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”?
If this isn’t the signal for any members of the AGU with an ounce of self-respect as scientists to cancel their membership they are truly guilty by association.
At this point I do not see that there are any actual scientific organizations left. All there are are Ole’ Boys Clubs and it is starting to become very obvious to everyone.
If the scientific organizations do not start cleaning up their acts and actually ENFORCING some sort of code of honor/ethics what is left of their reputation will be in tatters from which it will be difficult to recover.
Organizations, universities and funders had no problems in blocking publication, refusing funding, or firing those who did not tow the line. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski is a case in point.
Here is a quick pull of the internet from googling “science fraud”
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds: Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.
“The Prodigal Son”. That parable isn’t so much about the son as it is about “The Forgiving Father”. (He had more than one son to deal with.) The prodigal son came back to his father.
Glieck admits his wrongdoing? Or does he just admit he got caught? Did he admit his wrongdoing was wrong?
Peter Gleick, himself, admitted his wrongdoing. However, comments about his weird appearance are too close to the tactics of the CAGW Warmistas to make me feel comfortable. It’s all a bit like mud-wrestling. Let’s get back to Science.
They are nothing more than a den of thieves. As my dad loved to say, “One lies and the other swears by it”.
I hope that it’s true that there is no honor amoung thieves.
Perfect example of why morals,instead of ethics,should be taught very early on.
Ethics says it is wrong to have sex with your neighbour’s wife,but you do anyways,because you can get away with it.
Morals say even if you want to have sex with neighbour’s wife,you do not,because in your gut and soul,you know it is wrong.
Obiously, the AGU is trying to find BIGUS GLEICKUS to speak at the next meeting! (Sorry, apologies to Monty Python, I did not wish to be disrespectful of their art.)
Seems to be a few misconceptions about Ad Hominem Attacks. It is basically saying that a logical argument is false based on the arguer’s character flaws, rather than the merits of the arguments. In fact a total D-Bag can be and often infuriatingly correct as well as pathetically incorrect, correctness or incorrectness has no correlation with the arguer’s degree of D-Baggery. Someone like Peter Glieck maybe perfectly able to make accurate accesments on scientific ethics in non-personal cases, yet be absolutely blind to his own ethics short-comings, and how they neccessarily hurt his cause.
In an argument certain assumptions are often made, one assumption is frequently that the base data upon which the arguement is constructed is correct to the best ability of the researcher to assemble, if the researcher has particular character flaws that undermine the confidence of the assumption the base data is correct, pointing that out is not an Ad Hominem attack, but a necessary caveat.
Justthinkin says:
January 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Perfect example of why morals,instead of ethics,should be taught very early on.
Ethics says it is wrong to have sex with your neighbour’s wife,but you do anyways,because you can get away with it.
Morals say even if you want to have sex with neighbour’s wife,you do not,because in your gut and soul,you know it is wrong.
——————————————————-
No.
To simplify what is a complex question, morals are internally held values (and can’t necessarily be taught). By definition, they have to be believed by the person, not just able to be recited or even lived by.
Ethics are externally defined values such as medical ethics or scientific ethics, and they should be taught to every practitioner in the relevant field. They needn’t believe in them, but they are required to abide by them if their profession or other relevant body is doing its job properly.
In the case under discussion, there seems to be a dearth of both.
You can judge people by whom they associate with. When people fail to draw any sort of moral boundery between themselves and people who have admitted they did wrong, (without confessing wrong is wrong, but rather people who spoke of their misdeeds in a bragging manner,) then they are condoning such behavior.
The sheep are being seperated from the goats.
Is the American Geophysical Union (AGU) an arm of the SEIU?
I wonder?
cn
Gleick looks the very model of a stereotypical academical.
And you shall know them by their deeds….
I’d also add “and the company they keep”.
At least now it’s obvious to everyone what ‘the game’ is all about.
atheok says: “Sounds like you wrestled in the same league as Joe Bastardi…”
Joe was good enough to be on the varsity wrestling team at Penn State. I did not wrestle in college.
” I did not wrestle in college.”
Presumably one has to be American to comprehend the implications of that statement, although the possibilities abound.
Those of you who applaud Glieck,now, share in his disgrace.
This is my prediction: future historians and anthropologists will excoriate the work and memory of all who voluntarily smear themselves with Glieck’s taint. They will be equally unforgiving to those who practice their “science” with the vigor of a Lewandowsky, or the advocacy of Mann. These men will give names to the famous case studies of alarmist propaganda, and will join the other famous political propagandists in history.
That’s my prediction.
To Billy and richardscourtney:
now you engage in ad hominen attacks of me? Based on what?
Billy, how exactly do you know I am a “troll”?
Richard: how exactly can you conflate my ethics with Gleick? I have no interest in him – my only purpose was to attempt to redirect what appears to be a lot of interest and energy towards something more useful and productive.
The difficulty I have with this blog is that the type of assertions and unsubstantiated claims made on this relatively simple topic leave me with the suspicion that this is the level of scrutiny brought to all discussion topics here. Any deviation from the dogma is met with the type of “scorched earth” response I see here and in other threads.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Peter Gleick – I am generally uninterested in his work and the curfuffle involving Heartland. But, it seems this blog and those that post to it want to make a point to the climate science and climate policy communities. I see this thread and many many other like it as making that impossible. I am just trying to point that out. I don’t see why that should cause such anger, really.
I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t “pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The Heartland Institute, let me explain why.
Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious violations of federal law he committed.
Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago, along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public decide if justice has been served.
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
James Ard says:”…the AGU invited a criminal to speak at their conference…”
But wouldnt it be ironic if the criminals who released the climategate emails were in that very audience? Could be, given that they are probably climate people…
trafamadore,
The Climategate leak was done by an insider who had access to the data and emails. Therefore it was not a crime. Unless you believe that “Harry_Read_Me” came from outside. How anyone could believe that is beyond me. But then, some folks believe in faeries.
@jim Lakely
I feel like someone who has turned up at a party after everyone has gone home.
Have Heartland’s counsel considered whether the actions Gleick has admitted to may have transgressed the California Penal Code? In particular whether or not California Penal Code, Sections 528.5 and 530 could be applied.
528.5:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense…”
530:
“Every person who falsely personates another, in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character receives any money or property, knowing that it is intended to be delivered to the individual so personated, with intent to convert the same to his own use, or to that of another person, or to deprive the true owner thereof, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so received.”
D Böehm Stealey says: “Climategate leak was done by an insider who had access to the data and emails. Therefore it was not a crime.”
Very funny. That must be why the group that hacked in was so forthright afterwards.
trafamadore:
Really? “The group that hacked in”?
Name them.
Anthony Watts says: “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.”
You might view it that way, but wouldnt not allowing Gleick to speak be a form of censure? It is a scientific meeting, I think, and scientists are free to present their work there. Do you think he should be censured by the scientific community? Now if he was talking about the Heartland release, I might agree with you, but I bet he was not.
trafamadore:
You made an assertion. Now, name the hackers.
You also say:
“…wouldnt not allowing Gleick to speak be a form of censure?”
Absolutely. Gleick deserves to be censured for his admitted wrongdoing. Enablers and apologists like you only add to the corruption in the climate alarmist industry.