Posted: February 21, 2012 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

tallbloke:

I’m reposting this item from Judith Curry’s blog, ‘Climate etc’ here to open debate not only on Peter Gleick’s actions, but on the way the issue is being handled by mainstream media articles in the Guardian and elsewhere.

Originally posted on Climate Etc.:

by Judith Curry

How can we reconcile Gleick’s possibly criminal behavior with his essays and testimony on scientific integrity?

View original 1,465 more words

Comments
  1. Hans says:

    I posted this at Judith Curry´s blog:

    Hans Jelbring | February 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply

    It is not easy to be a serious scientist if people like mr Glick is the leader of the witch hunt any time a scientific truth is found. Many thanks for this revelation of what mainstream science means in climatology.

    Hans Jelbring
    PhD climatology
    MSc civil engineering electronics
    BSc Meteorology

  2. Chris M says:

    Gleick is just another product of Dutschke’s “long march through the institutions”.

    ‘Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological theory, by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, that a culturally diverse society can be dominated (ruled) by one social class, by manipulating the societal culture (beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values) so that its ruling-class worldview is imposed as the societal norm, which then is perceived as a universally valid ideology and status quo beneficial to all of society, whilst benefiting only the ruling class.[1][2]’ (Wikipedia)

    Says it all, I think.

  3. Zeke says:

    “It is fine for people (and scientists) have political ideologies. The problem comes in when you use politics to defend your science, and you use science to demand policies. Gleick’s unethical action with respect to integrity has been to push fealty to the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology under the guise of promoting integrity and ethics in science.” J. Curry

    Right. And that was before he used a false identity and took documents, along with circulating a monstrously forged document.

  4. Zeke says:

    “However, integrity is a word with complex meanings and nuances, some of which do not necessarily relate to honesty at all. Some statements from the Wikipedia article on integrity:
    Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.” ~J. Curry

    This explains everything. The illegal manoevers and the trashy behavior on the part of the Chair of Ethics in Science was self-consistent.

    On the other hand, people outside of the climate science community will continue to understand integrity as a powerful, peaceful, and undisturbed state acheived only by the agreement between who we appear to be on the outside to others, and who we are in our deepest internal thoughts and purposes. It comes only with hard won battles against many weaknesses, fears, falsehoods, and evils, and is only acheived with consistent efforts in self-mastery over a lifetime. (Many claim the final victory only comes through divine influx.)

    Now for example, I haven’t been forging or circulating stolen documents to frame my political adversaries lately. But on the other hand, I don’t know if I had $44,000 laying around, I would give it to science. Now that person who made that private donation to Anthony Watts’ NOAA data project is a saint! (: (;

    But I do hope by the time the ink on the verdict dries, Anthony Watts will be able to display NOAA’s data in a way that is up-to-date, easily readable, and easily comparable to other temperature records.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Well said Zeke. At this stage, the incredible new article by Suzanne Goldenberg in the Grauniad seems to reek of a lack of journalistic integrity. The regurgitated boilerplate, the facile ad hominems, the post hoc justifications, the lack of due diligence….

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?intcmp=122

  6. Michael Hart says:

    This story just doesn’t seem to be getting any less bizarre.

    So the AGU might be the premier professional world body of geo- space- and climate-scientists [and others who may not regard themselves as much to do with climate] ?
    Gleick was newly appointed chair of their “ethics and integrity in science” committee ?
    He’s an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences ?
    He’s a MacArthur Fellow “genius” [A US version of “the Swedish Prizes”] ?
    He’s on a list-as-long-as-your-arm of other important committees of the good and great in Science&Education ?
    …and he’s going around behaving like one of the anthropomorphised-pig-journalists in a Steve Bell cartoon ?? What was he thinking ??The main point to be said in his favour seems to be that at least he doesn’t appear as a particularly competent criminal.

    While it’s been pretty obvious for days that he was about to get his collar felt, it still left me gobsmacked when he started ‘fessing up. And most the the informed people now seem to believe there is more and worse to come if the law starts seriously investigating. If the Duchess of Cambridge was caught shoplifting it wouldn’t seem much stranger to me.

    Yet environment correspondents at The Guardian and the BBC just keep ploughing on regardless. Like tourists driving their SUV further out across Morecambe Bay when you can see the tide is turning. Breathtaking.

  7. Brian H says:

    The warmist responses are best understood as regret that Gleick is a blot on the Noble Cause. The corruption remains fully rationalized.

  8. colliemum says:

    The obfuscators are already trying to paint Gleick as ‘hero’. They don’t grasp the difference between obtaining documents by wire fraud – a federal felony, look it up – as opposed to the whistle-blowing/leaking of the CRU e-mails. They don’t understand that faking a document for propaganda use is faking, never mind the high-falutin ‘reasons’ given for doing the fake in the first place.

    Obviously, they don’t even get it that this fake document, their jubilation about it and now their defense of it shows to us not in the AGW camp that they have obviously no problem with faking. They don’t get it that this new instance of faking emphasises the mistrust we have of the results and data which they’ve been using these last decades to promote their political world view.

    While Gleick may look to have integrity to his cause, even to lying and faking, it underlines yet again that sadly the AGW activists have abused and misused the scientific method for their own political ends.

    Yet another nail in the AGW coffin.
    Isn’t it time for us to stop excusing such behaviour with the formula “Noble Cause Corruption” and call it what it is: lies and fakes all the way down to promote their world view, which has nothing to do with science or even climate.
    Read Delingpole’s “Watermelon” – the last chapters there are giving chapter and verse as to why AGW has been and still is being promoted.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Goldberg’s article leaves behind any pretence of balanced science reporting and moves entirely into the realm of propaganda imo.

  10. Richard says:

    For all those who use a ‘forged but true’ defence.

    Take the forged memo. Remove from it all text that can be found elsewhere in the Heartland documents as supplied.

    Read what is left.

    That is what you are defending.

  11. Harold says:

    If you need to lighten your mood, have a butchers at good ol’ Greg Laden’s take on this affair. It is friggin’ hilarious. It will leave you staring at the screen in disbelief. It begins thus:

    “The best available evidence now suggests that the most damning of the “Heartland Documents” — the strategy memo which explicitly states that Heartland’s strategy is to interfere with good science education in order to advance their political agenda — is legitimate.”

    Ha ha ha ‘legitimate’. Pretty good at appraising evidence our Greg.

  12. Hans says:

    Peter Glick said:
    “Science is not democratic or republican. Scientific integrity, logic, reason, and the scientific method are core to the strength of our nation. We may disagree among ourselves about matters of opinion and policy, but we (and our elected representatives) must not misuse, hide, or misrepresent science and fact in service of our political wars.”

    Who can disagree to these words? Noone, I guess but to be a scientist also means to be honest. It is especially important to avoid self deception. Peter Glick has shown himself being far more a politician than a scientists. Few people expect politicians to be honest. Peter Glick has hijacked the concept of science to promote his (and others) politcal agenda.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Harold, it may be that his legal advice is that his best defence is to plead insanity and say he genuinely believes the document to be legitimate, so there is no intent to defame HI. That should set the judge’s eyebrows twitching… :)

  14. Don keiller says:

    Gleick sure puts the “mental” into “environmentalist”.

  15. fenbeagleblog says:

    The man is on a mission. So don’t doubt his motives. You can be sure that it is for our own good, and none ride such a high horse.

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/gleickety-gleick/

    [reply] The height of his horse is matched only by the depths to which he stoops.

  16. tallbloke says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17126699

    Richard Black doing a pretty good impression of a Pravda copy writer.

  17. Aussie says:

    Once again I am a true admirer of the courage of Dr. Judith Currie, and this is because she is the one who is showing integrity.

    My introduction to Dr. Tamsin Edwards has been interesting because she has started a new blog called “All the models are wrong”. Dr. Edwards, just like Judith Currie has had the moral fortitude to not confront those who hold a differing opinion, but to reach out to us. Her blog is going to be extremely good. The first article that she wrote included some chit chat between herself and Peter Gleick. It showed me that Gleick is an extremely nasty person by the way that he attacked Tamsin.

    I am in fact full of admiration of both women, even if I do not 100% agree with their position. It is their reaching out that is making the difference. They are on a learning curve and we are on a learning curve.

  18. david says:

    Tallbloke, sorry to be off topic here, but I would have expected a comment or three from you at this post here at WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/ W. Connely appears in full force and by his comments, he, like Peter Gleick condemming a book he never read, condemms the post clearly having not read it.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Hi David, Alec Rawls started putting forward the same ideas I’d been previously presenting on WUWT a couple of years ago. Because I explicitly linked my findings with the Sun’s barycentric motion, a banned topic at WUWT, Anthony passed over my stuff and gave Alec the solar guest post spot, along with David Archibald, who also took up my ideas via Ed Fix’s analysis.

    Because he is a WUWT guest poster, Alec seems to be able to able to escape the inflammatory rhetoric Leif Svalgaard flings at me on WUWT solar threads, so I’ll leave Alec to defend my ideas.

  20. david says:

    Thanks Tallbloke, and I understand. I did point out to the thread, and to W. Connelly, some of the problems of where and how GISS processes their TSI info in this comment. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#comment-900470

  21. tallbloke says:

    Ken Hall has some harsh words for Richard Black of the Biased Bullshit Corporation:

    Ken Hall says:
    February 23, 2012 at 5:20 am

    I have written the following to BBC’s Richard Black on twitlonger. I doubt that he will even read it, let alone respond, But I had to get it off my chest.

    “Have you no shame?

    The Climate Alarmist’s reasoning as to the fake document in the fakegate leak actually being genuine, would be similar to me not having a driving licence, and stealing one from someone else with the same name as me and claiming, “of course I must have passed my driving test, I have a driving licence to prove it. And look, the information on it is mostly true, and I always believed I could drive anyway, so combining all these matters I guess I can legally drive now!”

    The document which YOU claim proves that the Heartland Institute is attacking education is a FAKE! Can you understand that?

    You are crudely and unsuccessfully and dishonestly passing off FAKED information gained through deception and lies as “news” and expecting us to believe you.

    By all means, write whatever lie based rubbish you like for the likes of the Guardian or Greenpeace, but DO NOT do that on the BBC!

    I cannot believe ANYTHING you write ever again, for you are NOT a journalist in ANY rational meaning of the word. You are nothing more than a very overly privileged advocate and activist for a political cause. NOTHING MORE!

    Have the decency to apologise, resign from the BBC and go work for the Gutter press where you belong.

    At least I support the side of the debate which still supports, truth, honesty, empirical evidence, the full and strict adherence to the FULL tenets of the scientific method, freedom and openness of research and opinion, acceptance and WELCOMING of scientific debate.

    How can you look yourself in the face knowing that you are on the side which supports criminality, lies, fraud, fakery, deception, bullying, keeping secret publicly funded research, the hiding of inconvenient data, misrepresentation of data, the bullying of editors and the threats to journals to supinely cave in to the oppression by advocates of a political agenda, the imposition of “acceptable” thought upon everyone, regardless of the weakness and error-filled level of research.

    Your follow up on your BBC blog fails to address your negligence and complicity in passing off fraudulently obtained and faked information as accurate news, nor does it address your stark double standard in suppressing the climate gate emails for two weeks and then when that news broke internationally, your blatantly biased defence of the CRU at UEA, and your attacking the leak (or theft as you described it, without ANY evidence whatsoever to back up that serious allegation).

    And the difference in this fakegate case in your immediate rush to publication of what you called “leaked” information from an “insider” and then your attacking the VICTIM of this fraudulent theft and defended the thief!

    You FAILED to point out the difference between the Heartland being a private organisation which is not subject to FOIA requests, and the climate gate leaks happening largely because that data had already been subject to a FOIA request and the people at CRU ILLEGALLY withheld that public data. NOR did you point out another crucial difference in that ALL the climategate data-leaks were of GENUINE data. NONE of it faked or edited, whereas the FAKEGATE data contained damning information which was ENTIRELY FAKE! It now appears POSSIBLE that you obtained the news of this fakegate theft firsthand from Peter Gleick himself. IF that is the case, then you are guilty of being an accessory to the crime and then deliberately and wilfully misleading, (lying) to the BBC Audience about the information coming from an “insider” you knew Peter Gleick was not an “insider” of the Heartland Institute when you wrote BOTH of your misleading articles about this theft.

    Do the decent thing and resign!

  22. Tenuc says:

    My favourite blog comment of the year seen on Jeffid’s TAV…

    Drewski said
    February 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm
    “Michael Mann is very lucid and very compelling to all those who are able to understand science — like the National Academy of Sciences for example. Mann’s latest book BTW is excellent — about as far from extreme as Anthony Watts is from a college degree.”
    .
    Jeff Condon said
    February 20, 2012 at 11:38 pm
    Reply to Drewski,
    I would love to discuss the finer points of Mannian mathmagic sometime, but Gleick has just crashed the Hindenburg.

    LOL… :)

  23. Tenuc says:

    Don’t think it’s the beginning of the end, Rog, rather it’s another milestone on the road from Climategates 1 & 2. Of course Gleick ‘crashing the Hindenburg’ will also have an honourable mention when the history of the CAGW scam gets written.

    Wars are never won in a day, and I think it will take several more battles before CO2 is regarded as not a threat to humanity, but just a valuable plant food

    Reading some of the comments from the Independent article makes me feel proud of how far we have come… :)

  24. tallbloke says:

    As we already know from the piece written by Leslie Kaufman that featured yours truly, the New York Times has a certain,,,, bias to it’s output. Here’s a nice snippet from the Climate Audit post:

    On Feb 8 at 11:59 PM, the “board member” asked for the most recent contact list, which was sent on Feb 10.

    The first dated evidence of the fake memo is the date of its scan on Feb 13. The fake memo refers to information in the Plan and Budget, which Gleick had obtained on Feb 6. Gleick clearly had, as Mosher puts it, “means, motive and opportunity” to write the fake memo. It also is in his style.

    In a sense, Gleick might as well have signed the fake document. Mosher identified him as the author almost instantly.

    With the assertions that the fake document is genuine from Laden and Mann, and the fudged up timelines and sins of omission from the NYT, BBC, Guardian etc, it almost looks like there’s a “concerted campaign of disinformation” going on. :)

  25. Richard J says:

    A thoroughly commendable account of the proceedings so far….

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning_631915.html?page=1