Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper.
See the screencap for the Institute of Physics page:
Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
With the lack of scruples by IOP in leaving a self admitted cyber criminal like Gleick on their board, no wonder the sort of junk such as Cook et al. gets published there.
h/t to Poptech
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
..and thank you for calling out the web of pal-reviewing, self-perpetuating warmistas. The MSM isn’t paying attention, but since they are a house of cards holding each other up it will be a mighty crash when it comes.
I guess this organization is ok with theft, perjury, and forgery as qualifying behaviors and strengths for the position….
Hmmmmm… I wonder why that does not give a warm fuzzy feeling inside?
A quote from Cook in the leaked SkS forum files:
“I’m a strong advocate for revising old SkS rebuttals. Not the blog posts – just the rebuttals which are our encyclopedic reference. Peter Gleick has told me they need revising and updating and I agree.”
Isn’t it nice to have friends in high places?
IRS like stuff in the end. Pitiful really>>>>
Vote, if you don’t, this stuff happens.
Hello ?
I checked out the IOP’s membership requirements. Looks like $25 bucks and an email address and you are a member. If I had a cat I would join it up. My dog has too much class for such nonsense.
Having a thief on their board certainly leaves them well rounded.
Maybe I’ll sign my dog up. He has no class. He poops anywhere.
Myles Allen also appears on the board. Lately though he is showing signs of looking for a soft landing (the Otto paper, a blog or column deploring the waste of money on useless energy proposals).
Why are you surprised. This is business as usual for them.
I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession and deprive the rightful owner. Making an unauthorised copy of something is not theft or “stealing”.
What Peter Gliek admitted to having done would better be described as fraud, wire fraud to be more accurate. Now fraud is a far more serious offence that making an unauthorised copy of a document (which clearly he did not do himself anyway).
Why let him off so lightly? What he admitted doing would be better reflected by “Self admitted fraudster “.
Peter Gleick in NOT a “cyber thief”. He is an Anti-Science Skeptic Politically Active Consensus Rebuilder. Who did as political activists committed to their cause have done for centuries, he merely bypassed inconvenient laws that protected the obviously-guilty to extract what he could portray as the truth for the benefit of the public’s perception of his political cause.
Why wouldn’t the IOP want an investigative activist who is willing to doggedly pursue what can be made to appear as apparent truth, as part of their fair and impartial editorial board?
Gee, what do you expect IOP to start doing? Complain when activist scientists steal the hard work of skeptical researchers for purposes of preemptive denouncement and slander?
If history really is written by the victors then a world where Cook and his ilk are treated as heroes is not one I would look forward to.
Thanks to you Anthony, and many others here, that may not come to pass.
And in other Gleick news … Gleick’s little fiefdom recently launched a new, improved website … and …. wait for it … a blog!
A few things appear to be missing from this new, improved website …
First, they seem to have dropped (or perhaps they haven’t yet updated) the link to their “Advisory Board” (which still lists the late great communicator, Saint Stephen of Stanford as an In Memoriam member). Then, again, perhaps they’ve simply decided to drop the whole Advisory Board! [And yes, I do have a back-up .pdf of this page]
Second, a June 6, 2012 “PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT” of welcome back to Gleick appears to be all that is left of their history of Gleick’s highly unethical record of cyber-theft, impersonation and promulgation of a forgery.
And last, but not least, there is no mention (that I could find on the site) that on May 8, Gleick, (or perhaps someone using his name and) describing himself as “Pacific Institute, President Member, US National Academy of Sciences” had given his “endorsement” to the grandiosely named “Scientists’ Consensus” on “Maintaining humanity’s life support systems in the 21st century”.
This “landmark Statement” was an exercise in over the top hyper-alarmism, if ever there was one! [For details, pls see: Crisis of the week: the biosphere … new “Statement” percolated, circulated and endorsed]
Regarding the house of cards… You can all rest assured that I have also been calling out (to friends) that this AGW bubble will indeed crash. The longer the charade, the worse the crash! Just as the 2001 dot com that I called in 2000, and the housing market bubble that I called in 2004 (a few years early I know). I also called the US debt bubble a few years ago. I put my money where my mouth is so I lost almost nothing during the roller coaster rides by pulling out early and putting money back in the market as it started recovering. Yes – I know I was lucky… bunch hunches are sometimes good. It’s gonna be bad when interest rates normalize!
PS – I know I am not alone on these guesses… but in CA, no one around me except some fiscal conservatives, gives me credence.
And I know Leif would tell me it’s all a bunch of nonsense. And technically he’d be right…
Thanks for coffee through nose on phone! 🙂
There seems to be a misunderstanding here concerning what the Institute of Physics is all about. Obviously, it’s based on a different definition of physics, which means more than one physic:
phys•ic (ˈfɪz ɪk) n. 1. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Prolonged and sustained applause.
Anthony, Mods
I think my comment 1326491 of 10:20 p.m. seems to be stuck in moderation – but may have landed in your spam trap (Akismet is not too fond of comments with 5 links, as I recall)
Perhaps you could fish it out for me.
Thanks,
Hilary
[Reply: fishing expedition successful. Comment rescued & posted. — mod.]
Another demonstration of the fact that in our society there is no such thing as white collar crime.
People like Peter Gleick languish so helplessly in a self righteous sense of their own moral rectitude that they are simply unable to admit that black is black and white is white, even when it is shown to them.
And their friends, if they have them, will meet the slightest challenge to such a person with arrogant indignation, quite irrespective of the merits.
Criticism in the face of such moral certitude is simply incomprehensible to the principal and an occasion of offense for the acolyte.
So I am not surprised!
Cook Survey would not pass advertising standards.
67% expressed no opinion whatsoever, so how can 97% support AGW, only by using ‘Whiskas’ style statistics, thankfully these are no longer allowed by advertising standards.
Remember when 8 out of 10 cats preferred Whiskas. Advertising standards asked the cats directly and got answers something like “well, 8 out of 10 of us cats prefer Whiskas to actually chasing mice” and “97% of us cats prefer Whiskas to getting run over by a truck.”
Of course this resulted in Whiskas changing their slogan to ‘8 out of 10 cat owners who expressed an opinion said their cat preferred Whiskas”.
Cook should do the same, it should be rephrased to …
“97% of some scientists in fields related to climate science, who expressed an opinion and represented a very noisy minority far outnumbered by those who expressed no opinion, believe humans are playing some part in climate change”
It doesn’t have the same ring to it, but it is much closer to a true statement.
Cook’s 97% was made for the Bonn Climate Change Conference. however, how on earth does the following turn up on Minnesota Public Radio?
5 June: Minnesota Public Radio: The Public Circuit: There’s a science to our faith in conspiracy theories
In a recent Salon.com interview, University of Western Australia researcher Stephan Lewandowsky talked about the psychology of conspiracy theories…
The New Yorker magazine dove into the topic in April, reporting on Lewandowsky’s work and delving into “motivated reasoning.”…
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/06/05/daily-circuit-conspiracytheories
could it be because on the same page is listed to the right of the article:
On the radio:
Michael Wood: Ph.D. candidate and associate lecturer, University of Kent, and an expert in the psychology of conspiracy theories.
jeez & others discussed Wood as “reviewer” then not-reviewer of the Lewandowsky paper on one of anthony’s Lewandowsky threads:
jeez says:
…Here are the original reviewers before the editor apparently added himself. (This in itself is very troubling and may need to be reported to the head of the Journal).
Here are the reviewers of this paper:
Michael J. Wood, University of Kent, United Kingdom…etc
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/lewandowskys-latest-smear-paper-gets-pulled-from-the-journal-website/
Skeptical Science and Peter Gleick have degenerated into a “lobbying” promotional agents of CO2 disaster scenarios.
Increasingly the public distrust this phony analysis.
I fear for the damage to real science that will be sure follow .
Credibilty Check
– Myles Allen : Deluded extreme Climate Activist proclaiming “I am a scientist ! I am”
(but he’s getting RECENT flack from other activists for supporting CCS
– Maohong Fan : Books : “New Coal Gasification production”, “Environanotechnology , Rate Constant Calculation for Thermal Reactions
– Googling with the word “denier” or denialist” brought up thousands of pages for one of these people, and almost zero for the other ..guess which ?
– Ever noticed that the people shouting that others are “DENIERS” are simply PROJECTING the fact that they are “ECO-NAZIS” themselves
– Myles Allen : Deluded extreme Climate Activist proclaiming “I am a scientist ! I am”
(but he’s getting RECENT flack from other activists for supporting CCS)
– Maohong Fan : Books : “New Coal Gasification production”, “Environanotechnology , Rate Constant Calculation for Thermal Reactions .
– Googling with the word “denier” or denialist” brought up thousands of pages for one of these people, and almost zero for the other ..guess which ?
– Ever noticed that the people shouting that others are “DENIERS” are simply PROJECTING the fact that they are “ECO-NAZIS” themselves