Josh on 'that sinking feeling' at Gleick's Pacific Institute

It’s a great cartoon. I’d personally like to see Heartland, if not prepared to take the Gleick-Clown to court at least prepared to mount a loud and aggressive campaign to draw warmist scientists/alarmists into the harsh light of public debate. This is the one single thing they are most terrified of: meeting their educated, climate-realist peers in public debate. Seems to me, this is the single most effective way to expose their lies and hypocrisy – we just need, as a climate realist movement, to find a way to draw these people out into the plain light of day and expose them before their peers.
As Rio+20 draws imminent, now more than ever we climate realists need to concentrate our fire on getting some of the most vocal and propagandist warmists into public debate – the only sure-fire way to reveal to the public at large the extent of their hideous deceptions and the weakness of their ‘settled’ science when held up to clear-headed, educated scrutiny.

Phil Ford says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:00 am
As Rio+20 draws imminent, now more than ever we climate realists need to concentrate our fire on getting some of the most vocal and propagandist warmists into public debate.
Concentrate on the ones with more ego than situational awareness, otherwise it’ll be like trying to coax a weasel out of a woodpile by clucking “Here, kitty, kitty…”

This morning on Instapundit.com to hundreds of thousands of readers:
“NOW THAT THE CONTROVERSY’S BLOWN OVER: Peter Gleick Reinstated at Pacific Institute. “The water and climate expert Peter Gleick, a scientist who masqueraded as a board member of a conservative organization to gain access to its confidential financial information, has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute, the environmentally minded think tank that he founded. . . . The statement said the Pacific Institute’s board of directors had accepted Dr. Gleick’s apology for misrepresenting himself. It added that no other staff member was involved in his subterfuge. . . . By saying that its investigation, carried out by unknown parties, confirmed Dr. Gleick’s account, the institute was implicitly backing the scientist’s claim that he was not responsible for cobbling together a document labeled a fake by Heartland, which he disseminated along with other genuine ones.”
Upholding the high ethical standards for which the climate science field is known.”