Heh, it seems it touched a sensitive spot. Tom Nelson pretty much nails this one. In response to a tweet made today by self admitted document thief Peter Gleick where he promotes this story:
I made this response which Tom Nelson picked up on.
Peter Gleick: Stop “attacking” me by reminding people about that incident last year when I was caught stealing documents (and almost certainly forging another one)
Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat
@PeterGleick for your next trick, “how to fool people using document theft”
Gleick responds: @wattsupwiththat Ah, YOUR standard trick: when you can’t respond to the science, attack and insult the scientists. Classy.
Flashback: Study: Gleick Forged ‘Fakegate’ Memo | Heartland Institute
March 14, 2012 – A computer analysis of the “climate strategy memo” at the heart of the widely publicized global warming scandal called “Fakegate” concludes disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, is the most likely author.
Les Johnson adds a dose of reality:
Related articles
- Peter Gleick: This may be the stupidest of your many stupid #climate posts (tallbloke.wordpress.com)
- Not a Joke: Disgraced Thief Peter Gleick Poses for ‘Lifetime Achievement’ Award (fakegate.org)
- Is Jerry Brown Coming After Peter Gleick’s Shotgun? (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the met office would be very interested to know that Pete the Heat thinks they are cherry picking data when they say there has been no warming since the turn of the century…
Does Peter Gleick accuse the following people of making “false” claims and being “misleading”??
And head of the IPCC Pachauri
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/
You don’t have to cherry pick a start year. Using 1997-2011 as the baseline, GISS figures show that 2012 was bang on average.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/no-warming-since-1997a-better-way-to-show-it/
As an expert on water Peter Gleick should know that
Skeptics are so unreasonable. ~sigh~ You steal and probably forge documents just one time, and suddenly you’re that guy who steals and probably forges documents.
/sarc
Poor Picked on Peter. He breaks the laws and then whines about it. But he is no different than any other criminal in jail. Just ask them – they were picked on!
Gleick says: “… climate changes isn’t happening,…”
He may be a thief but he makes up for it in grammar.
The only argument Gleick has ever had was the one he made up himself, talk about a straw man.. Why on earth would anyone want to employ someone in a position of trust or even as a toilet cleaner when they openly admit they had committed fraud. He should be in prison. WHy was nothing done about these criminal acts. Or has a precedent been set. Fraud is now ok boys ?
Does Gleick still believe that warming is accelerating like a hockey stick? Can he show any evidence for it?
And I see that Gleick has appointed himself as a “climatologist” – again:
Source [h/t Skiphil via BH unthreaded]
And speaking of this firebrand “water” guy and his connections … [shameless plug alert] … Gleick’s little fiefdom popped up as a footnote in the source material of a recent post I did on the UN’s March 22 flurry of activities on the waterfront:
Of word salads and firebrands on the UN waterfront
“You steal and probably forge documents just one time …”
I lost my virginity once …
… never again!
10,000 years of a descending sine wave of which the latest peak has been twisted into a global disaster swindle with countless forecasts of dangerous warming with little to no hope of the slightest reprieve from nature while any appeal to considering longer time frames ridiculed or ignored and now we’re the ones cherry picking?
OMG!
Ok, let’s evaluate different timeframes of the temperature records and see which ones support the position that something unusual is happening:
10 years: Nope.
100 years: Perhaps.
1000 years: Perhaps, if you look at the data just the right way (1 tree = world, etc.).
10,000 years: Nope.
100,000 years: Nope.
1,000,000 years: Nope.
10,000,000 years: Nope.
100,000,000 years: Nope.
1,000,000,000 years: Nope.
Who is it again that’s cherry picking?
You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.
Dr. Peter Gleick was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Ethics and Integrity when he committed wire fraud. He is still a free man.
Shouldn’t Peter Gleick be behind bars?
Yes, Jimbo, he should be. Looks like they let him out on work release to pay off that $107,493.
If saying “it hasn’t warmed for 17 years” is cherrypicking, than a statement like “worst Hurricane to hit XXX for 75 years” is also cherrypicking.
If the educated elitists actually were simply interested in truth and justice, and had a consistent set of values, such as scientific values, the occurrence of unexpected events would not throw them into disarray regarding their talking points.
With this extended plateau of global temps, they all have not yet received marching orders. So, their messages will vary greatly.
Is there a plateau, or is perception of a plateau dependent upon cherry-picking data or not interpreting correctly? They have not yet achieved 97% consensus on this.
I am following the same absence-of-talking-points phenomenon as the Gosnell tragedy unfolds. Memes include: ‘we in the media are not covering it because nothing interesting is happening,’ and ‘we have been covering it – you just did not notice. ‘ Some abortion advocates have claimed that Gosnell was committing infanticide, unsanitary abortions, and dangerous anesthesiology because of the meddling of pro-lifers who have put up barriers, while others have claimed his abhorrent practice was just an anomaly, and some have simply claimed that the life-or-death decision of how to treat a child who survives outside the womb following abortion procedures as a matter to be decided between a woman (anesthetized) and her provider.
These failures to coordinate memes reminds me of the movie Raising Arizona, in the bank robbery scene, when our protagonists tell the patrons to both freeze, and get on the ground:
The innocent-bystander old farmer asks, “Well, which is it young feller? do you want me to freeze or get on the ground? mean to say, ifin i freeze, i cant rightly drop. and ifin i drop, im a goin to be in motion, you see.”
Well, which is it young feller? Are temps rising, or have they plateau’d?
aaron says:
May 7, 2013 at 11:32 am
“You might not be able to say with certainty that Gleik forged the document, but you could provide a confidence interval in which one would fail to reject the hypothesis Gleik forged the document.”
Now let’s imagine Peter Gleick has not forged the document but found it in the mail, with no further letter. Not knowing who sent it. Doesn’t know whether it’s authentic.
So the first thing he does is he sends it to that warmist blog and pretends he’s an anonymous whistleblower.
Ok, Peter Gleick says that is what he has done.
In other words he claims himself to be a perfect idiot, yet at the same time he wants people to still take him seriously when he pontificates about climate science in Forbes?
I must give Peter Gleick credit though for his incredible chutzpah. He’s a real agitator with no regard for the truth or his own documented lies at all; if he’s bought and paid for he is real value for money.
Thanks Hilary! May I emphasize that not only is Peter Gleick a demonstrated liar, fraudster, and forger, but he is also an incoherent hysterical Alarmist:
Peter Gleick on “these results are in many ways the worst of all possible worlds”
Peter Gleick as the anti-Pangloss!
This deserves some serious mockery for the ludicrous hyperbole.
Voltaire in his “Candide” famously mocked excessive optimism with a character named Pangloss who continually proclaimed “the best of all possible worlds” in the midst of every catastrophe. This was based very loosely upon the philosopher Leibniz arguing that God would have created the “best of all possible worlds.”
Now we have Peter Gleick declaring “the worst of all possible worlds” to be imminent in the midst of countless improvements to human health, quality of life, and longevity. Someone call the Rational Optimist fire brigade Captain Matt Ridley!
From the Forbes article:
“…The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. …”
Um? Pachauri says that it has stopped, so do most of the climate scientists. They believe that it will start again, of course, but they’re in agreement that it’s stopped. Which makes them “lying, ignorant, etc…”
Which, of course, we already knew…..
The alarmist wagon is well and truly circled.
If the ‘climate science’ community were even halfway honest, they’d have disowned Gleick, Lewandowsky, and similar peripheral crackpots like Naomi Oreskes long ago. They’d be keeping the Bill McKibbens and George Monbiots at arm’s-length lest their hyperventilation go off on a damaging tangent.
But they’re (mostly) not, so they (mostly) haven’t, and (mostly) won’t.
I love the Peter Gleicks of this world – soap opera for the Hollywood face lift crowd. Which is exactly why they need our oil sands – gotta keep churning out the plastic.
I pick just one cherry, take a nibble, and see nothing but Gleick’s thievery. You can’t forget that type of “cherry picking”.
I’m betting Martin Luther King Jr. would evaluate the content of Gleick’s character and find him wanting.
Now, what was Gleick mumbling about the climate?
That is an incredible response Peter left. Beyond reality!
What is it in these activists minds that makes them reject reality?