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
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:41 am
Wow, I’m up to TWO posts caught in the “moderation” basket at once!
If I get three or more pending at once, what’s the prize
==================================================
A Laurel, and Hardy handshake.
Mods.. Comment stuck in the bit bucket?
Still not viewable several hours later. Sorry, I don’t know what comment number it is.
Luther Wu says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:49 a
_____________
The absurdity of statements made here by Ryan disclose that he is either:
a) Someone having us on- a troll
b) Completely intellectually corrupt and probably a sociopath, or worse
Perhaps if we had a poll, one of those choices would get that magic 97% consensus number.
Especially if you add:
” c) All of the above”
🙂
Question for Ryan:
Q: Which is bigger – $100 or $1,000,000?
a) $1,000,000
b) $100
c) It depends on whether it’s for “consensus science” or actual science. If the $mil is for the “consensus”, and $100 is for actual science, then $100 is bigger.
My guess is your answer is “c”, right?
Two years ago after my liver had basically kissed itself goodbye I found myself in a hospital and then three weeks in a nursing home/rehab center. For most, a nh/rc is their last stop in life but I was guaranteed to leave. The professional people at the home knew this but the CNA’s did not therefore they treated me the same miserable way they treated the other ‘inmates’ (that’s a more literal description than one thinks), half of whom suffered from age-related dementia. For that reason the CNA’s thought they could get away with breaking all the rules. Those rules were put in place through long human experience and regarded such things as privacy, and respect for individual rights.
Now, the CNA’s not only thought they could get away with it they, indeed, did get away with it. I mentioned to a friend that I wondered if the home’s directors were aware of this. He stated point blank that the directors had to be fully well aware and that they sanctioned it. If they didn’t approve of that behavior it would have stopped. Some of this behavior, by the way, bordered on illegality.
I think of this when I think of Gleick, and the IRS scandals. They’re all one and the same and they indicate a complete lack of respect for privacy and individual rights. And, ultimately, it comes straight from the top.
Those people should be careful. They may find themselves in a nursing home one day. Then they’ll truly understand the laws of nature.
Luther Wu says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:49 am
The absurdity of statements made here by Ryan disclose that he is either:
a) Someone having us on- a troll
b) Completely intellectually corrupt and probably a sociopath, or worse
—–
c) Hi, Peter!
Onose. I must have constipiritorial ideation to suspect that Peter G. would engage in internet trolling of this site.
Clearly, all the major journals have been commandeered by Stoat Connolley-type gatekeepers to keep the CAGW storyline pure. The Stoat singlehandedly ruined Wikipedia as a source for climate stuff or even biographies of climate scientists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
Don’t feed the troll.
Bryan says: “Skeptical Science and Peter Gleick have degenerated into a “lobbying” promotional agents of CO2 disaster scenarios.”
There has been no degeneration of Skeptical Science. It sucks just as much as it ever did.
I hear O.J. Simpson is looking for part-time work he can do from “home”. Maybe some legal journal could hire him.
Brazen. In-your-face corruption.
Greg Goodman says @ur momisugly June 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm
“I don’t know why Anthony insists on saying “stole” or “stolen”. You can only steal something if take physical possession…”
====================================================
This is probably the wrong forum for non-lawyers to argue the point, but based upon the attached definition, “physical possession” is not required for “stealing” to have occurred. Anthony’s usage appears to be correct.
From Dictionary.law.com:
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is “petty theft,” but it is “grand theft” for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with “larceny.” Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
Ryan says @ur momisugly June 5, 2013 at 7:05 am
That a large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government and blogosphere to foster doubt about the dangers of unregulated GHG release. Do you really think we would know who was funding the surface station project or why if the leak hadn’t happened?
======================================================
Three thoughts for Ryan (which may be more than he’s had in quite a while…):
1. Even if the accusation were true (eg: large amount of previously-undisclosed money flows into the government), what is wrong with perfectly legitimate private-funded free speech or scientific inquiry?
2. If Ryan thinks private money corrupts, but not public money (ie: academic funding), he’s willfully naive – look at [government] estimated Medicare fraud of 20-30% – try finding a share-holder owned insurance business operated like that.
3. People who don’t deal with huge sums of money frequently get lost in absolute value vs relative value: $1 or $2 million dollars is a lot of money in absolute value; it’s trivial compared to the $50-$100 billion (depending on what nations you include) of government funding.
“Ryan” has really opened my eyes. Some people are actually willing to knowingly donate their own money to dispel lies and disinformation that misleads the general public. I thought the only proper way to raise money for and/or promote an agenda was to throw ethics out and use a government bureaucracy, taxes and/or collect donations for organizations that hide their true agenda. Who knew?
(What’s the proper way to insert a “sarc tag”?)
OK, I’ll lift a copy of the CNC file for your cool, proprietary energy widget and start production right away. You shouldn’t have a problem with that, right?
kadaka – ASSPACR? Interesting variation on an old English phrase.
In my humble opinion focusing on Peter Gleick over the issues concerning the Cook, et al paper is misguided. Shouldn’t we be looking at and questioning Dan Kammen, the editor of Environmental Research Letters? I am somewhat familiar with Kammen’s past research and found his recent comment on the UC Berkeley Blog disturbing. Editor comments like these will surely lead to tough inquiries about editorial bias and questionable peer review in this situation.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/05/29/the-story-of-a-presidential-tweet/
Given the current scandals enveloping the Obama administration, I seriously doubt the President actually composed/sent the nonsensical tweet mentioned in Kammen’s blog post.
Has anyone sent inquiries to Kammen on this matter as well as on the already well-known problems associated with the Cook, et al paper?