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.

The Guardian is getting worse: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers
It uncritically quotes the hockey team’s center forward of accusing sceptics of a “crime against humanity” then complains of “hate” directed against him.
Re Press Coverage:
Next week in our new Journal, ‘BS Bias Guardian BBC Times’, (with sincere apologies to similar named titles without the BS), headlines include;……….. ‘Genocide! Can we justify it to reduce CO2 emissions?’…………’Sleazegate! How The Tooth Fairy Took One For Us and Reveals Heartland Institute Has Money’ …………..’Justified! Skeptics Burnt At The Stake For Calling Us Religious Zealots’………….’How Debating Global Warming Causes Global Warming, a Peer Reviewed Special! …………..’Weather! How We Can Blame any Weather Event On CO2 Emissions’……….’Insane But True, Run From The Hills! A New book shows how all hills will collapse when the ice holding the hills together melts due to global warming’…….
(Other titles are available).
With respect to No 86 refering to an article in the Orange County Register by Steven Greenhut. the article is a balance view of the sad Gleick affair. I would, however, make one quite fundamental change.
There is no equality between the Climategate emails and the Heartland hack.
The two well-known reasons are the size of the revelations (5000 emails against nine documents), and the importance to the science (scientists having considerable biases against a suggestion that opponents are willing to fund a cause that they believe in).
The third is directly analogous to a criminal case. In the US (following on from English common law), the prosecution must substantiate the charges (or accusations) with evidence. The accused then has the lesser task of showing the case is flawed. In science it is the same. A scientist must substantiate the arguments made. This should be able to withstand some basic scientific criticisms. The Climategate emails showed the scientists to be like a prosecution that tries to win its case by withholding and manipulating the evidence, suppressing contrary evidence, manipulating the jury and then denying the accused a defense. The Heartland hack shows the defense is limited in scope, and that the prosecution cannot analyse the evidence. (The alleged strategy document clearly does not fit the Heartland style and contains errors. Many of the alarmist commentators then repeated the juicy bits in the fact document, without a simple checking procedure).
Re update 85. At the end of the Chicago Tribune article is a mischaracterization of science. Do its practitioners “marshall evidence” as the rhetoricians do, as if support to an argument? Not really, unless you think “science” = political advocacy. And I think the writer of the article does!
WUWT don’t you think its time to make a list of the organizations, people, journals, scientist’s, web sites… etc who perpetrated and continue to perpetrate this fraud for posterity’s sake. Also to recognize lukewarmers and turncoats hahaha
I think Gleick and his apologists did skeptics a huge favor:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18155
They are now the conventional wisdom that will be replaced by better, more thought out scientific investigation into Global Climate. They rang the alarm bells, and the scientists and engineers answered. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.
AJStrata says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
A small – but very important – correction is needed:
I think Gleick and his apologists did skeptics a huge favor:
..
They are now the conventional wisdom that will be replaced by better, more thought out scientific investigation into Global Climate. They rang the alarm bells, and the scientists and politicians and academia answered with full faith and conviction in the new Crusade to demonize life, energy and the world’s economy. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.
(We engineers were both laughing at them, and cursing them, at the same time for their murderous dogma.)
A poster @ur momisugly JoNova:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/monbiot-steal-things-and-be-a-democratic-hero/#more-20636
Why did a regime that controlled the media consider The White Rose Movement passing out pamphlets a threat?
Why does Peter Gleick and those that support him consider Heartland a threat?
BTW: Eugene Grimminger’s decision to finance The White Rose Movement cost him his wife’s life.
Yes, Heartland has every reason to protect its donors from fanatics.
the ancient Greeks had it nailed.
Hubris and Nemesis – that’s Gleik.
In 2008, Peter Gleick, one of the top “15 People the Next President Should Listen To” says “Deal With the Water Crisis Now”
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-10/sl_gleick
Hey Mr President, “Gimme your Money Please”
I keep coming back to; All Gleick had to do was ask.
re. Al Gore in schools:
In the UK, first a court found that his documentary factually wrong in part; and then, I believe the advertising and standards body ruled that the entire thing isn’t scientific at all !
I think I’ve satisfied myself as to how a “genius” like Gleick would have looked at the information he was able to gather and think he had something important enough to risk his career over: drunk, high, or something in the water!
Jeremy says:
March 2, 2012 at 6:49 am
Quote: “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). ”
According to Wikipedia:
“Holdren was involved in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager in 1980. He, along with two other scientists helped Paul R. Ehrlich establish the bet with Julian Simon, in which they bet that the price of five key metals would be higher in 1990. The bet was centred around a disagreement concerning the future scaricity of resources in an increasingly polluted and heavily populated world. Ehrlich and Holdren lost the bet, when the price of metals had decreased by 1990.[5]”
“Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[21] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[22] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23] [24]”
Too bad they couldn’t find more objective science advisor.
There’s an idea/analysis re. left v. right: the left thinks people are poor or disadvantaged by an unfair society, so the left typically want to fix the broken society: increase taxes on the rich and help the poor who were victims of an unfair system. The right tends to emphasise the other side, the individual: people are poor because they are lazy, so: let’s increase incentives, increase rewards, and remove obstacles to individuals succeeding, have less regulation, etc.
Where this links to CAGW and their narrative of “well funded oil shills” is that they are emphasising the system as the problem — a left viewpoint — so they believe that if only the common people would get proper education and proper scientific knowledge, they would do the right thing, and reduce CO2 and consumption etc., and the reason the system isn’t educating them properly must be due to a flaw in the system, namely: oil companies have too much power, bad politicians have too much power, bad groups are manipulating the media, manipulating schools and education, and spreading misinformation — the system us full of misinformation — consequently the common people are victims to this and they end up unaware of the environmental problems.
As a few people gave remarked, it is odd that the big well funded anti-AGW movement doesn’t appear to actually exist — rather it is individuals who are making all the noise.
But the basic left narrative is that problems exist because the system itself is broken. Not because individuals are at fault, it is the system at fault — problems are always due to the system. So they keep lashing out at “the system” of well funded shills, not realising it isn’t really there.
So certain is the left of its narrative that it must be the system to blame, that it seems, they even can resort to inventing or manufacturing the evidence of “big disinformation campaigns.”
The left kinda struggle when they encounter individuals who say, “well I thought about it by myself and found the evidence lacking”. Their take is that the individual must have been affected by misinformation from oil companies. It just doesn’t fit their narrative. Individuals, when properly supported, are basically good, in the left narrative.
I’m not saying I’m left or right — they both have half the picture, although at different times, one half can be more useful that the other, rather, I think it is interesting how they see this as a battle against a bad system, and keep looking at the “message” and the “education” and why in their books it is downright UNETHICAL to say something that is technically true but could be appropriated by “misinformation” campaigns. This is why they are so obsessed with “the message” and “the cause” and forget to just report the science, as it is, naked, with all uncertainties clearly stated.
But because they are so used to thinking in terms of the system, they don’t really register the individuals who are just deciding stuff for themselves, it all flies under their radar, and kinda blindsides them.
“Too bad they couldn’t find more objective science advisor.”
You assume they wanted an objective science advisor.
Chris B.
Wikipedia says, “Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children”
I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.
Update 89 is pointing to page 2 of the story and not page 1.
From the WaPo article:
Hansen said he was compelled to reenter the public debate after policymakers failed to act, and he contemplated the prospect that his granddchildren could face a drastically altered planet once they reached adulthood.
According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close? So far nothing disastrous has happened. For these guys when their predictions fail they just push the date further into the future. They’re just like fortunetellers. “Forget my failed predictions from last year (or last decade) and believe what I say now.”
“Integrity is the source of every power and influence we have as scientists,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
My eyes glaze over and I tune out when anyone quotes the UCS as an authority on anything.
> According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close?
My dad is 71. One grandchild is 11. One is 2 months.
> According to Wikipedia, James Hansen turns 71 on March 29th. Aren’t’ his grandkids adults yet? Or at least getting close?
My dad is 71. One grandchild is 11. One is 2 months.
n.b. My dad is not James Hansen!
Jeremy says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:57 am
I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.
________________________________________
From the Wiki article:
“Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[1] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] ******He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]*****”
Ya, and Peter Gleick is a board member at Heartland.
Liars.
Chris B says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Jeremy says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:57 am
I find the very idea of enforced population control a rather distasteful subject – sounds totalitarian to me. I sincerely hope that Holdren has mellowed , given he has the “ear of the President”.
________________________________________
From the Wiki article:
“Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[1] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] ******He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]*****”
Ya, and Peter Gleick is a board member at Heartland.
Liars.
______________________________
Rather, Holdren believes that unelected bureaucrats have that exclusive right. Moreover, why would he need to endorse a policy of which he is the prime mover. It would perhaps require Big O’s endorsement though.
Chuck says:
March 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
My eyes glaze over and I tune out when anyone quotes the UCS as an authority on anything.
You didn’t miss much. Despite a display of attempted evenhandedness, WaPo obviously drank the Kool-Aid along with the whitewash of Climategate. But, yeah, as soon as I saw the UCS quote, they lost all credibility with me. They even let stand Hansen’s claim that he retired from the limelight after his Senate testimony in 1988!
The latest update article in the Washington Post dated 3/5 clearly shows that the professional organizations of the AGU and the AAAS are a lost cause and are seriously damaging the scientific community and the scientific process. It is going to take a generation or more before the general public considers to trust science again. Scientists are becoming the new age, used cars salesmen of the 21st century.