Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Monbiot has just tweeted he thinks Gleik is a hero and will say so in print today.

Feb 24, 2012 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

I have visited the DeSmogBlog site this morning for probably the 3rd time ever.

It will probably be the final time I do so.

We Kiwis and our close neighbours the ever friendly Aussies have an excellent way of "tagging" individuals and organisations such as those who run this blog.

They are simply described as being "Up Themselves".

That says it all.

Anyway, I have also decided that this blog should really be called DeSmugBlog.

Feb 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

Jeff at "The Air Vent" posts this email exchange that he had in January about NCSE adding Peter Gleick to its board while announcing a major curricular effort around climate change:

Fascinating Email Exchange About Peter Gleick

Feb 24, 2012 at 7:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

Nature: "Gleick, a hydroclimatologist and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland, California, admitted in a statement on news website The Huffington Post on 20 February that he had duped the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Chicago, Illinois, into handing over documents that detailed its financial support for climate sceptics. Gleick had passed these documents on to the website, which made them public on 14 February."

So he admitted duping the HI? Is that kind of like a trick?

"The e-mail chicanery, he says, was an attempt to check whether it was genuine. ... Gleick does deserve credit for coming clean..."

Ah, so it was at least sort of justified?

Puh... lease!

Feb 24, 2012 at 6:30 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu


That editorial is actually good news, no matter how lame.

It shows that Nature believe they are in a 'street fight' with EQUAL opposition. So despite the control of the media, the politicians they are clearly not winning the argument.

It also shows they do not know their enemy. And not knowing your enemy means defeat.

It is clear from this recent episode that the other side believe sceptics are being immorally proactive with large funds from a few large players (obvious projection in place.) Rather than just guerillas reacting to injustice.

They really do believe their own propaganda.

Feb 24, 2012 at 5:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

The editors at "Nature" have weighed in about Gleickgate with a verbal wrist-slap and seem to think that's the end of the matter:

Editorial in "Nature"

Feb 24, 2012 at 5:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

Barry - I am not quite sure of your line of logic here.

Are you perhaps suggesting that any alleged criminal with a wife and family who is under immense pressure (perhaps while still being idolised by the rest of his gang) should be immune from prosecution?

Or are you suggesting that only those who transgress the law in support of what they consider to be a worthy cause should be immune from prosecution - provided of course they are married and feeling under immense prosecution?

If so, are Peter Gleick and Phil Jones to be regarded as equally special cases here (and more so than a less educated individual who only manages to persuade your bank to pay a few pounds towards his living expenses?

Or is Peter Gleick to be considered as more of a special case than Phil, because he made an early admission of guilt?

(And if so, how sure are you that he has come completely clean over his whole involvement, or do you think more facts might emerge if an investigation were to be carried out?)

I would feel more inclined to support your viewpoint were we all convinced that Gleick had come absolutely clean over the full extent of his involvement, were the mainstream media and senior scientists unanimous in their condemnation of this sort of behaviour, and were it widely recognised that facts had been distorted.

It didn't happen with UEA and it hasn't happened with Gleick. For those reasons alone, if for no other, it may be worthwhile invoking the full force of the law.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Weird story on junkscience about EPA scrubbing Gleich in their grant database

Feb 23, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterharold

FBI means nothing good. he has a wife and family and is under massive pressure. hope people recognise that - someone tell morano. to stop now

Feb 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

This does not mean anything will come of it but this article says the FBI has been having discussions with Heartland:

However, trying to get the FBI involved does not mean they will take it seriously or that prosecution will result. I have my hopes but also ample doubts.

Feb 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>