Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« The IPCC's private portals | Main | Politicians notice Fakegate »

More Fakegate bits and pieces

Mark Fischetti, writing at Scientific American, interviews Gavin Schmidt, "a climate scientist who has been a consistently moderate voice at the center of the climate and ethics debate" about Gleick's activities. Fischetti seems to think that "Deniers are well funded and politically motivated." I guess he didn't actually read the Heartland documents then.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts has a copy of Gleick's blagging email here.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (55)


The Meet the Fockers et seq films have probably already registered that one.

Feb 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

That 97% is an unexploded bomb far bigger than the Gleik Fakegate incident I think. It was based on a nine question survey as part of Doran's PhD student Zimmerman's research project, and was emailed to around 1200 earth scientists listed, from memory, in a professional geological directory. The only(?) survey to probe outside as well as inside the public funded climate science community.

Someday, somewhere someone is going to find a full copy of that nine question survey email, and ask why the reported results only considered the two excruciatingly banal questions that it did, and why the responses to those so far unrevealed remaining seven questions (almost certainly more specific and searching, being targetted at the geologically savvy community of Earth Scientists) were suppressed.

Feb 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Another one off the press

Feb 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos


Its worse than that! I'm sure that 97% is based on 37 responses!!!



Feb 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman


There is part of me that would enjoy seeing such a trial happen; of course, it won't happen. As Fakegate has proved, you can't control everything. Having such a trial for "crimes against humanity" would lay the warmists open to debate in a court setting, where anything could happen. Even if they were to stack the court, enough of the truth would be available to open minds.

What saddens me is to see the loss of SA to the court of professional opinion. The duty of every scientist is to the truth. Daniel Shechtman's journey to the Nobel prize in chemistry shows sadly that this is not the case. His personal trials in the discovery of quasicrystals detail what happens when scientists ignore what their senses are telling them and prefer to fall into line.

One day we will look back on this time and be shocked at the damage to the process of science this has caused. Until then, we can only commit ourselves to the truth.

Feb 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>