JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



FakeGate: The sound of a meme collapsing

Heartland have released both emails that Peter Gleick wrote under his name (below) as well as under a false name. The deceit is there for all to see. Heartland have at all times behaved impeccably. — Jo

From James Taylor at Forbes.com

The real story in this Fakegate scandal is how the global warming movement is desperate, delusional, and collapsing as global warming fails to live up to alarmist predictions. People with sound science on their side do not need to forge documents to validate their arguments or make the other side look bad. Also, people who are so desperate as to forge documents in an attempt to frame their rivals are clearly not above forging scientific data, studies, and facts to similarly further their cause. It is both striking and telling how global warming activists have failed to condemn the acts of forgery in the Fakegate scandal.

CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY #39
FAKEGATE ILLUSTRATES COLLAPSING GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM

Why would a prominent scientist/global warming activist commit acts of fraud and theft against global warming skeptics and then send to the media a forged document containing fictitious, over-the-top schemes that would embarrass skeptics? Answer: Because global warming activists cannot muster sufficient credible science to win the debate.

With the weight of damning evidence closing in on him, scientist/activist Peter Gleick has admitted he was the “Heartland Insider” who committed fraud and identity theft, lying and stealing his way into possession of Heartland Institute internal documents and then sending those documents to global warming activist groups and sympathetic media. Gleick also sent to the press an additional document, a fake “2012 Climate Strategy,” that he claims he did not write.

The real story in this Fakegate scandal is how the global warming movement is desperate, delusional, and collapsing as global warming fails to live up to alarmist predictions. People with sound science on their side do not need to forge documents to validate their arguments or make the other side look bad. Also, people who are so desperate as to forge documents in an attempt to frame their rivals are clearly not above forging scientific data, studies, and facts to similarly further their cause. It is both striking and telling how global warming activists have failed to condemn the acts of forgery in the Fakegate scandal.

Gleick repeatedly claimed in his confession that his misconduct was motivated by a desire for creating a rational public debate on global warming and that he was trying to fight back against the people he claims are seeking to prevent such a debate. Yet in January 2012 The Heartland Institute cordially invited Gleick to publicly debate me at the organization’s 2012 anniversary benefit dinner. All Gleick would had to have done is defeat me in that debate and he could have accomplished his twin goals of promoting public debate and embarrassing The Heartland Institute. Yet Gleick declined to participate in such a fair and open debate, and that day began his acts of fraud and theft against Heartland.

Beyond our invitation to Gleick, The Heartland Institute has cordially invited dozens of scientists who believe humans are creating a global warming crisis to give presentations and to debate skeptics at our annual global warming conferences. Only one such scientist has ever accepted our offer.

Truth doesn’t require forgeries and fake documents to win an argument. Climategate and Fakegate show just how desperate the collapsing global warming alarmism movement has become.

SOURCE: Forbes.com

————————————————————————–

Heartland Institute Releases
Peter Gleick Emails Detailing Fraud, Identity Theft

Correspondence Began Same Day He Rejected Invitation to Debate

FEBRUARY 24, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released all the emails Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to The Heartland Institute for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining internal Heartland documents. The emails can be found at Fakegate.org.

The emails reveal how Gleick “phished” the documents by stealing the identity of a Heartland board member, an act to which he publicly admitted in his February 20 Huffington Post confession. Minor redactions have been made to the emails to protect the individual privacy of those involved.

Gleick originally portrayed all of the documents he circulated, including the fake climate change strategy memo, as originating from Heartland. Now he claims he received that memo from an “anonymous source” before his theft. But the emails Heartland released today reveal Gleick never asked for either of the two documents that are specifically cited and summarized in the memo, suggesting the memo was written after, not before, he received the phished documents.

The newly released emails also reveal the first email from Gleick to Heartland was sent on January 27, 2012 – the same day he rejected a cordial invitation to debate climate science at The Heartland Institute’s 2012 anniversary benefit dinner in August. Email correspondence between Gleick and Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely can be found here. That correspondence makes it evident Gleick was aware of Heartland’s policies concerning the confidentiality of its donors.

We repeat our request that the fake climate change strategy memo be removed from Web sites and blogs such as DeSmog Blog, Think Progress, and the Huffington Post, along with documents that were stolen from Heartland. It is the ethical thing to do.

Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to dozens of news reports and commentary on Gleick’s transgressions can be reviewed at Fakegate.org.


The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.

Those Gleick to Lakely emails in order below:

Jim Lakey adds:

“We’ve also posted proof that we’re open to debate on Fakegate.org: Two videos of Scott Denning (one thanking us for inviting him to ICCC4, and one of a cordial luncheon debate at ICCC6).

—————————————————————————

At 11:12 AM 1/13/2012, Jim Lakely wrote:

Dr. Gleick,

I’ve enjoyed the lively discussion via dueling Forbes.com columns and replies between you and James Taylor.

The Heartland Institute is in the early planning stages for our 28th Anniversary Benefit Dinner >later this year. We usually have a keynote speaker or debate for the “entertainment” portion of the event, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to come to Chicago to debate James Taylor. We’d donate $5,000 to the charity of your choice in lieu of an honoraria.

I think such a debate would be enlightening, and a lot of fun. Folks at Heartland don’t bite, and >treat those with whom we disagree with respect. (You can ask Scott Denning at Colorado State >University about how he was treated at our last two climate conferences, or ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw>go here to view his words of thanks at our 4th conference.)

Let me know if this offer is appealing to you, and if it might fit your schedule. (Our dinner >is tentatively scheduled for the second week of August.)

Regards,

Jim Lakely

Communications Director The Heartland Institute

———————————————–

From: Peter H. Gleick

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:39 PM

To: Jim Lakely; James Taylor

Subject: Re: Debate Invitation

Dear Mr. Lakely,

Thank you for your email of January 13th, 2012, inviting me to participate in the Heartland Institute’s 28th Anniversary Benefit Dinner.

In order for me to consider this invitation, please let me know if the Heartland Institute publishes its financial records and donors for the public and where to find this information. Such transparency is important to me when I am offered a speaking fee (or in this case, a comparable donation to a charity). My own institution puts this information on our website.

Also, I would like a little more information about the date, venue, and expected audience and format. In addition, I assume your offer includes all travel and hotel expenses, economy class, but can you please confirm this?

Sincerely,

Dr. Peter Gleick

—————————————————————–

At 03:25 PM 1/17/2012, Jim Lakely wrote:

Peter,

Thanks for your reply. Travel and lodging expenses would be covered by Heartland. Our annual dinner is tentatively set for August. This would be a moderated debate, though details about the question on the table, the time for each side, etc., is yet to be determined.

I will get back to you on your other questions. But I’m sure you’ve seen James M. Taylor’s>response to the funding questions at Forbes.com – a question he has answered publicly many times. In short: We used to publicly list our donors by name, but stopped a few years ago, in part, because people who disagree with The Heartland Institute decided to harass our donors in person and via email.

More donor information from our Web site:

Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly over the years by cultivating a diverse base of donors who share its mission. Today it has approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it received 48 percent of its income from foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

Also from our Web site:

Policies regarding donors: The Heartland Institute enforces http://heartland.org/PDFs/DonorPolicies.pdf policies that limit the role donors may play in the selection of research topics, peer review, and publication plans of the organization. Heartland does not conduct contract research. These policies ensure that no Heartland researcher or >spokesperson is subject to undue pressure from a donor.

And more donor policy/information from our Web site:

Q: Why doesn’t Heartland reveal the identities of its donors?

A: For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our >donors for the following reasons:

  • · People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.
  • · We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue   influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.
  • · We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.
  • · No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement. And, as you know, we are under no legal obligation to release a detailed list of our donors – nor is any other non-profit organization. Our 990 forms are in full compliance with the IRS.

More here:<http://heartland.org/reply-to-critics>http://heartland.org/reply-to-critics

Regards, Jim Lakely

Communications Director The Heartland Institute

————————————-

From: Peter H. Gleick Sent: Fri 1/27/2012 9:33 AM
To: Jim Lakely
Subject: RE: Debate Invitation

Dear Mr. Lakely,

After reviewing your email and after serious consideration, I must decline your invitation to
participate in the August fundraising event for the Heartland Institute.

I think the seriousness of the threat of climate change is too important to be considered the
“entertainment portion of the event” as you describe it, for the amusement of your donors.
Perhaps more importantly, the lack of transparency about the financial support for the
Heartland Institute is at odds with my belief in transparency, especially when your Institute and
its donors benefit from major tax breaks at the expense of the public.

Thank you for considering me.

Dr. Peter Gleick
————————————————-

From: Jim Lakely Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:06 PM

To: Peter H. Gleick

Subject: RE: Debate Invitation

Dr. Gleick, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve declined our invitation, but I am thankful that you gave it serious consideration. If you’d ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open. As for the “entertainment” bit … I think you misunderstand. That word was not intended to make frivolous what Heartland does — in general, or certainly at our annual benefit dinner. We’re a think tank. We love debate, and thrive on intellectual back-and-forth. To me, and our supporters, such a stimulating discussion IS ALSO entertaining. Learning should ever be so.

Regardless, the invitation to our benefit dinner is open. We’ll happily comp you two tickets if you’d like to come to one of the world’s greatest cities for a day of leisure and an evening with Heartland’s scholars, staffers and supporters.

Warm regards,

Jim Lakely Communications Director

—————————–

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (77 votes cast)
FakeGate: The sound of a meme collapsing, 9.3 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/76n9we7

135 comments to FakeGate: The sound of a meme collapsing

  • #
    Athlete

    I think somebody should rush over to Gleick’s house and take away his shoe laces because he is obviously not of sound mind.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Why would we do something like that? It’s his life, he can do whatever he likes with it.

      In any case, I doubt he owns laced shoes, looks more like a sandle wearing hippie to me.
      Now if you had suggested we rush over and take away his bong…….


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        We need him alive, my friend. If he is dead he cannot be convicted for the felonies he has apparently, in my opinion, committed.

        Instead of a shoelace around his neck I would much rather see him, if convicted, in prison with a bar of soap on a rope around his neck. I wonder how interested his fellow prison “shower mates” would be in listening to him pontificate on ethics? ;-)


        Report this

        00

    • #

      You have probably got it right that Gleick was not of “sound mind”. Have read elsewhere that there were signs of his increasingly erratic behaviour in the weeks leading up to his hack of documents. Furthermore, he was fingered for the crime by Steven Mosher for the style of the fake strategy document (although he denies he was the author).

      However, even if Peter Gleick “lost it”, it was in the context of a community of fellow-believers where such behaviour was not out of place. For instance
      - There are still blogs and newspapers who maintain that the strategy document was genuine, despite it using a totally different style to a Heartland insider, and containing such glaring errors has to have got the author sacked. (This could be hiding their embarrassment at having fallen for it in the first place.)
      - That their opponents are solely motivated by money, whilst they are for “science” despite at least a thousand times more cash going into supporting their theories.
      - That a Phd in Climatalogy also gives powers to define the word “sceptic” better than the Oxford English Dictionary, or the ability to review a book without even reading it (here, and here)
      - That getting a bunch of scientists to sign something they do not properly understand (and with the threat to their livelihoods if they object) is more important than strongly verified scientific evidence.
      - That they feel free to overturn mainstream economic science on using a discount rate (see the Stern Review) and ignore standard statistical methods to verify their work (Mann on the Hockey Stick).
      - That the long-range computer models are fundamentally accurate, despite being consistently too extreme for over two decades, and not being able to back-predict the past temperature.

      All of these elements (and others) seem to indicate that they have a set of beliefs fundamentally at odds with reality, and impervious to its influences. This is not a healthy sign for individuals, nor is healthy for society when groups expressing those views hold the levers of power.
      However, what keeps such groups strong is a siege mentality. Talk of wishing them dead, or hoping they rot in prison is the food that sustains them.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    Gleik has fought for “the cause” like a true hero. He is one of the enlightened few who see the imminent and catastrophic threat of climate change and realize that ethics and morals need to be put on hold for the moment. Fraud and theft is OK if it serves a greater good.
    It is perfectly acceptable and indeed moral to do anything in his power to bring down the fossil fuel industry and all other industries that depend on them.
    Authoring and distributing fake Heartland documents is just as important as authoring and distributing fake science.

    Gleik and the other scientists understand intuitively that the world is in great peril from human activity just as they know that the skeptics are in it to support their own evil financial agenda. – just like the tobacco lobbies.

    Their job is to find the supporting evidence, and if that proves impossible, they ought to simply make it up.

    Afterall, wouldn’t you do everything in your power to save the world?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Provide proof the world needs saving.

      Until then these people aren’t saving the world, they are just trying to force their ideals, goals, and way of thinking on everyone else.

      If you are justifying the fraudulent science then you have some serious issues.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MadJak

        I think Sonny was being sarcastic


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

          Dr Stephen Schneider, climatologist.

          [where do you think Gleik sits on the scale from honest to effective? I would say he's off the chart completely]


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.

          - Morgan’s Law (aka Poe’s Law)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Aren’t people like Gleick their own proof that the world needs saving –

        from them?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Sonny, please tell me you forgot the “/sarc” tag.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        I would have thought the sarcasm was obvious enough to not need explanation.
        Yes, I was being sarcastic!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MadJak

          Sonny,

          We get more than our share of Loons out here who actually would believe and repeat what you just wrote – in all seriousness.

          As Dr Gleik has just demonstrated, their stupidity knows no bounds.

          Heck, this weeks’ Prime Minister is on a crusade against an element of the periodic table (carbon).

          You might want to use the /sarc tag in the future….


          Report this

          00

        • #
          papertiger

          Well it worked. That’s the main thing.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          manalive

          Very droll Sonny.
          Unfortunately your satire targets the earnest stance of the advocates of “post-normal science” a bit too closely for comfort.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Sonny, facial expressions and tone of voice are not available as part of the communication medium of blogging. That is why things like the “/sarc” tag are required.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Robert

          Good to know, these days depending on what someone is saying I can’t always tell if they are being sarcastic or not. Unfortunately it sounded too much like what, so I am told as I don’t go there, the nitwits over at deSmog would say.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      I hope your post was an attempt at humor.

      When people base their belief system upon the ends justifying the means we become an unjust society wherein being a sociopath is the norm and the rule of law is null and void.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry

        Eddy, you have just described the political mantra of Julia Gillard. Your right,it has become a somewhat disagreeable society in OZ since the 24th June 2010. She doesn’t think a member of her caucus should face justice over the stealing from a Trade Union. She ditched Law, decency and political norms for power.

        (Eddy, 24/6/10 was the day she stabbed Rudd).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bulldust

          What I find most remarkable about the whole Rudd-Gillard debate is that it is readily represented as the people’s choice versus the Labor Party’s choice. It is clear at this stage that Gillard (Party choice) will emerge the victor. This clearly implies that the Labor Party cares not a jot what the people think, but will give them what “they know” is best for them.

          It is this gaggingly, patronising, progressive mindset that is revolting the people and causing the appalling poll results. I keep hearing Labor politicians claiming to state what people think … they certainly aren’t saying what I think. It would serve them better to be less patronising and say what they think, rather than pretending to speak for an imagined “majority of right-thinking people.”

          I forgot to mention how arrogant and out-of-touch Labor members are… I could go on.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Eddy, does that mean anything?

        When people say “the ends justifying the means”, what means do they mean?

        The Syrian president wants to maintain power, and he is using extreme violence to achieve his ends.

        Do the Syrian people have to play fair, because using the wrong means to achieve the overthrow of a dictator would lead to a nation of lawless sociopaths?

        And Markus, she didn’t stab Rudd. She convinced a majority of MPs to support her instead of him.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          DirkH

          How dim are you? Yes, the Syrian people have to play fair – for instance, they can’t just make lies up that suit them. Now do they have to? No. The evidence shows that they have the right to overthrow their murderous regime.

          Similarly, the warmist movement can’t just make lies up. The Guardian and DeSmogBlog are not able to see it that way, because for them, The End Justifies The Means.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          John,

          Have you ever taken a course on ethics? If not, Senor Gleick has reams of advice on the matter. If only he practiced what he preached.

          The expression, the end justifies the means, refers to the concept that it is okay to do something wrong to accomplish something good. As an example, suppose I work a a janitor at the UEA and I am the smartest guy in the building (almost certainly true) but do not have the money to send my child to college. So, I rob a bank (probably several) to pay for my child’s tuition. The “ends”, or paying for my child is good but the “means”, robbing banks, are not justified.

          Another example is Stephen Schneider who said, “To capture the public imagination,
          we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,
          and being honest.”

          So, John, is it okay to be effective at the cost of being honest? Is it okay for the likes of Gleick to follow Schneider’s advice? Are you still on board with the CAGW crowd, John, or will you finally recognize them for the ethically bankrupt lot that they are?

          The Syrian People have a right to self determination. They began the fight using peaceful means. The government responded with brute force and murdered several of those who opposed them. The people have responded with violence and they have a right to defend themselves. All humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I support the Syrian People.

          The road to freedom is paved with the blood and bones of patriots. Those who have freedom should always bear this in mind. As should you, John.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            So was it ok to steal the UEA emails? Did the end justify the theft?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            brc

            So was it ok to steal the UEA emails? Did the end justify the theft?

            First prove that the emails were stolen and not leaked. The police can’t do this, so you’ll struggle to do so.

            The real issue here is the forgery and identify theft, so don’t lose sight of that. There hasn’t been any evidence that a crime was actually committed vis a vis Climategate. The material appears to have been assembled for an FOI request, which, as you know, is a completely legal way for the public to gain access to information which they have paid for through their taxes.

            How many of the climategate emails were faked? 0.
            How many of the climategate emails detailed personal information? 0.

            The two aren’t even remotely comparable.

            If someone is charged and if someone is guilty, then we can discuss it. Until then, you’ve got zip.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Markus Fitzhenry

            But jonnyboy, it was a inside job. A member of UEA dissed on the scum he saw before his eyes.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          brc

          And Markus, she didn’t stab Rudd. She convinced a majority of MPs to support her instead of him.

          And I thought you had matured beyond being intentionally stupid for the sake of effect.

          ‘Stabbing in the back’ in political terms means undermining someone to steal their position.

          Just a short time before the successful challenge, she gave Kevin Rudd her full support repeatedly – right down to the famous ‘full forward for the Bulldogs’ line. We now know that her speechwriters were busy penning her victory speech at the same time she was parroting these lines in public.

          Duplicitous, unethical, and backstabbing behaviour.

          I don’t know why you waste your time defending the indefensible. Next thing you’ll be saying Gleick is a hero.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Alexander L.

      I must say, the ratio of positive and negative points your post received makes me worried about skeptical side. 40% of readers apparently failed to understand the sarcasm when it was laughing in their faces. Well, this is better than warmists’ 95%, but still worrying.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        John,There is no proof that the UEA emails were stolen. There is proof that heartland documents were stolen.
        I find it interesting how you refuse to answer a difficult question. Typical warmist tactics. Deny debate.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I had no trouble noticing that what Sonny wrote was sarcasm. What I have trouble with, as Eddy points out, is the obvious belief that the end justifies the means.

      It’s too bad that noses don’t get longer every time we tell a lie. That would save the world a lot of grief. But Pinocchio didn’t write down the secret. Nuts!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    One thing I did notice in all this came about as I watched that Clive Hamilton ‘piece’ at The Drum yesterday.

    I noted that both sides ‘seemed’ to be getting commented on.

    I attempted to add a comment there, saying that if the Heartland story was getting ‘done to death’ by Hamilton, then why was not the same being said about the Sierra Club accepting their $25 Million from ‘Big Oil’, and gee, surprise surprise, that comment didn’t see the light of day.

    What surprises me, really, is just how uninformed people really are, and how it’s still a case of shoot the messenger if anything opposes their own point of view.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have been collecting HeartlandGate link from all over the internet.There are about 60 and still growing.

    I post it here for the purpose making it available as a resource.

    HeartlandGate aka FAKEGATE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Byron

    Is it just Me or does the wording of Gleik`s second reply have the look of something that You would normally associate with spittle foaming at the corner of the mouth and wildly staring eyes rather than someone merely declining an invitation to debate an issue ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Back to science anyone?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      But we were told the science was settled John!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sonny

      John,
      Feel free to comment on the issue at hand.
      The topic of scientific ethics, fraud, theft etc is something that all people, irrespecive of their qualifications, can discuss and debate.
      This stands in contrast with the science itself. To be relevant – one must be a peer reviewed and published scientist.

      So when we discuss the science, you would tell us our opinions are not relevant, and now, when we discuss the ethics and you say “back to the science”.

      Do the actions of Mr Gleik worry, or would you rather just drop the uncomfortable issue of scientific corruption? Do you believe in light of Gleik’s confession that he may resort to dishonest representations of the science as well? Do you think Gleik is an exception to the rule (a bad egg) or does his attitude reflect a level of zealotry that is common in the field? Or do you think he is justified in his actions?

      Please, we welcome you to join the debate.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Gleik is, of course, a martyr to the cause!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          “Gleik” has about as much of a chance of being a martyr as you do of winning a spelling bee!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          As a CAGW skeptic it does not aid my position to come to the defence of Mr Gleick. Even so, I think we need to separate the present warmist rhetoric into the categories of Generally True and Specifically False.

          It is indeed the case that people, in the pursuit of natural truth, may need to cross political and social boundaries temporarily to gather observations. Consider the monitoring of Chernobyl fallout behind the Iron Curtain in 1986. Consider the botanical exploration of countries with frosty foreign relations. Consider Milgram’s social conformity experiments. Although not a scientist, consider Ellsberg’s treasonous leaking of the Pentagon Papers in what turned out to be (lucky for him) an act in the greater public’s best interests. Sometimes intellectual adventurers can gain permission to cross such boundaries through defined processes such as visa applications and ethics review committees. Sometimes they cannot and may elect to take the risk of punishment if the products of their transgression are not appreciated. The defence of nations in times of war and the defence of civil liberties against invasions of privacy are other situations where neither total openness nor total secrecy will succeed. It is disingenuous and historically hollow to make the black-and-white statement that deception can never be in the greater good under any circumstances. That’s the generally true part.

          The warmists however fail a rather crucial test in their application of this principle and their subsequent audacity to favourably compare Gleick with the likes of Ellsberg and Winston Churchill. The Vietnam war actually existed. The Third Reich concentration camps actually existed. Millions of deaths and displacements from human-caused global warming are merely a hypothesis in which the numbers are not adding up to the catastrophe that was claimed. There is no smoking gun, just smoke and mirrors. The historical evidence would have to leave no room for doubt about large man-made global warming and the calamitous side-effects thereof before the public’s moral sentiment could excuse fraud and vigilantism. In other words, proper climate science would have to prove CAGW before the politics could afford a martyr. This is the decline that the DeSmogger’s false rhetoric fig leaf fails to hide.

          Probably in his own mind, Mr Gleick believed the science was settled and that the public would applaud his efforts. Perhaps he thought he could strap a fraud bomb to his doctorate, be judged by Gaia as pure in method and motive, ascend to warmist heaven and be treated with 72 project grants. In believing this, Mr Gleick has become a victim of the IPCC’s propaganda machine just like the rest of us. It ought to have been predictable that this would occur on a downward segment of the Alarmist Decadal Oscillation, since as the evidence thins the tactics become more desperate. It is ironic that a notable warmist will become one of the most famous casualties of the IPCC carbon dioxide deception. There’s many lessons in this but consider the biggest policy lesson; Countries which opt to institute warmist carbon taxes in the absence of realistic international stakeholder agreements are as likely as Gleick to end up in the economic cooler. A fool and his money are easily parted.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Back to science anyone?

      Okay John.

      The climate follows a sine curve pattern of warming and cooling with cycles of 25 to 30 year duration. These cycles in turn follow a roughly 300 to 500 year sine curve pattern of warming and cooling, as evidenced, for instance, by the MWP and LIA. In total we might call this “the cyclical nature of climate”.

      The world spends much of its time in what is known as a “glacial state” where much of the planet is covered in snow and ice. Every now and again the earth warms up out of these periods. These warm periods are known as “interglacials”. Then the earth cools back into another long glacial period.

      This warming between the glacials is not in a sine curve pattern. Rather, the planet appears to warm significantly and quickly to a peak, which is the warmest the planet will get in that interglacial cycle. Then the 25 to 30 year and 300 to 500 year cycles take over, with each subsequent long warm period failing to meet the temperatures of the previous one. This gradual tapering off continues until the earth slips back in to another glacial period.

      Earth came out of the last glacial, and very quickly (geologically speaking) warmed to the Holocene Climate Optimum. It has been going through diminishing warming cycles ever since, as we head back towards another glacial somewhere a thousand years or so in the future.

      .
      So much for “climate science”. Now on to psychology.

      The last two decades have seen the birth and spread of a strange psychological malady, “Carbonophobia”. Sufferers of Carbonophobia for some reason see the perfectly natural and cyclical warming period from 1975 to 2000, in the relatively mild (in comparison to previous periods) warming from the LIA, as some kind of “sign” that the earth’s climate is about to deviate from its well-worn, natural cycles, and somehow self-destruct in a series of catastrophic “tipping points”.

      Even weirder, sufferers of Carbonophobia believe this will be caused by a slight increase in the atmosphere of a trace gas currently measured in mere parts per million. Even Carbonophobians understand that there simply isn’t, and never will be, enough of this trace atmospheric gas so they have collectively created a series of hallucinations to support their irrational delusions.

      Chief amongst these hallucinations is one they call “positive feedback” whereby increases in the trace gas will cause a much more significant increase in water vapour, which will in turn create more of the trace gas which will cause more water vapour and so on until the earth turns into a giant sauna.

      As with all their other hallucinations created to support their illness, the fact that the very concept of a self-sustaining “positive feedback” in nature is contrary to all known observable data, is entirely irrelevant. It is, after all, a hallucination.

      As with many previous historical cases of mass-delusion supported by hallucinations, Carbonophobians have formed a religion around their self-delusions. There have been some disturbing developments as Carbonophobia has become a cult.

      The most recent, and most damaging, has been the cultists’ insistence that everybody, including non-believers, obtain “indulgences” for their sins. These indulgences are called “carbon credits”.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Peter Gleick’s immoral, unethical and illegal activities are simply common symptoms of advanced Carbonophobia.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Huh!

        Back to the Science, really.

        Here’s where I have the most trouble trying to explain the simplest thing of all.

        People are willing to accept, and accept on what can only be called absolute faith the most complex Science that they have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever, and then argue that Science.

        In the very same breath ask them one question.

        What is the current concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere?

        Some of them actually know, and quote the figure of 392 PPM, but in fact most have no idea at all.

        Ask them to explain that Parts Per Million, you know, express it as a percentage of the total Atmosphere, and ….. (insert dumb look here)

        So you tell them that comes in at 0.0392% of that Atmosphere. Again, insert dumb look here, because they have no concept what that means.

        Then ask them (full in the understanding that they cannot even comprehend that 0.0392% CO2 content) what the content of Oxygen might be in the Atmosphere, and the usual reply, thinking that they all breathe in and out, and the usual reply is around the same as for CO2.

        Try telling them that the Atmospheric content of Oxygen is almost 21%, which is 510 times greater than for CO2 and again, insert dumb look here, only with disbelief added.

        Then ask them what the content of Nitrogen is in the Atmosphere, and everyone immediately thinks acid and the reply is, well less than CO2 obviously.

        Try telling them that the Nitrogen content is almost 77%, or 1,952 times greater than for CO2, and more of that dumb look, added to disbelief, and also a smile, because that is just so obviously a lie.

        Yes, they then tell me, but that CO2 is causing dangerous climate change.

        Don’t even attempt to ask them how it is actually doing that.

        No, people will religiously believe Science they have no comprehension of, all the while forgetting the most basic Science, and Maths, that they themselves all learned at High School.

        In one case I then asked people to give me an idea what that content might be if it was just in the room we were in, and one reply was even a third to a half, even after I explained that 0.0392% thing. When I told them it was around the same as for a cigarette packet, (big room, at the Library, where I was asked to speak, and incidentally, never invited back) I was literally, laughed at by a couple of people in the audience.

        It’s hard to tell people they have been conned.

        Hey, no point listening to him (Tony) because he has no idea what he’s talking about.

        This isn’t an isolated case. I get it all the time.

        I’m the loony who has no idea whatsoever.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MaxL

          Hi Tony,
          Just wondering about your cigarette packet in the room.
          Please correct me if I’m wrong.
          A room 3m x 3m x 3m = 27 cubic metres.
          0.04% of 27 cubic metres = 0.0108 cubic metres

          The cube root of 0.0108 = 0.221, thus the amount of CO2 in the room would be contained in a box 22cm x 22cm x 22cm.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Hey Max,

            I just came back here and saw this.

            Thanks for that.

            I stand corrected.

            Most of you may have your computer in a spare bedroom at you house, like I do.

            That room is 3.6 X 2.7 X 2.4, so the CO2 content is about the same size my Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Another possible example of CO2 concentration.

            You have 10,000 ping pong balls in a pool, you paint 4 of them red, and throw them back into the pool and stir the lot vigourously.

            Spot the 4 red balls?

            BTW: we have apparently added approximately 1 ball, (up from 3 to 4) during the last 150 years of the industrial revolution.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Chief amongst these hallucinations is one they call “positive feedback” whereby increases in the trace gas will cause a much more significant increase in water vapour, which will in turn create more of the trace gas which will cause more water vapour and so on until the earth turns into a giant sauna.

        As with all their other hallucinations created to support their illness, the fact that the very concept of a self-sustaining “positive feedback” in nature is contrary to all known observable data, is entirely irrelevant. It is, after all, a hallucination.

        The feedback seems perfectly reasonable to me. Its difficult to explain historical climate changes (you know, the ones you guys like to pretend that we warmists ignore) unless the small changes to natural forcings are amplified by feedbacks.

        But I suppose you are of the “negative feedback” school.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Turnedoutnice

          This positive feedback is an artefact of the incorporation of ‘back radiation’ in the models. It comes from a serious lack of basic physics.

          ‘Back radiation’ does not exist. It only appears when you shield the IR detector from radiation emitted by the warmer object. In reality, it’s exactly compensated from the other direction, a standing wave connecting the emitting/absorbing states at the emitter/absorber pair and controlling net heat transfer.

          You prove this when the temperatures are identical; at each object energy transferred from kinetic energy to the IR density of states equals the energy transferred from these states to kinetic energy. In this case the standing wave is the only communication.

          So, what we are dealing with is a new religion: the Church of the Holy Imaginary ‘Back Radiation’ and you, so it appears, are a priest of that church!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          But I suppose you are of the “negative feedback” school.

          “School” is probably the most inappropriate word you could have come up with, JB.

          In nature, there are ONLY sustainable negative feedbacks. In nature there is no such thing as a sustainable positive feedback.

          So one has a choice of being in the sustainable negative feedback “school”, or the sustainable positive feedback mental institution-type self-delusional hallucination.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Nonsense. There can be positive feedbacks. Fire is a positive feedback. You apply heat, something burns which produces more heat and it burns faster until some other limiting factor prevents further increase.

            So it is with global warming. The limiting factor is the T^4 factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Positive feedbacks on earth simply move the equilibrium temperature slightly higher.

            Luckily, we aren’t Venus, where positive feedbacks were sufficient to vapourise the oceans. Oh, of course, I forgot, the temperature on Venus is a function of temperature, and nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere…


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Guys,

            John B, you seem to lack an elementary understanding of non linear dynamics, complexity and chaos.

            The only way that the climate system could have survived the last 600 milliuon years is if it is dominated by negative feedbacks.

            The alarmist position that the system is dominated by positive feedbacks is untenable – it flys in the face of both reason and the evidence of the last 600 million years where CO2 levels have been up to 20x current levels without demonstrating dominance by positive feedbacks, there are no tipping points, and no positive feedbacks to CO2.

            Go learn some math and try electrical engineering – you will soon understand why your belief in positive feedbacks as a “dominant” response in the climate system is absolute nonsense.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Fire is a positive feedback.

          John, if you’re going to come here and “debate” things, at least go and learn some inkling of what the terms mean before shooting off. A “sustainable positive feedback” is one where, once started there is no longer any need for additional inputs for the process to continue. It “feeds on itself” as it were.

          Fire is NOT a sustainable positive feedback. A fire (in nature) is a combination of an ignition source, a fuel, and air (oxygen). While it is true that, once started, a fire can become its own ignition source, it CONSUMES both its fuel and the available air. If either air or fuel are denied the fire, even for a moment, it goes out.

          Conversely, it is requirement of CAGW “theory” that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will lead to a disproportionately greater increase in water vapour, which will lead to higher temperatures, which will lead to more CO2 (from the oceans) which will lead to more water vapour, etc etc and so on infinitum, without ANY increase in the overall energy budget (in the form of sensible heat) in the system.

          The fallacy is exposed with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a large, tall enclosed glass vessel with some water in it and a bag of ice on the top. We have a bunsen burner underneath, and the capacity to pump in CO2 into the air-filled part of the chamber, while removing an equivalent amount of “air” so overall pressure doesn’t increase.

          Heat the water until we have condensation forming around the top of the chamber. Turn off the burner and start pumping in CO2. According to your “positive feedback” scenario, the water should continue to become vapour until all of it is represented as condensate on the top and walls of the chamber.

          It’s total crap John, and you know it.

          Besides, which, a recently published peer-reviewed paper comparing REAL relative humidity readings, with REAL rising CO2 levels, over a 60+ year interval for the USA, shows that relative humidity has actually DROPPED while CO2 has continued to rise. I appreciate this is merely observed fact, John, and as such, is meaningless to you, but some of us here at least attach a modicum of weight to those observed facts.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            MV, you’ve got it wrong.

            Conversely, it is requirement of CAGW “theory” that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will lead to a disproportionately greater increase in water vapour, which will lead to higher temperatures, which will lead to more CO2 (from the oceans) which will lead to more water vapour, etc etc and so on infinitum, without ANY increase in the overall energy budget (in the form of sensible heat) in the system.

            The feedback is of the sort where 1 “unit” of CO2 leads to 1/2 a “unit” of water vapour, which leads to a 1/4 of a “unit” of CO2, etc etc. In this example, whatever the initial effect of 1 “unit” of CO2, it is doubled by feedbacks. There is no need for it to be a runaway process.

            And yes, the surface of the earth will get hotter, with the same old sun shining on us. How can this be? Surely its time to call in the 1st law of thermodynamics? But no, its trivial really. Adding CO2 and/or water vapour to the atmosphere is like adding a quilt. How does a quilt work? Well with no quilt, our body produces heat, but it is in contact with cold air, so our skin is cold. Add a quilt, and our body still produces heat, but now our skin is warmer. The same total amount of heat is produced by our body, yet our skin is warmer? It must be that the surface of the quilt is warm enough to get rid of that heat – maybe a similar temperature to our skin before we added the quilt, after all, that temperature was cold enough to remove heat at the rate our body produced it. But our skin is warmer.

            Right now, I’m seeing frothing indignation and rolling eyes, and impatient stamping of the feet. “Wait”, you cry, “The earth doesn’t make its own heat, it comes from an external source, the sun!”. Well, it doesn’t matter, does it. Because the energy from the sun is predominantly at wavelengths which the atmosphere doesn’t interact with. That heat first has any real effect when it hits the surface of the earth – so its as though the earth is producing the heat itself, just like our body does.

            Besides, which, a recently published peer-reviewed paper comparing REAL relative humidity readings, with REAL rising CO2 levels, over a 60+ year interval for the USA, shows that relative humidity has actually DROPPED while CO2 has continued to rise. I appreciate this is merely observed fact, John, and as such, is meaningless to you, but some of us here at least attach a modicum of weight to those observed facts.

            The US is not the world. If the study was strictly over oceans, where there is always enough water to allow equilibrium to be established, and if it was world wide, it might be of more interest. Even then, you’d also want to know what happened to absolute humidity, as the greenhouse effect of water vapour only depends on the absolute humidity.

            BTW, in your thought experiment, why did you turn the bunsen burner off? We don’t turn the sun off?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Do you really not get it MV, or are you just pretending?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            My mate John Brookes summarises the Greenhouse effect thus…

            And yes, the surface of the earth will get hotter, with the same old sun shining on us. How can this be?

            I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so let me see if I understand this Greenhouse Effect as explained by eminent climate scientists.

            * Solar insolation warms Earths surface to -18DegC

            * The surface emits radiation skyward due to this -18C “heat”.

            * CO2 molecules, of which there are about 400 per 1,000,000 other molecules, intercept this -18C and warm to….errr….errr… some level of “heat”. Most people would imagine that that wouldn’t be much more than -18C.

            * This CO2 molecule shoots this -18C “heat” back to the surface and “heats” it up to +15C. Yes you read that correctly, the CO2 that was “heated” by a surface at -18C reheats that same surface now to +15C.

            * But that’s not all as they say in classic TV infomercials, because this CO2 molecule also smashes into EACH OF THE OTHER 999,600 molecules and “heats” them up to +15C. All from the initial injection of -18C “heating”.

            * But that’s not all. This magical molecule does the heaviest lifting at high lattitudes, in winter and at night. That is, it does it’s “heating” most efficiently at the coldest locations, in the coldest season at the coldest time of day.

            I have it on good authority that after much research and peerless peer-review, the upcoming IPCC AR5 will reveal that each additional ton of CO2 will cause a set of steak knives to fall from the sky.

            Do I have that about right John? :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Baa humbug!

            * Solar insolation warms Earths surface to -18DegC

            Yes, if the earth had no atmosphere, and you ignore day and night.

            * The surface emits radiation skyward due to this -18C “heat”.

            Yes. The surface needs to be a certain temperature so that the rate of heat coming in from the sun is equal to the rate of heat leaving the earth. That will happen with a surface temp of -18C.

            * CO2 molecules, of which there are about 400 per 1,000,000 other molecules, intercept this -18C and warm to….errr….errr… some level of “heat”. Most people would imagine that that wouldn’t be much more than -18C.

            Not only CO2 molecules, but water molecules too. To use an earlier analogy, they act like a quilt, so that the -18C layer radiating heat out to space is now high in the atmosphere, and the surface is about 10% warmer.

            * This CO2 molecule shoots this -18C “heat” back to the surface and “heats” it up to +15C. Yes you read that correctly, the CO2 that was “heated” by a surface at -18C reheats that same surface now to +15C.

            Think quilt again Baa. Same heat production – warmer skin. The mechanism, as you so rightly point out is those CO2 and H2O molecules absorbing and re-emitting infra red radiation.

            * But that’s not all as they say in classic TV infomercials, because this CO2 molecule also smashes into EACH OF THE OTHER 999,600 molecules and “heats” them up to +15C. All from the initial injection of -18C “heating”.

            Yep, you are going well.

            * But that’s not all. This magical molecule does the heaviest lifting at high lattitudes, in winter and at night. That is, it does it’s “heating” most efficiently at the coldest locations, in the coldest season at the coldest time of day.

            Well, just look at the observations. Warming has been greatest at the poles. Night time temperatures have increased more than day time temps. The observations seem to back up your statement.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            There is no more reply options John. I’ll start a new one below.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        David Wood

        In a nutshell. Absolutely right. Only thing I’m not sure about is whether we have a grace period of 1000 years until the next severe glaciation


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Byron

      Indirectly , that was the point of My previous post John , Gleik had time to think through His reply and that`s as reasoned and rational as He could come up with ? I think that declining to debate is fair enough as there are some people that like time to analyse questions and provide carefully balanced responses and as such aren`t comfortable with debates or public speaking , ( this is not an excuse that professional orators like Gore can use ) but His reply has the offended bluster of of the zealot confronted by the taint of heresy , not the response of a scientist challenged by an alternate hypothesis .


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      John,

      Back to whose science–Dr. Gleick’s? Yeah, that’s the ticket.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      You mean your pseudoscience don’t you jonnyboy.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      jiminy

      No John.
      Have some popcorn, sit still, and watch the puppet show.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      John Brookes wrote:

      Back to science anyone?

      What? You don’t want to the discuss the big exposé of Heartland and their shame? Not even their refusal to debate the science with Gleick?

      That is just so magnanimous of you.


      Report this

      00

    • #
    • #
      Otter

      soon as you actually show us some.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ally E.

        I’m relatively new to all this, but the first thing I did was take a look at the evidence.

        Real science has all the evidence and the attitude is always “Don’t take my word for it, look for yourself.” The alarmists, on the other hand, have a very different approach. It’s all “You don’t need to look at the evidence, we’ve looked at it for you. Trust us.”

        Real science wins every time. People are not dumb, more and more are looking for themselves and finding the truth. In this house, we’re celebrating a healthy happy planet. Cheers!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    The email exchanges coupled with Gleick’s statements lead to only one conclusion, he forged the fake document, period!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff Condon

    “Why would a prominent scientist/global warming activist commit acts of fraud and theft against global warming skeptics and then send to the media a forged document containing fictitious, over-the-top schemes that would embarrass skeptics? Answer: Because global warming activists cannot muster sufficient credible science to win the debate.”

    The activists hold the upper hand only through like funded media. Skeptics work through blogs which cannot be easily squelched.

    I really wish more people understood the scams in the papers. The detail of published science is where the war exists. There simply isn’t enough time for each wild publication to be rebutted. The team counts on that.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      A Lovell

      Apparently, Gleick started his ill advised campaign against Heartland the same day he received the email confirming that he had declined their invitation to take part in a debate.

      It occurs to me that he may have thought himself such an important player in the ‘climate wars’ that Heartland would give him a list of the private donors just to get him on board.

      Could it have been such a blow to his ego that they simply, politely accepted his refusal, that he felt the need to strike back?

      I know this is a very convoluted theory, but this game is getting stranger and stranger!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    keith L

    We are all pretty sure that he faked the document like 99% sure. All that has happened now is that any last hope of plausible deniability for Gleick has been removed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anthony Watts

    Gleick has asked for a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/peter-gleick-requests-leave-of-absence-from-pacific-institute/

    The question is, well the PI board of directors allow him to return?

    I think not, because their fundraising gravy boat is dead in the water with Gleick onboard. The BoD’s mission is to protect the organization, not the individual.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      It’s always good to have Anthony comment here.

      Anthony, why am I getting the feeling that you’re starting to feel sorry for Gleick and are considering NOT suing the pants off him?

      Just a reminder, good guys come last. Gleick will continue to have the support of team carbon, he will continue to squeeze 6 figure public monies as a salary and he will continue with the CO2 scam.

      DO NOT let him off the hook please Anthony, my offer of helping as much as I can with legal fees stands.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ally E.

        I totally agree! If Heartland were to give so much as an inch to this guy, say by settling out of court, the alarmists would spin it into a victory for themselves. They’d claim Heartland was scared to take it into a court room and the “what are they hiding” nonsense would begin over. Gleick and the rest would get stuck in again, immediately and continue their abuse of Heartland, WUWT and everyone else who doesn’t agree with them.

        Such a thing cannot be allowed to happen. Peter Gleick and all such offenders have to take on the full repercussions for their illegal actions.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Garry

      If he stays on as President, Pacific Institute can kiss goodbye to US Government grants like the 2010 award for $1.3 million covering a 3-year water study in Indonesia from USAID.

      As documented on WUWT.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/peter-gleick-requests-leave-of-absence-from-pacific-institute/


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The truth is that the science is not settled and the outcome, not certain. That is the warmists’ most difficult pretense. When Gore et al stated these things, they believed that the public would buy into them for their own perceived self-interests as they had that a “nuclear winter” would occur during a global thermonuclear war. The difference is that we didn’t want a nuclear war even without a nuclear winter, so the facts of the case were irrelevant. Any port in a storm kind of thinking.

    CAGW is different in that we might not mind a slightly warmer future, and certainly cannot imagine problems in a world that makes London as warm as southern France, or Washington as warm as Miami. Even the idea that warm places get warmer is not necessarily alarming: if Phoenix is another 3C warmer, who cares? It’s damn hot anyway. And would you notice if Abu Dhabi is as warm as, say, Oman?

    With CAGW, the details and the truth count. Nuclear war – half or otherwise – is not a concept that degrees of truth or precision matter when we make our decision. And the cost of not having a nuclear war is actually not a cost, but a benefit, a profit, so-to-speak. With CAGW, anything you do, small or big, is a cost. And when something costs, you want to know why and how much you need to do. In principle, the option you lean towards is to do nothing. Unlike the scenario of nuclear war.

    Sometimes the truth matters. Certainty matters. The warmists have been caught in the Public Relations aspect of their drive. To change a business phrase, it’s now “Either show it Big, or I go home.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    imagine the polls if Abbott called a press conference today and declared:

    “there will be no carbon dioxide tax and no carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme under a government i lead because catastrophic manmade global warming is a scam”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    If anyone care to check Desmog for the hired or paid contenders against the established climate science?

    Anyone want to do their own research and find Desmog exaggerating those claims?

    Please do not me ask for links. And by all means refute here what Desmog is saying about these “experts” please.

    There are two sides to this argument. Let us all not conflate the facts.

    It is after all about science, how it is presented and those gentlemen mentioned in the article.

    That’s all, stick with the facts. Your chance to stand up and not just give subjective opinions.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spence

    Excellent blog + comments esp Sonny, just the one troll Brookes. My advice, don’t let him distract you from spreading the word.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Those emails are absolutely devastating to Gleick and his ‘Pacific Institute’………. It shows the utter callous disregard for truth and honesty. The sleazy deception is displayed for all to see in this criminal act by Gleick and his Warmist cabal.

    What was this guy thinking?….. Well we all know what he was thinking, and it was nothing but hatred and arrogance that drove him to be in the sad place that he inhabits today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Howie

    I hope Gleick gets some jail time out of this. Then he will have time to read that book of Donnna Laframboise that he gave such a hateful review of without reading it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mike

    Peter Gleick is part of a team of Climate Cassandras, constantly bed wetting for profit. How many more Cassandras have been involved in identity fraud and data manipulation?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidR

    [snip baseless allegations - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    a.n. ditchfield

    There is an amusing quiz at: http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
    Identify the author of quotes extracted from two publications:
    • Al Gore – the politician who wrote Earth in Balance;
    • Theodore Kaczynski – the terrorist who wrote the Unabomber Manifesto
    Both share hostility against the Industrial Revolution and see the human population as a pest on the planet. Their ideas are so similar that it is hard to attribute them to one or another author. The quiz has twelve quotes and rare is the person who scores 50%.
    The first one amassed a fortune of several hundred million dollars over a decade and got a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. The second one got a life sentence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Breaking News:

    It seems that the big guns have been brought into play to protect the meme.

    Over at The Air Vent, is news that Edward J. Markey, the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, has written to Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute, demanding the release, to his committee, of the documents previously stolen by Peter Gleick.

    He is doing this on the grounds that, “These documents appear to indicate that The Heartland Institute is receiving large donations from corporations for the direct purpose of discrediting the mainstream science of climate change …”

    Whatever happened to freedom in, “the land of the free”?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I think the problem is that Heartland as a think-tank has charitable status. If the documents reveal that they are just a lobby group, then they might lose their charitable status.

      So you can say what you like – but don’t pretend to be what you aren’t.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    RW.
    Someone just needs to refer the following link from Judith Currie’s site, to Markey. She just sends a polite question in an email to Heartland and gets a completely open and detailed response.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klem

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.- Ghandi

    For those of us out there who have been fighting ACC for years now, I can honestly say we are at the “then you win” stage about now. The fight’s not over yet but we’re getting close. I will fight until I see science restored.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bob_FJ

    I would like to propose the adoption of a new verb into English and Americano lingua:

    gleick: To profess the highest ethics whilst practicing the lowest.

    We need to have a consensus on how to pronounce Gleick though. (big problem)


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I would suggest the same pronunciation as for how people refer to fans of that, er, wonderful American TV show Glee.

      Gleek!

      Reminds me of the original meaning of the word geek.

      A circus performer who bites off the head of a live chicken.

      Umm, enter Alice Cooper! (that story was in fact something made up by the media following the infamous ‘chicken’ incident, and something Cooper didn’t deny because the publicity was worth so much for him)

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Actually Gleick sounds like it comes from Germany or thereabouts. The rule is pronounce the word with English sound of the second letter of the ie or ei combination. So the name would be pronounced Glick with a long “i” not a short one as in “click” in English.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          A Quote from Shakespeare
          NOTED on WUWT (that award winning Blog)
          from Steve McIntyre
          Dr UK in a comment draws attention to the following exchange in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night Dream:

          Bottom (wearing the head of an ass): Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.
          Titania: Thou art as wise as thou art beautiful.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bob_FJ

            I think it would sound sweeter as gleek, but has anyone heard Gleick give his own version?
            Gleek also rhymes with sneak, freak, creep, and?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Bob_FJ

            Weep? He might be doing that at the foiling of his evil plan to rule the World.

            And since we are quoting I note the oldie but goodie “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. It seems apt.

            And apologies to JO – my previous was meant to read WUWT (that OTHER award winning Blog)


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Anna Keppa

    John Brookes
    February 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm · Reply

    I think the problem is that Heartland as a think-tank has charitable status. If the documents reveal that they are just a lobby group, then they might lose their charitable status.

    So you can say what you like – but don’t pretend to be what you aren’t.

    >>Oh yeah? Where do you get your info? Where does Heartland hold themselves out as a charity? They are a Section 501(c)(3) corporation under out Internal Revenue code — not a charity.

    >>Methinks you don’t understand anything about anything — let alone HI’s status under American law.

    >>Americans have a term for ditzes like you, John: we call them “FLAKES”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @John Brookes #6.3.3.3.4

    Judging by your response John, you haven’t quite got the essence of my post. Let me see if I can introduce some reality.

    I have a question after a short preamble. Consult all your friends at SkS or wherever if you need.

    * According to the greenhouse effect hypothesis, what would have been a MINUS EIGHTEEN DEGREES CELSIUS temperature at the Earths surface is increased to PLUS FIFTEEN DEGREES CELSIUS by the addition of an atmosphere with GHGs.

    * Also according to the greenhouse effect, a doubling of GHGs plus feedbacks may lead to an increase in Ts of 2 to 4.5C, best estimate 3C

    * Just to get a real sense of what -18C feels like, next time you’re at a shop that sells ice creams, stick your hand in that ice cream freezer. THAT’S WHAT -18C FEELS LIKE. BLOODY COLD, FREEZING IN FACT.

    * CO2 concentrations in most homes (with doors and windows shut) is well on to about 1000ppm, that is more than double open air concentration of ~400ppm

    * During the recent cold snap in Eastern Europe, hundreds of people froze to death, many of them in their homes because they couldn’t afford to use their heaters.

    * The temperature of the snow laying on the streets of these Eastern European countries is no less than -18C, probably closer to 0C than -18C

    Now my question.

    Why didn’t the climate science geniuses suggest that some able bodied men shovel some of that street snow on to the floor of peoples homes where it would RADIATE THAT HEAT INTO A ROOM OF UP TO 1000ppm OF CO2, THIS CO2 THEN WOULD BACK RADIATE TO THE FLOOR INCREASING IT’S TEMPERATURE TO SOMEWHERE WELL ABOVE 15DegC?

    I assume a room of about 17-19DegC would have been quite comfortable for those poor old folks. they could have donned a pair of slippers, some trackie dacks and a long sleeved cardigan, put their feet up with a cuppa tea and read their Mills & Boon novels instead of burning them to keep warm.

    Do you see where I’m coming from John?

    Explain to me how shovelling snow on to the floor of a room will increase the room temperature to ~15C to 19C when outside T is about -20C


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Baa, no one is denying that humans find -18C a tad cold.

      But in absolute terms, its not so cold. Using the Kelvin scale, its 255 degrees above zero, and our comfortable world is on average ~290 above zero.

      Now my question.

      Why didn’t the climate science geniuses suggest that some able bodied men shovel some of that street snow on to the floor of peoples homes where it would RADIATE THAT HEAT INTO A ROOM OF UP TO 1000ppm OF CO2, THIS CO2 THEN WOULD BACK RADIATE TO THE FLOOR INCREASING IT’S TEMPERATURE TO SOMEWHERE WELL ABOVE 15DegC?

      Gee, you’ve got me there! What could possibly be wrong with your question? Could it be that heat would be conducted away from the houses into the cold outside world?

      Interestingly enough, snow can be quite a good insulator, and people have used snow caves to survive.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Could it be that heat would be conducted away from the houses into the cold outside world?

        So let me get this straight.

        A minus 18DegC “heat” source in a room of a house wouldn’t keep the occupants warm because “that heat would be conducted away from the house into the cold outside”

        BUT a minus 18DegC heat source at the earth surface, in an OPEN SYSTEM WITH NO WALLS LIKE A ROOM IN A HOUSE warms the Earth and its air to PLUS 15DegC.

        Can you explain this mechanism for me please John.

        You also say…

        Interestingly enough, snow can be quite a good insulator, and people have used snow caves to survive.

        Dude, it’s more than just survival, it’s a 33DegC increase due to the well known and documented greenhouse effect. >/sarc
        Eskimos have known about the physics of greenhouse for centuries, that’s why they have beach parties in their igloos wearing budgie smugglers and bikinis, sipping pina coladas.
        The back radiation from the -18DegC ice block walls keep their igloos at a very balmy 15C.

        From wiki

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igloo

        On the outside, temperatures may be as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), but on the inside the temperature may range from −7 °C (19 °F) to 16 °C (61 °F) when warmed by body heat alone.

        A tiny ice building with next to no convection at all warms by about the same as body heat. No loss of heat due to convection, evaporation etc.

        Yet the greenhouse hypothesis says radiation from a MINUS 18C source in an open system with convection, evaporation wind etc warms by a whopping 33DegC, not far off body heat.

        Can you explain that John?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Baa, conduction, convection and radiation are available to cool you on the earth’s surface. Only radiation can cool the earth.

          Climate scientists just do the maths – its not their fault that the numbers come out as they do.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Huh?

            Did you just say that conduction,convection and radiation can cool the human body but only radiation can cool the planet?

            That make no sense at all.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Nice cop out John, well done.

            I’ll let you think about my questions a little longer. Consult someone you trust (John Cook maybe?)

            If I don’t hear back from you, we’ll take it that you and I accept the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis is bunkum.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tel

            I tend to spend most of my life at or near the surface of the Earth, so that’s the temperature I’m primarily concerned about. I might point out that CO2 also predominantly exists near the surface.


            Report this

            00

  • #
  • #
    Rockyspoon

    Sorry, John Brookes: I’ve read your responses to some serious questions and all I need to say is: Epic Fail.

    Go back to shool, sir. And save your comments until you learn a lot more.

    Thanks.

    PS: Start with the trio: convection, conduction and radiation and their relationship to hurricanes cooling of the ocean’s surface. Or start with something as simple as afternoon cloud/thunderstorm formation.

    And a final plug (or nail): If atmospheric CO2 were this ocean lixiviator you claim it to be, it would have all ended up in the atmosphere long ago, since CO2 has been 10 times current levels in the past. Again, Epic Fail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dalyplanet

    John

    Your blanket analogy is oversimplified. The reality is more like many layers of one way mirror like confetti that allow certain wavelengths in unimpeded but absorb other wavelengths radiating out, that eventually cause the top of atmosphere where the radiation leaves the earth to rise a bit so there is a slightly cooler layer to transfer heat from.

    What you are missing is the rest of the atmosphere has thermal mass that is affected by evaporation,convection and conduction that water vapors refrigerant qualities alter in ways that are not completely understood in the present circumstance. This water vapor can also change the cloud level that reflects the sun albedo)in ways that are not well measured. There are other effects like the quiet sun that are not included in GCM studies.

    Arctic ice melt is also not supported by higher summer temperatures generally and Antarctic temperatures are stable. There may be other causes for melting Arctic ice than CO2. Ocean current oscillations and industrial particulates may play a large role.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Wood

    Weather is an incredibly complex non-linear, chaotic system which is influenced by countless factors. so much so that even with enormous computational power available and a potential pot of gold for anyone able to make accurate predictions even a few weeks ahead, no forecasters have succeeded in attaining an accuracy much better than (or even as high as) 50%. and then only a few days ahead.
    Along comes the pseudoscience of climatology and at the stroke of a pen the problems are solved. “Climate is the average weather over a significant period of say 30 years”. we can thus simplify everything and use averages for just about everything!!! An ‘average’ world temperature for example, whatever meaning that has for a planet which on a daily basis has temperatures covering a range of at least 80 degrees and a seasonal range of well over 100 degrees. Or CO2 concentrations ranging from the low 300′s ppm at the poles, to as high as 9000ppm in submarines (surely past Hansen’s tipping point so why don’t the subs just fry the crews). Using simplified averages makes life so much easier for these pseudoscienists and their models
    The models beloved by the warmistas are simplified junk, with practically no connection to the real world, and the mind boggles that so many seemingly intelligent people continue to profess that small additions an innocuous trace gas (with a residence time in the atmosphere of around five years) can have any but the most insignificant effect on the future of the planet.
    It’s certainly a case of ‘follow the money’ for many of those on the gravy train, but that certainly doesn’t explain the number of ‘true believers’ who have no financial stake in the scam. Perhaps it’s just a case of the Goebell’s propaganda legacy ” Repeat misinformation enough and most people will believe it”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Can I just quote this comment:

    “”The models beloved by the warmistas are simplified junk, with practically no connection to the real world, and the mind boggles that so many seemingly intelligent people continue to profess that small additions an innocuous trace gas (with a residence time in the atmosphere of around five years) can have any but the most insignificant effect on the future of the planet.”"

    Most metallurgists and chemical engineers could see at a glance that the claims to have

    successfully “modeled” such a complex system were rubbish. Preposterous is the operative

    word.

    Great comment and begs the question as to when the stake will finally be driven through the

    heart of this money gobbling monster?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      David Wood

      KK
      As a Phd chemical engineer myself (long retired) I accept your comment gratefully and of course since the comment I made is now public property it can be used wherever.


      Report this

      00