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)
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.
——————
Could we not determine this using then well known climate science practice of ‘consensus’. So if we are nearly all agreed, then that is clearly a scientific fact and becomes ‘Gleick’s Law – unto himself’
philjourdan says: 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!
He’s not “no different than any other criminal in jail” , those in jail did not get preferential treatment from the D.A and got damn well prosecuted for their (alleged) crimes.
One would have thought that Gleick would have the good sense and common decency to keep his mouth shut on the subject of “both false and misleading”.
In essence Peter Gleick is saying “STOP DOING TO ME WHAT I DO TO YOU!”
Something about a Golden Rule comes to mind …
Why does anybody give a tuppeny dam’ what “Mr” Gleick thinks any more? He has been thoroughly discredited, proven to be a liar and crook.
Jimbo says:
May 7, 2013 at 9:54 am
Does Peter Gleick accuse the following people of making “false” claims and being “misleading”??
Thanks for reposting those lines from the CRU emails. I read the “Institute of Physics Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry on Climategate” at Talbloke’s talkshop and it is indeed always good for a repost, especially for those who learned only later about climategate (there still are people who lived in a CAGW bubble until recently):
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/flashback-institute-of-physics-submission-to-parliamentary-inquiry-on-climategate/
“Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)”
“What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?”
Paul Homewood says:
May 7, 2013 at 10:01 am
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.
Yes indeed, pretty cool way of showing the reality, thanks for that!
…“Fakegate” concludes disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, is the most likely author.
Oh yes, that forged document, and the assumption who wrote it.
I remember Steven’s speculations at Lucia’s Blackboard about the terms in which the fake document was written, long before anybody knew who had stolen the other documents.
It may still make an interesting lecture, almost like a Sherlock Holmes story:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/
see also comment #89946
@ur momisugly Greg Goodman says:
May 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Yea, I realized as soon as I hit the post key, that my logic was flawed. After all, they are IN JAIL, and he is not. So he is not like every other common criminal. He is worse.
Gleick has been a pimple on the the tookas of California’s ruling body for decades. Spreading deceit and lies while being enabled by Democrats and media in San Francisco.
But Admad is right. This isn’t about the discredited Gleick anymore. This utterance and everything Gleick will say in the future is an indictment of Camalla Harris.
Proof that when there is a Democrat in the office of Attorney General of California there is no such thing as justice.
“…when you can’t respond to the science, attack and insult the scientists.”
The hypocrisy would be laughable if the if there weren’t actual human beings suffering as a result of their deceit.
I just remembered a survey made here in Australia of academics appearance.When young neophytes they are all clean shaven. When middle range and mediocre they all sport beards. When they go past the ”Look at me I am a scientist” stage they are once again clean shaven. The survey concluded that it was something to do with maturity and/or abilities.
[snip – persona non grata – mod]
When you can apply a dog and send a check that isn’t a scientific organization: it’s a money laundering scam
posing as a scientists’ organization.
Watts proved it.
The same way he proved Al Gore switched those thermometers during ’24 hours of climate angst’
or whatever that was called when Al Gore switched thermometers after the CO2-filled jar,
was cooler by a couple of degrees.
That’s the same experiment Anthony Watts repeated and the CO2-filled jar,
was cooler by a couple of degrees.
====
Sou says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Not as good as posing as a dog to sneak membership of a scientific organisation;
[snip. — mod.]
Phil Jourdan (re: May 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm)
Your logic, as to your essential point @10:18 (which Goodman ignored), that criminals blame-shift, was NOT flawed.
Both those who get punished by jail time and those who are punished only by public opinion do not accept responsibility for their crime.
By quickly conceding Goodman’s new point (which did not negate yours), you proved that you are both logical and humble. What a COOL person you are!
MattS: Thanks for that link – it’s always nice to re-run that video.
Sou, you must be a special kind of ignorant if you imagine that the “Union of Concerned Scientists” is a “scientific organisation.” No qualifications for membership, specializes in bleating and whining for political activism…. obviously, a renowned “scientific organisation” to be sure.
Sou, are you mendacious or merely ignorant?
[note: don’t engage this person – she’s a persona non grata attention seeker – mod]
Matt S., Thank you! That was fun. I needed a good laugh.
(and TAKE A BOW whoever created that music video — nice work!)
Peter Gleick,
If you are reading this then please take note. I am on your side. I feel your pain. I will care for you in the community – just remember to take your multiple medications. I agree with you that the world continues to warm and the IPCC and Met Office graphs LIE – just like you. You don’t need to be a climacriminalotologist to know this. Also you must stay off ‘da herb’. 🙂
I don’t know what Sou said but you should let some of their comments slip in sometimes. IF sou was defending a self confessed liar, document fabricator and wire fraudster (who should be in jail) then sou is a highly suspect person.
Cherrypicking is fine — but only if you belong to the holy brotherhood of climate alarmists, that incestuous cult which encourages confirmation bias, lack of transparency, arrogance, elitism, tribalism and dogmatism.
Is Sou Peter Gleick?
[Reply: Not sure. But he/she also posts as “A. Crowe”. — mod.]
errrr…what does “Peter” mean in American slang?
Gleick, like Mann is wonderful.
In all honesty I could not have made either of these “Poster children for CAGW” up.
The more publicity they are granted the more their cause sinks into oblivion.
Why is Peter being shy? I sort of expected him to be posting here by now, explaining that criminal behaviour is only such, when the heretics do it.All messiahs of the cause get a free pass for ethics.
Why is it that alarmists only think it is “cherry picking” when the dates selected don’t show warming, but when a different set of dates do show warming, then those are the only acceptable scientifically valid dates to use and that is not somehow cherry picking too?
The labeling of the present temperature trend as “cherry-picking” is the last refuge of the global warmers. If twenty years hence, global temps are half a degree cooler, they will still be chirping “cherry-picking”, like a chorus of crickets. There is little chance that warming will resume anytime this decade, but global warmers cannot admit that even to themselves for the pain it would cause them: It is akin to smashing your cherished idols.