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.
What do you think of my Climate Change video?
http://youtu.be/FIcAjXjKsyQ
Thanks to Dr. Scafetta for the references and commentary he provided and to Anthony for hosting and supplementing the material. Excellent is a word that comes to mind.
The political left has an entire foundation which was designed from the start for the purpose of hiding donors to “progressive” causes. It is called Tides Foundation. The idea is that you may donate to Tides and “earmark” your donation for a specific organization. At the end of some period of time, Tides bundles up your donation along with those of others who have also “earmarked” donations to this specific cause along with any Tides might decide to make for those who have donated to Tides for general use. So Tides shows a donation from you but are not required to note how you “earmarked” your donation. The target organization shows only a single donation from Tides which might include cash from many people. The entire purpose of Tides was “donation laundering” so that people could remain at arms’ length from the organizations to which they are donating and not appear on the roll of donors of that organization. Some of the most significant donors to Tides are George Soros, Heinz Foundation (John Kerry’s wife, Theresa Heiz), MacArthur Foundation, and many other familiar names. But the idea is purpose-built for donation laundering.
Whoever reads this for Mr. Gleick, please note that this former scientist/student from PSU will give his money to the Heartland Institute in the future and not Mr. Mann’s PSU. The old PSU taught me what real science was all about. The current one, not so much. Open all your records Mr. Mann.
It seems to me we are approaching an end game. The Gleick farce has an ‘end of days’ feel to it. I am actually very very sad that it has come to this. The politicisation of science is bad. The emnity in the scientific world is bad. This is a very very bad situation that the mainstream warming advocates – namely the general scientific community – come out of shellshocked and smokeblackened OK, maybe something healthy can come from it, but there’s no need to have a total [SNIP: language. The asterisks are supposed to replace letters, not separate them. -REP] up like this.
mpaul says: “All of this sends him off in a vindictive rage.”
You mean, “A rit of fealous jage!”
“I think that’s also a good defense that might keep him from doing jail time.”
Uh, yeah, sure, just like John Wilkes Booth: “I was in a fearsome rage ’cause yew Yankees won the War. It’s not mah fault. Now, let me go, y’all.” Right. Great defense. Booth sure didn’t do any jail time. Nossir.
neill says: “I’m concerned that this may step up to actual physical violence visited on ‘Deniers’.”
There is that possibility. The Warmist Kool-Aid drinkers I’ve seen in public have, without expception, been spittle-spewing wackos. In the short run, however, as the wheels come off the AGW bus, Warmists who “know too much” may be in danger of being silenced by other Warmists farther up the food chain.
It appears that January 27th. 2012 was the date of the Great Gleick Implosion, known as GGI to historians 🙂 who count it as the beginning of the Downfall of Crimatology. 🙂 Yes, I am gloating at a man’s personal misfortune. He brought it on himself and one less misanthropist, the better for humanity.
I think he figured he could get away with it. I hope the climategate gang understand their role in this, along with the climategate investigative panels with their buckets of white wash. I fear this man will be the scapegoat in what has become a mighty stench in the halls of Ivory towers.
Err that was supposed to be:
Rational DB8 it is a flame war. Not Rational DB8 is a flame war.
::facepalm:: I hate thinking words and not typing them.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf
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)
Copner, thanks – elevated to a full post
Been a little out of loop this week, so apologies if someone has already had this one:
‘To do a Gleick’ : to throw a grenade at someone, have it hit something, bounce back and blow your legs off.
I’ll take narcissistic rage for 400, Alex. 😉
http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder
Disclaimer: I am not a shrink!
If you look at the letter from the 255 you will find Peter Gleick listed first followed by an asterisk separating his name from the rest of the names which are ordered A-Z. Evidently he was the instigator of the letter.
Since the WSJ didn’t publish the letter, the vast circulation of the WSJ wasn’t going to see Peter Gleick having pride of place ahead of 244 other scientists. Given the size of his ego that must have been another thing that galled him to no end. Heh heh.
Gleick has a Napoleon complex. He is emotionally and intellectually unstable. [snip – a bit over the top – Anthony]
Dude says:
February 25, 2012 at 2:10 pm
“What do you think of my Climate Change video?
http://youtu.be/FIcAjXjKsyQ
”
Best of all the computer puppet talk videos I’ve seen! ROTFL!
Think I will use this technique when the cooling trend leads us into the next scare. Climate scares come in pairs.
It is well known that no one can succeed without integrity – AND WHEN YOU LEARN TO SUCCESSFULLY FAKE INTEGRITY, There is no limit to how high you may rise.
Gleik was doing great, being appointed to various supposedly scientific leadership roles and even to an organization with INTEGRITY in its name.
But, like Icarus, who flying with wax wings, ignored his father’s advice not to fly too high else the Sun would melt the wax, he has lost his wings and come down, painfully, to Earth. By the way, The word “sincere” literally means “without wax” and refers to the unethical practice of filling cracks in marble statues with wax to conceal those faults. Gleik was successful for some time, but now his faulty cracks are revealed for all to see.
-Ira
To Ira Glickstein:
Its the forceful SUN irradiation effects and the TSI, which you mean is which downed Gleick by
melting his wings…….. and which will`soon melt the other Warmist lies and crowd…. its the SUN stupid …..as the Skeptics say…
JS
Cassandra King says:
February 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm
– – – – – – –
The possibility of violence from zealots of any ideology when they are unavoidable confronted with conflicting reality is a sobering thought.
There certainly are some spooky Mother Gaia worshiping human beings who spout Malthusian dogma about drastic urgent population reductions and I do not think they are talking about birth control as a means.
I am concerned about the more zealous of the ‘cause’ supporters will go into an absurdly irrational ‘scorched earth’ mode.
John
Paul Coppin says: “Gleick has a Napoleon complex. He is emotionally and intellectually unstable. [snip – a bit over the top – Anthony]”
I’m not so sure he fits that category. Some interesting info here:
“We all have a “messiah complex” dwelling deep within. But not everyone becomes completely possessed and grandiosely inflated by it. The desire to redeem and “save the world,” when kept in check, can be a very positive force in life…But when one has been chronically frustrated in realizing this positive, creative potentiality, it remains stillborn in the unconscious, dissociated from the personality, rendering them highly susceptible to possession by the messiah complex…”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200805/messiahs-evil-part-three
Thanks Dirk!
I came up with that idea when I heard the term.. ” when you are a hammer all you see is nails”..
Well as we see everything is about climate change so it’s obviously larger than we though.
LOL
Your a bit late with this theory which I laid out in the early days.
Also, add the humiliation he got at Judiths blog for good measure
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:35 pm
– – – –
Ira,
Enjoyed the Gleick vs. Icarus comparison.
Yes, it is instructive to put Gleick’s situation in the perspective of mythology. Let me think about how to put his story into one of Joseph Campbell’s monomythic forms. Of course this would not be of theme of ‘a hero with a thousand faces’. Or would it if the hero failed in his quest do to an innate tragic flaw. Thinking.
John
Anthony, only in fifth place? must try harder!
Regards
RT
What ever other people may say I strongly resist the notion that the Fakegate affair represents a crime of passion. I don’t think it fits that profile at all, regardless of how emotionally unballanced Peter Gleick may or may not be. I happen to think it represents a poorly developed character and mental imbalance, but that’s just my opinion.
I have made my own analysis of Peter Gleick’s state of mind that ultimately lead him to committing these acts. I am assuming that he will ultimately be proven to be the author of the fake memorandum [though of course I could be proven wrong]
Night before last I was watching Peter Brooks’ 1994 movie Heavenly Creatures about the Parker-Hulme Murder Case and was struck by the psychological parallels as well as some other basic features of their crimes.
Leave it to me to have to be the one to come up with this stuff.
If you follow the story of Pauline Parker/Rieper and Juliet Hulme and their actions several features of their personalities and behaviors are salient and warrant some comparison to Gleick and the Fakegate affair, outrageous as it may seem, so please bear with me.
The first things to note is that both Pauline and Juliet were both highly emotional and delicately balanced creatures emotionally and psychologically. Both were rebellious and cast as social outsiders because they had be invalids earlier in life. They were both bright and went to the best girls high school in town. Pauline was of at least average intelligence and Juliet may have been of very above average intelligence being the daughter of English physicist Dr. Henry Hulme. They were both highly creative, imaginative and very high opinions of themselves and their superior genius to all of those around them.
Secondly, in the course of their two year relationship they lost ties completely with their peer group and family, and became more and more detached from reality as they retreated as a diad into a self-created fantasy world as a way to compensate for their problems relating to their families and society around them. They became quite mad.
Thirdly, as the pathology of their relationship became increasingly apparent, both sets of parents tried to intervene by attempting to put limit on Pauline and Juliet’s time together. This was steadily resisted by the girls and drove them even further into alienation.
Fourthly, a crisis forced the issue. The dissolution of the Hulme marriage, as well as the Hulme parents desire to permanently separate the girls, was going to force Juliet to leave the country against her will. Pauline at this point, already demonizing her own mother Honora conceived the plan to kill her and then leave the country accompanied by Juliet as a way to resolve the crisis. Juliet, otherwise the ringleader in the relationship seems to have taken the more passive role in the murder plot, though she actively participated in the killing. Both girls rationalize their behavior beforehand.
Finally, the crime itself, though carefully planned beforehand was thoroughly naive and doomed to fall apart once discovered. Stupido.
Now go ahead and place Peter Gleick in the role of Pauline Parker and Climate Alarmism in the role of Juliet Hulme, the tell me what you think.
W^3
Over at CA’s post called ‘Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals‘ Anthony is cutting up the commenters with analogies between Gleick and the cartoons of Wile E. Coyote vs. Bugs Bunny.
That brings to mind a Bugs Bunny clip (not involving Wile E. Coyote) which I think captures what sense of being lost that Gleick must have experienced when he woke up the morning he confessed.
John
I do a triple face palm. DUH!
I had it opposite in the below comment of mine.
Now I have it!!!
HI is the hero of the Joseph Campbell style monomyth a la the ‘hero of a thousand faces’, not Gleick.
That works!!! I will have a monomyth for you soon with the HI vs Gleick meme.
John