Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Travels | Main | Government slaps down universities »
Tuesday
Feb212012

Gleick confesses

Extraordinarily, Peter Gleick has confessed to being the person who blagged emails from the Heartland Institute.

In the latest revelation, Peter Gleick, a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute who has been active in the climate wars, apologised on Monday for using a false name to obtain materials from Heartland, a Chicago-based think tank with a core mission of dismissing climate change.

Crucially, he seems to be denying the faking, although he doesn't appear to be letting on who did.

In the piece, Gleick made the odd claim that he carried out the hoax on Heartland as a means of verifying the authenticity of a document that appeared to set out the think tank's climate strategy. Heartland declared the two-page memo a fake.

"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate programme strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it," Gleick wrote

I have to say I don't know whether to be more stunned by Gleick's foolishness or the blogosphere's ability to deduce that it was him what dunnit.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (251)

Hmmm - Peter Gleick twitter silence for a few days - time for 'semi plausible explanation'?

I wonder if the 2 documented events below, just priot to this, pushed him possibly into a rash action.
ie the style and forbes connection and other feature, make him a candidate for the 'fake now' I must accept.

Peter had accused me of being 'incredibly offensiv'e on twitter (ie i thought my followers would mean like the vile abuse Katie Hayhoe had receieved.'

And it TOOK THREE climate scientists, Dr Tamsin Edwards, Prof Richard Betts (met Office, IPCC), AND Prof Katie Hayhoe herself to get him to back down..

in the email exchanges (published with permission) that followed Peter Gleicks thoughts about me, his worldview to 'sceptics' and his attitude to Dr Tamsin Edwards is very enlightening. ..

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

What started this is Peter took issue with Dr Edwards blog name, where he pulled the senior scientist card (rather assertively, because some sceptics liked it (me) and it should be said UK climate scientists liked it as well!
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/

This made me wonder, a bit, just after Heartland..
http://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/169574788069720065

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

This comment on DotEarth was recommended by 33 people:

Peter Gleick is standing up for the nobility of science. He deserves support for doing so. It is the abject failure of many too many scientists to stand up for what they believe to be real and true about the global predicament facing humankind that is unacceptable and pernicious. The silence of so many scientists has allowed the ideological idiocy Peter has exposed to triumph over science for way too long. At this moment, I want to salute Peter Gleick. That scientists follow his example is long overdue. Peter, thanks for standing up and speaking out so loudly and clearly.

Sincerely,

Steve Salmony

OMG

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

A good one by my old Harmless Sky pal, Manacker, on Judith's blog:

!FLASH!

Our correspondent has just learned that the recent Heartland story with the faked documents was, in actual fact, a plot by deniers of climate science supported by nefarious big oil and coal interests and their minions in the Republican Party.

Peter Glieck, who has been posing as a defender of ethics and staunch supporter of the IPCC cause in the war against human-induced climate disaster, is actually a climate denier and a Heartland mole!

His recent admission of faking documents was made to discredit the AGW cause.

A well-known climate scientist who asked to remain anonymous told our correspondent, “I always suspected that Gleick was on the other side – but this latest action has confirmed it. It only shows how low the anti-science denial machine will go in order to confuse the public with its lies.”

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

twopenneth-
I hope that anyone, even if found guilty across the board from phishing to faking, will not be pursued to the point of doing jail time.

That would only create martyrs. The shame would be more than enough.

But this is the striking thing about this episode the tin ear for leveraging the best out of the situation on both sides.

Who could have thought Gleick would have been that stupid? I certainly didn't.

I think this behaviour is the result of the bad thinking and projection of the alarmist side which has tacitly been accepted by some of the more grown up believers who know better.

We should use a measure of reflection to not go overboard and assume that maliciousness is at the forefront with the "consensus" side butuse this episode to realise the blind self-indulgent paranoid stupidity that leads them.

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Gleick could have choosen to remain silent about the fake document, he didn't. He concocted a lie. This document was drafted after theft, not before it, because critically it contains a summary of the stolen documents.

It is a lie, he knows it, his colleagues know it, his defence team know it and so do the federal authorities.

The federal authorities will now do everything in their power to nail that lie, and once they have done that in court Gleick will most likely be jailed for theft and lying to federal authorities.

Gleick's Pacific Institute will almost certainly have to pay huge sums in compensation to HI.

Further, apologies are due from DeSmog, The Team, UCS, The Guardian, the BBC, NYT and the LA Times. They have badly let their supporters, their readers and viewers down with shoddy journalism and unethical editorialism. They were all part of Fakegate.

Also, some form of acknowledgement is due from Richard Betts to BH commentators. He jumped with two feet into this controversy very early on, but as soon as it became apparent that not all was well we had silence.

It shows that climates scientists are quite happy for eco-zealots to control and manipulate this debate, with the scientists throwing in their tuppence worth only when it suits them.

Fakegate has proved beyond doubt that this debate is neither open or honest, that is no longer good enough.

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Have asked Tamsin how she feels about her would-be mentor.

Feb 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

I think we need a cartoon from Josh. I suggest Peter Gleik dressed as the Fonz on his Harley-Davidson motorbike jumping the shark.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

I think we need a cartoon from Josh. I suggest Peter Gleik dressed as the Fonz on his Harley-Davidson motorbike jumping the shark.
Feb 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record


Brilliant!

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

It shows that climates scientists are quite happy for eco-zealots to control and manipulate this debate, with the scientists throwing in their tuppence worth only when it suits them.

Fakegate has proved beyond doubt that this debate is neither open or honest, that is no longer good enough.
Feb 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM Mac

Spot on Mac.

If "proper scientists" stay quiet they make themselves just as guilty as the Gleicks & Manns.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

Leopard,

It's my view that Gleick had already been contacted by the FBI or the police. I think this is what may have caused him to feel boxed in enough to make the confession. He, or someone on his behalf, has now retained the services of the apparently well known criminal attorney John Keker. What Gleick has done would seem to breach several federal laws. If so, jail time is almost mandatory. Whilst I agree with all you say, it does look though as if they might get their martyr.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterLC

Quote, Peter Gleick, Feb 2007, "Good, independent science – indeed good information in general – is crucial to making good political decisions. It is difficult enough to make intelligent policy choices given the complexities of today’s political, environmental, economic, and social challenges. It is almost impossible when good science or data are ignored or distorted, or when bad science is sought out to support pre-determined political conclusions."

In Peter Gleick we have witnessed noble-cause-corruption - he has become what he accuses others of - indeed he was went further by commiting common theft.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Gleick's credibility is fairly low at this point. (Like the fat fox in the hen house: "No, I didn't eat the chickens," he said, spitting a feather out, "they were gone when I arrived. Yes, I admit to trespassing. But I had a good reason. I was chasing this dog, see, and he came in here, snatched the chickens and ran...")
I do not believe it is possible for anyone rational to believe he did not write the memo.
This seems to be a good test of the credibility of all those who report on this case. Those who do not cut him loose now are obviously more interested in winning than in the facts.
Someone should keep a score sheet for all pro-AGW blogs and news outlets and score them out of 10 for their reaction to this. From what some of the above commenters have reported, there seems to be quite a few fat zeroes already. ("The fat fox should be applauded for his diligent pursuit of that disgraceful hound, who stole our friend's chickens...")

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterJit

Gleick is not a martyr. He will be a cautionary tale for the Hickmans, Monbiots, Blacks and Wards of this world - there but for the grace of God, go I.

It is time for Betts and Edwards to break their silence on this matter. They should publicly disassociate themselves from such criminal behaviour and take back control of this debate from the zealots.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Hmmmmm. Well that's certainly odd. Mr Black is currently furiously tweeting on anything and everything, but he doesn't yet seem to have heard the news about Gleick. I'm sure he'll spot it soon enough, and give us all his thoughts.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

Are we sure the confession is genuine? :D

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

I think what TerryS said at 9:18 is crucial. If a physical piece of paper was received in the post, and then scanned in on the 13th Feb, and included with the purloined Heartland docs, then would the scan not show any imperfections in a physical copy? Is it possible to take a paper copy, scan it and then produce a perfect pdf?

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterJim

Mac, spot on re Gleick.

Not about Betts and Edwards tho'. What have they to do with this? The Guardian journo's, yes, I would 100% agree - they are looking hugely hypocritical at the mo'. But the Met Office? I have been following Richard and Tamsin on Twitter and think both are ok in this.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

'I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.'

So says Gleick. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is emphatically not the same as saying that he did not write the fake memo.

So his statement may be literally true but far from the whole truth.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAgouts

I'm relieved that, (they) found out who did (it). I wa's afraid some(one) might think, (it was me).

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

James Evans,

How soon? What's the betting his post of a few days back quietly disappears and he never mentions it again, other than to pass on the sentence Gleick gets about six months down the line?

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterLC

Compare and contrast:

Climategate 1&2 - running for a few years now.
The 'might' of AGW alarmists/scientists/activists/MSM/police forces have found nothing as to 'whodunnit'.

HI crime (yep, wire fraud is a crime in the USA) and huge alarmists' kerfuffle with bells on runs for a few days.
The mighty minds of the sceptics, first and foremost the fab Steve Mosher, nail the culprit within days.
Culprit is forced to out himself with a self-serving 'confession' and lawyers up.

Hmmm - so who are the idiots here?

Alarmists - 'scientists', activists and your MSM henchpeople: be afraid, be very afraid!

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

As for the comments by Steve Earl Salmony at Dot Earth, NYT, here is what this self-styled eco-psychologist has to say about disinformation and anti-informational garbage;

In a world in which too many politicians are posers; too many economists are deluded; too many business powerbrokers with great wealth are con artists, gamblers and cheats; and too many of their absurdly enriched minions/’talking heads’ in the mainstream media "parrot" whatsoever serves political convenience and economic expediency, truth, ethics, equity and fair play are buried under cascading disinformational and anti-informational garbage found in a `tool box’ of pernicious rhetorical devices.

Quite! Of course you would never see cAGWists stoop this low.

http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176

Don't call me Earl, we'll call you!

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

So now he's got an expensive lawyer and an expensive PR man too.....perhaps he's just a rich old academic? Come on Pete, show us the funding!

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

What do the UK scentists like Richard and Tamsin have to do with US scienbtists like Gleick..

Keep them out of it, they have done more than enough..
ie today...

You mights as well make me defend/denounce Marc Morano (hang about I'm about to do that ....)
but you get my point.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

ie this

Richard Betts@richardabetts
@SimonLLewis @flimsin Unfortunately @ret_ward does not like scientists talking off-message. Part of story is here http://bit.ly/t9j8zg


Bob Ward@ret_ward
@richardabetts @SimonLLewis @flimsin Actually Richard, I prefer climate scientists not to talk utter rubbish, like your last tweet.


Where Richard said to Bob:

"I must say that your persistance on this issue is rather worrying, as you seem to be trying to shut down legitimate scientific debate, which is unhealthy. The scientific uncertainties *should* be discussed openly, for the reasons I have explained."

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/11/climate-doomsday-clock-winding-down/#comment-37232

Tamsin tweeting this morning about her run in with Peter..

Tamsin Edwards@flimsin
@SimonLLewis Hi Simon. For Gleick controlling the science message see my 1st post "All blog names are wrong" @ http://allmodelsarewrong.com

------

so leave them alone.. (they have more at risk professionally than anybody here)

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

On Fakegate "Silence Is Not Golden".

We need climate scientists to speak out and not let the eco-zealots dictate the response as they are currently trying to do.

Feb 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

As seen in Judith Curry's latest Gleick thread:


“DocMartyn | February 17, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Reply
John the Kübler-Ross model has:

“Denial — “Short term fluctuations are hiding the long term signal.
You need a 15, 19, 37 year period to detect the warming trend.
Extreme cooling is shown in the global warming models.”

“Anger — “scientists like me who are trying to communicate the potential dangers of continued fossil fuel burning to the public as a threat. That means we are subject to attacks, some of them quite personal, some of them dishonest.”

“Bargaining — “If we had more computing power we could have higher resolution temperature estimating and convincingly show that snow in May is a result of rising CO2…”

“Depression — “I did think about it, yes. About suicide. I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now.”

“Acceptance — ‘Guilty M’Lud.’”

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Dr Tamsin Edwards and I had a run in with Peter very recently (2 weeks ago), His emails to her and me were very enlightening. In Tamsin’s closing email to Peter Gleick ( that I am party to)

Dr Tamsin Edwards:

“I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with.

Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were”.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! – Tamsin Edwards

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry, speaking of "fast fingers", has he got digital arthritis?

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

BW Tweets won't do. They must know this.

This is an opportunity for climate scientists to collectively stand up for an open and honest debate.

Lets take a leaf out of Fakegate. What about an open letter signed by climate scientists decrying the behaviour of Peter Gleick and disassociating themselves from the comments made by journalists.

If it is good enough for the TEAM then it must be good enough for the Betts and Edwards of this world.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Mac, they are speaking out. Are you on Twitter?

Actually, I do like the Eco -zealots speaking out tho - terrific comic material.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

This may well be the Lie Too Far for the warmist. Claiming victumhood and whistleblower likely will not help. Even the Ninth Circuit will find it difficult to shield this under some imagined right but, for sure, they'll try. Eric Holder may even assign a group, code named Fast and Futile, to help Gleick.

If the media reports devote 90% plus to the "facts" of the event such as:
Emphasis placed on the accusations, then blurb about how he confessed to publishing them and maybe a comment about threatened suit while "others" tout his actions as shedding light into the deniers movement.
Then the great coverup and obfiscation continues. Else, they've evaluated the event and will simply issue a retraction buried somewhere and pretend it simply doesn't exist. Imho, you may never see this in the left's MSM after 2012 Mar 2.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

I just posted this on The Guardian:

"Now that Gleick has admitted deceptively acquiring the Heartland documents, he is in a unique position of being able to prove the veracity of the allegedly fake one: all he needs to do is post the email (+headers) he received from Heartland, then everyone would be able to see whether the "fake" document was among the attachments."

"If the anonymous document he refers to in his confession is in fact the allegedly fake one, he should have made it clear that it wasn't among the files he received from Heartland."

It seems obvious to me: Gleick is the only person in the world who can say definitively whether the presumed fake doc was among the emails he received. Maybe someone should put the question to him directly?

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

TT - "Maybe someone should put the question to him directly?"

I am sure the federal authorities are planning to do that, either prior to a court appearance or during it.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

@The Leopard In The Basement Feb 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Who could have thought Gleick would have been that stupid? I certainly didn't.

Actually, that may be what has led you astray, TLITB ... As I have just posted at Lucia's:

In response to Steven Mosher (Comment #90988)

Glieck isn’t intelligent. He is a genius. That means he thinks he is too smart to get caught. Dumb people fear getting caught. A dumb person would say ” I dont know enough about computers, I might get caught”. A genius, a gold star winning genius on the other hand, thinks he knows everything. Thinks he is too smart to get caught.

I wrote:

Bingo! My sentiments, exactly!

Contrary to his plea that it was “frustration” that made him do the dastardly deeds, his self-inflicted wounds can be attributed (with a high level of confidence by IPCC standards) to his very high opinion of himself – along with his very low opinion of those who happen to disagree with him.

This became quite clear to me from his behaviours pursuant to his “review” of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert [See Odes for Peter Gleick**]

Add to this his very vocal and arrogant pit-bull antipathy towards HI and the over-riding lack of humility in his “confession”, such as it was – not to mention the conspicuous absence of any specific details pertaining to his transgressions, compared to the repetition of the ‘truth’ of his claims regarding the evil forces of darkness.

How should one translate “At the beginning of 2012″ from Gleick-speak? And when did he do his impersonation act? Surely some dates would have been helpful.

Was his impersonation act conducted via landline, cell or E-mail?

And why did he not disclose the names of the “set of journalists and experts working on climate issues”? How very noble of him to protect his 15 … uh … “fences”, eh?

He certainly succeeded in generating enough MSM coverage that at the AAAS Annual Meeting held in Vancouver – which just happened to end Feb. 20 – the AAAS president was sufficiently “alarmed” to echo and amplify his “concerns”.

Consider the Guardian‘s** banner:

Attacks paid for by big business are ‘driving science into a dark era

‘Researchers attending one of the world’s major academic conferences ‘are scared to death of the anti-science lobby’

[and underneath pic of obligatory polar bear:]

The vast majority of scientists on both sides of the Atlantic say rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere threaten to increase temperatures to dangerous levels.

[...]

Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now “scared to death” by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.

“We are sliding back into a dark era,” she said. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.”

Was AAAS president Federoff one of the 15 – or perhaps one of the 15 had “teleconnections” to Federoff?!

YMMV, but I see nothing in any of the above that gives me any reason to believe that Gleick’s carefully crafted “confession” consists of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Looks like he still thinks he’s “too smart to get caught”.

Mind you, I still think Gleick may have had a helping hand from Mashey in pasting together the obviously fake memo with his very own “fingerprints” all over it – regardless of what he may (or may not) have received in the mail “at the beginning of 2012″.

[** linked in original but not here in order to avoid random acts of captcha-moderation]

[end x-post from Lucia's]

To which I now add ... while Goldenberg's latest seems like the beginning of a campaign to nominate Gleick for beatification, Revkin was more subdued, but still sympathetic..

As Steve McIntyre had noted in his excellent timeline of events prior to Gleick's "confession" - Revkin was the first MSM big name to tweet the false news on the 15th. Steve also noted that Revkin subsequently deleted his post. I wonder why?!

IMHO, Revkin, Hickman, Goldenberg, Black and their ilk still have much to answer for - considering their respective roles in all this.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Ostrov

For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

What are they doing, nominating him for an Oscar?

Shouldn't it be:

For his theft, deception and covering up, he deserves our condemnation and ridicule.

And if it turns out he did write that fake memo, but lied about it in his confession, it's going to get 10 times worse.

As Heartland said in its statement:

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

Plus there's the date thing.

And talk about a half-hearted, self-serving apology.

No surprise -- a prominent climate activist stoops to deception to steal documents which he thinks may damage "the other side" and then tries to claim partial justification.

Lying, amorality and rank hypocrisy -- the hallmarks of the Left/Green personality.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Mac

I am among (surely) many who have asked Tamsin etc for a view point on this. I'm quite happy to allow time for her, Richard et al to process what has gone on, collect their thoughts and then respond.

Don't you think that's reasonable?

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Tweets don't do.

Richard Betts came on this site to make public comment on the release of the documents and what they contained. He sounded angry. He can come back anytime to do the same because he must be similarily angry that he was duped by a fellow climate scientist.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Mac

I agree, tweets don't do. See my thoughts on turds, and respect the fact that I have lodged a mighty action on the intellectual relativism of tweets and turds. You can follow through with me #turds@shitter.com

Meanwhile, Richard and Tamsin are not part of this. I am interested in their reactions, and they will come.

Hang fire Mac

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Casting our minds back;


I must admit I was mildly disappointed not to have been listed alongside Andy Revkin and Judy Curry as someone "who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm...." :-)

However, assuming this document is genuine, the two quotes in the 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy that are definitely quite revealing and important are:


This influential audience [Forbes] has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out


and:


At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports


As someone who considers it completely acceptable to question and discuss mainstream views in an open and honest manner, and indeed as someone who actively promotes such discussion even in the face of advice against this, these points are of key concern as they appear to be counter to the idea of genuine, constructive discussion.

Of course many people will tell me that is naive to expect otherwise!

One of the reasons I go on Bishop Hill and Climate Audit is that opposing voices are not kept out, and that a proper discussion can (usually) be had. I hope fans of these blogs will take note of the apparent strategy by Heartland to oppose free debate and simply try to cause damage, rather than engaging in genuine discussion.

(And yes, before you ask, I do think that "suppression of opposing voices" and "undermining" would be wrong no matter which "side" does it.)

However, we don't seem to have had a response from Heartland yet, so it will be interesting to see what they say on the appearance that they actively set out to "undermine" and "keep opposing voices out".

Feb 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM | Richard Betts

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

- you can tell the credibility of a news source with the speed that they correct a story compared with the speed of publishing it in the first place.

- on a different matter I see DesmogBlog has the headline "Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents" talk about spin
- If their other articles have the same amount of truth as that headline ..then they have about the same amount of credibility as Viz magazine.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen

Mac,

Whilst I have every sympathy with your viewpoint, I think you are asking too much of Richard and Tamsin at this time. Both have made their views perfectly clear on Twitter and I’m sure they will do so here too in the fullness of time. Give them the space to fully digest what has happened. Let them have the time to work it through for themselves. They are scientists after all, aren’t they supposed to be calm and measured? I’m sure you won’t be disappointed in the end ;)

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterLC

A miracle just happened....

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Black

I would like to add some more thoughts to the Gleick-scandal, because pretty it isn’t, and I am quite certain we haven't seen the end of it.

Firstly, Gleick alleges that "At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail". This is quite hard to swallow (and Judith Curry states flat out "hard to believe that he didn’t write this"). And even if he didn’t pen this himself, I would be surprised if he didn’t know who, or had a good hunch.

Secondly, the fake Strategy-memo looks as if it was written after the other documents had been read and searched. It is crafted around tidbits found in the authentic ones. In a rather clumsy way trying to inflate common activist talking-points and conspiracies (and making gross errors about Koch-money). It is hard to believe that that creation of the fake memo preceded the reading of the authentic ones.

Thirdly, as is somewhat indicated in Gleick’s confession, there seemed to be a wider group informed of (at least) the existence of those documents before. The immensely quick reaction from DeSmogBlog, only an hour after that (alleged first, and fake) strategy document ‘leaked’ to Gleick was scanned one final time?

Moreover, I was somewhat surprised at how quickly both blogs, some journalists, but more importantly ‘The Team’ and other organizations had ready and condemning statements about Heartland prepared. Most noticeable, the Team response (incidentally not penned by them, but by Aaron Huertas from one of the worse climatescare astroturf lobby groups, the misnamed ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’) and some Climate and Health Council, both with many signatories from all over the world.

The noticeable things is that these more ‘official’ responses to the alleged leak made no reference at all to the, by then, well known information that the most ‘juicy bits’ all came from one by Heartland strenuously contested (and quite obviously) fake fabricated document. Not one reservation even about any authenticity. Reading these puff-pieces give the strange impression that they were written beforehand, or at least that they addressed a situation that had already passed. It is hard to rid oneself of the suspicion that these signatories had prior information of at least the upcoming ‘leak’. That this ‘strikeback’ was a ‘coordinated attack’ (incidentally, one of Michael Mann’s favorite phrases since 2009)

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

stewgreen,

I thought they were Viz magazine ;)

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterLC

BTW so far the BBCNews website has only one page mentioning Peter Gleick

Environment | Essential Guide Visionaries | BBC World Service
Peter Gleick‎: Dr Peter Gleick

"Visionaries" says a lot for the credibility for the rest of the "movement"

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen

When will we see the emergence of the Phil Jones defence, whereby Gleick claims he is becoming so stressed that his opponents should lay off him and pity him instead?

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

A miracle just happened....

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM | Richard Black

You don't sound at all angry!?

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

O/T: the authors of the "No Need to Panic" letter to the WSJ have responded to the Trenberth et al letter - link


This is particularly relevant in view of the Lindzen talk at the HoC tomorrow.

Feb 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

From Wikipedia, a not unrelated case;

The Sarah Palin email hack occurred on September 16, 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaign when the Yahoo! personal email account of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was subjected to unauthorized access. The hacker, David Kernell, had obtained access to Palin's account by looking up biographical details such as her high school and birthdate and using Yahoo!'s account recovery for forgotten passwords. Kernell then posted several pages of Palin's email on 4chan's /b/ board. Kernell, who at the time of the offense was a 20-year-old college student, is the son of longtime Democratic state representative Mike Kernell of Memphis and a relative of UC San Diego professor, Samuel Kernell.

He was charged in October 2008 in federal court. After he was led into the court in leg irons and handcuffs, the judge released him on his own recognizance, pending trial. The incident was ultimately prosecuted in a U.S. federal court as four felony crimes punishable by up to 50 years in federal prison. The charges were three felonies: identity theft, wire fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice; and one optional as felony or misdemeanor: intentionally accessing an account without authorization. Kernell pleaded not guilty to all counts.

A jury trial, featuring the testimony of Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin, began on April 20, 2010. On April 30, 2010, the jury found Kernell guilty on two counts: the felony of anticipatory obstruction of justice and the misdemeanor of unauthorized access to a computer. Sarah Palin posted a note on her Facebook page stating that she and her family were thankful the jury had rendered a just verdict in her opinion.

Kernell was sentenced on November 12, 2010, to one year plus a day in federal custody, followed by three years of supervised release. The sentencing judge recommended that the custody be served in a halfway house, but the Federal Bureau of Prisons sent him instead to a minimum security prison. Kernell is appealing the convictions

Personally I can't stand Sarah Palin but justice was done.

Feb 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>