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.
Gleik wrote in article in February 2011 that Heartland “work[s] against the science”. Doesn’t that remind you of the confidential strategy memo?
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/peter-gleick-misrepresenting-climate-science-cherry-picking-data-for-political-purposes/ – last paragraph:
“Individuals can make mistakes. Harrison Schmitt made a mistake about Arctic sea ice having recovered in 2009 to 1989 levels (among many other fundamental mistakes) and he refused to correct it when his error was pointed out to him privately. I cannnot speculate on his motivations. But of much greater concern in this episode is the role of the Heartland Institute, which has long tried to piggyback on Schmitt’s reputation and history of public service. Heartland has established itself as a coordinator of climate denial efforts, as a publisher of a discredited pseudo-scientific attack on climate science called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and as organizer of a conference that brings together groups and individuals that work against the science and policy of climate change. Their irresponsible actions in this cherry-picking exercise substantially diminish even further Heartland’s claim to be any kind of honest broker of serious scientific skepticism on the topic of climate change.”
I think that Forbes article by James Taylor was very well written. Next time Taylor writes such an article, he could juice it up with even more links to official data. UAH temperatures, ice and temperature in Antarctica (while Trendberth et.al. is visiting) , Argo bouy’s temperature plots, the JAXA CO2 distribution plots….
Gleick lies about his Pacific Institute funding being public.It’s the usual group of pass-through Tides coordinated suspects.
Glieck has had it in for the HI for a long time as exemplified in this Feb 9, 2011 post:
“But of much greater concern in this episode is the role of the Heartland Institute, which has long tried to piggyback on Schmitt’s reputation and history of public service. Heartland has established itself as a coordinator of climate denial efforts, as a publisher of a discredited pseudo-scientific attack on climate science called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and as organizer of a conference that brings together groups and individuals that work against the science and policy of climate change. Their irresponsible actions in this cherry-picking exercise substantially diminish even further Heartland’s claim to be any kind of honest broker of serious scientific skepticism on the topic of climate change.”
http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2011/02/09/misrepresenting-climate-science-cherry-picking-data-for-political-purposes/
Interestingly much of the content of the above blog post surfaces again in a presentation by NCSE’s J. Scott at an event in Glaskow in September 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZA68DHFi8) it’s 53 min long but worth watching. Glieck is first mentioned by her @ur momisugly ~ 21:15 as providing examples for her discussion of “cherry picking” data, specifically regarding the observed recent lack of global warming. She then makes the following comments @ur momisugly ~ 22:30:
“An even more egregious bit of cherry picking was also provided by Peter Gleick, and I thank him for that, he notes that the Heartland Institute which is a, [stutter], anti-global warming, has an anti-global warming position, it’s a non-profit in the U.S., claimed National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009 Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels.”
An accompanying slide attributing this to Joseph Bast, President, Heartland Institute (January 31, 2011, Santa Fe New Mexican) is presented. Somewhat interestingly, but greatly speculative, in discussing this further Ms Scott gets quite confused (you really need to see it to appreciate what I mean) and begins talking about the month of February (not April). Perhaps subconsciously when talking about the Heartland Institute there was something she knew that was significant about the month of February??? OK bald faced speculation on my part. Later in her presentation (@ur momisugly ~ 33:00) she again references Mr. Bast and the Heartland Institute regarding her so called “anti-global warming struggle”.
It seems clear to me that both Glieck and NCSE were on the same page vis-a-vis HI. So I still can’t shake the feeling that the significance of the timing of Glieck’s fraud has something to do with Gliecks role with NCSE and the January 2012 launch of their Climate education initiative. See my previous post here (2/21/12 @ur momisugly 12:00pm: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/ncse-accepts-gleicks-resignation/ )
Just a few more thoughts along these lines….
On Friday January 14 NCSE announced that Gleick would be joining their BOD in association with the NCSE’s launch of a major new effort directed at K-12 climate education. Clearly, in-depth discussions between Gleick and the NCSE leadership regarding this new initiative and strategies would have taken place over a period of time prior to this announcement date. On the following Monday the 16th the initiative was officially launched and over the following few days there were countless stories in both the MSM and the blogosphere regarding the new NCSE program. Many of the stories were based not only on the NCSE press release but also interviews with Eugenia Scott** or other NCSE personnel.
In this example, from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-change-school-20120116,0,2808837.story) note that the author, after quoting Ms Scott goes on to quote James Taylor from the HI:
quote/
Studies show that teachers often set aside evolution for fear of a backlash. Scott worries this could happen with climate science too.
“The question is self-censorship and intimidation. What you have to watch for is the ‘hecklers’ veto,’ ” she said. “If a teacher ignores a particular topic, it will likely go unnoticed.”
Climate change skeptics like James Taylor, environmental policy fellow at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, said the pushback in schools and legislatures reflected public frustration at being told “only one side of the global warming debate — the scientifically controversial theory that humans are creating a global warming crisis.”
“It is therefore not surprising that state legislatures are stepping in to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent in a manner that turns an important and ongoing scientific debate into a propaganda assault on impressionable students,” Taylor said.
/end quote
Ok, so a good journalist seeks out an opposing pov to include in the article and it just happens to be from the Heartland Institute. Then I read this one from Cosmic Log on MSNBC (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/17/10175732-evolution-defenders-to-fight-climate-skeptics) January 17 2:40pm EST
/Quote
Nevertheless, anti-global warming messages spread by groups such as the Heartland Institute, Scott said, are used by grassroots activists to pressure school boards and educators to teach that global warming is controversial.
/end quote
Two things really scream at me from this quote:
1 – Scott specifically points to the Heartland Institute. Really??? No disrespect to HI but in terms of NCSE’s so-called “anti-global warming” messengers there are others who are both better known and more effective at exposing the CAGW fraud, e.g. WUWT. But Scott fingers HI, did she know something about HI was about to break in the coming days?
2 – Scott’s use of the phrase “anti-global warming” is strikingly similar to the “anti-climate” term used in the faked HI Strategy document that was “sent” to Gleick. Though this is a fairly common term.
It sure seems to me that the HI was being set up to be NCSE’s villain and this could have been significant in motivating Glieck to do what he did.
Why is it that all them self-proclaimed elite alarmist are so paranoid? Every criticism against what they say ends up as a imaginary slight against their person and every such critic seem to be, in their world be, funded by oily unimaginably evil forces.
In my country we try and treat those people with medication.
I would put my money that Gleick used the identity of James Taylor.
REPLY: Doubtful. James Taylor works in the HI Chicago office. All the staffer would have to do is look across the hall and wonder “why are you emailing me? No, Gleick the “genius”, thought this out, likely choosing somebody he knew could NOT be in Chicago. Choosing a Chicago person would be making it too easy to flag. – Anthony
theduke says:
February 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Good link. I can see how that kind of expose could cause Gleick’s head to begin exploding, Back then the Team was more confident that they could get away with anything so not likely to panic at that stage, but sure could have fed into what eventually did happen.
These people have been scamming for more than twenty years, and it’s time a bunch of them get indicted.
If you knew nothing about the subject of climate change/supposed global warming and you read these two Forbes’ articles, the only conclusion you could possibly come to is:
CAGW supporter = rant and abuse
CAGW sceptic = reason and discussion
As the CAGW cult becomes increasingly ignored and discredited, the volume of shrill ranting and unfounded attacks on sceptics is certain to increase.
>>Taylor writes: Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing >>mean global temperatures?”
>>James Taylor Answer: Yes
James, exactly what is the evidence for this ?
I have to say that I sure understand Gleick’s bit about “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”
That’s how I feel whenever I read the warmist/alarmist/True Believer articles or comments where any discussion of any scientific evidence supporting a skeptics position — no matter how valid — is instantaneously branded as immoral pseudo-science from anti-science right-wing wingnuts (or insert the insult of choice) out to kill grandbabies and the entire planet.
It seems to be a reflex reaction on the part of so many like Gleick, no matter how valid the science or how well credentialed or eminent the person or scientist expressing the viewpoint, or even how liberal the political persuasion of the person may be in reality. Although I also suspect when people like Gleick read skeptic’s arguments, he’s enraged where I’m just gobsmacked and puzzled. For me, it’s just virtually impossible to understand responses and beliefs that are so far divorced from any sense of reality or fairness.
It really is a very different mental world map we’re working from.
One of the common anti-Heartland meme’s seems to be the bit about how they supposedly knowledgeably pushed ‘anti or pseudo-science’ about how smoking was supposedly safe and harmless, etc. Can anyone fill me in briefly on just what Heartland actually did or didn’t do in this regard? I know that they provided legal defense of some tobacco interest, but that’s about the extent of my knowledge about it… and yet I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen comments about how ‘clearly they’re anti-science wrt AGW because they were anti-science wrt tobacco, and the unscrupulous methods used are identical, yada, yada.’ (nice logical fallacy, although if ‘guilty’ it doesn’t reflect well on Heartland). I don’t even know how long ago Heartland provided that legal defense…
It would be nice to know some of the facts involved from a distinctly unbiased viewpoint – but I confess, not enough for me to be willing to take the time and effort digging thru everything to try to figure it out. So if anyone here knows and is willing to share the info, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance!
For those of you who, like me, are fed up with the claim of 97% of scientists supporting CAGW, can I remind you that the actual number of scientists the 97% represents is in fact just 75 individuals.
The calculation is explained here:
GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97
Bob says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:53 am
“Gleick is correct – money talks. Donating to Heartland and WUWT is an effective path forward.”
The irony is that by bring so much attention to the HI from his supremely idiotic phishing scam, Gleick is probably poised to be HI’s #1 fundraiser for 2012! Heh!!
The idea that big oil and coal feel threatened by flakey climate scientists is just silly. The cost of greeny/warmy regulations is just passed on to the customer at a profit. They also deter smaller competitors. There is no credible green alternative. Of course renwable energy is an appealing concept but a source without serious flaws is yet to be found.
Big energy companies will make money under any set of rules whether Gleick likes it or not.
Unattorney says:
February 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm
“Gleick lies about his Pacific Institute funding being public.It’s the usual group of pass-through Tides coordinated suspects.”
They also got EPA grants, it seems.
At last we have a decent feature story out on the Fakegate folly:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning_631915.html?page=1
Dr Burns said on February 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm:
Do you think sulfate aerosol emissions from our formerly much-dirtier coal-fired power plants could have depressed mean global temps an amount that you consider significant, say 2%? If so, then you too can answer yes. It’s a poorly worded question, it doesn’t specify the change and the respondent must decide what they consider to be significant. Between land use changes, black carbon (soot) emissions, a bunch of other things, one can easily find a human-based “significant contributing factor” somewhere, and without even resorting to specifying “greenhouse gas emissions” at all.
“The 2011 Climate B.S. of the Year Award was prepared by Peter Gleick with an independent group of climate scientists and communicators serving as nominators, reviewer, and voters.”
Independent? Really?? Independent of what and whom??
Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:
February 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm
One of the common anti-Heartland meme’s seems to be the bit about how they supposedly knowledgeably pushed ‘anti or pseudo-science’ about how smoking was supposedly safe and harmless, etc. Can anyone fill me in briefly on just what Heartland actually did or didn’t do in this regard?
Go over to Heartland…hit the ‘Policy Bot’ button and type smoking into the search field. You will get a list of everything heartland has done related to smoking since at least 1993.
http://heartland.org/
I’m a smoker…so I see Heartlands activities as ‘defending my right to smoke’. Others might have a different opinion.
He gets huge amounts of money and prestige for pushing the cause. The cause corresponds to his convictions that humans are inherently corrupt and destructive and need to be controlled so everything about the cause has to be correct. He sees his enemies as no better than himself so they must also be motivated by greed. They must be funded by greedy capitalists who profit by selling fossil fuels. Primarily he hates and despises people who threaten his source of money and power which is the cause. He is a typical leftist elite that sees evil and greed in all others that do what they do for money but somehow sees himself as pure and noble because he is doing it for the cause. That trumps the need to act rationally or ethically.
Rational DB8 is a flame war that Anthony would prefer not clutter up the Gleick threads but in brief [and feel free to leave it moderated Anthony if this is to much]. Remember the big fight a few years ago over second hand smoke and the legislation that was up to be passed. Being a libertarian group Heartland opposed the legislation on the grounds of poor science in the studies. There was no claim that smoking itself didn’t cause cancer or contribute to it but instead that the link wasn’t demonstrated for second hand smoke. That was essentially the “anti-science” claim that is attributed to them.
And with that I think our host would like this irrelevant side topic to stop. Sadly it comes up again and again because some people want to fight that war again and others simply don’t know anything about it.
P. Solar says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:13 am
It’s a well know corollary of special relativity that when you’ve got your head up your own arse the world seems upside down and the clocks go backwards.
.——————————————————————————————————————————
You have made my day P. Solar I laughed so much I ended up on the floor.
Peter Gleick spoke to the US Senate regarding scientific integrity in 2007, since he is an expert on science ethics and integrity
http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/20070207.html
In his testimony he referred to his written document “Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process” which, in retrospect, seems to be a “how to guide” – http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf
On the “integrity_of_science” page is this request
“What can you do?
If you are aware of instances of science misuse and abuse, from personal experience or your local paper, bring them to our attention! E-mail integrityofscience(at)pacinst.org.”
Does anyone know how much donations to HI have gone up since this started?