AGU, Gleick, Climate Science, and Baseball Steroid Use

Willis, it would seem you missed this:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-global-warming-hot-list-for-2013

In February, confidential documents intended for Heartland’s board were leaked, showing a network of payments to climate skeptics and funding for a school curriculum designed to cast doubt on climate science. In a Grisham-esque turn, prominent scientist/activist Peter Gleick admitted obtaining the documents by posing as a Heartland board member and apologized for his ethical lapse.

He apologised, so that’s all right, then. /sarc

Bravo22C:
I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?
Totally agree. And if Heartland have given up on this, can they just explain why? We had plenty from Heartland at the start saying, essentially, “we’re working on it”. Since then, effectively nothing.

For what it is worth Al Gore’s Book “Earth in the Balance” was written by ex- EPA Administrator Carol Browner. She is notorious for wiping the EPA computer files despite a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth requiring the agency to preserve its records.
Hubby just picked up a copy at a thrift store for $0.50. My husband (a technical writer) thought it was very well written so he went digging to find out who actually wrote it.
Carol Browner, BTW is a lawyer not a scientist. Obama selected Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Grist describes Browner as President Obama’s former “energy czar”

AGW is a symptom of a larger corruption in society.

If the US Attorney is refusing to go ahead with the prosecution against Gleick, for whatever reason, then Heartland must bring a civil case.

In our society today wealth and fame outweigh integrity. Only chumps play the game straight, that includes politics, business and sports. It is a sign of the times. Not a good sign but a sign none the less. Carbon credits anyone?

“Now, if Peter’s tale were true…”, and that’s a very big IF!
I hope other readers are all aware of the Gleick/Heartland story because the way Willis has told it here has been very kind to Gleick, who almost certainly doctored up that one document himself to make amends for the ho-hum real Heartland documents.

David L says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:07 am
…..Academics is not a noble profession. They are in their own little sick and twisted world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You completely missed the point. Academia SHOULD be a noble profession. They SHOULD be held to the highest level of morality and ethics because these are the teachers of our young. As the role models of the next generation their morality and ethics are critical.
The fact that you give them a pass and shrug your shoulders show just what type of ethical decay sets in when Academia is NOT held to high standards.
It is the reason I say the whole mess should be defunded. Academia has proven they are Michael Manns, Peter Gliecks and Jerry Sanduskys. The fact that Academia covered-up for these men and who knows how many others shows they whole edifice is rotten to the core and should be dismantled.
Climategate and Gundersen’s actions show even when caught read handed the Academics feel they are gods and not answerable to lesser men. They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings. If we scream loud enough and raise enough of a fuss Congress WILL defund Academia because they are looking for a bone to throw to the rank and file.
Gundersen’s actions just gave us more ammunition to make those demands, if not in this administration in the next.

Willis,
What a masterful expose. How long does it take you to write essays that methodically eviserate delinquents.
{ Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:52 am
Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[61][62][63] although the commission’s web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.[64]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner }
Therein lies the “Noble cause” of not only Carol, but Gleick and Gunderson.
For some perspective, this type of scientific behavior is not new. While at a major University twenty years ago, I knew associates who would skew the numbers slightly to make a study with ~5.4% significance into one with ~4.98%, or 10.5 to 9.7. This would give them another three or four years on the dole. Or submit bogus expenditure receipts to the granting agencies. I’m suggesting it occurs more than one could imagine.
“Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it.”

I’m sure the chair and members were listed on the task force page (http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml) last time I looked but not any more. Peeking into the html code, I see that they’ve just commented-out the list.
Our friend P.Gleick is still listed as Chair together with L.Gundersen (who is also a member). Go figure.

Bravo22C says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:16 am
I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heartland is trying for criminal charges first but the government is refusing so far.
The reason why is Wire Fraud is a serious offencse if you do a search you find it bundled under:

The 2011 FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

These sections address basic forms of property offenses: theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting (other than offenses involving altered or counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States), insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. (Arson is dealt with separately in Chapter Two, Part K (Offenses Involving Public Safety)). These guidelines apply to offenses prosecuted under a wide variety of federal statutes, as well as offenses that arise under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

§2B1.1. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 7, if (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to this guideline; and (B) that offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more…
.
.
.
15. Cross Reference in Subsection (c)(3).—Subsection (c)(3) provides a cross reference to another guideline in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a general fraud statute, and the count of conviction establishes an offense involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly covered by another guideline. Sometimes, offenses involving fraudulent statements are prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or a similarly general statute, although the offense involves fraudulent conduct that is also covered by a more specific statute. Examples include false entries regarding currency transactions, for which §2S1.3 (Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements) likely would be more apt, and false statements to a customs officer, for which §2T3.1 (Evading Import Duties or Restrictions (Smuggling); Receiving or Trafficking in Smuggled Property) likely would be more apt. In certain other cases, the mail or wire fraud statutes, or other relatively broad statutes, are used primarily as jurisdictional bases for the prosecution of other offenses. For example, a state employee who improperly influenced the award of a contract and used the mails to commit the offense may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. Such a case would be more aptly sentenced pursuant to §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions).….

That may not be the correct section but it gives a feel for what Gleick should be facing if the US government was functioning under the Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Man.

I remember when I first started reading this blog in 2007, most here (and especially Anthony) still felt that the warmists were simply mistaken, and that if they could just see the data and the models they would certainly change their minds. We could all still think of them in friendly terms, as fellow devotees of science who simply had misinterpreted the data.
Now it’s impossible to deny that they know just as much as we know and they don’t care. They know because they are the ones who have to intentionally fake the data, intentionally slant the models, intentionally cover up and paper over the outright criminal behavior by their compatriots.
They know they’re faking it all. They don’t care at all about that, because it is all in support of their true agenda, which can no longer be hidden.
These people are not simply mistaken – they are our enemies, and the enemies of anyone who still cares for truth and decency in this world. We have to fight them in every way we can, without ceasing.
Because that is how they are continuing to fight us.

Willis, another great post.
One group that has been particularly guilty of letting the scandal pass whilst turning a blind eye are the churches. Many indeed have even jumped on the CAGW bandwagon in an attempt to try and be ‘modern’ and ‘with it’, i.e. supporting a perceived up-welling of “something must be done to protect precious Earth”, but have singularly failed to apply a critical eye to the issue such that ‘truth’ may prevail.
I have particular interest in the Church of England, being my ‘home’ church, and in particular their ‘Shrinking the [CO2] Footprint’ programme that uncritically accepts the IPCC’s alarmist pronouncements. This program is endorsed by the Archbishops Environmental Council, so goes to the top. It will be somewhat of a humiliation for them when the full impact of the recent revelations by the UK Met Office and NASA that CAGW isn’t a problem after all.

Alternatively, she (Dr. Gunderson) could write up a piece and publish it here on WUWT, I’m certain Anthony would have no objections.
That would never happen, as that would be an acknowledgement that WUWT exists and is relevant… something the AGU could never bear to do.

“After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

Ed MacAulay says:
January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am
re richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:
The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not necessarily.
Heartland DID lose some big donors when the activists ‘swarmed’ them and they decided for business reasons to no longer donate to Heartland. That is a direct cause and effect that can be proven. The total went up because of all the little donors but you would then have to prove in court that the Glieck’s scam and not the bill board was the reason.
This means you have to put each and every one on the stand and ask WHY. My answer would be I like the idea that they ran a billboard and they host true science conferences.

Did I miss you criticizing Rawls for an even worse transgression — leaking a document he’d signed an oath not to? Or are you just being a hypocrite?

Great post.
Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.
It appears to be a never-ending battle….

Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 7:01 am …
“You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control.”
It would seem to me that you may have missed the point that the media don’t need to be controlled by anyone because nearly all of them ARE socialists and Democrats, and they no longer think it is their job to report the news but rather to actually create it.

Ed MacAulay says:
January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am
re richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:
The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.
Yep.
And if they sued for defamation or the like, then are they not doing exactly what many of us are critical of Michael Mann doing in his never ending pursuit to cleans the world of doubters via lawsuit? Sometimes, the best move is to let it go and move on. Gleick and the AGU have already damaged themselves more than any lawsuit could. Did you see the pictures of some of the presentations at their latest meeting, and many of the chairs were empty?

Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 7:01 am
“You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control. ”
No this is overly simplistic. Bankers hold no power over anything. The government holds the power over the bankers which then uses that power to exploit ppl. The bankers at least the government bankers are socialist to the core and are in fact the very definition of many types of socialism… fascism being front and center.
The government backed socialist bankers are doing what the government socialists want period. This idea that the bankers are somehow controlling the government is a pure and unabridged joke. The government is ALWAYS the supreme authority. Now one could argue that the banks are the government… which would be a fine argument however thats untrue. At anytime should the socialists bankers lose favor with the socialist government they will be purge as always is a case.
Socialists live in a fantasy world where if they’re prefect version of socialist doesn’t exist then its not “real socialism”. Of course “prefect” socialism is where said socialist is the top dog exploiting everyone else. Reality is that we live under a socialist system where the government through controlling the means of production(banks being the foremost) are attempting and failing to control the public. This is classic socialism of the fascist, corporatist, etc type.

Thanks Willis, very good article.
Yes, “Official” Climate Science needs to come clean and restart.

I met Curt a couple of times whislt visiting the States. I didn’t know who he was at first and when he invited a dozen of us out to a restaurant I declined [busy] only to learn later he’d paid for everyone! Lovely chap.

From the AGU Ethics Committee page:

The Scientific Ethics Task Force is responsible for reviewing and guiding the Union s standards, principles, and code of conduct on ethics and integrity in scientific activities.
Committee Charge
Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies;
Based on this knowledge, update AGU’s protocols and procedures for addressing violations of its ethical principles;
As appropriate, revise and augment AGU’s current ethical principles and code of conduct for AGU meetings, publications and for interactions between scientists with their professional colleagues and the public;
Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and
Consider whether AGU should adopt a statement of ethical principles as a condition of membership or for participation in certain activities of the Union. If so, develop a recommendation on how the principles would be applied to AGU members and or participants in AGU activities.
Work Plan
To be determined

There’s your answer, Willis. They currently don’t have any ethical standards and just haven’t gotten around to figuring out what unethical behavior looks like yet. Could they be waiting until Gleick can resume the chairmanship of the committee again?

MangoChutney says: January 10, 2013 at 5:23 am
If the US Attorney is refusing to go ahead with the prosecution against Gleick, for whatever reason, then Heartland must bring a civil case.
===============================
Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.

Willis Eschenbach says: “Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”
The number of retractions right now is 100 papers per million papers published. That is, I haf to read 10,000 papers before I hit one that might be retracted. (If only business people and politicians were as honest.) Also, the majority of papers retracted are for mistakes, not some experimental malfeasance. If you are suggesting that, like athletes doping, scientists that are politically active might be cheats, then based on the number of papers retracted, it seems you are 99.99% incorrect.

Gail Combs says:
> They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings.
With all respect Gail, they don’t forget. They know full well we can only elect someone to designate a bursar of his choice to hold the strings. That is quite different from being ultimately the ones in charge. Try to withhold your support from them — you’ll be immediately changed with tax evasion.
The only solution I see is for us all to serve our social duties on rotation, like the citizens of the ancient Greek towns did. You’re drafted to serve as a bursar for the next four years; I am drafted to supervise public works, and Anthony becomes a tax collector. Or goes to fight the Persians. The idea sounds ridiculous, but the ancient Greek democracy evolved to be that way under strong selective pressures. The towns afflicted with corruption fell to the next town over the hill or to the Persians. The lack of competence was seen as a lesser problem than a person’s innate ability to become corrupt, and they were aware that power corrupts, and even knew how quickly, so the rotation terms were adjusted accordingly. I can imagine how that was not fun, and how slowly things were moving with everybody learning on the job, only to be expelled from it in a few years, but apparently that way of running things made them more resilient to external attacks and prevented them from forming a political class in their society.
So when people mention that we have inherited our political system from the Greeks, I want to point out that we’ve only inherited some of the features but not the system itself. We have rotation, but it is not limited to a single term; we don’t have a universal mandatory participation of citizenry in the affairs of the state, and worst of all, there is no accountability.

Jeff B. says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:30 am
But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.

Step away from the keyboard and give it a rest. Give your opinions 20 years to grow up some more.

geran said @ January 10, 2013 at 7:53 am

Great post.
Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.
It appears to be a never-ending battle….

It is a great post; up there with W’s best. It’s also a never-ending battle as any historian can tell you. There is no past golden age as some here seem to believe. Just the human condition…

“Benefit of science for a sustainable future” and there is the twist. You could have “benefit of science” and leave well-enough alone but they bend the knee and bow the head by adding “for a sustainable future” Meaningless boilerplate to most in the Miss Universe “World peace” joke kinda way. A sure sign of who’s driving the agenda to those engaged. The Pacific Institute of which Glieck is one of the Founders and after a short hiatus again the Director receives lots of funding from governmental agencies. Surely we have been served a nice slow under-hand pitch across the plate to hit. What the AGU and Pacific Institute have done in this matter an outrage and an opportunity.

temp says: @ January 10, 2013 at 8:14 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress
I suggest you read A PRIMER ON MONEY COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964
(EVERYONE should read that report.)
Temp, the key passage:

The Federal Open Market Committee [The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers gc]
There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]
Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]
[The Federal Reserve Slips its leash gc]
In mid-August of 1950, however, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate and short-term Treasury bills jumped toward 11/2 percent, although there were requests from the Secretary of the Treasury and the President for the System to continue a low-rate policy. It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do….
Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation. These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. …. At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy which aimed at maximum credit effects through minimum changes in interest rates….. the Federal Reserve people were quite sure that they could do a better job of running the country than the President, and with only slight increases in interest rates. … It then added another string to its bow- the “bills only” policy. … Henceforth when the Treasury issued bonds or medium-term securities, it was to dump these issues on the market and watch the natural consequences-first a drop in bond prices, then a gradual recovery as the market absorbed the bonds. Any private rigging or manipulations of the market were to go without interference from the Federal Reserve, as were any speculative booms or panics short of a “disorderly” market. The “bil1s-only” policy had only one reservation: The Federal Reserve would buy long-term bonds in the event that the Open Market Committee made a findings that the market was disorderly. [ full details starting on pg 103]

D Böehm Stealey says:”trafamadore is defending Michael Mann’s hokey stick, and the upside-down Tiljander proxy he used in Mann08. That isn’t the way to get credibility.”
Am I? Or am I defending the many papers, with various methods and combinations of records, that look so similar to the original Mann results. And the fact that the few papers challenging him also had their fair share of problems. Problems are common in edgy science, where the methods are being made up as they go. The jury in science is interested in whether findings can be replicated using different data/methods, and it seems that that Mann’s results have largely passed that test.
Even Mendel’s results with peas had problems.

David L.
January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
###
Your understanding of history is atrocious, most likely the result of moonbat instructors. No, the problem is not Christian Monasticism, but the nature of Academia itself. Self important Academics, who can’t do, are bitterly jealous of those who can. But being self important, they feel that they have the Right to tell everyone else what to do
BTW, that blessed period of time during the Age of Reason, with the establishment of the University system, was a historic fluke that was enabled by the very same Christian world-view you have been taught to denigrate.

Gene Selkov says:
January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
Gail Combs says:
> They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings.
With all respect Gail, they don’t forget. They know full well we can only elect someone to designate a bursar of his choice to hold the strings. That is quite different from being ultimately the ones in charge. Try to withhold your support from them — you’ll be immediately changed with tax evasion….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually you just have to step away. My husband and I quit our high paying jobs ( over $100,000 plus in the 90’s) and now earn enough to support ourselves. We pay local taxes and sales tax and thats about it. As a small business I can earn exactly how much I want and that is BELOW the level where I have to pay Federal tax. Also much of what I earn is offset by deductions.

It is worrying when a baseball player is held up as an example of the standards which a senior, influential scientist, the chairman of an ethics committee no less, should uphold. And is unlikely to uphold. Because so far she has not.

Willis Eschenbach says:”Instead, what we see is that Steig gets the cover of Nature, and rather than being retracted, the correction is buried on p. 83 …”
Correction. Corrections are not retracted papers, they are mistakes. Usually typos; sometimes embarrassing mistakes. But not usually evil.
Willis Eschenbach says: “Second, a paper is only retracted when the scientist either is forced, or has the honesty and the balls to admit he’s wrong, and retracts the paper. It’s often done under some implied duress. So we’d expect the rate to be low. The question is whether the rate is rising or falling.”
But it _is_ pretty low. 1 in 10,000 is really low. If you wish to argue it’s 10x higher in reality, then I would still say that 1/1000 is really low.
If the rate is rising, and here I agree with you because you are correct, it is rising. It is about 10x higher now than in the 70s. So one question is when does it become a problem? Well, I would say, we are pretty far from any sort of problem level. So another question has to do with why it’s happening, and, I might have this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are suggesting that climate scientists are bending their scientific work because of their political activism. Tell me if I have that wrong. If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism. Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world? How much of his data has been shown to be incorrect; actually, how many papers mentioned in Climategate were retracted? It is possible that breaking and entering can be considered independent of science.
I think this is where your sport metaphor breaks down. Lance Armstong is not under pressure because he stole samples from the UCI but because he cheated. Had he ONLY stole samples (I am making this up) he would have no trouble biking. So it is for Gleick. He can keep biking.

Gail Combs says: “A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices”
Yes, I remember that famous paper well, the scientist is not a monk paper. I think you need to look at the questions in the survey, and then ask yourself if you have _ever_ made a questionable statement on your taxes, or have you _ever_ ran a red light. I mean, I would haf to say I have done one of two things that are ‘edgy’ in the old days, like photo dodge out the ugly background behind an embryo or stitch negative of two microscope planes together to make a prettier photo; technically that would be faking data, but the idea was to protray what my eyes saw. Nowadays, the journal companies have progs that detect that stuff, so no more. You just send in the ugly pictures, and be done with it.
But I am comfortable with the apparent difference between the number of retracted papers and the percentage of scientists who have _ever_ faked a data point.
Thankfully, science is ultimately selfcorrecting, so faked data doesnt live long unless it wasnt very important in the first place.

Willis Eschenbach wrote:
At that point, it seems like a man with integrity would go to Joe Bast at Heartland and say “Hey, Joe, I got this crazy letter. Is any of this true?”
Considering that Joe Bast is untrustworthy, why would a reasonable person rely on the word of Bast?

geran said @ January 10, 2013 at 7:53 am
….Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.
It appears to be a never-ending battle….
The Pompous Git says: @
January 10, 2013 at 10:17 am
It is a great post; up there with W’s best. It’s also a never-ending battle as any historian can tell you….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. And it is those who win who get to write history. Think Richard the III.

trafamadore says: @ January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am
I do not cheat on my taxes and I have told my boss on more than one occasion I would not falsify data and put it on a Certificate of Analysis so a bad/questionable lot of material could be shipped. I have been fire for that ‘offense’ more than once.
I have taken a stand on honor and have put my job on the line so don’t give me your crappy weasel wording trying to twist things.

Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. There are many more examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity. He is not trustworthy, and the suggestion that Peter Gleick could have relied on Bast’s word is laughable.

Gleick took complex, premeditated, abnormal criminal actions. A man like this, short of psychological and moral rehabilitation, can simply never be trusted. But the “team” is protecting their hit-men; the team must win, after all. He did his job and tried to score some doped-up runs.
Frankly, Gleick won, because I think the Heartland smear stuck. Most of the media ended up complying, ignoring……after all they are on his team.

Stealy wrote: Joe Bast gave his opinion.
No. Joe Bast made an assertion as if it were a fact. He didn’t preface his statement with “in my opinion,” or “there is reason to believe that.” He stated quite plainly that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. Of course Joe Bast couldn’t prove that statement, but he nevertheless made it. That is one of many examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity.
You should probably drop your argument at this point because you’re just making a fool of yourself.

Willis,
Your article stimulates a needed discussion.
Whether one agrees with any, some or all the aspects of your appeal for integrity within the AGU and in climate science generally, it is important for bloggers like you to keep very very public the discussion of what integrity is and why it is critical to the scientific process. Thank you.
If I take professional scientific integrity to mean the intentional consistency in and between ones ideas, acts and ethics, then I find both Gleick and Gundersen have compromised their integrity significantly. I think that Gundersen’s loss of integrity is far greater than Gleick’s. Gleick’s act wrt HI is inanely stupid and blatantly fraudulent and he had to resign his chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Gundersen, as the current chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity has retreated from the subject of Gleick’s integrity while he was an active AGU leader. In a leadership role focused on integrity, Gundersen avoids a major lack of integrity case. Gundersen’s integrity lapse has a much greater negative impact on trust in science than Gleick’s. Gleick stealthily undermined scientific integrity as an AGU integrity leader; Gundersen, as a current AGU integrity leader is showing the public AGU’s open disinterest in scientific integrity. Gundersen is far worse than Gleick when it comes to causing more lack of trust in science.
Gundersen’s behavior as an AGU integrity leader is a publically displayed shrug and a wink and a smirk and a whisper to Gleick ‘we don’t care’.
John

Gail Combs said @ January 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm

And it is those who win who get to write history. Think Richard the III.

And Marcus Tullius Cicero said:

Nescire autem quid antequam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum

Translated: “To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.”

RomanM says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:04 am
@mpainter:
Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.
I disagree with this statement.
It seems to me that if you can show that even a single donation has been lost due to the illegal actions of Mr. Gleick, that should be sufficient to sue for monetary damages.
Nope. Heatland would have to show it had incurred very substantial financial damage, and show that most all of the info leaked by Gleick was false. In this case neither is provable. A good majority of the docs are factual, and HL, given it’s substantial and provably undamaged ability to raise funds after the fact, almost certainly did not sustain enough financial damage to meet a minimal threshold for damages.
Again, do we really want to go the Mann route, lawyering up every time there is a perceived wrong done against us?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says: @ January 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Gail Combs says…
…….
However to your point I really don’t see defunding academia as even remotely possible. Here in Georgia the “solution” to address the undeniable failings of the K-12 public schools was to pass a lottery to fund “hope scholarships” so the same institutions which couldn’t impart basic competence and useful skills in twelve years now get funded to continue their failings for another four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually individuals are defunding schools.

….State funding for elementary and secondary education is generally distributed by formula. Many states use funding formulas that provide funding based on the number of pupils in a district. Some formulas are weighted based on different factors such as the number of students with disabilities, the number of students living in poverty, or the number of students for whom English is a second language. The allocation for students with different types of needs can vary significantly depending on the funding formula. ….
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance

Home schooling removes students from the head count (according to the scuttlebutt) and The increase in the percentage of homeschooled students from 1999 to 2007 represents a 74 percent relative increase over the 8-year period and a 36 percent relative increase since 2003
And how the government is fighting back
Also I was talking of defunding Academics as in colleges and Universities.
Will it happen? I do not think so because Main Street does not run this country we just like to think we do.

Noble cause corruption, don’t you know! The AGU have degenerated to the point that they need a man of Gleick’s ability.

Jake Diamond says:
January 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Gail COmbs wrote: Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis
That would be a remarkable feat of clairvoyance if true. Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him.
In any case, a third party opinion does not constitute proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking of proof. I always back up what I have said.
SO where is your PROOF that “Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged “ NOT a statement that Mr Bast thinks he did but a flat out statement that he did and that statement has to be ” several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him. ”
If you can not provide that specific statement WITH A LINK to the whole article you are just blowing smoke.

trafamadore: “The jury in science is interested in whether findings can be replicated using different data/methods, and it seems that that Mann’s results have largely passed that test.”
What complete drivel. You reveal yourself to be either willfully ignorant or mendacious. Every so called “study” that claimed to replicate Mann’s phony Hockey Stick was looked at by Steve McIntyre (when the authors were forced to stop their deliberate violations of the Scientific Method and cough up their data and algorithms). All were by cronies of Mann (aka the self-styled “Hockey Team”), used the same phony statistical method (short-centered PCA), or used the same cherry picked proxies (Sheep Mountain, Graybill, strip-bark trees, Yamal, ad nauseam). Often multiple combinations of those deceits.
Real science is done by those who follow the Scientific Method. “Climate scientists” refuse to do so.
And by the way, the correct spelling is “Tralfamadore”

It’s been suggested there be a “steroids wing” of the baseball HoF. Perhaps there will eventually be a Climategate/Mann ghetto where all AGW pseudoscience goes to die.

Jake Diamond says:
January 10, 2013 at 2:03 pm
By the way, speaking of ethical behavior, in the interest of transparency and honesty, WUWT posts that deal with topics relating to the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast should include a statement that discloses the financial support Heartland has provided to Anthony Watts.

– – – – – – – – –
Jake Diamond,
Is it time for some parody?
The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid, but heck, I will give it a try with you.
How about a unilateral policy of transparency and openness?
Your comments suggest that you are the kind of sharp open-minded chap who would be interested in an agreement between us. The agreement would be for you to first agree to provide any of your private info that I request of you and in exchange I need provide nothing to you in return? I will only tell you what info you must give me after we sign our agreement.
Let’s do it!
Are we having fun Jake Diamond?
John

Jake Diamond says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. There are many more examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity. He is not trustworthy, and the suggestion that Peter Gleick could have relied on Bast’s word is laughable.”
==========================
I don’t even have a horse in this race, but my reading of the form indicates an admission of guilt from one participant, whereas the other is only being accused of deceit.
Proof of the accusations would be appreciated greatly.
You said “there are many more”, so give me one.

John Whitman wrote: The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid
Actually, what seems incredibly stupid is equating ethical behavior to unilateral disarmament.

[snip. Baseless, unsupported character assassination. — mod.]

Jake Diamond says:
January 10, 2013 at 3:26 pm

John Whitman wrote: The concepts behind unilateral disarmament always seemed stupid

Actually, what seems incredibly stupid is equating ethical behavior to unilateral disarmament.

– – – – – – – – – – –
Jake Diamond,
I love it and it is precious that you naively extend my parody; my parody that looks at your comical original Mannesque-like attack dog comment toward our host.
Au contraire, mon ami. Your unilaterally hostile behavior toward our host makes you a likely ethically vulnerable candidate for agreeing to sign my offered agreement to you for your unilateral openness and transparency . . . . . n’est ce pas?
On an optimistic note: Do not worry yourself Jake, with a little more open exposure to sites difference from SkS-like sites, even a Mannesque-like attack dog such as you can be gently taught to wag their tails and roll over on their backs.
. . . . and the parody of Jake Diamond continues . . .
John

Commenting at WUWT is an interesting exercise. Moderators apply the site rules selectively, allowing personal attacks on some and not allowing them on others. Also the “baseless, unsupported character assassination” is applied when the moderator doesn’t like an opinion and ignored when the moderator agrees with the opinion.
So let me try again… In my opinion, Joe Bast is untrustworthy. His history of less than truthful remarks, misleading statements, and unethical behavior in my opinion supports this conclusion.
[Reply: You are free to post elsewhere if you don’t like the site Policy here. Also, I note you have no specifics supporting your ad hominem attacks on Mr. Bast.— mod.]

David L
January 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm
###
Thanks for proving my point.

the honest straight shooter Joe Bast.
Stealey continues to amuse!

Trafamadore: The jury for science may be one thing, but the jury for a paper is something else. Mann’s methodology has been found to be incorrect. Do you agree that, as one of the many inputs of the jury of science, that papers that have bad methodology should be withdrawn…at the very least, so that someone else doesn’t make the mistake of thinking the methodology is sound?

trafamadore said:

If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism. Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world?

To claim that Gleick’s political activism does not taint him as a scientist is absurd. It contradicts Gleick’s own thinking. He forged a document to taint skeptics and their scientific view with political activism.
Whether he personally typed the fake document is almost irrelevant. He is still a forger.
Placing an orangutan jaw with a Neanderthal skull is an act of forgery;
Placing a fake signature on a genuine document is an act of forgery.
Placing fake experimental results in with genuine ones is an act of forgery.
And placing a fake document in with genuine ones is an act of forgery.
It is a sad day for the integrity of science and journalism, when Willis and others have to resort to baseball analogies or similar, to try to make the willfully blind see what should be manifestly obvious.

Willis Eschenbach says: “My sports metaphor doesn’t contain Lance Armstrong, so it cannot break down because of Lance or whatever he did.”
Opps, maybe I should explain, Armstrong is a bicyclist that makes his living bicycling, like baseball players make their living tossing their balls about. You see, he illegally used EPO to boast his O2 capacity to cheat similar to the baseball players who in your metaphor used steriods to boast their strength and cheat. But, after your long monologue, I can understand your failure to get it, that’s okay, I understand.
You know, based on your rant, you would think us scientists could just sit about repeating other people’s work and finding irascible results. In fact, at the beginning of papers we ofter actually do repeat a wee bit of someone’s work to set up our experiments. You know how often I have found fishy results? Never. Zippo. Nadda. And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$. So I dont know how empty you think the science ethics glass is, but from my perspective in the trenches it’s always been pretty full. No, you wont get that one either. Nevermind.
The bottom line is that you want scientists to crucify Gleick when you guys hold up the E. Ang. robbers as heros.

Jake Diamond says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm
John –
Your reading comprehension fails you. I’ve expressed no hostility towards Anthony Watts. I’ve suggested a reasonable standard of ethical behavior to which ALL writers and blogs should adhere–disclosure of conflict of interest. Frankly it’s astounding that you are so confused on this point.

– – – – – – – –
Jake Diamond,
Again, I revert to my parody of you. Will you agree that what you unilaterally ask of other private organizations and people means they can unilaterally ask it of you as a private person? Will you agree to my request for you to unilaterally provide me with private info that I request of you? Using your ‘logic’, my request to you is so I can make sure you are being ethical in commenting here and that you do not represent an ethical / moral / legal conflict of interest in your comments here? Will you agree to my probing of your private affairs as you are of Anthony?
You are a parody in real life by your question to Anthony. Please stop pretending. Your question to Anthony is specific enough to clearly indicate that you already know the answer that he has long since previously provided. And you know that the answer to your question is already in the public domain on this site for almost a year.
HI has a fundamental right to privacy under the US constitution. Anthony’s site, private life and business have a fundamental right to privacy under the US constitution. And both of them admirably withstood the jerkwater-like l’affaire Gleick, that simpleton of all frauds. AGU legitimacy is damaged already by condoning him.
John

Gleick did what he did in an attempt to damage Heartland’s donor base. Admitted identity theft and alleged forgery in the name of noble cause
Here is Aus, less than 1 week ago, a self-identified “anti-coal activist” mocked up (ie. allegedly forged) a digital facsimile of a major bank’s market notice of withdrawal of loan facilities to a coal miner, purportedly on the grounds that the bank (the ANZ) had withdrawn the loan facility due to the anti-environmental aspect of coal mining. This person then emailed this alleged forgery to various well-known journalists from the financial press
Some of these journalists, obviously wishing such a press release to be true, tweeted it around without compunction or fact-checking. Others published it on their website with a very incompetent fact check: to wit, they phoned the mobile number quoted on the alleged forgery and were greeted with said “activist” pretending to be a bank spokesman. This they took as true, since they wanted to believe it was
The resultant damage on the ASX reached over $314m in an hour or so
So, we have alleged forgery and identity theft with the malicious intent of financially damaging a publically listed company, and this succeeded. Seems familiar … and the parallelism continues:
The Aus Green Party (actually in a formal coalition with the current Govt in federal power !) has been making statements published in the MSM to the effect that “noble cause” applies here (ie. it’s OK to commit forgery, identity theft and malicious property damage in the name of nobility). The very same journalists, who may well be regarded as accessories after the alleged fact based on their completely incompetent “fact-checking” prior to publishing, are now busy publishing articles to support this “noble cause” and also to dilute their own accountability (eg. only a “hoax”)
The Aus corporate cop, ASIC, has seized the “activist’s” laptop and mobile (gee, eh) and say they are investigating. The Aus Federal Govt has said absolutely nothing, and is unlikely to because their own coalition partners are aggressively pushing the noble cause muck in the MSM
Although these alleged crimes carry maximum penalties of 10 years jail and $0.5m in fines, we in Aus suspect that the eventual outcome will be the equivalent to a stern warning for a “silly, stupid hoax”
As with Gleick, if no hard accountability is imposed, this may well result in further copy cats. Such is noble cause corruption

Trafamadore said:
And look what happened to the B.E.S.T. study last summer that was funded by private monies to disprove results from the evil government scientists. That turned out to be a waste of the Koch brothers $$.
This comment show you are prone to accepting the propaganda launched against the Koch brothers, rather than the truth. They are actually very interested in science. They’ve been providing funding for NOVA and other PBS programs for years, including a show a couple of years ago on evolution. There is no indication that they put any pressure on anyone working on the BEST project to come up with results more to their liking. Rather, they simply wanted a better accounting for the temp record, and they accept what the results are, which is scientific by its very nature..

Lots of trolls out here. I wonder what the trolls have to say about Peter Gleick’s review of Donna’s book about the IPCC.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5
Peter has had nearly a year to delete all the lies he made in that smear review of Donna’s book but clearly he either lacks the courage to retract it or he has zero integrity, possibly both.

mpainter says: “Gleick is manifestly guilty- he admitted it, but you won’t admit his admission. You lack any sense of the absurd, tramadore.”
hey…
one person admits, the other skulks away and hides. I actually dont see the difference when they basically did the same thing. It would be _absurd_ to think anything else.
And I admit his admission, really, and I dont agree with what he did. This is about penalizing him as a scientist for what is civil infraction, activism, for which, so far, he hasnt even been convicted.
Whats the matter with “up hold”? easier to write than “hold on your shoulders”…

trafamador, thanks for offering a portal to understanding the “consensus” mind. A decade ago I lost a friend to this CAGW madness and that was the inspiration for my own climate claims research. Amazing is the adherence to the Noble Cause principle. My friend is scrupulous in all his dealings but if you engage him on the climate issue, anything goes. Ironically I read most anything he recommends, never is the courtesy returned. We are indeed witnessing one of the greatest mass delusions in the history of man.

“Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise.”
More the latter in the list than the former.
A retracted paper would be practically amazing in climatology because it would mean either someone was actually honest enough to admit they made false claims, or shockingly they were actually forced to admit such, as in some actual borderline penalty. Dishonesty like Mann’s hockey stick is generally never, ever retracted. Thus like either around 99.99% (if I recall correctly) or some other about-100% figure of climatology papers are never retracted.
With extraordinarily rare fluke exceptions, one only sees retracted papers in more honest fields like medicine.
For instance, in 2010, there was a blatantly BS study claiming phytoplankton declined by 40% since 1950 (about as absurd as if claiming 99% of land plants died last week with nobody noticing, for such was in complete contradiction to how such was utterly not seen in fish catches, how other studies of phytoplankton and chlorophyll trends found net increase in contrast, how plankton did well during warmer times and during higher-CO2 periods of Earth’s history, etc). That was not retracted but applauded and highlighted by the environmentalist operators of the Nature journal in a special press release, then spread to media outlets dutifully reporting the false propaganda to the public.
A common claim of supporters of the CAGW movement is that deliberate falsehoods would be avoided by so-called scientists in order to prevent (mythical, vague, and imaginary) legal or academic penalties. But I’ve yet to see an example of anyone ever having been penalized for smoothly done dishonesty in support of their cause. I strongly suspect that, if one ever did, the media (with their average ideological and political biases) would be rushing to their support. Mann, Hansen, Gleick … none of them suffered any real net penalty, more like reward.
Data manipulation can be as blatant as the GISS example in http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif (where a 0.3+ degree change is a huge deal in context when all of global warming is about tenths of a degree) and has no net negative consequences to those doing it whatsoever. I suppose they must discourage extreme sloppiness which would too obviously backfire on their cause (like fudging by 100 degrees instead), but that’s it.
A common naive assumption is assuming honesty by default, but, while I like to think that probably more than 50% of people in existence (as in random ordinary people) are honest a majority of the time in day to day life, there’s no basis whatsoever for assuming honesty on subsets of the population like those least bothered by prior CAGW movement dishonesty and hence happily joining the effort.
Part of led me to skepticism was interacting with groups of hardcore no-lifer activists on forums and wikipedia, realizing from experience that not a small minority but every last one I encountered were utterly dishonest (even when having no financial incentive to be so), then wondering why on Earth was I assuming their “professional” equivalents would be any more honest when financial incentives were added.
Some fields have better people drawn to them on average, a majority more pro-human and moral in outlook, and do tend towards honesty. Medical research, while having some cases of fraud, is utterly different from climatology in that such has actually been penalized many times. But I’ve never seen comparable examples in activist-dominated climatology, only the opposite where someone with inconvenient honesty gets penalized for revealing truth that the public is never supposed to know.

richardscourtney says: “Anybody can read your posts on this and other threads which show you are as much of a “scientist” as a herring is a bird.”
Whatever you say, it must true.

@Gail C
“The Bankers, CEOs, Academics, and Politicians know exactly what they are doing, and that is the complete gutting of western civilization for profit. The lament “it is for our future children” has to be the vilest lie they have ever told, since their actions sell those children into slavery.”
I really appreciated you comment above and have forwarded the whole of it to a couple of friends. I find myself in a similar position relative to powerful interests who for the most part, can’t cut off my supply of bread because I am willing to live cheap. Money can’t be all that important – look at the sort of fingers most of it sticks to.
I do have a comment on the issue of whether banks or governments have more power. Governments of the day usually have a very short term agenda and banks have a very long term one. It may surprise many that the only way to control global private enterprise is with global governance of global enterprise. The (failing) attempts at controlling global enterprise with national regulation are opposed heartily by…global enterprise – no surprise there. Who do you suppose funds media opposition to global governance? National governments? National private enterprise? Hardly. It is all about having two or three faces and using whatever is the bogeyman-of-the-hour to subvert international federation in any form – keep the pot boiling so to speak. What happens now? Whenever two people share a chocolate bar, shout “Socialism!” Whenever you see someone selling a homemade quilt shout. “Capitalist Pig!” There is a lot of noise designed to distract. Many powerful sectors think ‘they are so clevah’; that they are the tail wagging the dog, a dog with many tails!
Global enterprise is very real and has very real consequences for everyone. I doubt that genie can be put back in the lamp. International regulation requires a forum for it. The elected parliament is a pretty good approach to creating one. The only effective alternative is Empire and that is not a viable model though there are still those who aspire to it.

mpainter says: “Okay, fine, but you appeared to be excusing him.”
Well. I shouldnt say, I guess.
To be honest, given that the Gleick disaster happened, I am disappointed that it didnt take Heartland down more, as I have not really liked that place since its cigarette days. But you know that already, from a different thread.

Willis Eschenbach says: “No more morals than a snake has hips.”
Well, Willis, you should work on justifying why legislation against 2nd hand smoke is bad for us all, I’m sure you would be fine with doing that. And maybe when you talk about morals, you should realize that some people take them seriously and act. And Gleick was certainly one of those people.

traffie (you don’t mind if I call you “traffie” I hope, as after all your posts I feel as though I know you well) – traffie, if what Gleick did was an expression of his morals, then you are admitting that lying, deceiving and misrepresenting are an integral part of his moral code. That works for me.
And, since I have an attention span longer than that of a baby, your attempts to divert the discussion (ooh, squirrel … ooh, shiny … ) won’t work with me, nor, I suspect, with the vast majority of readers – and certainly not with Willis.
You have contributed nothing to helping us understand why the AGU would not only refuse to address Gleick’s admitted malfeasances, but even elevated him to the podium – three times – instead.
OTOH, you’ve made a strong contribution to our understanding of the calibre of person who brought this sorry state of affairs about.