Building his legacy of hate, Peter Gleick mocks the death of John Coleman

Paraphrasing Forrest Gump, “Sometimes, I guess there’s just not enough adjectives to describe Peter Gleick“.

On Sunday, shortly after I heard about and announced the death of John Coleman, Dr. Roy Spencer and I had this short exchange on Facebook:

The first name that went through my head as I wrote that was Peter Gleick. It’s just too bad I didn’t write that prescient thought down.

Why Gleick? Well if you think of anyone who has been the most hateful, misanthropic, climate alarmist ever, one who believes so much in his own purity of thought that he lowered himself to commit a crime in the name of “the cause”, the only person that fits is Gleick. Not even the irascible Michael Mann comes close to that.

For those of you that follow his Twitter feed (I do, in the vein of “know thine enemy”) you can reach only one conclusion: he’s been taken over by the Dark Side, he lets the hate flow through him every day. Yesterday’s example:

This is right up there with what Climate Research Unit director Dr. Phil Jones had to say about the death of climate skeptic John Daly at the time of John’s death in 2004 Jones wrote (as revealed in the Climategate Emails):

“in an odd way this is cheering news.”

This disgusting, inhuman comment is not unique in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) climate science community because William Connolley (Stoat) commented on the passing of Dr. Bob Carter, that

“Science advances one funeral at a time.”

Gleick couldn’t even come up with an original thought, in fact, neither could Connolley, as the quote is attributed to Max Planck That’s quite an accomplishment for a man who lists himself as a MacArthur Fellow. I guess he’s never heard of “Never speak ill of the dead.

For a moment, perhaps realizing what a cad he made himself look like,  it seemed like Gleick might be backpedaling:

But then that thought vanished a short while later:



The hate this man has embraced knows no bounds. I pity his soul.

Dr. Peter Gleick has been a noted environmentalist, a writer of several books and papers, and climate campaigner who had chaired an American Geophysical Union task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” until it was revealed, right here on WUWT as the person who had embraced the crime of identity theft to trick the Heartland Institute into providing him documents in order to create a completely fake narrative in his zeal for supporting “the cause”.

You can read all about Gleick’s crime on this website:

Gleick, unfortunately, wasn’t prosecuted for that crime, likely because the federal attorney in Chicago was part of the Obama administration. So he avoided that.

But now, he’s been removed to “emeritus” status by the institution he founded, The Pacific Institute, who removed him as president after his conduct was found out.

Clearly, there’s no scruples there nor is there any integrity, and Gleick keeps proving day after day on his Twitter feed, what his hate has reduced him to.

I’ll never forget the one and only time our paths crossed, at an AGU meeting in December of 2014 at the Moscone West 3rd floor work table. He stared right at me, and his contempt was palpable.

It was so palpable, that right then and there, this image flowed through my mind:

Like I said, there’s just not enough adjectives to describe Peter Gleick, a man who hates others, even in death, because they have a different opinion on climate than he does.

On a more positive note. I knew John Coleman for years, he had an infectiously positive personality, and I know right now, wherever he is, he’s laughing at the pathetic attempt by Gleick to mock him in death.

John would have chuckled, smiled, and said something like this. “Some people, you just can’t reach“.

He really just didn’t give a damn what people like Gleick thought about him. Coleman’s second to last comment on WUWT said this:

I am old

I am white

I am a denier

Guess they are correct. I will die. So will the others. Then things will be settled.

Got it.

How prescient of John.


Finally, I have something to say about the person who authored the article that Gleick quoted, one Emily Atkin, who wrote:

Coleman was a television meteorologist, not a climatologist; he didn’t even hold a degree in meteorology. But conservative publications began to cite him as if he were an authority on climate science.

James Delingpole at Brietbart has a fantastic riposte:

What? You mean a bit like the way liberals worship the climate science authority of Bill Nye, the ‘degree in Mechanical Engineering’ guy?

UPDATE: not one to miss rolling in the mud, Michael Mann retweets this with a comment, I guess neither of them realize that Atkin self-describes as “infobabe” or having “kitty claws”, as seen above. Sheesh.


But, let’s be fair.

Atkin doesn’t have a degree in meteorology or climatology, neither does Gleick. Yet their overblown egos allow them to think they are far more capable of speaking about it and judging merits, than the man who spent decades actually doing the work, so much in fact that he was recognized with one of the highest honors by the American Meteorological Society.

In 1983, Coleman won the American Meteorological Society award for Outstanding Service by a Broadcast Meteorologist. The organization credited Coleman for “his pioneering efforts in establishing a national cable weather channel,” according to the AMS website:

Like I said, there’s just not enough effective adjectives for people like Gleick and Atkins.

We’ll always remember John Coleman as a unfailingly positive man, who touched millions of people, and who reached out with energy and intelligence to speak his mind without worrying what others thought of him. His legacy is of truth and honor, and I was honored to call him a friend.

John Coleman at KUSI-TV, a few years ago. He lived much of his professional life in front of the green-screen chroma-key.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Extreme Hiatus
January 23, 2018 3:24 pm

Perhaps the most ironic thing in this whole story is that Geick has some position on some ethics panel.
On the bright side it is good that these [self-snip] reveal who they really are.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 23, 2018 4:31 pm

He’s an expert on ethics….
and how to evade them!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jer0me
January 23, 2018 9:28 pm

Just like so many in power, great or small…
Ethics are for grunts and drones.
The powerful exercise their immunity to the rules and flaunt their purchased compurgation openly.

Reply to  Jer0me
January 24, 2018 4:18 am

Beware that word “ethics”, often a code word for politics.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 23, 2018 5:18 pm

And the left in my country claim to have more empathy and compassion than conservatives.
Well those things are cheap I guess.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 24, 2018 6:25 am

The left is full of empathy, but only for those who agree with them.
The left believes in free speech, but only for those who agree with them.
The left believes in due process, but only for those who agree with them.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 24, 2018 9:04 am

Like many other things the Left does in redefining words and society Geick probably has spent a good deal of time redefining ethics in some sick way. Those on the Left can neither define the word ethics but especially not honor. I tried too many times to make deals on public policy issue with those on the Left. They insisted we shake hands at the end of the meeting. What a joke. Several times within minutes of leaving the final meeting they had completely gone back on the deal and were attacking me personally to anyone that listen especially in the news media. Of course Geick’s version of what he calls science is some bizarre twisted view of the world. I will bet that if a scientific paper doesn’t include use of a supercomputer that Geick would reject any of its conclusions.

January 23, 2018 3:25 pm

This is my first ever post here at WUWT…
I was blown away when I saw that tweet from Gleick. The level of disrespect knows no bounds.

Jonny Scott
Reply to  Mathius
January 24, 2018 9:32 am

But when you are on the side of the righteous and yours is the “true religion” then it serves those on the outside right what ever you say in your own sanctimonious way. It also helps for you to accuse those on the outside of exactly the same things you do to support your broken hypothesis

January 23, 2018 3:28 pm

” that he lowered himself to commit a crime in the name of “the cause”, “
He didn’t lower himself at all.
He was ALWAYS at the bottom of the sewer.
How else do you think “ethics” people get anywhere.!

Reply to  AndyG55
January 23, 2018 3:51 pm

The fact someone who by their own words ( … By Peter H. Gleick) had “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” should sit on an ethics panel tells you everything you need to know about the man.

Joe- the non climate scientist
Reply to  LdB
January 23, 2018 4:09 pm

“… By Peter H. Gleick) had “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” should sit on an ethics panel tells you everything you need to know about the man.”
It also tells you a lot about the people that would put him on an ethics panel

T. Fry
Reply to  LdB
January 23, 2018 6:54 pm

It’s similar to how North Korea ends up on the human rights panels at the UN every few years.

Nigel S
Reply to  LdB
January 24, 2018 1:09 am

Plus Mugabe!

George Lawson
Reply to  LdB
January 24, 2018 4:26 am

and about the panel!!

Reply to  AndyG55
January 24, 2018 4:23 am

Gleick is so low, he could parachute out of a snake’s ar$e

sy computing
January 23, 2018 3:29 pm

Not an unusual reaction among a certain class of men toward their perceived enemy, unfortunately.
If men could see how deep is the Dark that is their heart, we’d likely die right on the spot.

January 23, 2018 3:34 pm

The pencil neck is strong with this one. Was considering using my admin rights to massively violate blog policy with a long swearing invective, but the slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit isn’t worth the energy required to craft a good turn of phrase.

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 3:51 pm

“the slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit ”

Maybe your should change your handle to “charles the loser”

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:02 pm

Why doesn’t it shame you to be you Tommie?
Do you somehow enjoy making a foolish, public spectacle of yourself?

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:05 pm

Tell me Mr sy computing, why is quoting this blog’s owner a “foolish public spectacle?”

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:09 pm

How do you know that was an insult, and not a mere telling of factual truth, Tom B?

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:16 pm

Pat, don’t you know that we are no longer permitted to tell the truth about our self declared intellectual superiors.
It might hurt their feelings.

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:19 pm

Mr. Pat Frank, I don’t think you would appreciate it if someone called you a “piece of shit.”

However, not knowing you personally, could you please tell all of us what is the probability that someone calling you that was factually correct?

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:25 pm

Poor Tom-child..
TRIGGERED like a petulant 5 year old having a tantrum

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:26 pm

Tom, I suspect you left out the context of that exchange.
But “@Bentler See there you go, right to the insults. When you resort to name calling, you’ve lost the argument. Goodbye.” says it all.

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:28 pm

“I suspect like Gleick he’s engaging in identity theft, appropriating Mr. Bjorklund’s name and publicly available email. Likely somebody we all know very well.”
So then…a liar as well as an hypocrite.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:28 pm

Tom Bjorklund made this unfair comment since Charles the Moderator didn’t say it to Gleick’s face.
TB writes,
“Mr. Pat Frank, I don’t think you would appreciate it if someone called you a “piece of shit.”
Mr. Gleick should have been arrested for what he did, but YOU complain about an insult Gleick never heard!
Ha ha ha…
You need to slow down and think about what you write here……..

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:35 pm

“You need to slow down and think about what you write here……..”
I think the evidence of this article with both Gleick and…”Bjorklund” (or whomever the liar truly is)…demonstrates that with some, “thinking” isn’t an option, but rather, reaction from the Dark is the norm.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:41 pm

I see that Tom Bjorklund completely ignored Mr. Gleick’s crime to complain about an insult here. One that Gleick never saw.
Meanwhile Gleick tweeted about Coleman in a hateful way, which you also ignored.
You ignored this too,
“Dr. Peter Gleick has been a noted environmentalist, a writer of several books and papers, and climate campaigner who had chaired an American Geophysical Union task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” until it was revealed, right here on WUWT as the person who had embraced the crime of identity theft to trick the Heartland Institute into providing him documents in order to create a completely fake narrative in his zeal for supporting “the cause”.”
You are an irrational hypocritical troll fella.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 4:53 pm

What? Peter Gleick isn’t a “… slimey, weaselly, ignorant piece of shit ”

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 5:05 pm

“Tell me Mr sy computing, why is quoting this blog’s owner a “foolish public spectacle?”
Before it was for another reason. But now it’s because it appears you’re doing it under the auspices of someone else, i.e., you’re a liar Tom…and you’re a thief…why are you a liar and a thiefTom???
Are you not ashamed?
Liars and thieves are a particularly despicable lot, Tom…

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 5:29 pm

Fake Bjorklund,
Are you saying that calling someone names for committing crimes and mocking a man’s death is the same as calling names for reaching a different conclusion on cagw?
I assume you’re fake because I couldn’t imagine anyone posting the nonsense you do under their real name.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 5:49 pm

Interesting… Right after Anthony outs Tom Bjorklund he stops posting comments.

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 6:01 pm

“Interesting… Right after Anthony outs Tom Bjorklund he stops posting comments.”
When you shine a light in the dark, the dark things run.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 6:06 pm

This is the most entertaining circle jerk I’ve ever seen.

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 6:36 pm

“This is the most entertaining circle jerk I’ve ever seen.”
And if I recall correctly, the ilks of thee are easily entertained…are you enjoying dancing to the organ grinder?

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 23, 2018 7:39 pm

“Your idea of entertainment is revealing”….Hey, it’s your “living room”, just be sure to clean up the floor after all of the guests leave.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 12:43 am

Yes Charles, maybe you should remove the “pencil neck” comment as a bit personal …although the rest of it from “but” has been proved accurate by Gleick’s own action.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 4:26 am

TomB (whatever his real name) is a bullsh!tter, as is ToneB. They seem to tag-team – maybe they are the same person or collaborate in their BS. Evidence here:
Maybe they should get crazy outfits and appear on World Wrestling Entertainment. They would have more credibility there.comment image&

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 4:32 am

Moderator – the “image” of TomB and ToneB at the bottom of my post does not appear.
Is there an easy way to fix that?
Thank you for all your dedicated work.
[the links repeat back to an earlier thread that does have graphics (charts and plots) in the replies, but there is no obvious “repair” or image coming up appropriate to replies here. Recommend you think about it – given the level of emotion expressed here in this thread – and then try again. .mod]

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 6:27 am

The only time TB ever shows up is to whine about one of his idols not being treated reverentially enough.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 1:58 pm

Tom Bjorklund, no one enjoys being called a piece of shit, no matter the quality of their prior deportment or the malignancy (or not) of their inner being.
Some people may call me a piece of shit for my many skeptical posts about human-caused climate warming, but honest analysis doesn’t warrant ad hominem criticism, no matter whether the outcome is welcome or not. Therefore applying that pejorative to me on those grounds would be a gratuitous insult. As an aside, I stand by the integrity of my analyses.
Peter Gleick, however, self-admittedly stole documents from the Heartland Institute, falsely represented himself through email as a member of Heartland to obtain those documents, committed mail fraud in the commission of his crime, and finally knowingly and maliciously forged a document to assassinate the integrity of Heartland and the character of its directors.
In light of that, it does seem to me that Dr. Gleick’s behavior reveals him to be a piece of shit; not objectively of course, but allegorically as someone whose character is so degraded as to produce an ethical stench.
Given that, it does seem that Charles the moderator is well justified.

sy computing
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
January 24, 2018 2:53 pm

“Hey, it’s your “living room”, just be sure to clean up the floor after all of the guests leave.”
Surely your owner diapered you before the show???

J Mac
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 3:57 pm

You know you’re among friends here, Charles… You can say what you really think but I do admire and respect your restraint!
As for Gleick, I wonder if [pruned]?

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 3:57 pm

I notice Tom is always around to pretend that only those who agree with him are noble.
PS: You have proven once again that you have no arguments, just shallow insults.

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2018 4:03 pm

Interesting Mr. MarkW that appropriately quoting the owner of this blog is considered an “insult” in your mind.

Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2018 4:13 pm

One constant with little Tom, he insults others, while complaining about insults.
I notice you are trying to hide your shame behind technicalities.
All the more evidence that you know you are in the wrong.

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2018 4:25 pm

LOL @ MarkW….. ” behind technicalities”

I convey to you my sincerest apologies for pointing out a clear example of “name calling.” If you consider that to be insulting, so be it.

Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2018 4:57 pm

Tom B. is still ignoring Gleicks crime and hateful tweets.
How come?

Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2018 6:29 am

TB complains about name calling and in the process engages in name calling.
In addition to being a liar, he’s also a hypocrite.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 4:31 pm

As for John Coleman, REALITY has been on his side with his chosen profession for a long time.
Gleick is very much on the LOSER side of reality, where Tom sits willingly

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 7:43 pm

The Johnson has nothing to offer.
Not unusual.
I bet you have been in many circle jerks, Johnson.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 10:26 pm

Instead of “…….piece of shit” I now use “…..weaselly gd coprophagist”

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 23, 2018 11:01 pm

That comparison is an insult to weasels everywhere. . .

Andore Jr.
January 23, 2018 3:37 pm

…there’s just not enough effective adjectives for people like Gleick and Atkins
There is.

Michael Bentley
January 23, 2018 3:39 pm

but correct.
thanks. \no sarc\

sy computing
Reply to  Michael Bentley
January 23, 2018 3:42 pm

I would never admit it if I thought I was the only one…

January 23, 2018 3:43 pm

Argument by authority is the favorite logical fallacy of the climate alarmists. Besides, what exactly does one study in a climate science degree program besides social justice activism, grant writing, press release writing, and tuning a model to a desired output? I think a physicist, geologist or meteorologist would be a much better source on climate matters than a so-called climate scientist.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  WR
January 23, 2018 8:59 pm

Agreed. “Climate Scientist” has become so tainted that it has become indistinguishable from “bullshit artist.”

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  WR
January 23, 2018 9:08 pm

The whole problem is the education system that started this whole mess. If Universities had refused to allow the word climate in the description of the actual degree name and if they had restricted any Environmental degree to students who had advanced degrees in physics,chemistry and also had a special so called “bar” exam that would cover any geologist and meteorologist who wanted to be involved with climate studies, then perhaps so called climate specialists would be competent. Instead what we got are 1000’s of PHd’s who are educated with a degree that demeans the real value of a PHd. Almost anybody can get a PHd now. It wasnt like that in the past. Unfortunately even those attempts might have failed due to the irresistible urge to use computer models. The earth is one system which you should never try to model with a computer. You will never get it right and any prediction from a computer model about the climate is always in danger of being so erroneously wrong that tragic solutions might be advocated. You cant do destructive real life testing on the earth as a whole like you can in studying other disciplines. This is the most widespread classic case of a possible nightmare succession of cascading messes that mankind will get into when virtual reality/artificial intelligence leads us down the wrong path.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 11:07 am

Reading comments and insults on other blogs and comment section, it seems likely the True Believers live in the “Matrix” where models are reality, as is social media. Much like the fictional Matrix, they know not that they are there. They believe they live in reality. Their life is just repeating the mantras over and over again, following the Troll Manual and emoting. At times, I have to leave the discussions because the level of indoctrination and complete lack of understanding is frightening. Forget climate change, damage done to the science community is going to be far more damaging to society.

Man Bearpig
January 23, 2018 3:46 pm

Have his children read the posts from this vile, self confessed …

Reply to  Man Bearpig
January 24, 2018 11:08 am

They probably posted similar thoughts. Indoctrination of children is common—parents demand their children believe as they do. If the parent hates, the child hates.

January 23, 2018 3:53 pm

allow me Charles. not only does he hate, he lies, like a turd in a bucket

January 23, 2018 3:56 pm

He plumbs new depths in his depravity, all the while assuring himself what a noble creature he is.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2018 9:00 pm

Another “legend in his own mind,” to be sure.

Extreme Hiatus
January 23, 2018 3:56 pm

Thinking about the appropriate adjectives that could describe this character, and those like him, it seems that he is now qualified to have his own word(s).
People who stoop to these depths are Gleicks. This mentality is Gleickish. Says it all.

Michael Jankowski
January 23, 2018 3:58 pm

Possible that she calls herself an infobabe with kitty claws to mock those that referenced her as such originally.
But Mann of all people, considering what he’s said about Judith Curry…talk about “sickening” and a “truly awful human being.” He needs to look in the mirror more.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 23, 2018 4:30 pm

Jiminy Gleick?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 23, 2018 4:31 pm

If you were Michael Mann-Child, would YOU look in the mirror?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 23, 2018 4:37 pm

Is her little doggy in the pic named kitty claws?

Reply to  billw1984
January 23, 2018 10:40 pm

That dog is a coprophagist, I can see it in her eyes.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 23, 2018 5:07 pm

I understand that Mann isn’t disposed to being out about during the daylight or for that matter, being too far from a Court room. Using standard climativism criteria of causality, it would therefore seem unlikely that there is any reflection in the mirror to see.

J. Ford
January 23, 2018 3:58 pm

I spoke with Gleick once, and he was both pompous and dishonest.

January 23, 2018 4:07 pm

Paradigm shift? The shift is that apparently it is OK to mis-apply Kuhn’s paradigm-shift idea.

Curious George
January 23, 2018 4:07 pm

Amazing, how low a hatred of truth leads.

Reply to  Curious George
January 23, 2018 7:07 pm

Don’t his comments qualify as ‘hate speech’? Can’t he be prosecuted for a ‘hate crime’? :<O

Gunga Din
January 23, 2018 4:09 pm

I have to admit that when Billy Boy was elected (with only 43% of the vote) I joked, “Where’s Oswald when we need him.” But it was a joke. No actual physical harm to him was desired or intended.
These people don’t joke, even though their “science” is.
I mean, sheesh! When Reagan died even reporters who said he was stupid and read stuff off of note cards admitted that he was really a pretty sharp cookie.
(My original intent in way of a reply to these people was to simply say, “Scum!”)

Pat Frank
January 23, 2018 4:10 pm

I’ve been critically re-reading Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
Kuhn used equivocal language in describing science, leaving it open to tendentious self-serving interpretations, most notably exploited by post-modernists and cultural relativists.
In Kuhn’s definition, a scientific “paradigm” is a consensus view that garners large numbers of adherents. This leaves scientific theory structurally indistinguishable from, e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
But scientific theory and axiomatic tracts have nothing in common, because scientific theory is subject to observation/experiment. It is independent of culture. Axiomatic tracts are irreformable.
In short, Kuhn misunderstood science and misrepresented science in his book. He is wrong about methodology, his “paradigms” do not describe scientific theory, and improved physical theories are accepted because they make better predictions, not because old-paradigm-clingers die out.
Apart from all that, Peter Gleick is an unindicted criminal. His accusations of others are just delusional self-exculpations of the ‘I’m OK because everyone else does it too‘ sort. They don’t Peter; you really are a creep.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 23, 2018 4:21 pm

Oh you flat earther.

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 23, 2018 4:45 pm

of course the orthodox paradigm that IS a consensus view and IS subject to radical shift is of course ‘climate change’ itself

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 23, 2018 4:56 pm

Read some of his passages, never could see why warmists are in a lather over him.
His writing is babble to me.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 23, 2018 9:13 pm

However even other disciplines are not immune to widespread fallacies. The next big fallacy that will be busted is DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 3:00 am

dark matter and dark energy are both hypothesis, not dogma, and proper scientific work is done (that is, experiments in search of those, with no taboo on killing candidates) .
Very similar to the old ether (the medium that would vibrates for light “waves” to exist).
Nothing common with CAGW shadow warming by GHG

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 3:37 am

Not sure if this is on topic, but: the equations didn’t give the right answer when given the actual parameters for energy and matter in the universe, but if you put in extra energy and extra matter that isn’t seen, they do. To me, this is not evidence for unseen energy and matter, rather, that the equations might be wrong or incomplete.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 6:31 am

The equations that “might be wrong or incomplete” are no other than Kepler’s laws, the very same that translated into Newton’s laws and later Einstein’s theory. So you understand why the first thought was rather “we must be missing some matter, that would had to be dark, let’s look for it” than “the law might be wrong, let’s add some epicycles to have it working again, even if we have no clue about why nor how it works”; however, this idea is also worked upon (check “Modified Newtonian dynamics”). Then again, no dogma, no taboo.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 6:33 am

Neither dark matter nor dark energy ever cost me a penny, and are never likely too.
I’m not convinced that either exists, and I wouldn’t care much one way or the other if both were proven or disproven conclusively.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2018 6:36 am

A number of years back there was a guy who had a theory that gravity didn’t follow the r**2 law for really large distances.
Don’t assume that just because no problems with a theory have been found for several hundred years, that problems never will be found for them.
Einstein’s equations showed that for relativistic masses, Newton’s laws broke down.
Who’s to say that someday we won’t find similar problems at the other end of the scale?

South River Independent
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 24, 2018 8:05 am

No need to insult Aquinas and his Summa Theologica, which contains more truth than so-called Climate Science.

M Courtney
January 23, 2018 4:16 pm

Hardly anyone studied climatology before 1988. It was a minority subject with far less substance than meteorology.
It’s like 5-aside football compared with the World Cup.
So why would the people who have spent a lifetime reaching the pinnacle of the subject be expected to take pride in being Peter Gleick’s undergraduates (or their equals)?
He was better than that.

M Montgomery
January 23, 2018 4:17 pm

Every corner of Gleick’s utterances speak to his stupidity… “…scientists who don’t accept the new reality eventually die off.” Brilliant twist of the brain.
I missed the memo where only certain scientist eventually die off. Can we expect this to be the mantra of their next marketing campaign? …”Become an Alarmist Scientist and Live Forever!”
How old is Gleick?

Reply to  M Montgomery
January 23, 2018 4:35 pm

Ageless. Like a comic book arch villain.

J Mac
Reply to  M Montgomery
January 23, 2018 4:36 pm

If Gleick thinks belief in AGW is the Fountain of Youth, he needs only look in the mirror for irrefutable evidence to the contrary…
Dry skin, dry frizzy hair, sunken eyes, low body weight are all correlating signs of a physically sick human. Disparaging the defenseless, honorable dead is a correlating sign of a mentally sick and cowardly human.

Reply to  J Mac
January 23, 2018 4:40 pm

[snip – cool it -Anthony]

Reply to  J Mac
January 23, 2018 7:46 pm

Perhaps I could get away with saying that outer signs of unwellness permeate to his very soul, and mind.

R. Shearer
January 23, 2018 4:17 pm

Mr. Gleick doesn’t look very healthy, malnourished, his lack of hair on the top of his head and graying beard and diminishing eyesight indicate that his head is suffering from a lack of oxygen and nutrients. I’d suggest that he go in for a thorough medical examination. The prognosis for an improvement in his intelligence is not good, however. For a 75 year old man he doesn’t look too bad. He’s 61 or 62 though. I doubt that he makes it to 70.

January 23, 2018 4:28 pm

Looking at the picture of a smiling Coleman as contrasted to the pinched, non-smiling Gleick…geez, what a contrast.

Reply to  texasjimbrock
January 27, 2018 2:17 pm

texasjimbrock , good observation. one is the smiling happy face of a man comfortable with life and loved by many. the other a face that exudes loathing and loneliness. i know whuich man history will look on more kindly. it won’t be the lying crook.

Timo Soren
January 23, 2018 4:30 pm

With respect to the comments, “He wasn’t even…”
But the extreme example of a patent clerk, kicking some butt comes to mind. (Einstein)
Or the French rabble rouser who didn’t make past 19 but created an entire area of math. (Galois)
Or the young Indian boy who could not do well in school because he just wanted to read mathematics books and by the time he was 16 knew things others didn’t and by the time he was 25 was in serious danger of being unable to communicate his ideas because he knew too much. (Ramanujan)
Each of these show that it takes no trained person to be brilliant and correct. There comments about needing a certificate on the wall is upsetting.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Timo Soren
January 23, 2018 9:06 pm

Yup, and considering the amount of “indoctrination” that passes for “education” these days, the insistence that one “needs” some “credential” to be listened to is even more upsetting than ever.

Nigel S
Reply to  Timo Soren
January 24, 2018 1:18 am

Ada Lovelace might be added to that list even though she had what some might see as an advantage in being Byron’s daughter.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Nigel S
January 24, 2018 3:01 am

Ada didn’t need a college degree. She was an aristocrat and privately tutored by top scientist and mathematician of her time – Mary Somerville and De Morgancomment image

Gunga Din
January 23, 2018 4:34 pm

As all of us are, John Coleman was a flawed but great man.
Those who applaud his death are just … flawed.

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 24, 2018 6:39 am

All of us are flawed, not all of us are great.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2018 2:22 pm

After I hit reply I realized I could have said that better. I’ll try a combo.
“All of us are flawed, not all of us are great.
John Coleman was a great man.
Those who applaud his death are just … flawed.”
(Thanks, MarkW.)

Chuck Wiese
January 23, 2018 4:54 pm

The first lie ever told in “climate science” came from the academics who claimed they could model the earth’s climate with enough specificity to make public policy with. We don’t have specific names but only the claimed reliability that has resulted from their use that started this and has kept the $ bilions yearly gravy train that goes towards “climate research” funded by the taxpayers.
Since then, the amount of dishonesty resulting from this research and failed modeling attempts has grown exponentially because it’s necessary to cover-up the mounting evidence and data that is showing the entire hypothesis that CO2 is changing the climate is wrong if you don’t want to tell the truth and lose your federal funding.
Today, that amounts to having dishonest and disgusting morons like Gleick running around doing the dirty work of many of the others. It’s about protecting their fiefdom at all costs and at an increasing fever pitch to try and drown out those of us who can demonstrate how wrong they are with the real data.
And the real data is scary to them. Scary enough to manipulate it and resort to criminal activity as Gleick did with Heartland.
We should all take comfort from this by knowing that these people are never going to win their battle in the court of public opinion as these facts become known and surface persistently. There is simply no credible scientist that operates this way and thinks so foolishly that when an adversary of theirs dies, the truth is buried with him. It will only get worse for the other side.
John Coleman was a good broadcast meteorologist and had incredible street smarts about the climate. And creating the Weather Channel was one of his great accomplishments in his career. RIP, John. You are a true hero in fighting for the scientific truth about the climate.

Reply to  Chuck Wiese
January 23, 2018 5:28 pm

Chuck, nice comment, though i have to disagree with one thing. There is no court of public opinion. (the public doesn’t give a damn about climate change)…

January 23, 2018 5:09 pm

Just low life creeps They had no guts anf couldn’t wait until he was gone ….

January 23, 2018 5:11 pm

People that do the death stare….shouldn’t draw attention to the fact that they look the part

Mike Bromley
January 23, 2018 5:11 pm

Peace. For John.

January 23, 2018 5:13 pm

oops wring clip last time – meant to post this one! grrrrr

Bill Illis
January 23, 2018 5:14 pm

No class.
No ethics.
What more can you say about a person.
The normal answer is to not invite him over for dinner. Just accept that some people are damaged and should be avoided.

Neil Jordan
January 23, 2018 5:15 pm

John Coleman and other true meteorologists will always be in my memory for their forecast that helped the Russian ship (sans Fools who flew the coop earlier) trapped in the Antarctic ice.
“Today, while shopping at lunchtime for some last minute year end supplies, I got one of the strangest cell-phone calls ever. It was from my friend John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel and Chief meteorologist at KUSI-TV in San Diego. He was calling via cell phone from his car, and he was on his way into the TV station early.”

January 23, 2018 5:19 pm

I’ve looked at those photos of Gleick. He is a pinched, bitter-looking individual. There is something about anger that generates damaging hormones – don’t remember the specifics, but it’s almost an addictive reaction, sometimes resulting in self-negligence.
But there are other issues in this picture, and they have to do with behavior. If Gleick was willing to steal someone’s identity in order to commit the crime of stealing documents from Heartland, what other criminal things has he done? None of this kind of thing is a one-off. Not being prosecuted for it seems to have given him the false notion that he is impervious to bullets, and is off with the bit in his teeth, denigrating someone who did nothing to him, for the sole purpose of being a public jackass. Where I come from it’s labelled attention-whoring, an impolite but accurate term for a social moron who wants all the attention he can get. There’s a lot of other stuff that goes with it. Mr. Gleick’s behavior pretty well fits that category since he stole identity in order to steal property to use it as a means of degrading the owner.
If nothing, it indicates a mental disorder. Making nasty remarks about a dead man who was respected and well-liked, neither of which seems to apply to Gleick, is another indication that he isn’t just off his nut. He is a nut, a hateful, spiteful, withered old nut.
Not to worry. Some day, he’ll die and no one will remember his name.

Reply to  Sara
January 23, 2018 11:05 pm

Gleick’s wishful deathing to Deniers is de rigour for the cultural Marxists. They cheerfully say that when all you ollllld people DIE … then nobody will oppose their “green” future. When all you ollld people DIE … then nobody will oppose Gay Marriage, or BLM, or Open Borders … etc.
However, what they FAIL to acknowledge is that with each passing year … all us ollllld people are joined in our age of wisdom by millions of formerly young, impressionistic skulls of mush who now have the life experiences to make rational, reasoned, informed, intelligent, decisions.
Sorry Mr. Gleick … but you cannot win the battle scientific TRUTH by attrition. Best you sharpen your JUNK science rather than your long knives.

Reply to  Sara
January 23, 2018 11:10 pm

Adrenaline addiction is one of the most serious problems of our era.

January 23, 2018 5:24 pm

We are surrounded by moral midgets with a lynch mob mentality.
On the basis of a relatively minor unsubstantiated allegation Garrison Keillor has been deprived of his income. On the other hand, Peter Gleick who, it seems obvious to me, has confessed to criminal culpability gets a bye.
The liberal elite has descended to the point where it is now the moral equivalent of the KKK, or worse.

Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2018 12:17 am

I have read through this short essay a few times. It brought me to the realization that the liberal elite has an inherent malice toward the majority of Americans. They are using their scorn for less well off white people as an excuse to develop a truly poisonous class structure.
The great truth taught by Christianity is that the worth of each individual is in the content of their soul. The humble sharecropper may be more worthy in God’s eyes than the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Since the liberal elite hates religion, they do not subscribe to that simple humane vision. They are inhumane and truly the scum of the earth.
Thomas Frank details the whole morbid mess in Listen Liberal. It’s worth reading if you want to know the details about how we got where we are. The essay linked at the top of this comment puts the case more succinctly.

Barry Sheridan
Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2018 1:39 am

Good words Bob.

Snarling Dolphin
January 23, 2018 5:26 pm

Paradigm shift? I don’t think those words mean what Gleick thinks they mean. Such has been the paradigm of CAGWers for decades. In time I believe the views of Daly and Coleman will be validated. I only hope Gleick and Mann live long enough to see it. Here’s to health gentlemen!

January 23, 2018 5:28 pm

Peter Gleick, like other fakers of scientificity, hasn’t a clue as to what “paradigm shift” means – and that tells us more than enough about what we need to know about him. Another dilettante on a very large pile of the same.

David Ball
January 23, 2018 5:37 pm

“I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no class.”

CD in Wisconsin
January 23, 2018 5:43 pm

Science may or may not advance one funeral at a time, but one thing it definitely does not do is advance when people like Gleick and Mann carry so much hate around in their hearts and heads that they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge science’s fallibility. Gleick especially demonstrates that.
Even if one does have a PhD, Mann demonstrates that there is still no guarantee that the individual has any common sense. Hate, arrogance and over-inflated egos all have a way of muddying the waters of human thinking that the haters often never come to realize. Hate and arrogance can also be self-destructive, and those who carry it around in their hearts and heads can often meet an untimely ends because of it without ever having woken up to that observation. I just hope that the response to Gleick and Mann here at WUWT is more anger than hate (and understandably so). At least most of us here in the WUWT community hopefully understand science’s fallibility and will take note of how destructive hate can be. I too admit to be being deeply angered by Gleick’s and Mann’s reaction to John Coleman’s passing.
Like Anthony, I had and still have huge respect for John Coleman and sincerely mourn his passing. Hopefully his founding of the Weather Channel will not be his only legacy. If and when the CAGW narrative dies from the evidence that refutes it, part of John’s legacy will hopefully be the general acknowledgement that he had his climate science right after all.

January 23, 2018 5:54 pm

Ahh, the depths one travels once they’ve awarded themselves the moral high ground. No comment too low, no smirk too mocking, no leer too hate filled, no ego too inflated from that summit of ideaology.

January 23, 2018 6:03 pm

Stay classy, Peter Gleick.
When all is said and done, John Coleman’s name will live in marble. And yours, in sand.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  drednicolson
January 23, 2018 7:46 pm

“. . . in sand.
I can arrange yellow letters on white snow.

Reply to  drednicolson
January 23, 2018 9:17 pm

““. . . in sand.””
In slime. !

January 23, 2018 6:05 pm

These people are vile:
“Glad to hear he’s dead! He lived far too long” – Joe Galliani of

Reg Nelson
Reply to  chino780
January 23, 2018 6:17 pm

Sad that the radical Left Totalitarian politics have infected the field of Science, a once noble profession, one that lifted the common man (like me) to an unprecedented standard of living. And, in the US, this corruption has spread to supposedly independent government agencies — the CIA and FBI, and Education, and Media.
Thankfully, the tide seems to be turning.
The sins of the past eight years seem to be about to be exposed.

Reply to  chino780
January 23, 2018 11:10 pm

I can predict the next phase in this saga. PG and JG will claim they got several death threats and play the victim. This is the standard MO for cry bullies. This is like Petersen and Newman in the last week.

Nigel S
Reply to  Bulldust
January 24, 2018 1:30 am

Yes indeed, (Peterson to be pedantic). Perhaps Kenji could sort out ‘poor Emily’s’ attack dog. Some interesting research seems to show that far more invective was directed at Prof. Peterson than at Cathy Newman. Newman also has form on false narratives.

January 23, 2018 6:28 pm

Wishing skeptics ill won’t change the fact that CAGW has no science to back it up.
Skeptics are like the military in a battle: One troop goes down, and another steps in to take his place and continue the fight. Skeptics are winning this argument, which is driving the Alarmists nuts and causes them to lash out irrationally.
Peter Gleick displaying his moral depravity is not going to help his CAGW cause. It will do the opposite.

Mike Maguire
January 23, 2018 6:37 pm

“Coleman was a television meteorologist, not a climatologist; he didn’t even hold a degree in meteorology. But conservative publications began to cite him as if he were an authority on climate science.
James Delingpole at Brietbart has a fantastic riposte:
What? You mean a bit like the way liberals worship the climate science authority of Bill Nye, the ‘degree in Mechanical Engineering’ guy?”
So what/who is an authority on climate science?
1. Somebody with a PHD in meteorology or climate science that understands how to represent the physics of the atmosphere with mathematical equations?
2. Somebody that is an expert on tree rings and other paleoclimate proxy data?
3. Somebody that works for the government with the title “climate scientist” ?
4. Somebody that analyzes daily, changing weather patterns and follows forecast models for numerous decades(climate is just the weather over a very long period-30+ years)?
Bill Nye, who tells the science lie is none of those………….John Coleman on the other hand fits into #4, which, not coincidentally is why operational meteorologists have a higher % of skeptics(of catastrophic man made global warming) than most scientific fields.
I learned alot in school about the physical laws of the atmosphere and forecasting weather but learned much more about weather and climate after graduation.
What is more important:
7 years of studying how weather and climate should work(using physics/math/chemistry) at an institute of higher learning and coming out convinced that you know everything there is to know?
Or…………. following the actual weather and climate, while studying it closely real time for 50 years?
The ideal expert would have qualities of both and also be objective. Maybe John Coleman did not “study” the weather in his early years on television but he got very serious about it prior to starting “The Weather Channel”
The way I understand it, John focused on hiring/having skilled operational meteorologists that knew their stuff(I almost went there in 1982, then again in 1985 after he was gone) and loaded up on them from the get go, while neglecting the most important part of being successful in television programing…….. packaging and selling of The Weather Channel to commercial advertisers, along with some technical nuances,
Under his initial leadership as president and CEO, during its first year, the TWC was deeply in debt. It was John Coleman’s own unique idea and he should continue to get the 100% credit for being its founder……….because he was.
However, it only became profitable after others that knew how to successfully sell commercial television forced him out.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 24, 2018 6:45 am

To the left, authority is derived based on one’s ability to advance the agenda.
Those who are useful are declared authorities.
Those who aren’t useful are sent to the gulags.

January 23, 2018 6:41 pm

Wow, WUWT is really getting down with Meme culture, didn’t see that happening but I suppose it’s the only counter-culture that’s worth joining in fighting the good fight these days.

Reply to  Dog
January 23, 2018 6:46 pm

Troll them until they “Reeeeeeeeeeeeee’ in utter anguish!

Facts: the only weapon we have against their weaponized ‘feels’.

Nigel S
Reply to  Dog
January 24, 2018 1:33 am

Embrace your inner lobster!
“The world is your lobster, my son”
Arthur Daley

January 23, 2018 6:53 pm

I was truly saddened after hearing about John Coleman’s passing. He was a legend here in San Diego, and it was heartening to see the outpouring of love his colleagues at local station KUSI-TV had for him! They talked about his legacy and reminisced about classic TV/weatherman moments he had, and shared videos clips and photos on their respective social media accounts. It was a proper way to honor and remember Mr. Coleman, may he Rest In Peace.
PS- I wanted to focus in a small way here on those who celebrated John’s life, though I was already aware of those out there who’ll never be decent or kind under any circumstance and TWC’s response was barely both.

January 23, 2018 7:06 pm

To live in the hearts and minds of those left behind, is to never die.
To disrespect those who have passed, will provide anguish in your conscience through eternity.
Our disrespectful misanthrope, will be no exception. He is rightly living in it now.
Heartland, I don’t believe we have passed the statute of limitations yet!

Reply to  ossqss
January 23, 2018 7:41 pm

January 23, 2018 7:53 pm

John Coleman seemed a straight bloke, no ducking and weaving to hide behind evasions and misdirection.
And you might not have noticed but Mann doesn’t have a degree in climatology or even meteorology. 😀

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  MarkMcD
January 23, 2018 8:31 pm

As I recall from way back when, there is quite the unusual tale about how Mann’s degree was enabled in time to add legitimacy to his production of the required ‘hockey stick.’ Honestly do not recall the details and this may well be a false assumption on my part – based on all the other unethical and sleazy moves I have seen from the CAGW team since then.
Will try to dig up a link but does anyone else recall that?

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 23, 2018 9:24 pm

From the carefully edited story at Wiki: “Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]”
That was the convenient resulting timing but, of course, no more revealing details there. But…
“While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park.”
Bradley worked with the infamous Phil Jones. I think he was the guy who installed Mann in place to manufacture the hockey stick.
Referring to an early version: “Mann was surprised by the extent of coverage which may have been due to chance release of the paper on Earth Day in an unusually warm year.”
LOL. “a chance release”
Anyhow, that’s all the time I have for Mann.

Reply to  MarkMcD
January 24, 2018 6:48 am

When you have done nothing wrong, there is no need for ducking, weaving or evasions.

January 23, 2018 7:57 pm

To me, Gleick is the Freud of the times: both vile, self absorbed fake scientists that with their frauding minds damaged science and so many lives and reputations, dead or alive. GBS famously said “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
He is a pig and he knows it.

January 23, 2018 8:00 pm

Only reason Gleik isn’t in prison is because Kamala Harris is crooked as a hillbilly’s smile.

Robert B
January 23, 2018 8:54 pm

I don’t think that he understands Kuhn. There are no rules in science but examples of how to investigate scientifically. Does he really think that one death means that science is now the consensus of those select on their politics?
If so, he is barracking for the team that wants you to believe that Columbus had to fight flat earthers – a flight of fancy from a famous fairytale writer with zero supporting evidence that trumps the work of real historians almost 200 years later.

January 23, 2018 9:11 pm

John, my esteemed friend: Rest in well-deserved peace. Your friends, Bob Carter and Bill Gray, welcome you as your intellect adds to the heavenly host!

January 23, 2018 10:03 pm

I would have appreciated a much more moderated post.
Still time to do so.
In particular if someone has appropriated another persons identity it would be best to take such remarks and all replies to such off.
Particularly if it is an innocent third party.
Sorry to hear about the passing of your esteemed friend, John Coleman. We need all the skeptical voices we have. Hopefully he has made a big difference to our views on the Climate and if he is being attacked it shows he was helping win.

Warren Blair
January 23, 2018 10:09 pm

No one on this forum will ‘publically’ gloat when Gleick kicks it.
You need to be from the left to have that special brand of hate.

Reply to  Warren Blair
January 23, 2018 10:30 pm

What I do on his grave won’t pass for flowers. He is a monumental scumbag. Enemy of the human race. Originator of the “debate is over” lie made famous by Al Gore.
Made a career out of selling the idea that you can open the borders to millions of aliens and that the strain on barely adequate water sources is evidence of perpetual drought rather than perpetual Democrat oligarchy.

January 23, 2018 10:14 pm

John Coleman left a legacy.
Peter Gleick will leave nothing – not even an absence.

Reply to  Phil
January 23, 2018 10:41 pm

Peter Gleick will leave …… an abscess that need lancing.

January 23, 2018 10:18 pm

Peter Gleick;
It has been my experience in life that those who express hatred to those recently passed, had reason to fear them in life. So what, Peter, did you have to fear from John Coleman? Did he threaten you physically? No? Did he try and get you fired from your job? No.
He held an opinion different from yours, publicly stated it, and apparently, that is what you feared. A man with ethics need not apologize for his misdeeds for, having ethics, he would not have committed the misdeeds in the first place. Similarly, a man with facts to support his beliefs need not fear his critics because, well, he has the facts to rely on.
I can’t quite escape the feeling Peter Gleick, that based on your behaviour, past and present, you have neither ethics nor facts to rely on, and your hatred is borne of an abiding fear of being found out.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 24, 2018 5:11 am

Well written David M.
Thank you.
RE Peter Gleick and his ilk:
This is not the conduct of rational, decent human beings – it is the conduct of sociopaths and psychopaths.
Read the reference below to understand these people, who reportedly comprise about 4% of the population.
Regards, Allan
Excerpt from”
“The Sociopath Next Door”, by Martha Stout, Ph.D. (2006)
Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “antisocial personality disorder,” a noncorrectable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.

According to the current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
(1) failure to conform to social norms;
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability; aggressiveness;
( 5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
( 6) consistent irresponsibility;
(7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.
The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.
“The Sociopath Next Door”, by Martha Stout, Ph.D. (2006)

January 24, 2018 7:05 am

I call bullshit.
(1) failure to conform to social norms;
He who conform to all social norm, I don’t call human. I call him sheep, and hypocrite (as there are contradicting social norms, you just cannot conform to all).
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
You actually need mind reading power to say for sure if someone check the box, and you can in any case pretend anyone does. Wasn’t Christ himself manipulative, when he succeeded in saving the life of the sinful woman?
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability; aggressiveness;
( 6) consistent irresponsibility;
These three ARE in just every human. We need to make effort, to plan, to check our irritability, and to accept responsibility.

January 24, 2018 2:57 pm

Argue with the shrinks – it is their Professional Manual.
Actually, it sounds like you have done a lot of arguing with shrinks in your lifetime.
When are they going to let you out?

4 Eyes
January 23, 2018 11:11 pm

I hope he dies soon. That will be a good day, a very good day. His friends and family can then enjoy our memories of him. Scum.

Reply to  4 Eyes
January 24, 2018 6:50 am

Do not become your enemy.

Lil Fella from OZ
January 23, 2018 11:21 pm

Hate and lies never lead to victory. The truth wins out in the end! Patience!

January 24, 2018 12:03 am

The Anger is the Disease.

January 24, 2018 12:54 am

Slimy weasel is worthy of nothing but contempt. My first parody song featured Gleick

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 24, 2018 1:01 am

Gleick will be shown in his life time to be utterly wrong. Coleman may have never known how right he was, but perhaps he didn’t need to.

January 24, 2018 1:01 am

The environmentalist’s “mythology”
The great classical scholar Jane Harrison summed up the logic of mythology like this: “First comes the ritual dance mask, then the monster to explain the mask, then the hero to kill the monster” – meaning that human activity precedes the story which is supposed to justify and explain it.
In this case, the ritual dance is the explosion in data collection made possible by modern technology; the masks are the various graphs signalling temperature rises, thinning ice, etc; the monster is global warming; and the hero – identified as such by Monbiot, Gleick, Klein, etc – is the climate scientist, who must transgress and be sacrificed to expiate our sins.
You could not make it up. You do not need to. It is all in standard anthropology textbooks. In this case, the dominant theme in climate hysteria is mediocrity. Mediocre politicians, mediocre journalists, mediocre academics, mediocre scientists …
The mediocre journalists, politicians, and academics on the global warming bandwagon belong to the non-reading, university-educated classes. They get their information from places such as the Guardian, the BBC and the Independent because that is where they also write and have their pronouncements published. You could say that ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is an international craze started by a tiny élite group pretending to be a mass movement.
If your looking for intellectual integrity and an honest intellectual conscience from Gleick, then you are looking in the wrong place. This lack of substance is a kind of endemic disease. It is historical and, therefore, must be endured. Gleick must be conscious of his mediocrity but let us not personalize, or think to much about him. Mediocrity is so painful and dangerous, especially when you are desperate, and one must be careful with it. He is a bully, and a nasty one at that, but this can never be our concern.
Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of documents he released contained information about Heartland employees that had no bearing on climate science.) That is Gleick’s personal tragedy and shame, and I am sure it is devastating for his colleagues, friends and family.

Steve (Paris)
Reply to  Sasha
January 24, 2018 1:40 am
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
January 24, 2018 3:06 am

Great point!
In an Economic Journal article, economists Peter Leeson and Jacob Russ demonstrated that two churches advertised their finesse at persecuting witches as proof that they were the ‘best’ church to join if you wanted protection from Satan. Their ‘selling point’ was that witches were doing the bidding of Satan, so getting rid of witches was the best way to protect yourself from him.
There is a 68-page pdf describing the process in detail:

Nigel S
Reply to  Sasha
January 24, 2018 1:53 am

Very good, thank you. I hope you’re right that we must just endure but as Prof. Peterson has pointed out the catastrophies of the 20th century don’t give much support to that hope.

Coeur de Lion
January 24, 2018 1:35 am

Remember Dr Rajendra Pachauri head of IPCC with his degree in railway engineering and his ongoing trial in India for multiple sexcrime.

January 24, 2018 2:20 am

“Atkin doesn’t have a degree in meteorology or climatology, neither does Gleick.”
You could be excruciatingly magnanimous and say that’s one saving grace for Gleick. The lack of a degree in climatology I mean.

Dr. Strangelove
January 24, 2018 3:15 am

Gleick unmasked – death wisher and tormentor of the deadcomment image

michael hart
January 24, 2018 3:47 am

Inadvertently, French Google translate has recently supplied me with the best characterization of the Gleick-reflex:

”And the warm-up benches jump on it like the pox on the low-clergy Breton!

Coach Springer
January 24, 2018 4:07 am

People like Gleick and Mann (and Jones – and Nye) corrupt climatology with the world of character defects..

Reply to  Coach Springer
January 24, 2018 9:50 am

Bill McKibben, also venerated as a climate expert, calls himself an “environmentalist”. Studying humanities at Harvard, he became enraged by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and vowed to dedicate his life to saving the planet. So what was his next move? He became a society gossip columnist for The New Yorker.

Peta of Newark
January 24, 2018 4:29 am

Having just watched the film “Patton” on interweb TV………
Where to start..
My assertion #1… John Coleman was a ‘Patton’
Possessed of all the things that roll together to become that much sought thing: a GSOH
Namely quick wit, clear head, self confidence and a good memory for people, places and stuff-in-general.
I’m gonna suggest that such people are not afraid of death and one of the things JC did before he died was to set a trap.
A trap for people who, shall we say, ‘didn’t get on with him while he was alive’
That trap had The Man himself as bait and it became ‘live and dangerous’ from the very moment of his passing.
Why he did this was because he was possessed of that ’empathy thing’ and knew that the Human Animal is quite incapable of passing off untruths. Mendaciousness is a very discomforting thing to do and he could sense that in the folks he made acquaintance of.
So, John passes away, the trap goes live and bingo! Look who is first into it if not King Rat himself.
This is the deeper than deep bit – Gleick actually seriously admired JC and in the totally kak-handed way that warmists think, he’s paying actual real respect to JC, RIP.
It goes to alleviate Gleick of his discomfiture from all the untruths and bad behaviour he’s been up to and damn well knows it, in his heart of hearts.
But this is it, chronically depressed brains will never admit a failure – I think we all know how you take your life into your own hands simply trying to tell a drunk that he is actually, drunk.
So maybe not be thinking of ‘adjectives’ to describe Gleick – pity the man.
But also, as we know, The One Thing all warmists (and chronic depressives) are absolutely scared sh1tless of, it is the idea of death.
Obviously because they are patently intent on destroying life on Earth in an attempt to save themselves. They cannot accept death’s inevitability and Gleick’s response is also anger, a child like anger that someone he really actually admired and wanted to be like, has gone and done something he is so utterly terrified of. Dying.
any thoughts on what might cause such muddled thinking……………..
It’s not as if cannabis is being legalised in California right now and THC just being a more potent depressant than, maybe some other stuff…….
RIP 18987 my younger brother John, self inflicted victim of tedious bureaucracy and an extended bout of sh1t weather.
But livestock farmers have a quite different outlook on….. ‘some things’
Similar to veterinarians and doctors as it ‘appens.
Now there’s today’s puzzle for ya…..

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 24, 2018 4:42 am

fat fingers innit.
1987 – the third in a succession of three cold, dark and wet years while tedious desk-bound bizzies in Europe quibbled about Milk Quotas and laid out a minefield of rules, regulations and not least, penalties for non compliance. My bro’ was not the first and has not been The Last by any means
And what have now in Europe (France especially) if not a bureaucratically created shortage of butter – and there is no more more certain way of winding up a Frenchman than by trying to take butter out of his diet

January 24, 2018 5:05 am

I was saddened this week by the passing of John Coleman, and went for a long walk to enjoy the world around us and the beauty and wonder of life.
John Coleman exemplified the human qualities that I value most – he was strong, courageous, and true – and he was a happy man, whose joy was shared with everyone.
I think John would not be upset by the likes of Peter Gleick – he would dismiss Gleick’s drivel with a humorous phrase and a big smile, and move on to truly important things.
Best, Allan
You’ve all heard this before:
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
– Desiderata by Max Ehrmann, 1927

January 24, 2018 5:11 am

It is quite unfair to pick on a mental midget like Gleick. Like many others with feelings of “save the world” grandeur and who suffer heavily from paranoid delusions, they deserve our sympathy more than anything else.

Mickey Reno
January 24, 2018 6:00 am

John Coleman was a brave, happy, helpful, honest person. He will missed by many people who knew him but little. To his critics and detractors I will say only that if you want to be remembered kindly by others after you die, maybe respecting the example he set would not be your worst move.

Robert Bumbalough
January 24, 2018 6:47 am

One should not be surprised that warmunists exhibit hatred for AGW skeptics as their intense desire to impose Marxism upon all and destroy free markets, economic competition, and unimpeded transfers of financial worth is their raison d’etre.

January 24, 2018 7:27 am

Skeptics play the ball not the person, because they have the facts on their side. Warmunists play the person not the ball, because they don’t. Simple.

January 24, 2018 7:39 am

Gleick’s quoting Khun is probably the most ironic behavior in this turn of events, because I always thought that the climate alarmists were the ones to whom Khun’s quote best applies.
In other words, Gleick has got it ass backwards as to whom Khun’s writings apply.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 24, 2018 7:50 am

Specifically, I have a strong feeling that the “greenhouse theory” paradigm is on a slow road to extinction — a very slow road, but I can foresee its end in the future, using my climatastic crystal ball.

January 24, 2018 10:39 am

He was dangeous, because his job was studying and predicting what the real weather does and how it changes naturally, versus what our priestly climate “scientist” computer jockeys assert for their easy money grants. IMO.

Steve Lohr
January 24, 2018 12:29 pm

May John Coleman rest in peace. May the vile detractors find redemption and change their ways. That they have lowered themselves to speak the most wretched of remarks only demonstrates the brilliant power John wielded against their narcissistic, passive aggressive debauchery of science.

January 24, 2018 3:20 pm

Gleick’s incorrect attribution of the ‘one funeral at a time’ chestnut to Thomas Kuhn seems to suggest that, like a lot of trendies who quote Kuhn’s ‘Scientific Revolutions’ book, he hasn’t actually read it. Kuhn actually cites and quotes Max Planck as follows, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (p150 4th Edition) This more accurate translation lacks the bounce of Connelly’s more jazzed-up version. One page later Kuhn reiterates/hijacks the idea (without citing Planck) stating, “Conversions will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, the whole profession will again be practicing under a single, but now a different, paradigm.”
I have far more respect for Max Planck as a scientist than I have for either Kuhn or Gleick.
(In a spirit similar to Anthony’s ‘know thine enemy’ (i.e. enemy of science) I am currently forcing myself to read my way through Kuhn’s painfully badly-written book – every smug, pipe-smoky, circumlocutory, pseudo-erudite sentence of it! So far in my (admittedly incomplete) reading, I have found that he presents very little evidence to support his dubious theory. And out from this scanty base of evidence, he extrapolates great sweeping generalisations – like certain bad scientists!)

January 24, 2018 3:53 pm

I grew up on John Coleman forecasts in Chicago, he’s probably 1/2 the reason I even comment here.

Justa Joe
January 24, 2018 5:31 pm

John Coleman was a great guy. He was a fixture in Chicago back when Chicago was a great town.

Louis Hooffstetter
January 25, 2018 7:23 am

“I am old, I am white, I am a denier.
Guess they are correct. I will die. So will the others. Then things will be settled.
Got it.”
I love it! This is my new mantra!
John Coleman was a class act!

Joel Snider
January 25, 2018 12:20 pm

Sad thing is, this guy is typical.

Verified by MonsterInsights