Disgraced Identity Thief Peter Gleick: Democracy Under Assault From Liars

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Disgraced Identity Thief and liar Peter Gleick has urged fellow scientists to rise up and defend Democracy and climate science from those who misrepresent facts and make false statements.

I’m Marching to Fight the Alarming War on Science. Join Me

TWO NEW PUBLIC marches and demonstrations focused on science and climate change have been scheduled for April. I plan to be at both.

A disturbing array of fundamental social and human values are under assault in the United States. These values—basic human rights, amicable international relationships, environmental justice, free speech, separation of church and state, an open and independent media, and more—form the bedrock of what makes our country special. Yet these values are being undermined in an unprecedented assault by the Trump administration and by politicians who see an opportunity for an unprincipled massive power grab.

One tool being used in this assault on democracy is the uninhibited use of lies, false statements, blatant and intentional misrepresentations of fact, and bad science. This is evident in the rejection of the undeniable reality of climate change by many of Trump’s top appointees, the promotion to power of individuals who reject the fact of evolution in favor of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism, the spreading of bad medical science around the proven safety of vaccines, and the refusal to study the health risks of guns.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/im-marching-fight-alarming-war-science-join/

Peter Gleick impersonated a member of the Heartland Board of Directors to steal documents, then spiced up the swag with a [likely]* forgery when he discovered it didn’t contain anything incriminating, all while serving as chair of the American Geophysical Union Taskforce on Scientific Ethics.

In my opinion Peter Gleick is part of the assault on integrity and ethics, not part of the solution.

Why isn’t Gleick in jail for committing wire fraud and other serious crimes? Why does anyone take him seriously, when self confessed liar Peter Gleick poses as a champion of Democracy and scientific integrity?

Lets hope President Trump finds time in his schedule to look into the shocking failure by authorities to prosecute someone who by his own admission likely committed serious crimes.

UPDATE (3/7/2017 1:45PM PST):

In comments, someone claiming to be Peter Gleick (whose identity is not verifiable from the information provided) states:

As you all know, I normally ignore all the crap on this website, but the statement here that I committed “forgery” is a lie, and legally libel.

To my knowledge, Mr. Gleick has never refuted this 2012 forensic analysis of the Fake Heartland Memo that occurred after his assuming a fake ID as a Heartland board member, and his receipt under false pretenses of internal Heartland documents: Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger. Given that 5 years has passed since it’s publication, it seems Mr. Gleick views that essay as nolo contendereand by not challenging it, it in essence becomes stare decisis.

However, to be accurate and true to title of the link to that analysis given above, the word “likely” has been added. If Mr. Gleick, or someone pretending to be him, thinks that forensic analysis is in error, WUWT will provide a forum for a rebuttal by Mr. Gleick. – Anthony Watts

Advertisements

241 thoughts on “Disgraced Identity Thief Peter Gleick: Democracy Under Assault From Liars

      • In fact, their constant travel in the wrong direction will eventually take them out of the picture (figuratively).

      • These guys don’t care what mort people think. They’re only trying to impress fellow leftists.

      • Not defending him, but he knows he lied and someday he will be surprised when held accountable.

      • “They’re only trying to impress fellow leftists.”

        No. The left know they’re lying. It’s the Cucks they’re trying to convince.

    • And I suppose Trump epitomises to the rest of the world how a politician can lie, thieve and cheat their way to a powerful position for which they are completely unsuited, and still be supported by millions. Trump in the US has shown how dysfunctional many democratic systems have become. A recent survey of Republican voters has shown that almost 50% of such voters think that newspapers should not be able to freely publish issues they think are critical to know, but which may be critical of Trump. There are many of us who weep for a beautiful country which has lost its way.

      • Trump in the US has shown how dysfunctional many democratic systems have become.

        is showing.

        you are sooooooo lucky not to have Hilary C. Obama was ‘turned’, soooo glad he’s gone. I’m in Ireland and I feel so. I can’t wait for Trump to drain the swamp and also expose the crimes done by Obama/Clinton/Bush and the neglect of the people. They tried to control the world and get rich themselves while their own house crumbled. Democrats – seem to be an sheeple party that buys into msm not unlike creationists into creationism, CAGW ists into CAGW.

      • @Gareth Phillips

        I wasn’t aware Donald Trump had any convictions for lying, thieving or cheating.

        Too bad Hilary endorses her proven sexual pervert of a husband, and she faces jail if Trump takes time out to convict her of compromising national security by keeping government documents on a private server.

        And following both Brexit and Trumps triumphs, I suspect your poll is about as accurate as the fictitious 97% consensus.

      • Yes, things would be much better if we could just appoint someone like us to be president. All this bother of elections and policies and stuff could be avoided and we could just ignore the moaning from those who don’t agree, after all we know what’s best for them don’t we Gareth. /s

      • “the US has shown how dysfunctional many democratic systems have become.”

        Indeed. They could have easily suffered another Democrats term under Hilliar.

      • Can any of the Trump devotees state with any honesty that Trump does not lie? That he has always been honest in his business deals? Clinton may used a private server for emails, but was found not guilty of any offence. But that does not mean she was not liable for the offence. In the same way Trump has not been prosecuted ( yet) , But the same rules apply. It’s also worth noting that people in Trumps cabinet did the same thing as Clinton and were actually hacked. The reality is that Trump lies every time he opens his mouth and brings the US into disrepute.
        With regard to the subject of the debate, I am genuinely surprise that a fuss can be made about some old hippy stealing papers from an NGO for which he was not prosecuted, but no concern is expressed over the Commander in Chief acting in a dishonest fashion which is breathtaking, even by the scale of Western politics.
        At least read the facts !

        http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

      • Clinton was not found “not guilty”. She has never been tried. indeed, while Comey is not judge and jury, he stated clearly the evidence showed she broke the law. His out was that he did not “feel” a prosecutor would take the case.

        So clearly you have no clue what you are talking about. But that is not surprising. How about learning. Start with Bryan Nishimura.

      • It really is fascinating how your average socialist actually believes that any fact that they disagree with is a lie, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with them must be incompetent.

        Ah yes, the standard socialist fare about how incompetent democracy is, which is why they favor the elimination of democracy in favor of direct rule by them.

        As to banning news that you don’t like, I challenge you to provide a link to this alleged survey of yours. Regardless, nobody tops you socialists for banning opinions you disagree with.

      • Gareth, typical left wing evasion. You admit that Hillary broke the law, but since her buddies decided not to prosecute her, you claim that there is no problem.
        As to Trump lying, since I’ve never met the man, it’s impossible for me to meet your ludicrous test that I prove that he has never lied.
        How typical of socialists like yourself, demand that any politician you don’t like must be perfect, all the while excusing the criminality of your own side.

      • And it is obvious that many Democrat supporting papers don’t publish on issues that would be critical of Democrats.

        So on the one hand we have newspapers behaving in a certain way for decades, and on the other a poll.

        Tell me when this beautiful country lost its way?

      • Hint, before responding, read the information links I provided.
        Alex Jones, Breitbart news are not really reliable news sources. You need to read on a wider scale.
        If you criticise one person for lies and theft, then ignore the same behaviour from PORUS, you have indeed lost your way and moral compass.

      • “…Alex Jones, Breitbart news are not really reliable news sources. You need to read on a wider scale….” There are no “reliable news sources”. They have all replaced reporting with editorializing. One can only read direct quotes and make up their own mind today.

      • One can only read direct quotes and make up their own mind today.

        be careful where you chose to read them. As it has already been proven most of the YSM does not know what a quote is – and misquotes often.

      • Translation: I don’t agree with them, so they must be wrong.
        Regardless, I love the way the socialists take the least reliable “conservative” sources and use that to taint all conservative sources.
        Then again, it isn’t like there are any reliable left wing sources.

      • Trump didn’t thieve. He isn’t ‘completely unsuited’. He’s a business leader who’s keeping his promises. So very well suited to Make America Great again. That’s way better than the guilt trips, self-loathing, and mad green economic policies of Dems. No law says only lawyers can hold political office either.

      • The problem is that Trump is not “one of them”. The chosen. The blessed to lead. The Noble elite. As far as being qualified, he is the most qualified in over a century. America was not supposed to be a country of classes. The “chosen ones” have tried to make it that way. Trump is a fly in their ointment. A real person. An honorable person. Keeping a promise is unheard of to the “chosen ones”. Promises are for the little people, not the blessed to lead!

        He was not my first, second or even third choice. But I am very happy to see him in the office!

      • Gareth,

        you say things like “… even by the scale of Western politics.” & “… how dysfunctional many democratic systems have become.”

        I take this to mean that you may have examples of “non-Western politics” that that could be held as a good moral example. Am I wrong?

        I also take your statements to mean that you have examples of “functional” democratic systems ….

        And when you say “Clinton … was found not guilty of any offence” it becomes obvious that one of us is missing something significant. Can you tell me who (when, where, what) found Clinton “not guilty”?

      • Gareth, I too did plenty of weeping when Clinton and Obama were President. Oh wait, weren’t you describing them?

      • Has President Trump lied? certainly not while he has been President.
        Has Senator Clinton lied? Certainly while she has been a Senator.
        Has Donald Trump ever lied? I couldn’t say having never dealt with the man.
        Has Gareth Phillips stopped beating his wife and children? Again, I can’t say whether he has or hasn’t stopped.

        You appear to, by speaking out against Trump and thereby casting negativity into the thread of a post regarding Gleick, be a supporter of Gleick. So while you accuse Trump of lying, you still support Gleick who has been caught in his own lies and thievery.

        And your posts, speaking out against western democarcy, absoultely paint you as either Communist, Socialist, Marxist and/or Fascist

      • Gareth, I struggle with all news sources. Last summer, when Milwaukee was having a riot over a police shooting CNN showed a clip of a woman admonishing the rioters, I am paraphrasing, to stop the violence, looting and burning. She was speaking directly to the crowd.

        I left the broadcast thinking that woman was right. Later, I found out that CNN did some editing and cut the following off her speech, I am paraphrasing again, now take the sh!t into the white neighborhoods.

        Now why would CNN do that?

      • This isn’t about comparing Trump to Gleick. You seem to be saying Gleick isn’t an asshole because people say Trump isn’t an asshole. Also, where’s the link to your ‘recent survey of Republican voters’? I can’t wait to see your non-biased link if it even exists. Or did you just read it on Daily Kos? Also, are you weeping for France or Germany? Whichever, I totally agree. They are both so screwed because of leftist policies run rampant. Poor, poor souls. Glad we’re on the same page there. At least they’ll be given a last chance to convert by their soon to be overlords.

      • An incredible and sadly typical misrepresentation of what happened in last year’s election.

        But exactly in sync with the narrative provided for you by those who actually have made careers on how to cheat, and lie, and thieve their way into power.

        I love your spin on what could not possibly be more obviously coordinated attacks on a fairly elected president, with manufactured news, staged-events, and out and out defamation and libel. I would actually like an investigation into the collusion between the press and the DNC, because HERE was the real effort to suppress information from the public, and deliberately swing the election. And, NO, the ‘free press’ is NOT allowed to do that.

        Maybe instead of maudlin ‘weeping’ and feeling so sorry for yourself over imagined scandals and unfairness, deliberately and methodically constructed, by the way, in a manner which is always the tactic of the Progressive Left – all to provide your socially acceptable targets for your own bubbling hate – and maybe even stop being led around by your nose, you should pause for a little self-reflection. It might be enlightening.

        I think every Progressive should be sent a mirror with their tax return this year.

      • Oh, and by the way, Gareth, the entire media attack machine spent over a year trying to drudge/spin up some dirt on Trump, and all they could come up with was some locker-room language when he was warning a younger man about Hollywood mercenary-types.

        The fact is, he’s pretty much squeaky clean.
        Deal with it.

      • I think the point you are all missing is that you do not have to sacrifice your Republican and Conservative beliefs, or even your love for your country to understand that Trump is a disaster as President. In fact there a Republican politicians who understand this. If you doggedly follow a dysfunctional President to the end of the road, it is going to damage Republican politics for years to come.
        Many of you think Trump does not lie.
        – Do you believe his claims that Obama has wiretapped him?
        – do you believe that Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labour force as un-employed?
        -That the vast majority of US terrorist come from outside the US ?

        There are dozens like this.
        It’s embarrassing. This is not fake reporting, it is fact.
        Republicans supported Nixon for way longer than they should have.
        Don’r make the same mistake.

      • GP with Blinders on:

        – Do you believe his claims that Obama has wiretapped him?
        – do you believe that Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labour force as un-employed?
        -That the vast majority of US terrorist come from outside the US ?

        – Obama wiretapped leaders of the western world. I will wait for the evidence to “believe”, but as of now it is plausible. Ergo, without evidence to the contrary, it is not a lie. Except by gp
        – 94 million out of labor force – http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html – not a Trump mouthpiece. Fail #2 for gp
        – So where did the 19 come from for 9-11? Were the Paris shooters from the US? How about the underground bombers in London? Train bombers in Spain? Fail #3 for gp

        All you have demonstrated gp is that you are a liar. And a very poor one. You donot have to be a conservative to see that.

      • Gareth reply

        I think the point you are all missing is that you do not have to sacrifice your Republican and Conservative beliefs, or even your love for your country to understand that Trump is a disaster as President.Much like Barak Obama was a disaster as well In fact there a Republican politicians who understand this. If you doggedly follow a dysfunctional President to the end of the road, it is going to damage Republican politics for years to come. Just like the Damages inflicted to the Democrats via Hillary Clinton
        Many of you think Trump does not lie.Do you believe that Obama didn’t lie, Or Clinton (Either one)?
        – Do you believe his claims that Obama has wiretapped him?Plausible
        – do you believe that Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labour force as un-employed?Perhaps not 94M but certainly not as rosy as Pres BO intoned either
        -That the vast majority of US terrorist come from outside the US ?Absolutely more terrorists outside the country than inside it. <90% of ALL terrorist related deaths that have occured in the US have occured at the hands of terrorists that were Islamic in beliefs and Arab by birth

        There are dozens like this.
        It’s embarrassing. This is not fake reporting, it is fact.
        Republicans supported Nixon for way longer than they should have.
        Don’r make the same mistake.

        And President Trump WON the election because the Democrats elected as his opposition, someone that even they couldn’t back.
        Hillary beat Bernie because she was the better candidate for the Democrats but Donald beat Hillary because 2% of the damocrats couldn’t and wouldn’t vote for her in 4 key states. Donald also took over 90% of every county nationwide.
        Donald Trump didn’t Lie, Cheat and steal his way into the Presidency (as you choose to see it), Hillary lied cheated and stole her way OUT of it.

      • When does his million man march for climate madness happen? I’ve heard several references to it It will be interesting to see how many turn up as there are still grants to be applied for. Ironically, for the Warmstas, the wind has changed :-)

      • Near as I can tell, Gareth, Trump has not been caught in one lie. They’re CALLED lies by the press as soon as he says anything that disrupts their narrative, or the massaged ‘facts’ or spin, with which they used to prop up the previous president, whose motto seemed to be, if the facts don’t match your agenda, change the unit of measure, or even the facts themselves. At most, Trump has been wrong – on a quibble-level, that is – which is NOT a lie. Hillary, on the other hand, has been caught many times in bald-faced lies, and committed crimes that would put anyone else in prison (and then given a pass – which you spin as being found not guilty of any wrong-doing). And, of course, Obama was a master of what I call ‘lawyer talk’ – which is basically the art of lying, while staying in the boundaries of literal truth (the old Lucifer trick) – as well as setting up crisis in order to enact agenda under the pretense of dealing with it.

        So, by definition, a ‘disaster’ as president is one who puts his own country first (as opposed to almost every other country first, with particular emphasis on enemy nations), a focus on the economy (as opposed to a stranglehold that retards economic growth, and whatever trickles out is then spun as ‘the longest period of interrupted growth), being openly transparent, and talking directly to his voters every single day (as opposed to the most secretive administration in history, after campaigning on ‘transparency’), guarding its borders, (as opposed to deliberately setting the world on fire, in order to create refugee crisis that imports large numbers of ideologically hostile individuals, all for the specific purpose of undercutting and usurping our culture – and then openly boast that country will now be a lot ‘browner’ – an incredibly racist statement with the clear subtext is that ‘white’ is by definition a negative that needs to be fixed). Or how about a president that thinks citizens should not be allowed to close down (or burn down) cities as ‘free speech’, or attack cops?

        Yeah, a real disaster.

        And apparently, your opinion of being ‘qualified’ extends to someone who literally has done nothing but stir up mobs – destruction, not creation. Trump’s campaign was the most positive I’ve seen my lifetime – but excoriated as ‘attacks’ because it threatened the narrative of those who have abused power for far too long – very much including the press.

        You’ve fallen for optics, Gareth, but the truth of any sales pitch is that the customer always sells themself, and what the Progressive press has done, is feed you exactly what you wanted to hear, based upon your own spoon-fed prejudice. It’s amazing that ANYONE could be so blind to the coordinated messaging – even down to the exact same verbiage – used every single day, on every major network – unless they were already working backwards from a premise.

        Obama DID attempt to set up an investigation on Trump – that’s undisputable fact – mostly as a smokescreen to cover Hillary’s (providing the counter-headline), and when that was turned down, he investigated those ‘around him’. So, yeah, based upon past behavior, I believe it.

        I’m not missing ANY point. I’m simply pointing out your own one-way blindness. I’m not a conservative, but because the Progressive Left lives in stereotypes, I, of course, have been labeled one because I oppose the mechanics behind the Progressive bumper stickers – fascist methods, always produce fascist results – it doesn’t matter what the cause is, and it has nothing to do with the symbols you wear.

      • Gareth, in order to determine that Trump has been a disaster as a president is your sanity and all pretense of intelligence.
        I realize that as a socialist you are required to view anything that doesn’t send free money your way as the ultimate evil.
        However the rest of us aren’t so limited.

      • Gareth is just another paid troll. He’s probably Griff under a different account. He’s successfully hijacked this thread and turned it into a criticism of Trump rather than a discussion of Gleick’s lies, which is what he is paid to do. Arguing with him (it) is a waste of time: never argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

    • Thanks Eric. Short and very well stated article !

      IIRC the self-confessed wire fraud event happened under the jurisdiction of Illinois , which just happens to be the power base of Obama. Gleick was protected from prosecution and was not even interviewed by police.

      The statute of limitations ran out on that offence in February so his lying face now pops back up to accuse others of lying.

      It just underlines the lack of integrity of the climate bed-wetters that they have not ostracised him completely and that Wired still thinks that his opinion is worth publishing.

      This is exactly the reason that, for better or for worse, Trump got elected.

  1. A Marxist method of re-inventing facts to push their barrow. Truth is ALWAYS relative for these people and the end justifies the means

      • I believe there should be a full inquiry to find out.
        And the more the Democrats scream it isn’t necessary, the more likely it is.

      • Wake up GP. You are the reason you are now weeping for a once beautiful country. Just to be clear, Obama/Clinton would have had detailed intel on Trump, especially from ‘if you get caught, I don’t know you’ ops. You obviously didn’t understand the multiple ‘message’ demolition of the two trade buildings. Follow the money always works.
        Trump already has his money so he won’t be for sale.

      • EnglischDeutschFranzösisch

        746/5000

        The fact is that at least parts of the election campaign team of Trump were monitored. What kind of democracy is this, in which the old president is supervising one of the two new candidates? Because when parts of the team are monitored, you can also control Trump itself. How else should this work? And I’m curious to see what’s going on. The many Leaks from Trumps surrounding the White House speak for themselves. Trump does not care about the homeland protection group for nothing. There will still be some FBI agents wondering if this continues. This is not a threat, I am not a US citizen nor an insider. I draw only my conclusions from the whole. Trump will no longer be pleased with this.

      • Yeah, I do believe that. I also believe that Obama bought his Nobel Peace Prize, and it was paid with a chair at the UN. Or do you believe that the Nobel prize was well deserved? I also believe that the $500M paid to the UN during the last week Obama was in charge was part of the payment. Can I prove it? No, I cannot. I do not have the means to prove it and the people who could they are doing some serious damage control. That is what I believe.

        I also believe that the phoney scientist like Gleik and the “data adjusters” are trying to do damage control. If they really believe that the data is in danger then they should make all the data, raw data included, freely avaliable. But look at what they do, look at how they released the OCO satellite data, “modelled” to “avoid missinterpretations”

        I also believe that somebody within the FBI is trying to do serious damage control regarding Hillary’s e-mails. If some russian hackers are doing the job the FBI is supposed to be doing but doesn’t want to I am fine with it.

        Do you know who I distrust? The mass media, all the mass media controlled by Soros and his kind. They are trying to cover up as much as they can by releasing fake news afeter fike news.

      • Gareth, while you are at it you can check how Hillary got a guilty rapist off, when she knew he was guilty.

      • Since neither you nor I know, how can it be “truth” of any kind? You seem to be confusing your opinion with what is true.

      • I believe he knew about it and didn’t stop it. Wikileaks uncovered a list of international heads of state wire tapped by Obama’s administration so why would you believe this time it’s any different?

      • “So do you believe Obama authorised Trumps phone to be tapped during the election? or is that a flexible alternate truth?” Gareth Phillips

        Oh no, nobody seriously believes that Obama would have said anything that specifically could be considered to be an “personal authorisation”, and I’d be totally amazed if Trump Tower even has phones because everybody is using VOIP now anyway. Now we do know that the computer networks at Trump Towers were being monitored, during the election because H. Clinton brought up the fact the a server in Trump Tower was supposedly communicating with a Russian Bank during one of the debates. How would Clinton have even known that if nobody was feeding her classified intel about her opponent. That server would have been communicating via Internet Protocol, the same as the Voice Over Internet Protocol would have used.

        Obviously what Obama must have said was a joke, that someone took to literally; he really didn’t mean that the FISA court should authorise a warrant to monitor all of the email, voice and video communications coming out of Trump Tower.

      • Gareth,
        I don’t know that it was, and you don’t know that it wasn’t. What we DO know is that General Flynn’s phone call to the Russian Ambassador WAS intercepted. It has also been reported that at the time of the intercept, the General was at Trump Tower. So it is possible, just based on that alone. Certainly not proof, but yes, possible. Again, neither of us at this point knows who authorized the tap. But at this point felonies have been committed. Whether anybody will be held accountable, is still to be determined.

      • “So do you believe Obama authorised Trumps phone to be tapped during the election?”

        Obama had the ability to wiretap Trump if he so desired. All Obama had to do was request a wiretap. He doesn’t even have to go through the FISA Court.

        Now, as to whether Obama had Trump wiretapped, your guess is as good as mine, but Trump says he did, and Trump now has access to all the info he needs to know whether that is true or not. If I were a betting man, I would bet Obama wiretapped Trump. Obama wiretapped a lot of people like Israel’s Prime Minister and Germany’s Merkel, so it’s not a big stretch to think Obama wiretapped Trump.

        I think Trump has really upped the ante on Obama and his administration. Trumps “wiretapped” tweet has resulted in a Congressional investigation of the Obama administration, and I think that is just what Trump wants. Trump doesn’t want his AG out in front investigating the Obama administration, which could be viewed as a partisan witchhunt, so he has arranged to get Congress involved.

        No telling where this investigation is going. And it won’t be harming Trump, because they have already wiretapped Trump and couldn’t find anything on him, instead, it will be harming Obama and the Democrats.

        Trump is a brilliant tactician.

      • https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National
        Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial
        crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent
        weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials
        said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the
        wiretapped communications had been provided to the White
        House.

        Note the date … 19-Jan-2017 … the day before Trump became President

        The NYTimes sure thought so.

      • Yes- His phone was definitely tapped. NYT had transcripts ( or so they say). If tapped under a FISA warrant Obama knew for sure, if under EO 12333 he knew for sure. Either way he knew. There is one way of knowing, declassify any FISA warrant or wiretap info, subpoena Obama et.al. and the NYT and when they all take the 5th you’ll have your answer. 97% of the people are sure, I’ve taken a survey, so it must be true. Weather anyone?

      • Gareth Phillips

        Well the NYT and WP and other reported that is what happened! All one has to do it take their “reporting” at face value. It remains to be seen what has actually happened but, unlike you, I give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt as I await more developments because there is evidence the claim is quite possibly true. How did the press quote portions of the conversations of the POTUS with the Australian Prime Minister and the Mexican president? Do you know? I don’t think so and yet you call him a liar? Thus why should I not consider you just another leftist that was not prepared to give this president a chance from the very beginning?

      • Semantics. Wikileaks posts and past wiretapping of world leaders make it not just possible, but probable, that Trump was wiretapped, Obama was aware of if, did not stop it, but likely did not order it. He didn’t have to. His minions knew what he wanted. Nixon didn’t order the Watergate break-in, either. The questions are always, what did he know, when did he know it, what did he do about it, and how was the intel used?
        Those in power like to keep ‘plausible deniability’ as the final defense for their illegal acts. Idiots believe them.

  2. I think this repeated liar is making an admirable description of the tactics being used by the Democrats. In accusing Republicans of wishing to close down Free Speech, he is doing precisely that himself.

    • SJWs always project.

      The left know what they would have done if Clinton had won the White House, so they project it all on Trump.

  3. Gleick does seem to have a habit of defining the orthodoxy in his group as revealed truth. Which is why I regard that sort of thing as a religion, or at least a substitute for one.

    • Orthodoxy is your own doxy.
      Heterodoxy is someone else’s.
      Of course most people prefer their own…

      • Gleick has a DiceyDoxy. Michael Mann has a Proxydoxy. I’m looking for a Foxydoxy with some Moxiedoxy!

  4. The last bastion of an indefensible crime: pot calling kettle. A weak attempt at deflection of self-guilt.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. What stage are you in Mr Gleick and, can you possibly redeem yourself?

    Methinks ‘puter says no.

  5. It’s always interesting to hear from those inside the tent. Gang green so as to speak. You can always be sure that they are doing what they accuse others of doing.

    He’s one sick puppy.

    • Mr Gleik is only using hyperbole which, legally speaking, cannot be confused with facts – therefore all he says should be ignored. As usual. BTW spelling error – ” Gang green ” should read “gangrene” 😏

      • Otteryd, as set out in the introduction Gleik did a lot more than that.

        Gang green is a play on words. It describes a group of people and at the same time when you say it the sound is indeed gangrene.

      • That is the legal defense being used by Greenpeace in its case with Resolute. “I am a known liar so I can’t be held responsible if you believe me”.

  6. “One tool being used in this assault on democracy is the uninhibited use of lies, false statements, blatant and intentional misrepresentations of fact, and bad science. This is evident in the rejection of the undeniable reality of climate change by many of Trump’s top appointees, the promotion to power of individuals who reject the fact of evolution in favor of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism, the spreading of bad medical science around the proven safety of vaccines, and the refusal to study the health risks of guns.”

    Dwell for a minute to absorb the incredible double speak and the incredibly twisted logic of this paragraph. The pot calling the kettle black is barely a beginning. The typical blaming others for what you do is more in lines with the first sentence, telegraphing their actions. There is no effort to refute evolution but they disingenuously pretend that it is a conservative goal. Wow. Then, they try to pretend that deniers or science realists are religious fundamentalists, which begs the question of morals and ethics of those making these spurious claims.

    What in heck do vaccines have to do with this? Vaccines can be designed to cure diseases and can just as easily be designed to cause disease, clearly a place for caution, particularly with humans in charge of vaccines.

    Finally, the biggest disconnect it to pretend that guns are a health risk. They are tools and have nothing to do with who gets shot. Tools do not hurt people. People hurt people. WOW, WOW, WOW. In the UK, they banned guns, so now there is a knife culture. Humans will use whatever tools they need to defend themselves. And criminals and evil people will use the mose advanced and dominating tools they can get. Nothing new there.

    This is a multilayer cake of liberal hogwash, propaganda, and misdirection. Very sad.

    • uninhibited use of lies, false statements, blatant and intentional misrepresentations of fact, and bad science

      Just about describes most climate alarmists perfectly

  7. “Why isn’t Gleick in jail for committing wire fraud and other serious crimes?”

    Because Heartland didn’t prosecute. Why? Obviously, because they would haf to disclose more than they wish people to know. Duh.

    [actually, beside being a fake name and a fake email from Kalamazoo,, you are 200% wrong. Heartland ASKED for prosecution, hired attorneys, presented evidence…the works. The Federal prosecutor for the case DECLINED TO PROSECUTE. You might check a few fact before you shoot off your fake mouth. -Anthony]

    • Heartland could have brought forth a civil case and they didn’t. They let it die. Sorry. Fake email? Fake news…

      • Heartland said they let it die because they figured the case might go before a liberal judge who would force them to disclose the names of their donors, who would then be hassled (as they had been in earlier years when Heartland made its donor list public) and would therefore stop contributing. Ditto for many potential future donors. Nowadays that hassling would include boycotting.

      • “ReallySkeptical March 6, 2017 at 10:18 pm
        Heartland”

        No apology?
        No appreciation to Anthony for setting you straight?

        Instead you jump right back with more slimey false/fake claims.

        Classic leftist elite troll tactics: demean, insult, fallacious arguments, incredible amounts of time spent commenting, etc.

        Result/summation:
        Don’t waste time reading useless baseless comments posted by allegedly reallyskeptical.

      • Civil litigation isnt a “prosecution”.
        The State prosecutes, not private parties.
        So, except for being incorrrect, youre correct.

      • “Roger Knights said, ‘they let it die because they figured the case might go before a liberal judge who would force them to disclose the names of their donors, who would then be hassled (as they had been in earlier years when Heartland made its donor list public) and would therefore stop contributing.’ ”

        Thank you. My point exactly.

      • Translation: You are demanding that Hearland do something that you know will hurt them.
        You are as immoral as your hero Glieck.

      • Eh? not wanting to disclose information is not fake anything. What point a=do you think you are making?

      • Really Skeptical,

        Your point is that Heartland is somehow doing something wrong because they want to protect themselves by protecting their identity?

        If you aren’t able reconcile your hypocrisy you aren’t going to be able sleep well.

        If you don’t feel a need to reconcile your contradicting thoughts/actions then your neighbors will be wondering where their small animals have disappeared to.

    • Oh look , a little puppet on a string.

      Who is pulling yours, RSkS. !!

      You demeanour is that of a John Cook or Al Gore climate 101 operative.

      • I bet the Cook’s and the Gore’s of the world are just itching to post something anonymously on WUWT. I really bet they are. Whether they ever do or not is another matter.

  8. Gleick’s statements are an extreme example of projection. Everything that Gleick accuses skeptics of doing are precisely what the CAGW people have been doing for a quarter Century.

    • Absolutely. Never underestimate the power of projection to steer the psyche into the demonic.

    • Psychological projection and transference or projection bias, is a psychological disorder whereby people project their bad behavior, faults, failures, etc. onto another person, usually someone they do not like. They then attribute all of their failures onto others! People with this mental disorder often suffer from other mental disorders as well!

      It seems to be such a common trait of the left as to make me wonder if it may in fact be intentional.

      • eyesonu:

        Whether or not it is “a common trait of the left”, it is certainly the normal procedure of the right.

        Richard

      • Richard, I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong. So I respectfully disagree.

      • MarkW:

        How would you know when you have no discernible knowledge of reality?

        Richard

      • Ah yes, the standard defense of the socialist, claim, without evidence, that it doesn’t matter what your side does since the other side is worse.

  9. Gleick has been a key scientist providing information regarding California’s drought.
    No doubt Governor Brown looked to Gleick’s environmental justice point of view for guidance.
    Gleick made a revealing decree about the most recent CA drought.
    To digress, I have found numerous indications that 2017 is resembling 1983 and may prove to reach the ’83 levels of water abundance throughout the west.
    Interestingly, that year, ’83, was soon followed by a severe drought.
    In 1987, California was at the beginning of what would be a six-year drought — the second driest in the state’s history. A drought which sparked the interest of Peter Gleick.
    More recently, this past August 2016, Gleick, the drought expert, had this to say about the drought that would soon end in epic fashion.

    “Very clearly one of the things that sets this drought apart is that now there is this incredibly clear climate signal. I think it’s unambiguous and that’s new.”

    Gleick discusses various way to address the California drought troubles and lauds some new participation.

    “But there are more voices in California water policy. The environmental justice community is increasingly participating and sought-after in discussions about policy. ”

    https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/08/24/why-californias-current-drought-is-different-than-the-past/
    Why California’s Current Drought Is Different From the Past

    • The drought in ’83 was caused by an El Nino. I was able to predict it in 1978 and the Good Shepherd Hospital in Siteki, Swaziland, listened, then spent the next five years preparing for it. As a result It was the only place in the town with water and services continued throughout the 18 month drought.

  10. Ahhhhh, there is less and less slop in the feeding trough, with the new administration, and the piggies are starting to squeal loudly! That is a good sound…..

  11. Reminds me of a comment I posted at the then, ‘stevengoddard’ site back in Nov, 2013:

    Typical of fear mongering at the Los Angeles Times’s (Jan 2011):

    Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute [Peter Gleick].

    When I contacted the LAT’s staff writer, he responded with:

    The Pacific Institute report is pretty middle-of-the road, actually. The 2007 IPCC estimates you’re referring to are considered lowballs because they did not factor in the melting of polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica . . [and then he quoted the NYT’s]

    Most climate scientists say at least three feet of sea level rise by 2100. Others say that’s an underestimate and it could be up to 6 or 7 feet. If you want more information on the role polar ice melt is expected to play, check out this informative piece a few months ago in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

    LOL

  12. So Gleick is going to demonstrate — he must needs be on the dole of George Soros!

  13. IMHO, Gleick was always a “water-boy” who glommed onto global warming aka climate change.

    But that aside, I can think of no better word to describe his latest pleading than his very own (albeit reiterated by Poor Phil) circa Jan. 2004 when he was, well, somewhat alarmed by a Reviewer’s request that … wait for it … code be provided.

    Following a brief preface, Gleick had declared:

    Yuck.

    For all the gory details, pls see:

    Phil Jones keeps peer-review process humming … by using intuition

    • Thanks for the link to a great article that all should read – this quote by Phil Jones is just unbelievable:

      UEA’s renowned Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones:
      “I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for Climatic Change could be called into question!”

      This is very far from proper scientific conduct: The principles of science (v7.4)

  14. I was thinking April? Then looked up the march dates. April 22 for one of the marches… “Earth Day”.

    Given the public’s current loathing of the EPA and radical environmental activism generally, I don’t think they’re going to get the reaction they expected. Frankly, if I wanted public funding, I wouldn’t be hanging my science hat on that hook.

    • Expect big deliveries of lab coats from Soros to the paid dumbocrat stooges.

      You can bet that very few of the people marching will actually be scientists,

      But they will all dress the part…. lab coat, maybe a test tube or two.

  15. Gleich says…


    One tool being used in this assault on democracy is the uninhibited use of lies, false statements, blatant and intentional misrepresentations of fact, and bad science.

    Well Gleich is basically right in that statement.

    Where he errs, among other things, is when he points out is who is doing the lying, the misrepresentations of fact, etc. and who is conducting the assault on Democracy.

    To see just who is corrupting our world, Gleich needs to try a bit of honest introspection. Somehow I doubt that will happen in this universe or anytime soon in any other universe.

  16. “Lets hope President Trump finds time in his schedule to look into the shocking failure by authorities to prosecute someone who by his own admission likely committed serious crimes.”

    He can start by having a look within the halls of the Justice Department.

    Here is a quote from the following court order:
    STATE OF TEXAS, et al., versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. – Court order

    “The Attorney General is hereby ordered to inform this Court within sixty (60) days of what steps she is taking to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.
    ….
    Moreover, counsel for the Government should not be rewarded for their past misconduct. There is certainly no indication that counsel will not repeat this conduct.

    Clearly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department.
    …”

    That court order is really worth a read. Here is my extract for those who are short of time.

  17. Its the old mirror trick.

    The reality is that the Greens are in the pay of big Gas, the Greens are and have mounted a huge attack on science and propagated false science fax news and deliberate misinformation and are profoundly antidemocratic.

    Peter Gleick is the people he warned you about

    He’s fighting for his life now.

    Cornered rats will take any risk. It’s a shot to nothing, after all.

  18. Anyone believe that slaves were immigrants taken to the US in the bottom of slave ships who had dreams for the children and grandchildren? Or do they recognise that Ben Carson symbolises the attitude of the White house to truth and facts?

    • It really is sad the way socialists have to try and change the subject whenever they are losing.

      • MarkW:

        It really is sad the way fascists have to try and change the subject because otherwise they lose any discussion.

        There, fixed that for you.

        Richard

      • MarkW:

        I wrote:

        It really is sad the way fascists have to try and change the subject because otherwise they lose any discussion.

        There, fixed that for you.

        And your reply says this laughable and blatant falsehood

        Actually you didn’t change anything since fascists are socialists.

        Quod Erat Demonstrandum

        Richard

      • Huh, richard? Fascists, in the Mussolini sense, were socialists. The common corruption of the term is for kleptocrats who are not communists, but people like Mobutu were not classic fascists.

      • Fascists are a form of socialist. Just because you have been taught to believe that anything bad must be right wing, doesn’t change that fact.

      • To all the fascists attempting to pretend their vile political views are “socialist”:

        Fascism is and always has been the political far-right by definition. You delude nobody except yourselves by pretending otherwise.

        And you are all demonstrating the truth of my point that

        It really is sad the way fascists have to try and change the subject because otherwise they lose any discussion.

        Indeed, their usual method of changing the subject has always been either “big lie” (e.g. fascism is socialism) or violence.

        Richard

      • I am sorry you cannot discuss issues rationally without worthless ad hominems. However the “definition” of fascism as right wing was started by Stalin. Unfortunately Stalin (nor you) get to define the meaning of terms in any language.

        Did you get a chance to read the German fascism platform. Very interesting. While not every plank is socialist (fascism is more than just socialism), but the core is solid socialism.

      • All the socialists that richard knows, know that fascism has nothing to do with socialism, despite the fact that there is no difference between the economic policies of the two. Therefore anyone who disagrees with the socialists must be a fascist.

        It really is sad how some people are convinced that there expertise in one small area makes them experts in all areas.

      • I think that most people who say that fascists are inherintly right wing have never read a word taht Giovanni Gentile, the Karl Marx of fascism, wrote.

        How can one profess to know that fascism is without reading the words of its inventor?

      • Richard,

        Have you ever read anything written by Giovanni Gentile. If the answer is no then you dont know what fascism is.

      • richardscourtney March 7, 2017 at 11:10 pm
        To all the fascists attempting to pretend their vile political views are “socialist”:

        Fascism is and always has been the political far-right by definition. You delude nobody except yourselves by pretending otherwise.

        Oh my, bold text! That will make them sit up and listen! None of those nasty deniers can argue with bold text!

      • philjourdan:

        Typical! A socialist objects to an untrue smear from fascists, and a fascist claims the factual response is an ad hominem!

        History suggests I should be grateful I am out of arms-reach of your bully boys.

        Richard

      • Sorry the facts disturb you. But stating facts, with links supporting them, is not bullying. At least not on this side of the pond. Perhaps the English are not as genteel as they would have the rest of the world believe?

      • philjourdan:

        In response to my rebuttal of your untrue accusation that I had made an ad hom., you suggest I am not “genteel” towards you. In case you had not noticed, I am never genteel with those whose behaviour deserves contempt.

        Richard

      • You flatter yourself Richard, I suggested nothing of the kind. I said the “English”. I have no idea if you are English, Welsh, Scott or Irish, and frankly do not care.

        What I did suggest is that you hate the facts. Made evident by your inability to discuss any subject in a rational manner and your continued insistence on using ad hominems when the facts are not on your side.

      • philjourdan:

        Your masturbation is tiresome. There is no reason for you to have mentioned “the English” if you were not meaning me, and nothing you say can hide that.

        I like information, and I try to obtain it from all sources. And I assess it. My objection to your falsehoods is that they are disinformation.

        Interacting with you is providing me with the same feelings of revulsion as scraping something unpleasant from the instep of my shoe.

        Richard

      • Gee, you kiss your wife with that mouth? Be different – wash it first!

        You have no clue of my reasons or thoughts, so stop playing karnac the magnificent. You are tiring and not very amusing and longer. This all started because you took offense at nothing, and have been playing the victim ever since. You go right ahead and continue to play the victim. I do not care.

        You are not our master yet. And until you realize that, you are going to continue to be very frustrated and angry. But that is not my problem.

    • Right, take a comment from somebody and then claim that shows a huge amount about something and somebody else.

      What a bizarre and dumb comment.

      • Well the families of those young people paid significant sums to the African traders to secure them a passage to the New World. There can be no other explanation as the African traders would never have hunted them down and captured them for sale. In fact this practice goes on to this day as those crossing the Med will attest.

        Now, as then, things don’t always work out as hoped for. Of course Dr Carson’s conjecture is strengthened somewhat by the undeniable fact that, except for a short period a hundred years ago, none of the slave descendents want to go back to Africa and enjoy the liberty and prosperity so much admired there.

        Still our Gareth seems not to be a fan of Mr Trump and I suspect he didn’t even vote for him last November. Unfortunately his taking the specific and making it the general is an old trick of the lefties and we can all see through it these days. We should all take pride and pleasure in our having our very own earnest but entertaining 1970’s style leftie undergraduate to come on these boards and play the jester.

        Such fun.

      • Since Gareth is British, I sure hope he didn’t vote in the previous US election.
        However given the standards exhibited by those on the left, he might have.

    • Gareth,

      If you want to talk about Trump and Carson, do it on your own blog. You might be a socialist but you’re not an authoritarian dictator. Please troll elsewhere.

      • The jumping point is that whites never caught slaves in Africa, but bought them from the local elite (chieftains and nobles). This black elite has devised the practice of slave capturing by the members of the most peaceful (sarc) religion in the world, the members of Islam, the Turks and Arabs, who were quite active in those days in Africa. Why not consider the amoral elite of Africa today? In the meantime, white men have taken a step forward in terms of morality, the black elite in Africa and many members of Islam do not. They think and act like they did 300 years ago. For the rest, I think Ben Carson is right. It is not pleasant to be captured by one’s own nationals and sold to strangers. There will be some hope for a better life in many slaves when he saw the splendid goods which were exchanged against him, and the splendid ships of the whites who were in the harbor. That this expectation was disappointed by an often cruel passage to America, however, also needs mention. Nevertheless, many slaves had the hope that they would survive the journey and find a better life in America. Many of them also found it. Although slaves were , there were great differences in the trade of the slaves. There was no law to deal with slaves, so that it came to the respective owner and his morality. Slaves were often better off in North America than in their old Homeland Africa. In South America (mainly Brazil) they were treated considerably worse. One must remain with the truth, slavery per se is bad and condemnable, but nowhere in the world was there any slaves better than in the young USA. The owners of the slave ships and their sailors were Hanse-Members (Germans and Baltic-People), Danes, British, French, Spaniards, Portuguese but only in the rarest cases US-Americans. Thus the American public generally knew nothing about the praxis, which deceased slaves (over 10 per cent died on the journey) were thrown overboard. It was comparable to the knowledge of the German population about the condition in the concentration camps, which in its great majority did not know anything about the atrocities of the Nazis. I have to break a lance for the Americans. Many other nations, not least the African elite, were more involved in the slave trade and earned more Money with it, without ever having any scruples about it or working on their own past in this case, as the US did and do….

    • “Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.” President Obama, 2015

    • “Anyone believe that slaves were immigrants taken to the US in the bottom of slave ships who had dreams for the children and grandchildren?”

      Obama said the same thing about slaves that Ben Carson said.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/07/sorry-ben-carson-critics-obama-also-referred-to-slaves-as-immigrants/

      “Here is Obama in 2015:

      Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.

      Here is Carson:

      That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

      end excerpt

      Don’t you hate when that happens.

      • They also show themselves to be hypocrits. One standard for Obama, another standard for Carson, when both of them say almost exactly the same thing. One is good, the other is bad, even though they are the same. It’s called believing what you what to believe.

  19. Possibly letting him be is a case of ‘Let the children play’ or ‘Boys will be boys’

    This guy has quite totally cooked his goose and everyone knows it (except him of course but for Magical Thinkers, anything is possible) Walter Mitty?

    The process of pursuing him will drag on forever and cost a shed load of (public) money, all of which will finish up in the pockets/banks of legions of slime-ball lawyers.
    In the meantime, another as yet unknown muppet will jump up and continue his not so good work.

    As he is, he’s a fairly good deterrent to these other potential villains.
    And costs nothing, pays his own way in fact.

    • And of course, (never had personal experience but) isn’t it dangerous to suddenly awaken sleep-walkers?
      That’s all he is really.

  20. They all have these silly little beards dont they?

    I am hoping to get a government grant to study the correlation between vain little beards and criminal behaviour.

      • Hurling insults in order to hide your ignorance.
        Self awareness just isn’t your strong suit.

    • Leo Smith:

      You think beards are the most important issue in your post? Surely, it is narcissism.

      Your post demonstrates your common practice of mud-slinging. I think you should consider that mud-slinging demeans the thrower because anybody can sling mud at anybody.
      If you doubt that this then, for example, consider this clinical explanation of Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms in relation to the behaviours of President Trump. See, that is much more effective mud-slinging than silliness about beards, but it has no more value.

      Richard

    • Leo is correct in including all “vain little beard(ed)” people in his study proposal (Sinclair as well).

      If he cherry picked only the known criminal types then it wouldn’t be an honest study; the results would be skewed, the outcome would be biased, and the final conclusions would be wrong.

  21. Let Gleick stay put until he can be SP’d to give evidence at EPA hearings, etc … Let him admit the stuff in open court.

  22. While Climate Science probably does have a small coterie of cynical prostitutes who will say and do anything to gain an advantage, I feel it is likely that most of the Warmists, including Gleick, have a fanatical mindset that is utterly impervious to evidence and reason contrary to their beliefs. They KNOW in their souls that they are right. Self-doubt does not exist.

    This is basically a religious/political type of fanaticism. Historically, the only effective method of dealing with such people involves extreme violence. I cannot bring myself to advocate this. However, a broader, deeper problem is that people with such conspicuously defective thought processes manage to retain scientific credibility.

    If the scientific community, as a whole, possessed integrity, then members such as Gleick, Jones and Mann (to name but three) would have been ostracised years ago. Ultimately, CAGW (or climate change, or climate weirding) won’t be defeated by some scientific mechanism but by the too-obvious-to-be-denied refusal of Nature to do as expected. I expect the Warmists to play the game to the bitter end.

    • Its hard to know what motivates other people, but Climategate IMO suggests they are sure in their hearts they are right – they’re just waiting for the evidence to catch up with what they think they already know…

    • I sensed there was conviction that even if they were wrong about the CAGW, they were still on “the right side of history” in terms of advancing alternative energy/reduced consumption of “fossil fuels, and moving toward a world wherein smart folks (like themselves) are calling the shots . .

      I suspect a “cooperative global society” in general is rather easy for many smart folks involved in this and other “global agendas” to rationalize as the default “cause” they serve, and as something inevitable (“If we don’t blow ourselves up first”, overpopulation, yada yada yada ; ), and there is a relatively low demand psychologically for each and every aspect of achieving that “final solution” to be perfectly ethical or completely valid (for some) . . “We can’t go on like this forever anyway” is an easy sell among the intellectually gifted, who work among “nice people” they imagine are coming into power . . pre Star Trek, ya know ; )

  23. In which case I look forward to this site’s condemnation of those who hacked the UEA and released its emails…

    pot-kettle-black. phony outrage.

    • The UEA’s emails were housed at a government-funded entity. They belonged to the public. The UEA had been dodging replying to FOI requests, and had cozened the govt’s FOI bureaucrat into rejecting them on flimsy, self-serving grounds.

      The leak / hack from UEA did not included any false material. The Heartland hack included a phony strategy document designed to put it in the worst light. It was the latter that was widely publicized before cooler heads (like those at the Atlantic debunked it. Glenn is credibly suspected of authoring that document.

      The pot / kettle analogy fails.

    • Griff, why do you not address the content of the e-mails? Such as, “delete your e-mails”. Or are you more interested in protecting the guilty?

    • What hack. Never proven that it was not an internal whistle blower disgusted with the way they were operating. Please correct me if I’m out of date on the latest information.

    • There is no evidence that UEA was hacked. Most of the evidence points to an inside job.
      But of course you are really desperate to change the subject aren’t you.

    • Yes, lying and faking documents is the same as getting documents funded by taxpayers released.

      No doubt you object to say whistle-blowers at naught corporations too?

    • I’m looking forward to the Russian ransomware being paid and then watching the Russians release the damaging emails from the liberal nonprofits anyway.

    • Griff:

      The Climategate leak released several emails from me some of which I had forgotten until they were leaked. I have no “outrage” and no objection to those emails having been leaked.

      I would have been outraged if the Climategate leaker had included faked emails that purported to be from me but I had not written and which indicated actions that I had not taken.

      Gleick stole documents from the Heartland Institute (HI) in hope that they would include information to incriminate HI, but they did not. Gleick added a fake document into his file of HI documents he had stolen before circulating the file to the public. The fake was not an HI document but purported to be an HI document that indicated HI had done things it had not.

      I am genuinely outraged at what Gleick did, and so is every other decent human being who knows what Gleick did.

      Richard

    • Griff March 7, 2017 at 3:26 am

      In which case I look forward to this site’s condemnation of those who hacked the UEA and released its emails…

      pot-kettle-black. phony outrage.

      Completely False Analogy, Griff, as already explained.

      But sometimes I imagine that Alinsky’s Rules were designed by empty Pea Pods in search of Pea Brains. It’s really not a bad tactic if all you want to do is try to “win” and thus take over all of the World’s goods. But sadly for you Totalitarians, not enough people have Pea Brains.

    • “People will always have the ability to vote for stupid ideas and vote to destroy their societies.”

      I been seeing many “ads” in Youtube videos promoting the idea that utterly meaningless BS like electing a woman is ever so important . . and I’m quite sure that kind of “identity democracy” is what the globalist control freaks want us to retain and be satiated by . . giving everyone a turn at having a roll model “of their own” to look up to . . while the megalomaniac control freaks actually run the world.

      • Virginia Slims style “progress” ~

        You’ve got your own cigarettes now, baby . . You’ve come a long long way!

  24. Peter Gleick on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Pacific Institute-

    “In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.
    This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing. “

    Some innovative ways of thinking, seeing and doing coming right up then Peter?

  25. Peter Gleik is just trying to generate publicity to make him the natural choice as next CEO of Greenpeace. He has all the right qualities in dishonesty, lying, hypocrisy, and nobody trusts him anymore.

    • … and as such he can’t be guilty of slandering anyone because everyone knows the above descriptions are accurate.

      Maybe Griff is trying to shore up a similar defense for future court cases.

    • “Very clearly one of the things that sets this drought apart is that now there is this incredibly clear climate signal. I think it’s unambiguous and that’s new.”

      Yeah, and he was so sure of himself. Then it rained and rained and rained. He must have had mixed feelings about the rain: happy for Californians and unhappy that his prediction turned out so wrong.

    • Beware of wolves in nonprofit entity clothing and their sponsors and their sponsors’ tax deduction.

  26. Paying attention to liar Gleick is the same politics as with Trump. We’re supposed to believe James Clapper regarding the wire tapping, even though he’s an admitted perjurer. (Only reason he’s not in jail is because he perjured himself for teh previous admin). Then there’s Ben Rhodes. He bragged about lying to the media, even calling them fools, and the media still goes to him for his opinion. (And he had no qualifications for the job he had in the administration to begin with, unless you count his lying because he was a wanna be fiction writer)

    • I was under the impression that Ben Rhodes was hired precisely for his ability to write “almost” convincing fiction…

  27. I wonder which liberal nonprofit was in the cited example of Russian ransomware which had damaging emails describing use of grant money to get paid protesters in the streets and a rich outsider involved. Actually, that could be any or all of them with their moral lapses when in over reach mode with taxpayer funds showered on them from Obama.

  28. Is paying ransomware to the Russians from the nonprofit orgs a legitimate grant expense? We’ll find out soon.

  29. ‘Cultural decline sets in when the absurd becomes normal’ Jacque Barzun paraphrase apt in this situation. Peter Gleick is a symptom of the malady on the Left. Posing as an arbiter of ethics while recognizing none for himself. Thanks for being you Pete. We couldn’t do what we do without you.

  30. As you all know, I normally ignore all the crap on this website, but the statement here that I committed “forgery” is a lie, and legally libel.

    • “WUWT will provide a forum for a rebuttal by Mr. Gleick.”
      We’re all ears Peter Gleick or whoever you are. And the rebuttal is…?

    • Peter Gleick, so everyone can be clear, did you obtain stuff that was not meant for you by deception, then adjust it and alter it, so as to cause financial and reputational damage to others, without actually forging anything? Are you overqualified to lecture others on Ethics?

    • I never said YOU committed the forgery Peter – I just said that you spiced up the swag with A forgery. But hey – if whomever created that document was a little less careless with details, it wouldn’t have been exposed so quickly as fake.

      • Peter Gleick’s feeble threats remind me of another – Appell – who made the same threat when the truth was told about his cyber stalking. Anyone can threaten legal action. But threats are not action.

    • Well Peter, it’s nice to know that you read WUWT as well as the comments. Hopefully it will make you a more informed person and a better man.

      Perhaps keeping poor company in the past has had a detrimental effect on your thinking and behavior. Maybe paying better attention to the discussions here will help you better cope with the demons within. Join in the discussions and we will help you along.

      • I forget the term, but there is a legal principle that you don’t have forever to decide whether or not you are going to file civil charges. Has to do with memories fading with time. Evidence getting lost etc.
        No judge would permit a civil case to be filed after all this time.

      • It does get harder to file over time, and more likely the judge will rule that whatever damage has been mitigated by the passage of time. However there is no legal restrictions (which is what I was going for).

    • Legally libel. So you are going to go into a courtroom and discuss the fact that you committed a federal crime, in order to show that you have been libelled for something that is not a crime?

      It is clear that you are not especially bright, Mr Gleick, and clear that you think other people are even less intelligent than you are (perhaps you think only more intelligent people hold academic positions, so the rest of us must be stupid), but do you really think anyone believes you would stand up in court and discuss your (presumably) most shameful moment, that discredits literally everything you say and every paper to which your name is attached?

    • “As you all know, I normally ignore all the crap on this website,”

      How do we know that? Just because you don’t post?

      • And how does he knows it is most if he ignores it? Maybe it is only 49%. maybe it is only 33%. Since he ignores it, he cannot know how much he ignores as a percent of the total. Ergo – another Gleick Iie.

Comments are closed.