Steve McIntyre has returned from his holiday trip and points out how the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has taken up the Gleick tragedy at the 2012 convention, as if the prodigal son had never committed a crime. He writes:
If I was hoping to think about more salubrious characters than Lewandowsky, Mann and Gleick, the 2012 AGU convention was the wrong place to start my trip. All three were prominent at the convention.
…
But the most surprising, even astonishing, appearance was by Peter Gleick himself. Gleick did not simply return, but was honored by an invitation to speak at a prestigious Union session.
…
Although McPhadren had stated that Gleick’s “transgression” would not be “condoned”, AGU’s warm welcome to Gleick shows that McPhadren’s words meant nothing, because AGU has in fact condoned Gleick’s actions.
Full story here
=============================================================
I left this comment at Climate Audit:
What a sad commentary on professional ethics, which seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.
In looking at the hallway photo, the first phrase that popped into my head was “pencil necked Gleick” with apologies to wrestler Freddie Blassie
“Blassie came up with his famous “pencil-neck geek” catchphrase early in his career to describe a fellow carnival performer known as “The Geek”, who bit the heads off chickens and snakes. Blassie described this geek as having a neck like a stack of dimes, and that he was a real pencil-neck geek.”
Readers may also recall the song.
I suppose the current circus isn’t far from “professional wrestling” where a wide variety of tricks are employed to ensure a predetermined outcome.
The matches have predetermined outcomes in order to heighten entertainment value, and all combative maneuvers are worked in order to lessen the chance of actual injury.[2] These facts were once kept highly secretive but are now a widely accepted open secret. By and large, the true nature of the performance is not discussed by the performing company in order to sustain and promote the willing suspension of disbelief for the audience by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude.
So, which character will be the AGU heavyweight champion this year? “Pencil Necked Gleick”, “Mighty Mann”, or “Lewy Lewy”?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gee, it seems like a good time to review one of your previous posts:
**********************
Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance
Posted on December 18, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball
A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
.
.
*********************
So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.
D Böehm to (a different) John:
If only John Dillinger had [b]admitted[/b] to robbing banks I’m sure illustrious organisations like the AGU would have pleaded to let him keep the money and have the freedom to spend it. Provided he promised them a slice of the action, of course.
No problem in Gleick’s case though — he gave them the whole f###### cake up front. Sorted!
I didn’t renew my AGU membership this year for various reasons. Reading this confirms that I made the correct decision.
John, it appears you know as little about the “Gleick affair” as you do about how many homes 90 acres of solar panels can power.
There is a list going to the moon and back of ways to get at Glieck for what he’s done, so there is no need, or any gain, in commenting on his apperance. Neighter is it the smartest or most effective way of shining a light on this mans ethics.
examples:
1. He’s using his smartphone to find out what AGU actually stands for.
2. He’s arming the self-destruct sequence for his briefcase, to defend all those important draf… eh documents from the evil deniers that have been spotted.
3. He’s meassuring the co2 level to see how, too many, people are in the room
4. He’s reading the wiki entry on ethics
5. He’s reading WUWT
6. He’s googling ‘sceiesn ehtcis mehtod’
7. He’s retweeting the Lew retweet of He-Mann’s tweet on the evil deniers
8. He’s playing the popular smartphone game: Where is my water https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.disney.WMWLite
9. He’s looking up the word “condone”
Glieck is grateful he lives in a country where the media carries the ACGW water. Like most liberals (Rangle, Clintons, Dodd, Corzine), he can violate the law and then throw a party celebrating his lawlessness. The only rule is not to mess with someone further to the left.
“Glieck was investigated and no criminal charges were ever brought against him. “
I see. So Gleick had resigned as Chairman of the AGU Committee on Scientific Ethics for nothing. Would you care to start a mass movement to reinstate him?
What is a “cognitive psychologist,” survey fraudster and ethics manipulator doing at the AGU.
Dwayne Kellum says:
January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am
So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.
————————————
Yes Anthony and WUWT have absolutely no credibility. It is just an Ad Hominem attack site. That is why trolls like you don’t bother to post here.
sarc off/
Dwayne Kellum:
re your post at January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am.
There is a world of difference between
(a) “labeling” a person
and
(b) acknowledging a person is a self-confessed fr@udster, thief and distributor of forgery.
That you fail to see the difference suggests that you share the ‘ethics’ of Glieck.
Richard
Matthew W says:
January 6, 2013 at 8:19 am
“The wheels of justice move . . . ”
. . . or not, in strange and mysterious ways. For example, Ken Lay of Enron infamy, from a legal view, never committed a crime, has never been indicted, nor tried, nor convicted. Not withstanding that a sane person might have the idea that all of those things are true.
D Böehm says:
January 6, 2013 at 9:19 am
John, wake up. Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.
Did I miss something? What exactly did Gleick admit doing? He has never admitted to forging the document, has he?
Around the time of Watergate there was a quote from Harry F. Truman that went along these lines
“When a person does wrong and knows it, that’s one thing.
When a person does wrong and doesn’t know the difference, that’s entirely something else”
John Archer says:
January 6, 2013 at 10:07 am
If only John Dillinger had [b]admitted[/b] . . .”
Oops! Near the top of this page, on the right under thumbnail photos of folks, is a blue rectangle with a link to Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT. Near the bottom of Ric’s guide (in a gray block) is a section on formatting.
– D Böehm says:
“Gleick admitted his wrongdoing.”
Indeed he did. So if what he did was a crime why were there no charges against him? He admitted it in writing it’s not like they were short of evidence. Why weren’t the Heartland Institute able to make a civil case.
Anyway, that wasn’t the point. The point is that this article seems to suggest that the AGU should prevent a man who has been convicted of no crime from continuing his job. It is not the place of the AGU to judge or administer punishment. If he’s committed a crime then it the job of the judiciary to judge and punish that crime. I don’t agree with what Glieck did but it’s not up to the AGU to punish him. They must act like he’s done nothing wrong unless the judiciary say otherwise, and they haven’t. The alternative is mob justice and I don’t want that, do you?
Shouldn’t that be “horsehockey shickt”
I’m with HankHenry, don’t stoop to their level, stay classy. This wasn’t classy.
@Michael J Alexander: Gleick did not explicitly admit it. His confession was a lawyerly-worded paragraph which threw around pronouns until it wasn’t clear exactly what he was admitting to.
But that doesn’t matter. The timeline shows clearly that he did forge the document. First, the collection of documents comes out. There was no suspect for the documents, which claimed to be a leak from an insider. But a couple of people, looking at the forged document saw the fingerprints of Glecik all over it and called him out. Within three days, he had confessed to being the “insider” and had his lawyerly-worded “confession” released.
Note, it was the forged document that led suspicion to him, not the other way around. If he had confessed to stealing the documents and then the rumor arose that he had forged one of them, we could well be reasonably confident that the forgery accusation was an attempt at spin. But it was the document that led to him — someone who was formerly rather obscure and as the head of the AGU Ethics Committee would have been the last person anyone would suspect.
Another Ian says:
January 6, 2013 at 11:58 am
a quote from Harry F. Truman . . .”
Would that be Harry S. Truman?
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/speriod.htm
[Actually, it would be Harry S Truman. ☺ — mod.]
Michael J Alexander,
Gleick admitted his wrongdoing. Why would you question his confession? He was punished for it, as you can see in numerous articles here.
Read up on the whole sordid story. Gleick has no ethics. He is a true scoundrel and reprobate. Why he isn’t hiding under a rock in shame is a sad commentary on the corruption of society.
If you or I did what Peter Gleick did, we would pay a high price. But since Gleick is a pet of the climate alarmist movement, his unethical actions get him a free pass.
Steve M’s posting is certainly worth reading. He is back to his understated form. Rather than trying to forget the Dr Mann, the AGU have honoured him. Rather than censoring, or at least distancing themselves from, Peter Gleick, they have embraced him. To cap it all, the AGU have invited a psychology professor whose most recent work, with extremely low scientific standards, gives an excuse for ignoring the anomalies and criticisms of the science. In short, faced the choice between defending dogma and the promotion of better standards – scientific, statistical and moral – they chose the former over the latter.
I was up very early this morning and noticed….
Mann himself was honored as a new AGU Fellow for his achievements in orientation-neutral and low-verification paleoclimate reconstructions, with special citation to his innovative use of upside-down sediments and success in popularizing reconstructions with verification r2 of 0.
So did Willis E.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/#comment-391232
The mark of personal character is how far one will continue to defend the indefensible.
Climate-gate set the standard and many have self incriminated against that backdrop.
As the internet never forgets, I see little reason for further forbearance toward fools.
Gleick just set the standard even lower. The Australian Musicologist even lower, 10/10?
We do not have to destroy these fools as much as stand witness to those who support and encourage them.
I cannot fix stupid, but they shall not have authority over me.
Dwayne Kellum says:
January 6, 2013 at 9:54 am
So, perhaps focus on science or policy content rather than the continued ad hominem attacks on people that don’t hold your position. Your blog might be taken more seriously by the scientific community and policymakers.
===============
Make no mistake, it is on their radar.
Yours too, eh.