The original Gleick Confesses thread was getting unwieldy with almost 1000 comments, so this one will serve in its place and will continue to be updated.
New content on other topics will appear below. Satirical logo by our own charles the moderator.
UPDATE95: 10:45 AM 3/9 Peter Gleick gave the keynote address to a recent water conference. Yesterday, KQED Radio aired a snippet of his talk, the part in which he denigrates “deniers”. http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/
UPDATE94: 8:50AM 3/7 Questions in the house about Gleick’s EPA grants, will his ethics violation mean he won’t be able to get EPA grants again?
UPDATE93: 9:25PM 3/6 Financial Post: ‘Fakegate’ latest climate clash – Document from skeptical think-tank turns out to have been forged
UPDATE92: 7:30PM 3/6 NYT’s Andy Revkin speaks of the fake memo issue, but basically tells people asking why he’s silent on the issue to go suck eggs (my interpretation). Harold Ambler has the details here.
UPDATE91: 7:45AM 3/6 The Sound of Silence Harold Ambler asks:
I have asked him, twice now, if he bothered to ask Peter Gleick if he was the author of an internationally significant document that someone fraudulently produced two weeks ago.
And Revkin has gone silent.
UPDATE90: 7:30AM 3/6 Fakegate/Gleickgate – Global Warming’s Piltdown Man
UPDATE89: 11AM 3/5 WaPo weighs in with In climate wars, radicalization of researchers brings risks – The Washington Post
UPDATE88: 11:30AM 3/4 At The Reference Frame: Selling your soul for a narrative: understanding the Gleick fraud

UPDATE87: 10:30AM 3/4 The Toronto Sun reports: Climate expert’s pants on fire. Loved this part:
Gleick’s other big “find”, according to Heartland’s critics, was a plan to infiltrate public schools with educational programs promoting climate denial.
But for heaven’s sake, if Al Gore and his minions are going to be welcomed into schools to scare the bejeebers out of children on climate change, what’s the big deal about Heartland sending in a few troops to say Gore’s full of hooey?
UPDATE86: 2PM 3/3 The Orange County Register has a strong opinion piece by Steven Greenhut who says: What’s a little fraud to save the Earth? – If the theory of man-made global warming were such a self-obvious truth, the result of scientific consensus, then why do its advocates keep committing fraud to advance it?
UPDATE85: 10:37AM 3/3 The Chicago Tribune weighs in on Fakegate with Climate madness -Skulduggery undermines the case for global warming I missed this when it first came out, but still relevant today.
UPDATE84: 10:13AM 3/3 More Fakegate Fallout in the form of gotcha jounalism: Fake moral outrage translated to smear: media upset that students can choose to take an elective course on climate change at Carleton
UPDATE83: 10:00AM 3/2 In Heartland, Gleick, and Media Law, the Columbia Journalism review takes on Fakgate saying: “Gleick leaked information to the press, which puts him in league with figures like Daniel Ellsberg, the source of the Pentagon Papers, and Bradley Manning, the source of the Wikileaks cables, rather than with the muckraking journalists of yore.“.
UPDATE82: 9:45AM 3/2 Things About Peter Gleick That “Might Also Interest or Intrigue You”
UPDATE81: 8:00AM 3/2 Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming – Forbes. The stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement.
UPDATE80: 7:60AM 3/2 From Master Resource – An appreciation for the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast Meanwhile, if you want to show appreciation while poking some fun, Heartland now offers Fakegate Gear
UPDATE79: 12PM 3/1 In Politico’s Morning Energy, NCARS’s Kevin Trenberth excuses Gleick’s criminal behavior as “advocacy”, here’s what they say along with quote by Kevin Trenberth:
I’VE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE — Peter Gleick’s career isn’t over despite the big scar linked to his duping the Heartland Institute, says Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,” Trenberth told ME on Friday. “He’s had a strong science background, especially related to water. I don’t see this as the end of the road for Peter by any means.”
As Donna Laframboise says, what will it take? Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Lying and stealing and misleading are OK so long as they help advance a good cause. What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?
UPDATE78: 11AM 3/1 A new documentary about water by the makers of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ features none other than Peter Gleick. h/t to the Daily Bayonet Weekly Roundup.
UPDATE77: 6:50PM SciBlogs resident crank Greg Laden has a wild conspiracy theory according to Mr. Worthing who writes: Meanwhile, on another planet…Greg Laden suffers from a shortage of oxygen to the brain… (worth a read, wow, just wow – A)
UPDATE76: 12:20PM 2/29 In a letter, Koch takes the NYT and Revkin to task
UPDATE75: 10:20AM 2/29 Heartland sends a letter to all board members of the Pacific Institute.
UPDATE74: 820AM 2/29 In more dysfunctional editorializing from the LA times, trying to prop up Michael Mann and push his book, we have this passage: “Peter Gleick, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else…” Playbook? OK geniuses, name ONE INCIDENT where a skeptic posed as somebody else to steal documents and commit wire fraud.
UPDATE73: 8:10AM 2/29 In a fit of angst titled Subterfuge vs. propaganda in global warming debate, LA Times writer Michael Hiltzik tries to equate CRU “Team” scientists illegally avoiding FOI requests and getting off on a FOIA statute of limitations technicality to hypocrisy on the part of Heartland for having a criminal wire fraud act made against them. The logic dysfunction by this reporter is stunning.
UPDATE72: 7:55AM 2/29 EENews Climatewire has a timeline narrative of the affair in A scientist’s fraudulent peek into Heartland’s files began with a modest request.
UPDATE 71: 3:27PM 2/28 In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.
UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.
UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.
UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online
UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate
UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.
UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).
UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.
UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.
UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.
UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million
UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.
UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.
UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition). My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.
UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.
UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”
UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.
Loved this part:
Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.
UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review
UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals
UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?
UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here
UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails
UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.
Oh, the ironing.
UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.
UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.
UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:
EPA, do you know where your grants are?
Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.
The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.
UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.
UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.
UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.
UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.
UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home”
UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.
UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?
UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.
UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.
UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.
UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.
UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers
UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.
UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:
And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier.
UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html
UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.
UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:
On September 4 2011 I posted
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California, involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue. Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.
UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.
UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate
UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm
UPDATE25: 8:18PM 2/21 Willis Eschenbach writes An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen asking et tu AGU?
UPDATE24: 8:10 PM 2/21 Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute gives a video interview with the Wall Street Journal. He accuses Gleick directly, saying:
Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”
h/t to THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another Climate Scandal
See also this additional update: http://heartland.org/press-releases/statement-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-regarding-wall-street-journal-onl
UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.
UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment” Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.
UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21 Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner
UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces
UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.
UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes
UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus a supporting editorial. Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?
UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.
Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign
Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.
UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):
Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose
Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis. He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.
UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here
UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.
On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.
UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here
UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page
UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.
UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.
UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents
For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.
These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.
UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:
Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.
Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.
UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:
No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.
UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:
Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html
Integrity of Science
The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.
UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here
UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here
UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony
UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.
http://www.lesjones.com/2012/03/02/an-analogy-of-what-peter-gleick-did-in-fakegate/
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme UV flash:
This eruption hurled a bright CME into space. First-look data from STEREO-B are not sufficient to determine if the cloud is heading for Earth. Our best guess is “probably, yes, but not directly toward Earth.” A glancing blow to our planet’s magnetosphere is possible on March 8th or 9th.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

not a major online publication by any stretch of the imagination, but note the second link and what it promises next week:
10 Dec 2010: Cornwall Free Press: Does Big Oil Control the Media too? by Richard Komorowski – Science is an academic discipline. It does not engage in activism…
http://cornwallfreenews.com/2010/12/does-big-oil-control-the-media-too-by-richard-komorowski-december-10-2010-cornwall-ontario/
1 March: Cornwall Free Press Ontario: Climategate Backfires on Climate Science Denial Industry by Richard Komorowski
The main “scandal” about Climategate, however, was not the leaked documents and emails, but the hacking of a University of East Anglia server. The truth is that none of these documents were leaked, they were *stolen.* …
The Mushroom Cloud
One of the key fragments from the stolen documents that the global warming denial industry has been pushing is the following, from an email written by legitimate climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”…
The truth is that Trenberth was commenting about a recent paper he had published, in which he was trying to balance the world’s energy budget, the same way an accountant would balance a set of books…
The theft of the UEA documents had nothing whatever to do with exposing “corrupt science”; the motivations were political and financial, in common with terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda. If the world’s governments took climate change seriously, and took genuine steps to try to avert a (not too distant) ecological disaster, many huge stakeholders (particularly the fossil fuel industry) would stand to lose a lot of money…
Denialgate – Revenge of the Nerds
Unfortunately for Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute, and the climate science denial industry in general, the real science got its own back last week, albeit through some unorthodox means. A number of sensitive Heartland documents were “leaked” to a leading climate scientist, Peter Gleick, detailing Heartland’s budget and many of its activities, including climate science denial and attempts to force K-12 science teachers to teach climate science from their perspective, and lobbying the US Government and elected US officials.
This will be next week’s article.
http://cornwallfreenews.com/2012/02/climategate-backfires-on-climate-science-denial-industry-by-richard-komorowski-march-1-2012/
Greg Laden is an ass, he has now added the following to his post:
(It has come to my attention that even some serious sciency type people who understand climate change, and climate change politics, are taking this conspiracy theory seriously. It is a conspiracy theory, produced for your amusement and, admittedly, as troll bait. If it turns out to be true, of course, I will delete this parenthetical remark! That is all, please carry on.)
desperation on the cusp of madness:
3 March: The Economist: Carbon prices – Breathing difficulties
A market in need of a miracle
THE European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world’s biggest carbon market, has two main aims. One is to restrict the carbon-dioxide emissions of the 11,000 companies trading on it to an agreed cap. The other is to give these firms an incentive to invest in clean technology. On the first count, thanks to the economic malaise, the ETS is a success: its participants’ emissions are well below the current cap. On the second, for the same reason, it is failing wretchedly. Oversupplied with permits, the market has tanked…
The situation is about to get worse. The EU is in the process of selling an additional 300m permits to raise cash for green energy projects, adding to oversupply. It is also about to introduce a new regulation on energy efficiency, which will further reduce emissions and which was not factored into the current cap. Matthew Gray of Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that by 2020 the ETS will have an accumulated surplus of 845m permits, against a planned cap that year of 1.8 billion permits.
Investors in green technology are pleading for intervention to prop up the carbon price…
In December, when the carbon price fell well under €7, a committee of the European Parliament recommended three possible strategies: withhold—or “set aside”—an undetermined tranche of permits from the market; withhold 1.4 billion permits; or tighten the cap. On February 28th a higher-powered committee approved the first strategy. It will now be voted on by the parliament; if passed, the details will be negotiated with member states.
This is a familiar sort of Eurofudge. The simplest thing would be to tighten the cap, so that the carbon price rises to somewhere between €15 and €30, the range regulators had in mind for it. Yet this would be furiously resisted by heavy emitters such as Poland, which burns lots of coal. And it would set a meddlesome precedent, another way to deplete investor confidence. To address that worry, the set-aside would ideally be no bigger than the reduced demand for permits resulting from the energy-efficiency rule, which is the ostensible reason for acting.
That would be a modest measure: the carbon price actually fell in response to the committee’s announcement. And even then it will require fraught negotiation. Meanwhile, the market’s overseers are left dreaming of a sudden economic upturn or a new American or Japanese cap-and-trade scheme to boost demand for ETS permits—in short, for a miracle.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548962
——————————————————————————–
D. Patterson blurted:
Romm – is that you? So, don’t you think you should wait a bit for me to actually dictate something before you call for my beheading? So far I’m only discussing my personal opinion and actions I’m willing to take. If introducing an opinion becomes equivalent to efforts to dictate then we’re all headed for the chopping block. See you there.
It is telling of the Gleick defenders that they all claim he did not do it for personal gain. You can’t tell me that his elevation to chairman of an AGU committee had nothing to do with his profile as an AGW campaigner. Maybe no money came from it, but this position upped his prestige, resulting in the offer of a directorship at another NGO. No personal gain? And despite his lack of ethics, the AGU have not cancelled his membership, as far as I know. So maybe when the heat dies down they think he can be rewarded again. It’s like James Hansen – he makes money & gains prestige by using his prominent US Government job to promote himself as an outspoken AGW campaigner. Gleick was hoping to increase his profile even further, which would probably also increase the Government funding of the NGO he heads. You can’t tell me that doesn’t amount to personal gain. If his NGO gets richer, he gets a bigger salary, more clout as a lobbyist, etc, & the whole cycle continues till he retires as a multimillionaire instead of a low grade earth scientist.
“UPDATE78: 11AM 3/1 A new documentary about water by the makers of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ features none other than Peter Gleick. h/t to the Daily Bayonet Weekly Roundup.”
Folks just love drama. This new water film sure looks dramatic.
Maybe the Hollywood version of drama is just not satisfying for folks any more.
Today folks want drama that appears to be real (backed up by science).
It looks like scientists are the new Hollywood, and they seem to have taken a liking to their new dramitic role.
Unfortunately, scientists like Peter Gleick cross the line, leaving the science far behind.
…….or maybe it’s fortunate that our children have such obvious examples as Gleick to teach them the value of skepticism.
Wonderful revalations lately.
Gleick’s apologists will never really criticize him or even view him as tarnished. They will always spin it as a good thing.
As long as they perceive that he lied, cheated, and stole for the Cause, they have no problem. Heaven forbid that a skeptic make a tiny error; then they start warming up the gallows.
Imagine the idea that Gleick is the head of a board of ethics for scientific integrity. The average person would have problems realizing that someone is such a lofty position would have the integrity of pond scum. It’s basically another way of packaging the lies and propaganda.
I just love Gleick in the water documentary, telling us all what we would do “if we were smart”.
Sorry Peter, takes one to know one.
Is this all “too much”? If Anthony had perpetrated a comparable fraud against one of the AGW fanatics the entire skeptic side would be buried under a kiloton of tar by now. In addition this is NOT an anomaly. The average citizen needs a huge amount of feedback to counter the decades of misinformation the Warmist Alarmist community has spread world wide. The hubris Gleick has displayed here is also in evidence in all of the “Climategate” malfactors. This has been made possible because the mainsteam media has been able to ignore every action by these charlatans as not being newsworthy. We absolutely must bring this to the attention of the average voter by whatever means we can. We have played by the civil rules for years while the other side has had its way with the truth.
UPDATE79: 12PM 3/1 In Politico’s Morning Energy, NCARS’s Kevin Trenberth excuses Gleick’s criminal behavior as “advocacy”.
How is this any different than killing doctors that perform abortions, and justifying it as preventing murder? It the ends justify the means, then genocide is an acceptable solution to the harm done by over-population.
Where do you draw the line?
In the same Politico’s Morning Energy:
An FBI spokesman says that the bureau’s discussions with the Heartland Institute over the theft of stolen climate documents remain in a very early stage, but the spokesman stressed it cannot be called an investigation. “We cannot conduct a criminal investigation unless there is a clear allegation that a federal criminal statute has been violated,” Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office, said via email. “Based on what we know so far, there is no evidence that has occurred.”
The FBI is either playing its cards close to the chest, or they need a clue-by-four.
Laden’s “theory” that Heartland orchestrated the entire thing by personally sending Gleick the documents is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. I think I am actually dumber now for having read that. I hope Gleick uses that defense in court. I will laugh until I throw up….
Thank you Katherine for “clue-by-four”, an elegant turn of phrase.
Lest we forget, the White House is the Chicago Machine and all that it implies.
That includes DOJ ergo FBI.
FakeGate Beats DenierGate in Google War Desmog Disaster Spreads
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/fakegate-beats-deniergate-in-google-war-desmog-disaster-spreads/
Consider this just published in GSA Today:
A human-induced hothouse climate?
David L. Kidder, Thomas R. Worsley
Dept. of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA
ABSTRACT
Hothouse climate has been approached or achieved more than a dozen times in Phanerozoic history. Geologically rapid onset of hothouses in 10^4–10^5 yr occurs as HEATT (haline euxinic acidic thermal transgression) episodes, which generally persist for less than 1 million years. Greenhouse climate preconditions conducive to hothouse development allowed large igneous provinces (LIPs), combined with positive feedback amplifiers, to force the Earth to the hothouse climate state. The two most significant Cenozoic LIPs (Columbia River Basalts and much larger Early Oligocene Ethiopian Highlands) failed to trigger a hothouse climate from icehouse preconditions, suggesting that such preconditions can limit the impact of CO2 emissions at the levels and rates of those LIPs.
Human burning of fossil fuels can release as much CO2 in centuries as do LIPs over 10^4–10^5 yr or longer. Although burning fossil fuels to exhaustion over the next several centuries may not suffice to trigger hothouse conditions, such combustion will probably stimulate enough polar ice melting to tip Earth into a greenhouse climate. Long atmospheric CO2 residence times will maintain that state for tens of thousands of years.
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/article/i1052-5173-22-2-4.htm
Someone should ask Trenberth if a felony conviction would harm Gleick’s career. Do scientific institutions employ convicted felons as principal investigators? Do they employ them as ethics officers? Greenpeace is not a scientific institution.
I have one question for Mr Gleick. “Would you commit perjury in a Congressional hearing?”
As Donna Laframboise says, what will it take? Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Lying and stealing and misleading are OK so long as they help advance a good cause. What else is acceptable? Old fashioned burglary? Arson? Car bombs?
What needs to be pointed out to the public over and over again is that these same apologists apply the very thought processes to their scientific work.
WOW WOW WOW. Peter Gleick connections – connected to John Holdren the Science Advisor for President Obama. As well as former California Governor Jerry Brown. Data for Peter’s PHD thesis was provided by James Hanson.
I suggest someone screen captures this page before it gets deleted.
See
https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2009/gleick-profile.php
Peter, in the fall of 1974, took up studies at Yale. It was a time of transition and change in America. The prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s had given way to the first energy crisis and a strengthening national movement to protect the quality of our water and air. Peter caught the wave of environmental awareness just as it was beginning to build.
In 1978, after receiving his B.S., cum laude, with distinction in engineering and applied science, Gleick headed west to the University of California, Berkeley, to further his education and research at the Energy and Resources Group.
While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). “It was clear to me even then that water was an underappreciated and understudied resource, and a source of real future problems,” Gleick says. Holdren is now the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and President Barack Obama’s science adviser.
After receiving his master’s degree, Gleick was offered a job working as the deputy assistant for energy and environment to California Governor Jerry Brown in Sacramento. In this position, he learned the value and importance of science for informing and influencing policy, as well as the political limitations on using science in the public arena. In 1983, he returned to Berkeley to get his Ph.D. At a time when most people hadn’t even heard the term “global warming,” he was researching likely impacts of climate change on water resources for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1986.
Gleick’s dissertation turned out to be the first detailed analysis of how climate change would affect water resources in the western U.S. And, not too surprisingly, one of the world’s leading climatologists, Jim Hansen, the scientist dubbed “the grandfather of climate change” and a presenter at Nobel 43, Heating Up: The Energy Debate, in 2007, provided data integral to his dissertation. “That work really taught me how vulnerable our water resources are and how interconnected they are with our society, our economy, and our ecosystems,” Gleick says. It also made him want to continue his water research.
That same year, Gleick was awarded a post-doc fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation to investigate the connections between climate change and international security. During this time, he realized that what he really wanted was the opportunity to conduct research and write on interdisciplinary topics related to the environment. The only problem was that very few places in the mid-1980s supported truly interdisciplinary research. So, out of frustration and a youthful belief in pushing the envelope, Gleick and two friends from grad school began talking about establishing an independent research institute. “Our concept was rooted in this fundamental idea: that environmental issues are not purely technical or purely economic or purely political, but all of those things, requiring an interdisciplinary approach,” he explains. “That’s the way we were trained in graduate school.”
Of course, creating an interdisciplinary institute would be an ideal way to research and think and write about a broader vision for a sustainable world. But the notion of creating a new organization and securing the necessary funding to survive was heady, a little far-reaching in the eyes of some of their friends, and risky. But Berkeley prepared them well. “We talked about it for a year,” Gleick recalls. “We designed plans and looked at budgets and basically just thought about the idea.”
In 1987, the Ploughshares Fund, a small San Francisco foundation interested in new thinking about global security, took a chance. They offered Gleick and his partners a small, $37,000 grant. “It allowed us to put together a board of directors, get non-profit status, and start work, and that’s about it,” he says. But it was a beginning and they started by looking at climate change, environmental resources, and the risks of conflict, working out of a two-room cinderblock office near the Berkeley campus.
Sustained by his postdoc grant, Gleick burned the midnight oil. At the water’s edge, he and his friends decided to dive full on into the Institute. “Very quickly we got another research grant to do a climate change study for the Office of Technology Assessment, the agency that used to provide independent science advice to Congress. (Newt Gingrich led the campaign to close that office in 1995.)
Those first two grants helped launch the Pacific Institute. While his two co-founders returned to academia, Gleick stayed the course and hasn’t looked back. He continues to serve as the institute’s president and director of its water program. Throughout the years, his work has led him to the top of the environmental science field and in 2006 Gleick was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The Pacific Institute, meanwhile, has grown to 20 employees and is now recognized around the world for producing some of the most authoritative and valued research and policy work on a very broad range of water issues, from the local to the global levels.
Today, Gleick is heralded as a one of the world’s experts on water, “arguably the world’s leading expert on water,” as the San Francisco Chronicle put it. Beyond the impacts of climate change on water resources and security, he has studied conflicts over water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people globally who do not have access to safe, affordable, reliable water and sanitary conditions. In 2003, he was awarded one of the no-strings-attached MacArthur Foundation “genius” grants for his work on water resources.
The author of The World’s Water (Island Press), the biennial series on the state of the world’s precious resource, Peter Gleick has published more than 100 journal articles, studies, and book chapters on water. He regularly testifies before the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, informing them of his findings and policy recommendations. He also serves as a major source of information on water issues for the media and has been featured in various documentary films, including Earth2100, Running Dry, and Flow: For Love of Water, which screened at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.
“Tragedy” is a word much abused and deformed by the media today. You’re using it inappropriately in conjunction with Gleick because he lacks the requisite gravitas to be tragic. “Bathos” is the word you’re searching for.
Latest Forbes article:
The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/
I’ve always had great respect for the field of ethics that is grounded in the works of Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More, but I must say the James Garvey piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper on “Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?” lowers the bar considerably.
What always seem to punctuate these sort of discussions is that in a field, such as climate science, which, much like religion, is filled with so many known unknowns, clarity can only be achieved through “belief.”
Instead of a clear headed view of ethics, Garvey acts like a “religious minister for hire,” selling his services to the presumably highest bidder, which I guess in this case is to whomever issues the largest government research grants or probably more correct .. the Church of Climate Science. Had this been a discussion of the ethics of WWII, his logic would work for equally for both the “Axis” or the “Allies.” What is missing is the discussion of why the Church of Climate Science is in “the right.”
Unfortunately for the Church of Climate Science, which unlike the Roman Church which has had two millenia to wander in the wilderness and hone it’s ethical “beliefs,” climate science is a new “belief system” which will have it’s share of saints, sinners and more than a few persecuted Galileo-types. Eventually, even Garvey may come to realize that even the “beliefs” of Climate Science will and should encounter campaigns against teaching it in schools, especially when the “science” hasn’t held up to critical review.
But currently, he rallies with much the same line as Medieval crusaders that “God is on my side” with the familiar twist that “science is on my side” even when it no longer holds true and has been replaced with mere “belief.” Let us hope that the science isn’t blotted out by the religion.
I have has a response from the BBC to my complaint about bias in the coverage of Fakegate by Richard Black.
It read “Thank you for contacting the BBC.
Unfortunately, we can find no record of your original contact being received by us. Therefore, we would ask you to re-submit your complaint via one of the below methods…”
As I had repeated my original complaint in my follow up request that reply that requires me to re-submit seems a little superfluous. But I guess they need to keep me jumping through hoops until the complaint is out of date or something.
I’ve re-submitted as they asked. This is the third time I’ve submitted thes complaint. The next step will be to complain about the complaints procedure, if they don’t actually consider my complaint.
Which was,
“The article was biased by way of selective reporting.
Richard Black refused to report on Climategate until the story was cold as he was unsure of the providence of the leaked emails. This was quite justifiable.
However, in this story the documents were stolen and at least one was fabricated. Again his established procedure would be proven to be justified. Yet he abandoned that practise.
To avoid bias (and fulfil his duty as a journalist) he should have checked his sources and consulted with DeSmog Blog, Heartland Institute and Watts Up With That. He did not do those things.
Instead he misled his readership in order to disparage a competitor’s website (Watts Up With That). This is a clear bias against the winner of the Science Blog of the Year. As a less lauded science and environment blogger himself the motivation is suspect.”
If it isn’t already in the mix
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/03/01/fakegate-greg-laden-one-of-the-15/