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 contendere, and 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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They all have these silly little beards dont they?
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Beards.png
I am hoping to get a government grant to study the correlation between vain little beards and criminal behaviour.
You are calling Sir Clive Sinclair a criminal ?
You are revealing yourself as an idiot?
That’s the only one you object to being called a criminal?
I think you all have reasons to insult the rest, it;s traditional here. But why Sir Clive Sinclair ? Answers?
Does the title “Sir” entitle to some kind of nobility privilege? As an American I’m offended by your arrogant snobbery.
I suspect you don’t actually know who he is and hurl insults to hide your ignorance. Now I am a kind sort of chap so here is some info.
ps I knew him and his family in my Cambridge days and I can confirm he is a lovely bloke who deserves better than your negative comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Sinclair
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.
In other words it would be the type of study Michael Mann would do
A self-admitted climate crook. And he’s taken seriously?
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.
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 ; )
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
“and so is every other decent human being ”
Which explain why griff ISN’T outraged.
Would that be the “Decent” or “Human Being”
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.
Griff, I almost feel sorry for you. Scratch that, I have nothing but contempt for you.
https://climateaudit.org/2010/11/29/the-hypocrisy-of-the-new-york-times/
Democracy is under threat from the politicization of science. Actually, Democracy isn’t under threat, our Republic is. The rule of law is under threat. People will always have the ability to vote for stupid ideas and vote to destroy their societies.
Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/
“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.
A choice of candidates, but not of platforms. Just the way they like it.
Virginia Slims style “progress” ~
You’ve got your own cigarettes now, baby . . You’ve come a long long way!
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” 😏
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”.
1st April seems like a good date for the marches.
Yes April Fool, a day when fools march.
Gleick is merely describing himself. The irony is he is not self aware enough to realize it.
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?
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.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Peter Gleick
the Alarming War on Science
Waged by the alarmists themselves. Only last August Gleick declared:
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.
Peter Gleick: Why California’s Current Drought Is Different
And then it rained.
“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 sheep’s clothing.
Beware of wolves in nonprofit entity clothing and their sponsors and their sponsors’ tax deduction.
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…
The gall of the man is breath-taking.
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.
Lock him up!
Is paying ransomware to the Russians from the nonprofit orgs a legitimate grant expense? We’ll find out soon.
‘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.
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.
see update
Liar liar.pants on fire.
But obviously a fake Gleick. Just like the man himself.
“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?
The delicious part of civil tort is the balance of probabilities.
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.
No, it is a fact. And you are legally liable for it.
Not any more, statue of limitations has expired.
When I said “legally liable”, I was not talking criminal. He is still liable under civil law.
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?
Also, the Truth is always the best defense in any libel/slander case. Gleick loses there as well.
“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.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should not entail getting beat up in Berkeley.
Peter Gleick is the textbook definition of an “Ass-Hat”.
I like “Gang Green” and as an alt
He is one slich guppy
Ignoring the facts, that’s the liberal way.