‘All Honest Scientists Should Be Outraged’
The Heartland Institute today called on Oxford University to cancel the April 24 “Oxford Amnesty Lectures” event featuring disgraced climate scientist Dr. Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, who committed theft, fraud, and defamation in the “Fakegate” scandal – all potential crimes and an affront to scientists everywhere.
Gleick is slated to deliver a lecture on “The Human Right to Water” at the prestigious university just weeks after he admitted to stealing the identity of a board member of The Heartland Institute to obtain confidential documents – including personal information of Heartland employees and board members – which he subsequently sent to environmental activists and sympathetic journalists.
On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted to using deception to obtain the documents and acknowledged that his intent was to expose Heartland’s funding sources and damage the institute’s reputation.
Gleick also distributed a “climate strategy memo” he and other environmental activists claim describes Heartland’s “secret strategy” to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change. The document is a fake created by Gleick or a co-conspirator, but Gleick has yet to confess to writing it and has not asked his allies in the environmental movement to take it down from their Web sites.
“All honest scientists should be outraged that Oxford University should honor Gleick with a guest lecture,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast. “The actions Gleick has admitted to having taken – lying repeatedly and committing fraud, and then denying responsibility and refusing to take corrective action – all make him unqualified to speak to students or as a scientist.
“The oldest university in the English-speaking world should be ashamed to associate itself with a bungling thief and scientific fraud,” Bast said. “John Locke, Linus Pauling, and Edwin Hubble must be spinning in their graves.”
In Gleick’s February 20, 2012 public confession, he admitted his actions amounted to “a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics.” Gleick took a “temporary short-term leave of absence” as president of the Pacific Institute, but he is still listed at the Pacific Institute Web site as “president.” The Pacific Institute relies heavily on government grants and support from the CISCO Foundation, Kaiser Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rockefeller Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Oxford Press and dozens of others.
Oxford Amnesty Lectures is a charity organization independent of Oxford University. The lectures are organized by Oxford faculty and held at the university’s Faculty of Law building.
For more information about the Fakegate scandal surrounding Peter Gleick, visit Fakegate.org, or contact Jim Lakely, director of communications at The Heartland Institute, at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Evans writes: “Disinviting people from conferences is shabby warmist behaviour.”
Precisely. I thought these guys were smarter than this. Very disappointing.
There seems to some confusion about freedom of speech. Being inviited to lecture at Oxford or not is not the same as censorship. Billions of people in the world are not invited to speak at universities. Heartland, as the agrieved party and others are free to object to a lecturer on the basis of an admitted criminal breach of professional ethics. Of course, Oxford will make its own decision.
Mr Gleick is free to speak and does so in many forums. Denial of a lecture invitation is not censorship.
kbray in california says:
April 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“Send an officer of the law like a sheriff or magistrate
to serve legal papers on him during his speech.”
In the idiom of these outrageous acts designed to create publicity, the proper form would be to send someone dressed as a sheriff – but not. To me, the annoying thing about Gleick’s stunt is that Gleick probably contemplated that he’d be found out but that nothing much would come of it, and those friendly to his point of view would rally around him. He resigned from the Pacific Institute which he himself founded. That’s a preposterously meaningless act.
Speaking ot associations, dishonest science, and cancellations, here is my reply to the AMS nudge concerning membership renewal:
——————————————————————
I’m considering it.
…along with this: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
Haven’t made up my mind whether or not to continue to be associated with that, yet. Maybe in September.
Cheers,
-[name]
On 04/11/2012 03:11 PM, American Meteorological Society wrote:
>
> Dear Member:
>
> A review of our records indicates that your AMS membership has not yet been renewed for 2012. We hope that this is merely an oversight and that you wish to continue your association with the Society. We value your membership as we hope you value your affiliation with the only scientific and professional organization devoted to advancing the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.
>
> Here’s just a sample of what you’ll miss if you don’t renew:
>
> – A complimentary subscription to the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS)
> – Greatly reduced subscription rates to world-class peer-reviewed journals
> – A 40% discount on Weatherwise magazine
> – Special privileges on our AMS Online Career Center
> – Reduced registration fees for meetings, short-courses, and workshops
>
> Learn more about these and other terrific benefits by visiting our Web site at http://www.ametsoc.org/MEMB/benefitsof_membership.html then renew online today at http://www.ametsoc.org/memb/renewal/index.cfm
>
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Member Services Department by email at amsmem@ametsoc.org or by phone at 617-227-2425.
>
> Beth Farley
> Director, Member Services
> American Meteorological Society
> 45 Beacon St.
> Boston MA 02108
>
>
>
> [DO NOT reply to this email as the sender’s account is not monitored. The American Meteorological Society is sending you this e-mail announcement in our belief that you have a continued interest in this topic. If you no longer have an interest or do not want to receive further e-mail regarding this topic please contact amsmem@ametsoc.org and request that your name be removed from this list.]
>
>
>
>
Dang, “speaking of”, “speaking ot”, though apropos.
“Denial of a lecture invitation is not censorship.”
Not in any formal sense. But that’s not the point. I’m only speaking for myself of course (and I did not use the word censorship) when I say it’s the tactics I object to. SOunds like something MIchael Mann would do.
>mwhite says:
>April 11, 2012 at 10:47 am
>For you in the USA
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0
>
>Piers Corbyn predicts severe tornado activity 22nd – 24th April
I have a note to watch for EQs and/or T-storms at longitude 97 on April 22 and 23.
Gonna have to stock up on popcorn! 🙂
“”””” MangoChutney says:
April 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Perhaps Heartland should attend, writ in hand to deliver at an opportune moment
Hmmm, having said that, Gleicks views on water is something I agree with, so could the writ be delivered just after the Q&A section? “””””
So what specific views on water, that Gleick has do you agree with ?
I see his lecture’s title is “The human right to water. ” but I wasn’t aware he had notable views on water.
What is special about humans, that gives them a right to water. Do we have a right to emeralds as well ?
But there actually is plenty of water; just as there is plenty of air. Nobody is required to stay where there is no water or no air. Certainly most other species would not stick around and put up with that; but I doubt they would demand a right to either.
Certainly Mother Nature grants nobody or nothing any rights to anything.
Disinviting Gleick does not amount to censorship. No one is trying to silence him.
No one is suggesting he should be prevented from speaking because of what he may wish to say in his lecture.
The point being made is that a self-confessed liar and fraudster should not be given the honour of being a guest speaker in the environs of one of the World’s most prestigious universities.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am
“I doubt it is anybody’s business to tell Oxford who they invite to speak, but that may just be me. I’m sure there are many out there that would delight in such censorship.”
As long as you would feel the same about censorship if it were the KKK or Nazis who were speaking, then I will agree with you. One must be consistent in these matters.
Nasa has answered http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/nasa-rejects-claim-it-endorses-global-warming/474416 they deny endorsing AGW LOL…
@James Baldwin Evans and others.
With regard to my earlier post, I have heard back from Daughter No.1.
She reports that most students are in favour of letting Gleick speak and then questioning him closely about various matters. Apparently many e-mails have been sent to whatever passes for the relevant authorities in Oxford commenting on Gleick’s history.
There is still very heavy criticism about the usage of University premises by Gleick, most are NOT in favour of this. Other premises are being recommended.
21:55GMT
Let him speak, it highlights the cosy, if dishonest, world that some of these people move in…
Hugh Davis its not about what it is , its about what it looks like .
Gleick should becaome a Member of Parliament, he’ll feel very much at home.
I believe Heartland has retained counsel in this – described as “Raptor-class Libel” lawyers.
… and, I would add, which institutions are willing to sponsor, endorse, or invite him.
In this instance, however, Gleick’s “right to water” schtick is a rather bland and uncontentious issue, (might as well go for a ride on your favorite hobby horse before getting back on the bucking bronco of global warming). So, notwithstanding the justifiable indignation of Heartlend, and the anger of many here, I don’t think his re-entry into the public scene is likely to rouse much consternation. Gleck will likely reprise his 2007 Pacific Foundation position paper, “The Human Right to Water”, which makes the case, under international law, for every human to have their basic needs met for water. I can’t disagree with much that he says there.
Is it possible that everything characters like Mann and Gleick do these days is simply to extend their so-called “15 minutes of fame”, or perhaps their ranking in a Google search? You don’t suppose they actually are going to run for office, do you? I’m thinking of the saying, “Any publicity is good publicity.”
Gleick may have admitted committing an act that, if pursued to the full extent of the law, amounts to criminal fraud. But until that case is prosecuted, Gleick is free to continue making a living — which I believe he does by writing and lecturing on water use. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is firmly entrenched in British law — although even that doesn’t come into play here as Gleick is yet to be charged with anything.
I say let him speak. The more times this guy opens his mouth the more chance there is that he’ll blurt out something that will tighten the noose he’s already placed around his own neck.
Note: For those of you who climbed into Luther Wu on the NASA thread, I don’t mean a real noose; it’s a just metaphorical one.
I am not from Queensland. An Australian would be better equiped to fully describe the horrors visited on a population when the government generates scary water drought models. “Water sustainability” advocacy, which the AGU is deeply involved in, allows government to increase its control of water and mismanage it grossly.
For example, in Queensland, these gov’t drought water projections were used to approve and to build an incredibly costly desal plant, which is basically too expensive to run. As a result, water dams were kept at higher and higher capacity, and at the same time water prices continually went up to pay for the desal plant. When the floods – which were not predicted by the gov’t drought models – came, the dams were overflowed and there was great damage to life, property, and infrastructure for those living downstream. I personally believe that the events surrounding the bursting of Wivenhoe Dam, and the expense of the worthless desal plant, may be why Anna Bligh and Labor were voted out of Queensland so resoundingly. I have posted this as a reminder that Peter Gleick may no longer be AGU’s Chair of the Task Force for Scientific Ethics, but now he is on a Water Misery Tour, and “water sustainability” is another gov’t disaster in the making.
Is it censorship, or is it something else like ethical responsibility? If Gleick were indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to Federal prison for one or more felonies such as fraud, theft, wire fraud, and/or other crimes, would you even hesitate to disinvite him from a professional speaking engagement? Would you consider the disinvitation of a convicted felon to in and of itself constitute censorship of the felon’s free speech, or would you consider something else like the deferral of the felon’s free speech until such time as the felon acknowledged and expiated the dishonorable crimes before the bestowal of honors to speak in an honorable forum? Are we to see a bizarre world in which dishonorable and criminal conduct is rewarded or protected while the honorable who refrained from criminal conduct are denied the same forum to make way for the dishonorable?
Jim G says:
April 11, 2012 at 10:50 am
“As long as you would feel the same about censorship if it were the KKK or Nazis who were speaking, then I will agree with you. One must be consistent in these matters.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let everyone speak. The more the KKK or Nazis open their mouths, the more they expose themselves to ridicule.
It’s better to fight battles with words than with guns.
This is the wrong way of going about things. Own goal by Heartland.
Let him speak, encourage him to speak, make him keep talking …. and skewer him with questions.
I don’t think pulling the plug on Gleick is censorship so much as a cold splash of reality that his actions have consequences. Allowing someone like this to continue on as though nothing has happened is not the right way to do things. It encourages such people to do what damage they may and laugh about it while never ever taking responsibility. That’s not on in my book. “Not lowering oneself to their level” is, in fact, turning a blind eye and letting the crooks get on with it.
Perhaps someone could get some T-shirts done up with one of Josh’s most excellent cartoons (for example this one) — after obtaining Josh’s permission of course — and distribute them to people willing to attend
the lecture? It would make for interesting side conversations with audience members not aware of Gleick’s recent exploits.
The irony here is what Gleick attempted was to interfere with Heartland Institute’s ability to present the climate skeptical view by falsely claiming they (and by extension all other climate skeptics) were paid stooges of fossil fuel interests. In other words he tried to infringe skeptics’ freedom of speech, which he now proposes to enjoy for himself courtesy of Oxford University.
The text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
What Heartland does is provide a forum and the material means for people of like minds “peaceably to assemble” and engage in lawful activities to promote government policies they deem sensible and oppose policies they deem harmful. This is the essence of exercising meaningful freedom of speech and is at the very core of representative government. Speech may be free but printing presses cost money; the First Amendment right has little meaning if people cannot solicit and collect funds to support activities guaranteed by it. And nowhere is it stated that one must be “right” to enjoy the right to speak.
Peter Gleick and his enablers tried to deny that right to those holding opposing views on “climate change” issues. There is simply no polite way to put it: he is a willing member of a gang of autocratic thugs. I do not advocate that Oxford rescind the invitation, but they should not provide him the podium to proseletyze while collaborating in his goal of denying it to others.
If I were Heartland Institute I would call up Oxford pronto and request an invitation to speak at the same forum, seeing as how Gleick declined Heartland’s offer for an open discussion/debate before attempting to libel them. Perhaps the only way to actually have the debate is for a major University to host it.