Gleick above.
“Some parallel universe” indeed – where a fraction of a degree warming world-wide (somewhere between a good thing and a very good thing as far as I can see…) is somehow known to be fully attributable to Mankind (it’s the CO2 wot done it! /sarc); and measured with any certainty at all; and is leading to our doom.
Parallel universe indeed – where a highly educated, seemingly moral and ethical scientist pulls a cheap felonious con off on an innocent group of Americans exercising their right to free speech. Yes, a parallel universe…
Nicola: On your recommendation I read the links. Thanks. The word ‘..Gleick..’ is fast becoming a Verb!!!
“I just am not aware of a pressure release valve in this situation.”
All it needs is for this criminal activity to be sanctioned in a court of law in the normal way. That will be like a bucket of cold water to their hot-heads. The “wake-up call” they are so fond of referring to.
I can’t imagine anyone posting here that they have committed wire fraud and deliberately circulated falsified documents to the media to discredit someone, not getting a knock on the door.
Why has this confessed criminal not been charged yet ?!
Steve from Rockwood says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
If only his mom had pulled him out of the sand-box and called a time-out. None of this would have happened.
====================================
I was thinking that he didn’t have enough sandbox time !!!
Gleick is correct – money talks. Donating to Heartland and WUWT is an effective path forward.
GogogoStopSTOP you can look up the board of directors on HI’s website it’s right there so that isn’t hard to find. The only tricky part is picking which name you might use for the phish attempt.
“…climate change is happening…”: indeed it is, and was, and will be.
“…and it is happening because of human activities” – I dare say, but “human activities” isn’t quite the same as the release of CO2.
Johnnythelowery says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:44 am
“Nicola: On your recommendation I read the links. Thanks. The word ‘..Gleick..’ is fast becoming a Verb!!!”
James Gleick should sue for damages.
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology_and_learning/gleicking_the_information
@neill
I fear that you’re right. Now that the alarmists are losing momentum and supporters, their words get more extreme, the tone more violent and agressive, possibly resulting in real violence.
After shutting down any possibility of debate, the groupthink has lead to cult-like behaviour, with people really believing that CAGW is the only Truth and everyting is allowed for the Cause.
Peter Whale says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:31 am
¨”What is there about Gleick not to like, he is the best thing since Mike’s nature trick and hide the decline.”
Okay, now we are waiting for a new video from the Minnesotans 4 global warming.
With parallell universes, Mann dancing with threes and the lot!
The thing about January 27th is, I believe, crucial to understanding:
He was VERY upset the WSJ article signed by the 16 was published, but the letter by “his” 255 was not published. The evidence of how upset he was, was he complained at least 6 times in writing:-
– He wrote the 27 Jan article at Forbes
– He wrote 4 tweets complaining about it between 27 Jan and 28 Jan
– He wrote (don’t know when) an article complaining in the February Pacific Institute newsletter.
The letter by 255 which was not published was very strongly linked to Gleik. If you check the copy that was later published in Science, go to the bottom to see the list of signatures.
– All the signatures are in alphabetic order by surname – except his name is first, with an asterisk.
– At the very bottom of the letter the asterisk is explained – any questions about the letter should be directed to P. H. Gleik at the Pacific Institute.
The letter by the 16 which was published, was signed by a number of prominent people.
– One of the people who signed it was Apollo 17 astronaut, and former NM Senator, Harrison Schmitt. Harrison Schmitt was a director of Heartland.
Gleik very definitely knew who Schmitt was – he wrote an article criticizing him in February 2011, that was published in the Huffington Post.
If you to the 27 Jan Forbes article, and go to page 13 of the comments, Peter Gleik writes:
First, the stakes are too high for any geophysicist or climate scientists to even consider doing bad science for money — the stakes to their reputations and to the planet. Alas, this isn’t true for the organizations paid to deny the science.
Second, none of my funding or my Institute’s funding is used to support our conclusions. In fact our guidelines prohibit it.
Finally, all of our funding information is completely transparent and publicly available, which you would know if you had bothered spending 2 minutes on the web before making unfounded insinuations. But try asking the Heartland Institute for a list of THEIR funders. They refuse to provide it.
Pride goes before a fall.
But try asking the Heartland Institute for a list of THEIR funders. They refuse to provide it. I believe his is a public concern; Heartland is a private concern. There’s a big difference. (Hey, Gleick could have gone the private route to begin with, but probably wouldn’t have had any money. Caught between a rock and a hard place?)
It may have been the exchange with Taylor in the comments of Taylor’s last article that triggered Gleick, but if you read further in the comments in the third comment following Gleick’s “russellc00k” call’s Gleick out:
“So, it’s not up to James Taylor to show us who funds the Heartland Institute, it’s up to Gleick, Gore, Pachari, Oreskes, Mooney, Romm, Gelbspan or any others who want to give it a shot: Stop with the guilt-by-association garbage, SHOW US YOUR SPECIFIC PROOF THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SKEPTIC CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN EXCHANGE FOR FALSE FABRICATED CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS!”
So Gleick thought, “Well, yes, maybe it is up to me to give it a shot.”
When an indoctrinated cult member is forced by circumstance to face a threat to their pre conceived or programmed beliefs their first reaction is anger and often laced with hatred and rage. The autonomic threat response kicks in as if the subject were in fact under direct physical threat, this often leads to cult victims lashing out in a blind rage with the normal behavioural inhibitors like consideration of the ramifications and consequences of their actions suppressed by the fight or fight reflex.
In other words the overwhelming need to lash out at perceived enemies overrides normal behavioural inhibitors which are systematically broken down in the programming of the cult victim and it is these normal behavioural inhibitors that are so difficult and time consuming to reconstruct by the deprogramming agencies. It is one of the most common sights in the initial stages of deprogramming and perhaps the most distressing to witness.
Now I am not saying that Gleick is a cult victim in the traditional sense but its all to obvious that CAGW believers display and share certain key symptoms with cult members, the refusal to allow self critical examination of core beliefs, the rage when preconceived and deeply held beliefs are challenged, the rage that follows when an external source is thought able to be seen to get the upper hand within a confrontation. It is obvious that CAGW believers feel under siege by sceptics, that their voice is no longer being listened to as it once was, that they are failing to press home a devastating counter attack on their sceptic enemies preferably without having to engage in dialogue with what they consider to be their enemies.
And this brings me to a startling similarity with cult victims that the CAGW believers seem to share, the often fanatical determination not to freely engage with sceptics, to present sceptics as unworthy of direct contact dialogue or present them as deranged or insane, that somehow their sacred knowledge may become polluted or damaged in the process of dialogue with unbelievers. This unwillingness to open up to debate could be an attempt to preserve their beliefs unpolluted by doubts or contradictory revelations, in other words an automatic unconscious self defence reaction by the belief system itself almost as if it were autonomous within the host. What could be termed an infectious meme like belief system displaying the characteristics of a self protecting infectious virus.
As the CAGW fraud is systematically destroyed you will find instances of blind rage and aggression increase as more CAGW believers are forced to confront the inherent weakness and contradictions in their belief system. Mr Gleick is finding out the hard way that there are indeed consequences for actions taken like this, a cold shower of reality may just be the introduction back to the real world and if that is the case maybe some good will come out of it for him in the end.
We will begin to see more comments attempting to rationalize Gleick’s actions as being justified as a way to save mankind and that his actions were noble in his mind due to being radicalized by the CAGW movement. There will be an attempt to throw off personal responsibility due to his ‘religious’ beliefs. The idea that his actions were not really his fault, he was just doing what had to be done. Would this suggest that perhaps the primary authors of the CAGW ‘science (Mann, Jones, Gore, etc.) should be held accountable? They made him do it?
Liberal think is, well … words can’t express it except in a parallel universe.
Maybe he is just a another fruitcake in the CAGW movement. Yeah, a fruitcake, that’s the ticket.
An insignificant little [snip] that punctured his own puffed up sense of importance?
All the (once-)”respected institutions”, “thousands of papers by thousands of scientists” and their “settled science” couldn’t put this grumpy-numpty back together again. Thankfully.
The world has not seen the last of his kind but, let us all hope, we have seen the back of him, his spite and angry rhetoric. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Maybe his brother will write a book about him. I very much doubt it will measure up to the quality of “Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman” or possess the depth of “Chaos: Making a New Science” but it may end up in the comedy section if it gets rejected from the science fiction shelves. Or vice versa.
Anthony and Nicola: there is something else that happened in early January that could have had a very powerful effect on Gleick: Jeff Condon at the AirVent on January 8th wrote this very incendiary post:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/where-do-we-draw-the-line/
(Kudos to GregO for linking this post earlier on another thread.)
This post goes to the heart of who Gleick is and potentially endangers his livelihood. Which is not to suggest Jeff should not have posted it. It’s a very damning post and deservedly so. Tax payers should not be funding the likes of Gleick and his ilk.
Whether Gleick saw it or not is debatable, but it could have been sent to him by any number of people who are interested in these issues.
I would also suggest to all that Gleick may have had several encounters that set him off, and they may have been gathering force over years and not weeks, as many of us have surmised.