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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Gleick admits his guilt – deception used to get documents in FakeGate – apologizes

BREAKING: Peter Gleick admits  admits he’s the one who assumed a false identity and emailed Heartland so he could steal their private documents. His apology marks, finally, a small turning point in the PR scandal and ethical vacuum.

UPDATE: So when will DeSmog retract it’s false claim the documents came from “an insider”? When will they admit they were fooled, didn’t bother to check the veracity, and don’t care about putting out accurate  information?

His answer doesn’t quite put all the pieces together. The fake document has a timestamp just prior to DeSmog and others releasing it, so it is not the “anonymous document” he refers too.

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 program 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.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Andy Revkin get’s it right:

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing.

One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

Whoever it was that created the fake document is still out there. DeSmog still think that deception and fake information is “useful”. Every day that they post the documents they show how few scruples they have, how bad their judgement is, and desperate they have become to smear the small team who are winning the debate on the science. These stolen and fraudulent documents don’t tell us anything about the planetary climate, but they do tell us  how comfortable the alarmist PR team is to cheat and lie.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (106 votes cast)
Gleick admits his guilt - deception used to get documents in FakeGate - apologizes, 9.3 out of 10 based on 106 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6te5y4y

275 comments to Gleick admits his guilt – deception used to get documents in FakeGate – apologizes

  • #
    Dave N

    Even in his confession Gleick misrepresents HI including claiming they’re trying to “prevent debate”. It’s rather like smacking someone in the face whilst simultaneously apologising for defrauding them. The right thing for him to do now would be to disappear completely.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Well you know he can not help himself.He has to let some of his cultist thinking come out to reduce pressure on his tiny conscience.

      This Gleik is the same man who wrote a terrible book review against Donna LaFramboise: Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers

      I know review is terrible because I own that book and know factually that it is good.Soon I will post a truthful book review on it.It will be my second of three climate related books I have bought and read from Amazon.

      He was also exposed by Anthony Watts at his blog about that same stupid book review.HE NEVER READ THE FREAKING BOOK!!!

      Donna Laframboise’s new book causing reviews in absentia amongst some AGW advocates

      Not only is he finished as a Doctorate holder also as a decent human being for his many ethical and criminal errors.

      This makes him a scum in my book.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Brendan

      Spot on Dave N. However the ‘apology’ is simply more of the same from ‘the team’. Just as they behaved when they were caught out ‘hiding the decline’, rather than admit error, they seek once again to shift the blame or just’dissapear’ the issue.

      Poor old Peter was just responding to those nasty Heartland bullies with all of their $6 million dollars!

      “prevent debate”?

      I expect many of the AGW supporters are about to make Peter a martyr to their cause, so twisted is their logic.

      This now sheds more light on the accuaations on Amazon that he hadn’t even read Donna Laframboise’s book when he wrote his scathing review.

      Shows just how desperate the AGW propoents have now become


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The Heartland organiser of ICCC has said on video that he has regularly asked people of the CAGW persuasion to appear at these conferences, even sometimes reserving keynote timeslots for them.

      They never show up.

      BTW that link is to a video at ICCC6 that is one of the few times a mildy pro-AGW scientist (Scott Denning) has agreed to appear in a debate format and did actually show up.

      Preventing debate? More like rolling out the red carpet of debate and being snubbed in return.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Kannarr

      Indeed, in the response just released by Heartland Institutue’s president Joseph Bast, it is noted that

      “Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.”

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/

      So who is “preventing rational debate” on this issue?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        Well, now we know who did it.

        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.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sonny

      Dear Jo,

      Forget DeSmogBlog. The AGE and other Australian media outlets still make the claim that an “insider” “leaked” the documents.

      http://m.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html

      Now that the allegations of identity theft and fraud have been confirmed by the culprit – Peter Gleik, isn’t the AGE breaking the law by posting confidential and sensitive information that is confirmed to be stolen???

      Shouldn’t they remove all reference to the word “insider” and “leaked”?

      Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate’
      Ben Cubby February 16, 2012
      Clarification: This story was updated when The Heartland Institute issued this statement.
      A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate-sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee.
      Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.
      Advertisement

      The think tank has now issued a statement saying the strategy and budget documents had been stolen, and claiming one of them was faked.
      “The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address,” the Heartland Institute said in a statement this morning.
      Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Will certain apologists for the actions of a well known hostile warmist come forward and admit they are wrong about Heartlands actions in trying to get hostile warmists to clean up their act and respond to their reasonable legal requests?

    What about YOU Jeremy C and your big mouth.You going to stop with your stupid snide comments about Heartlands chances with their legal strategy in getting the warmist creeps to comply in cleaning up their act?

    My suggestion for you is to stop being an ass and shut up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    It seems that he has now implicated some “noble” journalists:

    “”I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and
    experts working on climate issues”".

    ….. and then dobbed them in as the only ones likely to have performed “enhancements” on the original documents?

    “”I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed

    to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or

    alterations of any kind.”"

    Painting himself as an innocent conduit, at least for the “first” email.

    It was only after the provocation of having received a mysterious email that he adopted the

    “undercover guardian of Climate Change” guise and went for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Oh, the lying, cheating, fraudulent scumbag … the epitome of the warmista movement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Hey Rajendra, I think there’s still time to make Gleick a Lead Author for AR 5. He fits right in.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wait until you read the dumb defenses for Dr. Gleik show up here and there and everywhere.

    I am so tired of having to see these clueless clods shrug off their obvious in the past foot in the mouth statements and carry on the B.S. in their insane love of the warmist babbling.They are so stupid for not learning from many mistakes and grow up.

    But then the self inflicted damages they make over and over to their “credibility” as a supporter of a long dead AGW hypothesis is a wonder to watch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Braddles

    There is still some smoke blowing around. If Gleick really got the fake before the other documents, then the fake must have originated at Heartland, because of the data therein. Can anyone believe that?

    Gleick almost but doesn’t quite say that the original document he supposedly received in January is the same as the one now online and known to be faked.

    In any case, this is now a bigger own goal for the warmists than the snuff video ad a couple of years ago.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    keith L

    “The fake document has a timestamp just prior to DeSmog and others releasing it,”

    Ooops! Oh yeah, the time stamp… umm… I forgot about that. Umm…. can I have another go at ‘clarifying’ my explanation?…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Typical leftist, do the damage then “apologize” when the SHTF. Sorry, the damage is still done even if it is the result of

    “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics”

    He should still roast until medium well done……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    redc

    GleickGate it is.

    Quickly spotted Jo re the timestamp. It’s now a massive coincidence that the writing style of the fake memo has similarities to [snip. careful here, you are in "slander land"] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      redc

      Oops, my apologies.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      redc, I know what you said before it was snipped. There are even algorithms from natural language processing which can be used to analyse writing styles of documents with known authors and compare them to a document of unknown origin to identify the author. These have been used by some universities to detect plagiarism between students on essays. Amazingly, when I was searching just now for an example of this, I find a blog post from a co-author of one such algorithm posted JUST YESTERDAY showing vastly improved results for author identification:

      Impact. So what exactly did we achieve? Our research has dramatically increased the number of authors that can be distinguished using writing-style analysis: from about 300 to 100,000. More importantly, the accuracy of our algorithms drops off gently as the number of authors increases, so we can be confident that they will continue to perform well as we scale the problem even further. Our work is therefore the first time that stylometry has been shown to have to have serious implications for online anonymity.

      Whilst the thought of unleashing some sort of Writing Style Robocop on the warmistas may seem to have appeal right now, remember even a close match doesn’t absolutely prove the authors are the same. You would still have to find more definitive proof. Of course being confronted with the circumstantial evidence from this Writing Robocop might prompt all but the most ironclad of warmists to break down into a sobbing confession.

      By the way ED, as any Spider-Man fan would know, if you say it in print it’s not slander it’s libel. :)

      [Fair enough. I suppose I could claim that I heard his words (in my head). Slanderland had such a nice ring, libelland sounds more like a British suburb.] ED


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [snip] Peter Gleick says…

    I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so.

    However this [snip] stated in the early paragraphs of his pseudo apology…

    It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy.

    HEY [snip]! you DID comment on the substance and implications of the material.

    This apology isn’t worth a bucket of spit. I’ve asked Andrew Bolt to highlight it on his popular blog so that as many people as possible will learn of the unethical, the fraudulent state of pseudoscience of climate.

    Yes I’m angry. I’ll leave it to Jo and the mods to choose to snip my rant. [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have plenty to say, but I’ve decided not to just yet, at least until the anger subsides a little.

    May I suggest the rest of us angry ones do the same. The interwebs is forever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I dunno about you guys but I am having a good time over this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”

    So why are we still calling it fakegate?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      scratch that – Lucia has a good summary re the fake document so no need to go to efforts to explain to me here.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Because, and I take great pleasure in this, “somebody” altered one of the documents.

      Mr Gleik has taken an oath that it was not him.

      It was “somebody” else.

      He passed the “unaltered”, illegally obtained documents, to some others working hard in the

      field of Climate Change.

      Perhaps they might know who made the changes?

      There appears to be a new “date stamp” on the altered document that does not correspond

      with Mr Gleiks transfer?

      Who dunnit?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I’m guessing Matty here is able to tell all of us that the alleged fake document was NOT in the tranch sent to Gleick by the anonymous spitoon.

      Because if the “fake” document was sent to Gleick (by the anonymous spitoon), there is still one more spitoon to find eh Matt?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        well Gleick’s personal legal position here is his business not mine. If I disregard the “fake” document there is still a lot of interesting stuff to learn about HI in the authentic documents. The end may not justify the means, but it doesn’t make the end interesting. A single person doing something unethical/illegal has nothing to do with climate science, and it doesn’t implicated the whole AGW science community in the particular wrongdoing.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          doesn’t make the end “less” interesting I mean.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Matt,

          Since those documents were obtained by fraudulent means, it is still illegal for you or anybody else, other than the intended recipients, to read them.

          They are not in the Public Domain until they are, “released by intent into the public arena by the author or their appointed agent or agents”. That is the wording in my legal crib sheet, but it is similar in most countries because it is based on an international convention (I can’t remember which one but MemoryVault might know).

          Those of us who work with information all of the time, are very aware of the line between the Public and Private Domains. It can be very expensive to step over that line, and some people have been known to go to gaol for doing so (think of WaterGate). Obtaining information by subterfuge is the definition of spying, and in some countries being convicted of spying still carries the death sentence – food for thought.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            well the intitial copies were not obtained by fraudulent means, although it appears that they were confirmed fraudulently. your quote could apply to any leak. I think I’m safe:)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … the intitial copies were not obtained by fraudulent means …

            As I understand events, somebody telephoned a clerical assistant at the Heartland Institute, and impersonating a Board Member, asked for copies of the Board papers to be sent to an email address.

            The clerical assistant did what was asked, and that is how they got into the wild, as it were. If that is true, the person impersonating the Board Member would have acted fraudulently, and anybody reading those documents without authorisation is also committing a crime.

            And yes Matt, my comments do apply to any leak from a private individual or organisation the only time a leak is not fraudulent is when the “owners” of the material is required by law to make it available, and does not. This applies to the CRU, who were funded by “public monies”, and therefore had an obligation to make their data and research available to the public.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            That may be true, but they already had been sent copies of the board papers, it appears the phone call was to verify that the copies were authentic.

            Did you read the documents?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes Matt, but they had sent the board papers to bona fide Board Members only, and over a supposedly secure medium. That does not put them in the public domain.

            And no Matt, I have not read the documents. I actually don’t even know where the illegal copies are.

            Believe me, I know the law in this area, and reading these documents, without the permission of the owner, is illegal, however they were obtained, and whatever your motivations might be.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Matty tries to stem the flow with a bit of spit at the end of his finger. Press harder Matt, the hemorrhaging is out of control.

          As you well remember, you had a lot to say at the time of Donna Laframboises audit of the IPCC. Then there was her book ‘the lazy teenager’. Of course we also had Glaciergate, Africagate, Amazongate, Jimmy “handcuffs” Hansons adjusting of past temperatures, Phil Jones’ wish that it would hurry up and warm, Stephen Schneiders quip about hoping he wasn’t wrong about the warming as he was about the coming ice age, Richard Muller being presented as a former sceptic when all the while he was an advocate and an investor in AGW and the Pièce de résistance going all the way back to the very beginning with Ben “I wanna knock his lights out” Santer changing the conclusions of the lead authors in chapter 8 to serve his political masters.

          Nah, there’s nothing wrong with climate science according to MattB


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          “it doesn’t implicate the whole AGW science community in the particular wrongdoing.”

          It didn’t have to implicate them.

          They fell over themselves implicating themselves jumping on the bandwagon.
          Remember “denialgate” – you should – it was less than a week ago.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sonny

          Ummm, it’s just another bit of evidence for our side. Kind of like decreases/increases in coral calcification for your side.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    I have alerted Andrew Bolt. This will ensure plenty of people will learn about Peter Gleicks actions.
    Afterall, he ran off to the MSM at first chance.

    That would make me the gander and him THE GOOSE.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    At Curry’s blog he made some revealing comments that vividly exposed the burning hate for rational thinking.

    Here are links to his comments and judge for yourself what kind of person he is:

    LINK to his first comment

    LINK to his second comment

    Notice a pattern yet? He never actually claim that he READ the book.This from a man who has a college degree can not rationally reply to critics in the thread.

    Anthony Watts made this suggestion to Peter that was NEVER answered:

    Anthony Watts | October 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm |

    Simple solution to proving that: Dr. Gleick can provide his dated sales receipt from Amazon.com for the Kindle (or from the company that offers the PDF) version.

    He can redact the address, CC#, and address, and post a PDF of the sales receipt for us to see. I’ll be happy to withdraw my claim that he has not read the book before commenting on it if he can offer the receipt.

    He can post the pr0of in the guest post I offered him (downthread here) on WUWT

    LINK

    LINK

    LINK

    Here he lies about Anthony Watts intentions.He was INVITED to make a guest post explaining his stupid review at WUWT:

    LINK

    Then he again fails to categorically say that he read the book:

    LINK

    Curry slaps him with this gem and Peter got mad with his feeble reply:

    curryja | October 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

    I don’t think your warning is having the desired effect, since you seem to have missed the main points of the book, which is obvious from your review. “D” for reading comprehension.

    petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm |

    Judith, you have the /nerve/ to grade me for reading comprehension because we disagree about a polemical book? What about “facts” in your blog? Do you get an “F” for spreading that lie about me? You seriously need to step back and rethink what service you’re actually providing here. And seriously, decency would dictate a formal apology to me, not simply changing your blog text.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    The man can not make a decent reply to her valid point.

    and more of this absurdity can be seen HERE

    The man never has shown proof that he is a VERIFIED owner of the book.I know because when I made my first book review of a book I purchased at Amazon books.It showed up stating that I purchased the book I posted a review on.Peter never did that and he is free to update his review to show that he read the book.But it has not happened because he knows he is a freaking liar!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MargaretO

      So…. that is why whoever wrote that fake document also slimed Dr. Curry. I wonder what he had against Dr. Wojiak and Andy Revkin because the writer also slimed them in the same way with inneundo.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Where’s little JohnnyBoy Brooksie ?

    Remember this ?

    Streetcred
    February 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Just noticed that the office copier/scanner leaves a code that identifies the machine in the properties of the scan document … if that too is the case here then the fraudster will be in for a very rude shock if that machine code can be tracked back through the maintenance contract.

    Just a thought.

    JohnnyBoy replied …

    John Brookes
    February 18, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Good thought. I trust Heartland will be revealing the codes of all their machines so that we can sort this out…
    ============================

    Hey JohnnyBoy, Looks like they found the code went right back to your buddy Gleick ! ROTFLMFAO ooh, just put a rib out.

    PWNED !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Just a simple error of judgement. All is forgiven Andy. No worse than the other errors of judgement from Trenberth, Jones and Co. Oops forgot Mann and Briffa (remember Keith and his selected tree out of 240 or so). These people have no shame but a great need of more funding and so the scam remains intact despite the contrary data.

    They know we are getting sick of their lies but they hope we will eventually give up fighting for the truth. Just to prove this point, has anyone seen the year 8 text on climate change being used in NSW schools? Andrew Bolt has a report today

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_global_warming_is_preached_in_year_8/

    We should all be writing to office@piccoli.minister.nsw.gov.au to let Adrian Piccoli know that the text is blatant propaganda not science. The more letters/emails he receives the more he might at least think about removing the text. We don’t want another generation of kids taught rubbish. I’ve sent mine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Sheesh moron. Zealots begone.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Please, all of you.

    Take this link to how Ross James perceives all this.

    This is an absolute classic.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      I can’t do it Tony. while I’m sure the comic value is priceless I simply cannot read anything from that fool any longer.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Just do what everyone else does Robert and skim it.

        It’s one of his best.

        Concentration camp for Oldsheimers scientists who were taught “real science”.

        Can’t have all that Real Science wandering about loose, could cause a Global Funding Collapse

        for climate scientists.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      One of life’s great tragedies.

      Alzheimers I mean.

      Must take a few more fish oil caps to work around that plaque.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Heywood

      Gee tony,

      Leave the poor old bugger alone.

      He obviously is suffering some sort of delusional episode.

      I nearly feel sorry for him…………actually I can’t back that up. Give him hell!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        It turns out your crazy, right-wing uncle has a genetic reason why he shrieks like Chicken Little. Two new studies find specific differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. The most notable conclusion is that conservative brains are wired toward simple, emotional decision-making. This may explain why so many conservatives can only see two answers for any question, good or bad.

        Good and bad are not facts and they are not the solution to all problems. They are value judgments, emotional in nature, different for everyone, and limited in usefulness. But, this sort of simplistic lizard-logic is what allows conservatives employed in government to complain about the very taxes that paid their salary. It is why both Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists can lay claim to God’s backing. And it is why river folks — who will soon line up to collect federal flood relief — will still believe that the federal government is useless.

        Read more: http://technorati.com/politics/article/the-republican-reptile-brain-now-with/#ixzz1mzz8ZzUr

        ———————-

        REPLY: Ross the crowd will have fun with this one.”OF course” Good and Bad are old fashioned constructs without meaning in our postmodern world. lol. A plane crash can be “good” right, a lie can help the people, the Beslan massacre was not all “bad”, eh? Sure Ross, your lizard brain writer sees it all through his own tiny one-eyed view. (And you believe that stuff?) Others could read those same studies and conclude the right are more decisive, and the left are more confused. It’s not that the left are more nuanced, it’s just that they can’t tell right from wrong. — Jo PS: I used to be a member of the Greens. Did my brain change, or did I just grow up?


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Ross gives me the impression of someone who reads Eric Blair’s novel, and then wonders what all the fuss was about.

          Ross, if we are lizards, I guess that makes you a fish then.

          You bite, and we catch you. The problem is that you are such a tiddler, we have to keep throwing you back. And then, just like the goldfish, you have no idea what happened the last time you took the bait, and you bite again.

          And then you bite again.

          And then you bite again.

          Rule number (whatever) When you reach the bottom of the hole – Stop digging!

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Ross James

          Hi Jo,

          You said…………

          I used to be a member of the Greens. Did my brain change, or did I just grow up?

          And I went conservative after 25 years old as well but I learned life is not black and white.

          That IS PRECISELY WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS! Let us all hope you don’t get too much die back in your brain cells. A child like state is also a perquisite for heaven’s abode as well.

          Good and Bad, right and wrong. “Your either for us or against us” [by not going to war with us] Former President G. W. Bush. Black and white, good and evil is endemic in reptilian developed subject brains. Now your climate change rhetoric is far too black and white – not enough colour you see. Read a little bit here and there – narrow your odds to exclusion of compelling evidence of the broader body of evidence.

          Jo – your once “Green” brain could turn well eh … “green” again in some existentialist crisis – yet future. [Tongue in cheek with a bit of caustic rhetorical reflectiveness thrown in].

          One of favourite sayings: “Never say never!”

          Subsequent existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War II years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom. Wikipedia

          Now please Jo never gauge your life meaning, self-esteem and status from your own web site OR FROM YOUR JOB FOR THAT MATTER. Please never do that! I don’t. Egos do not last [only WHEN your young]. They only get knocked around bruised and battered.

          I hope you have enjoyed reading this.

          Cheers to you,

          Ross J.

          —————————————————
          [REPLY - "Black and white" is saying "Climate sensitivity is 3.3C, there is no debate. Disaster is coming. Shades of grey are the skeptics saying climate sensitivity is lower, based on observations, between 0.25C and 1.2C. As for me going Green, sure, easy. Just give me the evidence. I've been waiting for good answers for four years. -- Jo]


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Otter

            gleick’s fall from ‘grace’ has got you nicely rattled.

            Expect more. LOTS more.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            [Life] IS PRECISELY WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS!

            And what if the evidence in equivocal on a complex and ambiguous subject, such as the state of the climate?

            Some say it is warming because of CO2, some say it is cooling because of CO2, others say that CO2 does not make any difference at all. Each of these groups can point to evidence in support of their positions.

            So what does the evidence show?

            It shows that we haven’t actually got a clue how the climate works.

            That is what the evidence shows. So why are we being taxed for something we do not understand?

            You are the great philosopher, please explain.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Ross,
            I was going to let this comment of yours just slide by, but on reflection, it’s worth a reply, even if not many people come back to read it.

            Here’s YOU giving US advice on what we should do. Have you ever looked at it with respect to yourself.

            You come here and comment and get shredded nearly every time.

            You tell us to go and look at (insert whatever you think applies here) without providing links.

            You rail against things like this Heartland Institute (HI) fiasco, thinking to yourself that here YOU have this smoking gun. Your smoking gun is that the HI took $1.3 Million in donations from 16 separate Corporations, and that the HI supports fracking, hence it is inherently bad.

            We then point you to (and actually supply the link) how that huge environmental lobby group The Sierra Club accepted $25 Million from a Company whose major task is indeed the fracking you rail against.

            You don’t even take the link and read it.

            We ask you what your plan is to reduce those emissions, (and sorry, I know this is my old ‘hobby horse’) and close those coal fired power plants, and what you have to replace them. These in fact are the direct consequence of what you are in fact asking for, reduction of CO2 emissions.

            You ignore it completely. (As in fact has everyone from your side of the debate I have asked)

            Why?

            Because you have no answers for that.

            In the 4 years I have been doing this, NOT ONE large scale coal fired power plant has been closed, not even from time expiry. In the US alone there are more than 1400 of those coal fired plants. The only ones closing are the small ones. Barely 5 Medium sized plants have closed in that time, not from a plan to reduce emissions, but because all of them were more than 60 years old. The expected life span of a coal fired plant is 50 years. The AVERAGE age of ALL of those more than 1400 plants has just just ticked over 49 years. That’s the AVERAGE age. Not only are they not closing, they are being kept in service longer, and even with the ever increasing number of renewable plants coming on line, those CO2 emissions are in fact increasing, because those other CO2 emitting power plants, Natural Gas fired plants are working longer and harder to take up the slack in power that is not being provided by those renewables for the times when it is needed most.

            No, Ross, YOU have no answers for these things, and your side in general has no answers. If those problems were as drastic as you make out, then something would be being done about it.

            However, all that IS being done is people are making money from this drama of yours, and here, those amounts are huge, in hundreds of billions of dollars. This has been a ‘gift horse’ for those people. They are using YOUR own argument as their excuse, while making those immense fortunes. They’re not doing anything. Just making money.

            And here you are telling us that we need to change, to go along with all of this.

            You remind me of a racehorse that is just an average plodder. The owners and trainer think that the horse may be being influenced by outside things, so they suggest the horse wear blinkers. That way the horse can run down the track with its eye on the perceived prize without outside influence. In 99 cases out of 100, it doesn’t work.

            You, Ross, have those blinkers on. Your eye is on your perceived prize, and you don’t want to see anything that distracts you from seeking that prize.

            You, Ross, are one of those 99 horses. It’s not working. It’s you who need to change the way you view things.

            The things you say when you comment here are the reasons we love having people from your side here.

            Note how nearly all comments from your side are allowed to be posted here, and then compare this to the sites on your side, where they religiously do not allow ANY dissenting comments.

            Have you ever wondered why we allow your side’s dissenting comments here, and why we all just love having you guys around.

            It’s because every time that you, and those of you from your side opens their mouths here, you crap in your own nest.

            We shoot you (and all from your side) to shreds, and you keep coming back, getting more and more strident, and more and more ridiculous, never offering answers, just waffling along about how it’s US who need to change.

            Ross, keep telling us more about that lizard stuff.

            OUR side just loves it when you tell us about that.

            It’s YOUR side who wishes that you’d just shut up.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Ross is an archetype of those in the Education departments who indoctrinate our children with the subversive notion that there is no such thing as moral absolutes – witness ‘values education’.

            As a ‘left wing’ he would have us believe that ‘Education Revolutions’ and ‘Change We Can Believe In’ are the way to progress. But such people are just ‘useful idiots’ in the plan to create an immoral society in preparation for the ultimate takeover.

            There is only One Truth, it never changes, all else is rebellion.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Never let it be said that I’m not one for checking things over and over again.

            I said in the above Comment:

            In the US alone there are more than 1400 of those coal fired plants.

            It just sounded odd to me, so I went back and checked again, and lo and behold, I misread one of the sources I use.

            At the Energy Information Administration, that monstrously huge database I use, I read that there were just a tick over the 1400 Generators I quoted.

            That’s 1400 Individual generators.

            Those generators are situated at 605 Plants.

            230 Of those plants are 60 years old and more. Of those 230 Plants, 65 of them are then older than 70 years, with the oldest still operating plants, 5 of them, between 80 and 90 years old.

            Even they are so critical as to not even be considered for closure.

            That’s how important coal fired power is.

            Not even ancient plants are worthy of closure just to comply with CO2 reductions.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          MaxL

          Congratulations Ross (plagiarist) James.
          Your entire comment was without errors of grammar or spelling.
          May I quote your comment? I may find it useful in future.

          Your contribution: “Read more:”
          Outstanding!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Ross, even for you, you’ve outdone yourself with this drivel.

          When I was a young teenager I fell very much in love with the girl next door, and got her pregnant. The baby was taken from us at birth, and we were split up. We’ll call him Bill. I never got to see Bill as a baby, and up until three years ago I didn’t even know if he was still alive.

          Over twenty years later I met and married Thumper and we had a son. We’ll call him Ben. Now Bill is in his early forties, and Ben is in his late twenties.

          About three years ago now Bill tracked me down via the Jigsaw network for adopted kids, and I have subsequently met up with him many times, as I flew through Perth enroute between Brisbane and the Pilbara. While I was sojourning in intensive care in Royal Perth Hospital after the stroke, Bill came and visited every day. But, as yet, Bill and Ben have yet to meet face to face.

          Apart from the age and hair colour difference (they both have their respective mother’s hair), Bill and Ben look alike enough to be mistaken for twins. On top of the physical similarities, they both have the same facial expressions, they both “talk with their hands”, they both express themselves the same way, they even both sport identical beards and moes. Bill is a computer programmer (sort of – when he works – he is more a “professional student” at Murdoch University), and Ben is computer engineer.

          I could go on, but suffice to say, these two guys are pretty much carbon copies of each other.

          Bill’s adoptive parents divorced when he was in his mid-teens, and he spent his intellectually formative years – late teens to early twenties – nurtured at the teat of pure, unbridled socialism studying things like “Eco-Feminism” at Murdoch.

          Ben followed in his father’s footsteps, got his girlfriend pregnant in the final year of high school, and had to fit his studies around contributing to the sustenance of our unexpectedly expanded family because “Papa” – that’s me, couldn’t do it all alone.

          Today Bill is a perfect “watermelon”, who continues to believe that solar power is the answer, despite hours of explanation by me (as an engineer) about “baseload power”.

          Ben on the other hand, is so conservative he won’t let his eight year old daughter out of the house in a dress much above her knee.

          Just a little bit more background info Ross:

          Both mothers could be sisters, apart from their hair colour. In fact they have the same birthday. All six grandfathers were major players in the labour socialist movement – things like the right for labour to organise, strike etc). Three of them spent time in prison for their beliefs.

          Now Ross, what I’d like is for you to load all that information into your crap “genetic”, “inherited” “lizard brain” crap computer model, and offer up some kind of explanation of how guys who are so much alike in almost every possible way could nonetheless end up so different in their political outlook IF it has anything to do with genetics and inherited “lizard brains”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ross James

            Memoryvault

            Why call one of your sons useless and the other better? Cannot you see that is just the black and white reptilian thinking I’m referring to here. And which son stayed there for your support? Hmmmm bares out in logic.

            I’m well aware now just how much that thinking landed you in trouble in the past.

            Your argument is never won here. This is anti-warmist cyberspace here mate. Besides the majority your preaching to is your own choir.

            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            MV,

            I am glad you got the chance to meet Bill.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            @Ross James,

            There was no where in Memoryvaults comment where he used the word “useless”, or made a value judgement between his two sons.

            I am mystified that you could read such a judgement into what is a sensitive and honest exposition of family history.

            Perhaps the correct use of the word “useless” is in regards to your own reading comprehension, and your habit of imposing your own ideologically driven interpretation on the words of others – instead of taking them at face value.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Actually Ross,

            I’m proud of both of them – each has grown into an honest person, loyal to their beliefs.

            I just don’t agree with EITHER of their political viewpoints, is all.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Dave

          Ross,

          The author of this is as popular as a fart in a spacesuit! A legend in his own lunchtime! Good grief he is America’s favourite liberal (quoted by himself of course)

          Check out your sources 1st : Jimmy Zuma and America’s favourite Liberal.

          Your copy & paste skills are improving -
          Try Cut & Cut in future!


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Sounds like Ross is a closet eugenicist. Here’s my distainful slow clap.

          *CLAP* … *CLAP* … *CLAP* … *CLAP* … *CLAP*

          The force of your intellect renders us obsolete. Well, I’m off to the nearest ‘re-education camp’ to make society a better place.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sonny

          Two new studies find differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives…

          You might be interested in some Nazi Eugenics research showing the differences in brains between Arians and Jews.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MargaretO

          I would have thumbs up the reply to the incoherent meanderings of Ross, but a thumbs up would look like I agree with his b/s


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Bob Campbell

    I did say on the original post about this Heartland affair at 24.1 that the impersonator of a board member may yet be identified but I didn’t expect it to come this way.
    Apart from the fact that he is a striking looking individual I wonder why he decided to out himself.
    There are still many questions to be answered about all this.
    I can feel some sympathy for the situation he, as another human being, finds himself in albeit of his own making.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Let’s hope he get an opportunity to debate the science – from the dock.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Meanwhile I posted my comment at Curry’s blog for Peter to scream over.But alas he by that time left the thread and stayed away from then on.

    sunsettommy | October 19, 2011 at 10:36 pm |

    But you claimed that she wrote a bunch of lies in the book.

    Quoting YOU:

    “This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change.”

    Sure,and you specified what lies,misrepresentations,and falsehoods by chapter and verse.

    Strike one!

    You go on to write indicating that you did not read the book before you made the terrible non review review.

    “It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarizes the state of science on climate change. The IPCC reports — the most comprehensive summary of climate science in the world — are so influential and important, that they must be challenged by climate change deniers, who have no other science to stand on. LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government).”

    Bla,bla,bla is all you ponied up.You who has a doctorate degree can not make a decent attack on a book you allegedly read.Just unspecified verbal barrage.

    You claimed it was a compilation of lies.But then you fail to specify a single example from the book.

    Strike two!

    You also stated:

    “Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don’t need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you.”

    You really wrote this?

    Really did you?

    It is a loaded question and followed by YOUR loaded answer.

    If you really read the book..You would have learned It was about how the IPCC does its business in making their science reports.

    Do you even know what a valid book review consist of? Really I ask you because the body of your scribblings was not written in the style of a rational reviewer.You made nasty claims.Name calling and sweeping statements.

    A good reviewer would not written the way you did.He would have pointed out specific errors.Comment on the format of the book.And her style of writing and that sort of thing.Not just a loudmouthed rant that YOU wrote.

    Not once did you back up your sweeping statement with excerpts from the book.How can you when you did not read it at the time.Sweeping statements are commonly written by people who does not have specific examples to pinpoint.That is why I do not believe you read the book before hand.

    At the amazon website.You did not state that you bought the book or read it.You make a reference to the hockey stick at the bottom of your awful review.But that could have been given to you second hand.

    Strike three!

    Ooops.

    Judging from the comments in reaction to your review rant.You have made a fool of yourself with a hostile unsupported rant.

    Your review failed utterly.Next time read on how to write a proper review.

    There is a good reason why so many think Peter never read the book.The evidence is his own review of the book he posted.

    The following linked comments illustrates the evidence of his review does not match with the content of the book he reviewed.He is exposed as a liar.

    Reed Coray

    Roger Knights

    Enough said.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gleick can’t help but put in his bit about AGW. The AGW conjecture is based on the concept of “backradiation” from the atmosphere somehow increasing the rate of warming of the surface in the morning and decreasing the rate of cooling in the evening. Each would require the addition of thermal energy which would be the equivalent of a heat transfer from cold to hot.

    Does the energy in radiation from a cooler layer of the atmosphere get converted to thermal energy when it strikes a warmer point on the surface which is already being warmed by the Sun at, say, 11am somewhere?

    If it does, then this means there is a heat transfer from that cooler layer to that warmer point on the surface at that time, thus violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    If it doesn’t (as I say) then the Second Law is not violated and there is absolutely no radiative Greenhouse effect because there is no way in which such radiation can affect the temperature of the surface unless it is converted to thermal energy.

    This really is fairly elementary physics well covered in upper levels of undergraduate courses throughout the world.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Do you link anything anyone says about anything at any time to your climate change theory?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Doug you are like a broken record.

      > The AGW conjecture is based on the concept of “backradiation” from the atmosphere

      Backradiation has been observed occurring and measured.

      > somehow increasing the rate of warming of the surface in the morning

      There’s no mystery of how this happens, it’s by slowing the rate of cooling, and that only occurs after the cold ground has absorbed enough energy to warm up to radiate more LWIR. The GHE is a LWIR blanket, not a total energy blanket, so unlike your Cotton blanket the real GHE has an anisotropic unidirectional effect.

      > and decreasing the rate of cooling in the evening.

      UHI can do that too, but yes, if you remove UHI then GHE predicts you should still have slower night cooling rate. The net effect is always to keep energy closer to the surface for longer, which means a higher energy density, which leads to a higher temperature. This should lead to a smaller diurnal temperature range, which has been observed. One of the longest-serving blogger skeptics, Warwick Hughes, also noticed this. Fred Singer believes DTR decrease is from the GHE. Roy Spencer believes DTR decrease is from the GHE. The observations show it has happened.

      Just because the global warming models didn’t hindcast DTR changes accurately in AR4 in spite of their ultra high CO2 climate sensitivity parameters does not mean the GHE is false. The models got the Min trend right (that’s the GHE part) but got the Max trend too fast, probably because they didn’t take negative feedbacks from clouds into account, so their DTR reduced more slowly than reality.

      > Each would require the addition of thermal energy which would be the equivalent of a heat transfer from cold to hot.

      Something which has been observed to occur can’t be violating any rules of physics. Plus an energy transfer from cool to hot is completely okay as long as there is no overall net transfer of energy in which the hotter object temperature increases. Note that despite the GHE, at night time it still gets cooler up until sunrise, there is still a net cooling of the surface and all layers of air above it. Next time you are out at 4am talking to your only friends the bats, just ask them. You have completely misunderstood the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Greenhouse Effect and you have shown no signs of wanting to understand either of them during the last two years.

      Doug, this evidence supports the conclusion that your brain is broken.
      Take up gardening instead.

      [oh please do this at the relevant thread Andrew. mod oggi]


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        At the relevant thread? Oh right, that old catch-22.
        “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.” – Nietzsche.

        [No catch-22 Andrew. Gleick didn't confess to breaking thermodynamic laws. I had already asked Doug to stop thread-jacking 2 hours before your reply to him. Lets keep comments relevant to Gleick on this thread please. oggi]


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Ah, I had only read down this far when I replied to Doug so I hadn’t seen your other comment. So it has just been a misunderstanding. There was no disrespect intended.

        If you feel inclined to have a cleanup the above can be moved to the “relevant thread” (whatever that is). You could even delete Doug’s comment and everything under it, I don’t mind.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    AbysmalSpectator

    So we are meant to believe a confessed fraudster that he didn’t create the fraudulent strategy document but that he did fraudulently obtain the rest? Good grief!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Heartland has issued a statement re: Gleicks confession. They are still pursuing him. I’m sure Jo will provide an update.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Gleick’s deception is further confirmation that almost invariably alarmist climate scientists are first and foremost environmental activists. That of course casts doubts over their prognostications which have their origin not in science, as can readily be demonstrated, but in their almost religiously held environmental presuppositions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Flat Earther

    The definition of Irony: Peter Gleik is in charge of American Geophysical Union’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity! http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Hopefully not for long.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        After this incident and his confession, sadly some of his cohorts believe Gleick is MORE eminently qualified to chair a task force on scientific ethics! Ironic is the word, alright, because they seemingly believe that cheating, lying, stealing, fraud, etc ARE ethical so long as it is in a “just” cause, as they perceive it at least.

        Narcissists like these don’t comprehend that any perception other than their own is valid or worthy of consideration, and they are over-represented among CAGW proponents almost to a man. That’s why they are so immune to criticism, why they disparage their opponents so vehemently as evil and immoral (through an excessive, unwarranted belief in their own sanctity and prescience), why they offer themselves as heroes or martyrs of the cause irregardless of their actual merit.

        Hope shouldn’t come into it. Rigorous weeding out of polemicists and zealots is therefore needed to restore the integrity of scientific principles and endeavor once again.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    From HERE

    steven mosher says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    “What made Mosher see Gleick as a possible culprit in Fajergate? ”

    Literally the first thing, the very first thing was the mention of his name in the document.
    I Posted that on a site long before any other evidence came to light. The comment
    was trash binned, so I went to Lucia’s and starting discussing it there.

    Why? his name didnt fit in a strategy document. It already looked fake to me. Too many operational details in a strategy document. The “confidential” as the subject. Too many budget details. So I knew it was fake. Then I saw his name: This doesnt fit! Then it occured to me.
    Like an arsonist who returns to watch a fire, He could not stay away from the scene of the crime,
    so he put himself in it.

    All the other facts just supported that intuitive leap.

    I still have the opinion that he wrote it, but that’s really besides the point now, for my view of things

    Gosh not one of the hard hitting critics of Heartland spotted this.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      This mention of Gleick in the policy document is a highly relevant backstory.

      Gleick’s Denial of the being the Master Forger.

      Whilst there is no proof that Peter Gleick was the author of the fake strategy document, there is a flip-side to this.

      If it was another person, this person was intelligent enough to know who to target. They knew who to send the letter by appealing to Gleick’s vanity through imitating his style very effectively. So effectively that it is very clear that it is not from Heartland, but pointed to Gleick as the most likely author. It suggests someone ruthless enough to be was willing to sacrifice a leading scientist’s career to damage a skeptic organisation, but not so intelligent as to be able to mimic the house-style of the Heartland Institute to convince the public it was from Heartland. This was so effective, that Gleick was still convinced of its truth after over 30 nights to sleep on it. Even if the tangible evidence could be explained, this story does not gel together awfully well.

      There is, however, a story that fits, whether or not, Dr Peter Gleick is the author of the fake strategy document – and it ain’t pleasant. People involved in the climate alarmist cause, from scientists, to journalists to bloggers, are so sure of their beliefs that when even when a blatant howler comes along they gullibly swallow it. It does not matter if Dr Gleick forged the strategy document. It shows that the alarmist collective are incapable of seeing any other perspective to their own. This is extremist dogma that can only exist by denying critics a voice.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    banz

    Good grief, Gleik was apppoined to the AGU’s ehtics commitee in November 2011 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The American Geophysical Union did not officially believe in plate tectonics until 90 years after the evidence for it was first presented. So I guess Gleik will still be officially ethical for at least another decade.
      Geologists operate on very slow time scales you see…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RoHa

    “Andy Revkin get’s it right:”

    Get’s? Tpying too fsat again?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    catamon

    Well, that makes the provenance and veracity of the strategy document more interesting unless whoever produced/leaked it comes forward?

    Can we expect the person who hacked the emails for Climategate to be coming forward soon do you think?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      Only two things interesting about the document.
      * What useful idiot wrote it and thought that writing it was a good idea?
      * that people like yourself continue to cling to your conviction that the document is the real deal; inspite of the fact that HI strenously repudiate it and all analysis to date strongly suggests it was fabricated.

      The document is not yet a closed book; but on the face of everything that has happened why do you insist on clinging to this idea? It’s pathetic. At least admit that at this time, the balance of evidence is against you. Save some face and some credibility.

      Given the precautions taken by the Climategate leaker/whistleblower/hacker, i.e. creation of the all.7z file, and the fact that their identity still remains unknown, I don’t think we will be learning that piece of information anytime soon.

      The identity of the climategate person is of little interest anyway. And the HI hacker’s identity would be of little interest, to me at least, too had it not being for the fabricated document. That the hacker turns out to be the same person that others previously speculated as being the author of the fabricated document makes things very interesting indeed.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KeithH

      So Cat. You have positive evidence somebody “hacked” the Climategate emails and it wasn’t a whistleblower (who would be protected by law anyway)? If so, you should immediately get in touch with the Norfolk Constabulary. They still seem to be struggling so I’m sure they’d be glad of your help!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        Well, they would be a “whistleblower” if there was in fact anything too the Climategate (The Final Nail!!) emails apart from some of the more credible sections of the community getting all in a lather about them when, really there wasn’t a great deal to get hot and bothered about.

        Interesting that the HI statement that the Strategy Document was a fake is so uncritically accepted here particularly after the other documents which seem to support what was written in that, are now verified as genuine.

        Probably a ways to go with this issue as yet. Will be fun to see how it plays out, and observe the screeching outrage and indignation already under way. :)


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Well, they would be a “whistleblower” if there was in fact anything too the Climategate (The Final Nail!!) emails apart from some of the more credible sections of the community getting all in a lather about them when, really there wasn’t a great deal to get hot and bothered about.

          And there we have the whole CAGW alarmist pseudoscientist problem in a nut shell.
          Peter Gleick, the self confessed liar and thief also thought just like that.
          So did Ben Santer when he rewrote the IPCC chapter claiming “a discernable human influence”.
          So does James “Handcuffs” Hansen every time he adjusts past temps lower.
          So does Pachauri every time he announces that the science is “robust”.
          I don’t even need to mention Manns hockey stick, or Keith Briffas one tree, or Steigs west Antarctic ice sheet.

          WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT MULTIPLE LINES OF E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E?

          The likes of catamon are so beyond help, so deep into the scam that they cannot see the forest for the trees, they cannot recognise the pattern of zealous behaviour, the pattern of advocacy.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Baa, I belive we’ve already won the argument by way of forfeit. They simply refuse to show up to any forum where their science can undergo scrutiny from the other side.

            We are solidly in a propganda war, “Climate change is crap!” Succinct and contestable slogans are the weapons we have:

            * No warming for over ten years
            * Manipulated temperature data
            * Models fail to predict climate
            * Missing hot spot falsifies CAGW
            * Ocean and satellite data ignored
            * Hockey stick graphs, single data point smoothing
            * Bankster rorting
            * Carbon market collapses
            * Agenda 21

            The only thing we now need to do is plant seeds in peoples’ mind with our propaganda which will trigger independent investigation into the science by the individual. Our slogans must provide those entry points of investigation.

            The science deniers that haunt the sceptic blogs only serve to shoot their ridiculous theory in the foot, repeatedly and regularly.

            This Gleik nonsense is a prime example of their self-sabotaging behaviour due to the intellectual and ethical blinkers they have had to adopt since the CAGW hypothesis(never was a theory) infiltrated their naturally human worldview of enviromental protectionism. By way of osmosis!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            A Lovell

            The climategate whistleblower is obviously much cleverer than Gleick.

            In other words, our hacker is better than their hacker ner ner ner!


            Report this

            00

    • #
      BobC

      catamon
      February 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm · Reply

      Can we expect the person who hacked the emails for Climategate to be coming forward soon do you think?

      IMO, The Climategate emails were probably put together by an insider, probably an adminstrator. Reason? They are too complete to have been collected from outside, as that would have taken near complete access to CRU’s network and backups.

      The most likely explanation for the compilation is in preparation for responding to the legal FOIA requests, in case the attempts by CRU’s ‘science’ team to not comply ultimately failed.

      The most likely reason for their release is that someone got fed up with the illegal shenangans on public support.

      I think they know who this person is, and won’t ever release their identity (or take any steps against them), as that would leave him/her with no barriers to going public. I’m sure that would make for an interesting story.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      I don’t know if they will be coming forward anytime soon but they may very well release the remainder of the emails. I’m sure you won’t like what they reveal anymore than you did the last two batches. It’s a bitch when material subject to an FOIA comes out and makes your heroes look like fools isn’t it, all while you cling desperately to a handful of documents obtained through wire fraud that in essence say nothing remotely like what you and yours have been trying to claim for years. The piddling amount of money revealed doesn’t do much to support your “big oil funding conspiracy” does it? Without the fake document to plant the seeds of your imaginary conspiracy there wouldn’t be anything in the documents to talk about.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    His mia culpa will be well received by his peers and supporters I suspect.

    Here is my brief paraphrasing from their point of view. “I got some materials that showed how truely despicable HI are. I wanted to validate them, and validate them I did! But in the process of validating them I ran some red lights, I’m sorry for running those red lights.”

    I am almost tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I look forward to reading his rigourous and detailed explanation of how eviilllll HI are and how these documents infact support this. Doubtful any such thing will materialise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    redc @ 10

    GleickGate it is.

    How about:

    The Gleick Fakegate

    A virtual portal into the sordid, dark world of unreality known as “climate science” where members of “The Team” labor endlessly – and dishonestly – in the name of “The Cause”.

    .
    I feel another book coming on . . .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob T

    Zealots are the hardest nuts to crack, until they find Lady Law chasing them. The sooner she catches up with them, the better.

    BTW,I really suspect that shortly we will find that one of the biggest moneymakers out of this is………………………….. BIG POPCORN.

    Oops, I’ve just run out, again.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This page http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html explains how reflected radiation is broken into two components …

    (1) The specular (mirror-like) reflection where angle of incidence = angle of reflection.

    (2) The “diffuse” reflection which is deflected at any random angle..

    Here the second component is what I prefer to call deflected (or scattered) radiation, as the process is very different from specular reflection. But whatever you call it, it obviously does exist.

    This is the process I have been talking about all along. As far as energy is concerned, as I have always said, it is the same as reflection and thus has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of the target, in this case the surface.

    This diffuse reflection is what happens when the target is warmer than the source. If such radiation were absorbed and converted to thermal energy there would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is why you need to know the temperatures of both source and target before you can know the overall absorptivity and emissivity. These factors will be affected by this diffuse reflection, which cuts in when the target starts to get warmer than the source.

    Thus, all radiation from a cooler atmosphere undergoes diffuse reflection when it strikes a warmer surface. This is why an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.

    [You've already posted this on the 'sceptics case' thread, yet here it is again in a totally unrelated thread. Please stop thread-jacking Doug, my patience is wearing thin. mod oggi]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Oggi… be warned that the patience of many sites became thin and snapped some time ago. He now has much more time to devote to posting on those sites remaining available to him.

      (Yes I have seen his one note posting in other websites.He does not debate the topic but post HIS topic in them and that is why he is on the fence with the moderators) CTS


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MadJak

    It seems to me that Dr Gleik put in about as much due diligence to this as almost all of the lead authors of the IPCC. Remember glaciergate?

    How utterly feeble and pathetic. First they tried to kill the debate by saying the debate was over. Nope. That didn’t work. Then their namecalling couldn’t help the situation so they blamed their inability to communicate. Nope, that wasn’t it. It must be the lobby groups. Nope. That wasn’t it either.

    Here’s a thought. Maybe you’re struggling because your cause is bust, people are smarter than you arrogantly think, and your supporters are more like biased activists than objective scientists?

    Oh well, horse, water, all that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Hey everybody, we got it all wrong.

    Far from being the lying, conniving, stoop-to-any-level low-life we all imagined him to be, it turns out Mr Gleick is, in a fact real-life, living super-hero type dude.

    At least according to the latest post over at desmogblog . . .

    Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

    .
    Can you believe it?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Not even dead yet and they’ve already composed his eulogy! Might I suggest that plans be put in place for a marble edifice to mark the place where brave Gleick “fell”- perhaps they could call it the Tomb of the Unconscionable Wanker.

      Will those glory seekers and fame whores of the left ever tire of their self-congratulation, even in the face of being caught red-handed being deceptive and apparently attempting to defraud?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance

      And so the language gets tortured once again. Gleick in not a whistleblower – by definition, a whistleblower works within an organisation, and reports something illegal about that organisation.

      In this case, Gleick is a self-confessed fraudster who told lies to obtain documents he was not legally entitled to. In most civilised societies, that would brand him as a thief and a liar, and would disqualify him from any form of public service.

      One can only hope that the Heartland Institute will press for criminal charges to be laid. I believe they could make an adequate case, based on his confession, and other circumstantial evidence for a conviction. It would also be useful if those blogs that published the material, and left it in the public domain after they had been requested to remove it, were also named as accessories after the fact, in that they willingly and knowingly accepted stolen material.

      I notice popcorn shares are very bullish.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        I surmise that Gleick is hoping the earlier confession will mean that the judge will go easy on him. Hopefully the opposite applies to the blogs who have not responded to the C&D.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Cookster

      No surprise Memoryvault as further evidenced by some of the replies to this NYT story. One of the responders in support of Gleick is a Steven Earl Salmony who turns out to be a psychologist??

      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/?ref=earth


      Report this

      00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Meanwhile, back at the Pacific Institute (Gleick’s home base) we find in their latest available financial statements (2010) that they got nearly $600,000.00 in general funds mostly ultimately from taxpayers via state and federal bodies, the UN etc, and another million in tied funds.

    In this second list of fund sources you’ll find all the usual names, Goldman, Rockefeller etc and lots and lots of (presumably tax-free) “Foundations”.

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf

    George Carlin’s big club maybe that none of us are in (WARNING – bad language)?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TRE

    And yet, the govt. grants and funds will continue to flow to Pacific Institute unabated……sigh


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cliff Maurer

    You say Revkin gets it right?
    I don’t think so. Reconsider the last paragraph from his Dot Earth blog.
    Doesn’t he imply that the prospects for “rational public debate” -the one he believes is necessary- have been set back by the exposure of Gleick’s failure to discredit the Heartland Institute?
    It seems to me that Revkin’s rational public debate is one that can’t include the likes of the Heartland Institute. His debate needs a public perception that those who argue with evidence against the consensus are discredited.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    KeithH

    It looks like they’ve got their first case to investigate!
    I wonder will Gleick sit in judgment on himself?

    “AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work.

    In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”

    Published 22 November 2011.

    Citation: Gleick, P. and R. Townsend (2011)

    Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA

    Randy Townsend, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Lesson of Gleick: Beware of those who teach ethics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ceetee

    Too late Peter, we know who you are and what you’ve done. There will be a reckoning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ceetee

    Cliff @ 41
    Agree with you assessment. Why are we so nice and reasonable? Sorry Jo, I’m angry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    Jo, you need to correct the spelling of Gleick’s name int eh title of the post. :-)

    [thanks! must be a sticky "c" key] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    under normall circumstances, this would be the end of Gleick. but this is CAGW circumstances and anything is possible – Gleick could be further promoted or even receive a Nobel for his CAGW “work”.

    btw for those who are still a little confused, Gleick does not deny faking the fake document.

    as memoryvault points out, always follow the MONEY…MONEY…MONEY…

    18 Feb: UK Telegraph: Richard Gray: Foreign aid cash spent tackling climate change
    A project in western Kenya to help indigenous Nganyi rainmakers, who were being undermined by extreme weather conditions caused by changes in the climate, was launched in 2008 as part of a £25 million climate change adaptation programme funded by Dfid.
    The project aimed to bring the rainmakers together with Government meteorologists to produce a “consensus forecast” before relaying it back to village farmers, who were said to be losing trust in traditional methods which could not cope with the apparent changes in climate.
    It allowed forecasts to be made using a combination of satellite data and computer models and traditional techniques such as observing insects, flowers and pot blowing, where herbs are placed into a pot buried in the ground which the rainmaker blows into through a pipe, listening for coming winds.
    In total £3.5 billion of public money has been paid out or allocated to projects addressing climate change abroad since 2007-08…
    ***Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development, said it was in Britain’s best interests to help other countries tackle climate change because it is a global problem.
    He said: “The Coalition Government is committed to being the greenest government ever… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9090830/Foreign-aid-cash-spent-tackling-climate-change.html

    ***keep in mind, this is a Conservative Government talking.

    Ron Paul for President.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Turnedoutnice

    This is the end of a 24 year journey by the IPCC from certainty to dogged defence of knowingly fraudulent science**. In 1997, when it was shown that CO2 rose 600 years after T, the organisation could have backed down. However, by then there was too much corporate and scientific career investment, also Marxist investment in its new Lysenkoism.

    We now see the end of ‘post normal science’ which reportedly Hulme adopted from 1990 when he changed CRU from the scientific model created by renowned climatologist Hubert Lamb, a Quaker, to ‘Post Normal Science’, the creation of Marxists Funtowicz and Ravitz. This is in effect the subservience of science to politics; the end justifies the means.

    The death of the new Lysenkoism was accelerated by the Climategates which alerted scientists like me to the destruction of scientific integrity by politics and the apparent development of a personality cult, e.g.: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

    We have also had the emergence of a generation of climate scientists who have been taught incorrect physics so don’t know the science is wrong.

    **Four basic mistakes: Trenberth’s ‘back radiation’ can’t do thermodynamic work, Hansen’s 33 K present GHG warming is really ~9 K; 100% direct thermalisation of absorbed IR quanta disobeys fundamental IR physics; imaginary ‘high feedback CO2-AGW’ is not hidden by cooling from polluted clouds [the optical physics is wrong]. In reality GHG-AGW is near zero because the atmosphere controls IR optical depth to a constant value and recent warming has been natural, a consequence of the melt part of the Arctic 70 year cycle as proved by the observed reduction of North Atlantic OHC: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Cliff Maurer

      Turnedoutnice @ 49, I agree about the mistake of 100% thermalisation of absorbed IR quanta, but would take the criticism further. In the case of CO2 effectively no absorbed IR quanta contribute to thermal motions- Equipartition of Energy rules do not apply, they are excluded by quantum theory effects.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Turnedoutnice

        Thanks for putting me right about this. But there has to be Equipartition of energy for the to GHGs because otherwise how would thermal energy be upscaled to intramolecular vibrations [~5% of CO2 molecules at room temperature]?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Cliff Maurer

      The thermal energy of a small polyatomic gas molecule cannot be upscaled directly to intramolecular vibrations even without quantum restrictions- that would imply centre-of-mass motions of the molecule would not conserve momentum.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Gleick’s admission will put him behind bars. However, that will change nothing for the rest, who are still on the libel hook and they’re still in the hole digging furiously.

    Happy days.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Pointman

      I would agree with you if I believed that the law would take its course. Unfortunately, I think that the decisions will be political rather than legal – evidence the “four ‘inquiries’” of the CRU.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        DougS

        Rereke: Even worse was when James Hansen helped get Greenpeace activists acquitted after they caused £30 000 worth of damage at Kingsnorth power station in the UK.

        Their defence was ‘protecting the earth from dangerous CO2 ‘pollution” – the prosecution team must have been crap – or not trying too hard!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, Doug.

          This is the Post Normal world. A world where justice is based on the current consensus opinion which, in turn, is based on the penetration of the latest propaganda supporting whatever faction of society is paying for it.

          This is reality, but has all the makings of a Bruce Willis Science Fiction movie.

          Sometimes I wonder, “What if I was the only person who wasn’t on drugs? What would the world look like?” The answer? Pretty much like the way the world is now.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    TinyCO2

    An Australian website Crikey claimed yesterday

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/20/heartland-launches-legal-action-against-climate-change-bloggers-journos/

    “Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartland’s “Anonymous Donor”, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the institute’s funding.”

    But instead they report next year’s source of income. Ironic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Meyer claims some CAGW scepticism and libertarian connections – click on his name – but i don’t buy it. like the rest of the MSM coverage – and it’s very little so far – the headline and the story still suggest ALL the documents are from Heartland. Meyer uses “catastrophic man-made global warming”, but can you imagine anyone in the MSM or politics doing so these days?

    21 Feb: Forbes: Warren Meyer: Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents
    In a written statement, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, and vocal advocate of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has admitted to obtaining certain Heartland Institute internal documents under false premises, and then forwarding these documents to bloggers who were eager to publish them…
    And before skeptics revel in too much schadenfreude here, they are susceptible to falling into exactly the same trap. Michael Mann’s hockey stick work deserves all sorts of scientific critique, but any flaws one may think exist do not justify trying to hound Dr. Mann with criminal charges over his university work…
    I repeat my ongoing plea — let’s get back to real engagement on the actual science. Here is my starter proposal: Catastrophic global warming advocates will stop calling the science “settled” and arguing that anyone who disagrees with them “lacks integrity”, and skeptics will ban the words “scam”, “myth”, “lie”, and “conspiracy” from their arguments. And we will all cease the dueling accusations about sources of funding. What really matters are issues like quantifying the climate feedback effect. Who the hell cares who funds the breakthrough work? We should be thrilled there are people from both sides of the debate willing to invest in it — if this were not true, we would end up with that most sterile of all scientific or political environments, the mono-culture…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/

    the few post-Gleick-confession MSM pieces all have headlines that still suggest ALL the documents were from HI. NYT even states Gleick denied faking the fake document, which he didn’t and don’t u love the suggestion bloggers were wrong in guessing who the perpetrator was? of course the NYT piece will spread far and wide, which is why i’ve chosen another of it’s appearances in the MSM:

    20 Feb: Mercury News: from New York Times: Activist deceived institute to obtain climate change papers
    By John M. Broder and Felicity Barringer
    (from NYT link Leslie Kaufman contributed reporting.
    A version of this article appeared in print on February 21, 2012, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Activist Says He Lied for Climate Papers..)
    The document release was cast by some bloggers as the work of a whistle-blowing Heartland employee or ex-employee, when it was in fact orchestrated by Gleick, a Yale- and Berkeley-trained scientist and environmental activist who claims that he was frustrated with Heartland’s anti-climate-change programs.
    Gleick denied authorship of the most explosive of the documents, a supposed strategy paper that laid out the institute’s efforts to raise money to question climate change and get schools to adjust their science curricula to include alternative theories of warming…
    http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_20007679

    Walsh is , of course, another CAGW alarmist, check out his previous work:

    20 Feb: Time Mag BLOG: Bryan Walsh: Climate Expert Peter Gleick Admits Deception in Obtaining Heartland Institute Papers
    The major question now — beyond the legal ramifications for Gleick and the Heartland Institute — is whether the original document Gleick says he received, the strategy memo, is real or whether it’s a falsification as the Heartland Institute maintains. The problem for climate advocates, of course, is that suspicion will only grow that Gleick falsified the original document now that he has admitted using deception to get the additional memos. (And just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.)…
    Worst of all — at least for those who care about global warming — Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon.
    http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    what we would expect from Wikipedia. note “admitted obtaining documents”, leaving one to think it is ALL the documents. the alarmists are circling the wagons, establishing the memes, and imagining they are getting away with it!

    Wikipedia: Peter Gleick
    On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means, “in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” [7] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that “Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins … ” [8]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh I do hope there are plenty of legal proceedings as a result of this. The wonderful thing about legal proceedings is that they pin things down and quite often (if done right) turn over other little stones as well for further examination and possible prosecution..

    With a bit of luck this might undo a sizable chunk of the warmers noise making machinery.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    you people should get a life – so much venom!


    Report this

    00

    • #

      What’s the matter JohnP, you don’t get the paradoxical raillery, the ridiculous sardonicism, the satirical twist, the burlesque banter, the contemptuous contrariness, the derisive mockery, the mordant reproach, the ironical satire of the actions of the chairman of the ethics task force of AGU?

      Let me spell it out for you JohnP, it’s not the venom, it’s the self administered dose via the karma syringe wot dunnit.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tom

      And so much stupor! Have you been living on the moon? This is about reclaiming science from political activists. If we are to continue to use science to advance civilisation, we need to be able to trust its practitioners to use the methods used for centuries to validate evidence, not hopping on bandwagon fashions primarily designed to feather their own professional nests. Climate science has become a laughing stock because it is infested with political activists. Which would be a mere curiosity if they weren’t using their pseudo-science to take billions of dollars from Australian taxpayers. If you aren’t questioning what you’re being told, you’re part of the problem.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi John P says “”so much venom”"

      Well John , most of us see our hard won tax money being funneled off to everybody else but

      us and our families.

      We feel as though we are being treated as slaves working for non elected (self appointed)

      UN officials, mostly from countries that can’t run themselves.

      Kev the sequestrator sent $590 million to the UN slush fund recently. That was on behalf of

      all Australians. Many billions have been “re-directed” towards labour pressure groups, to

      save the Planet, or maybe just to save some votes at the next election?

      Yes, there is just a tiny bit of Venom.

      And someone has hidden the ANTI-Venom. “)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: Guardian: George Monbiot: We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyistsThe battle for democracy is becoming a fight against backroom billionaires seeking to shape politics to suit their own interests
    Shocking, fascinating, entirely unsurprising: the leaked documents, if authentic, confirm what we suspected but could not prove. The Heartland Institute, which has helped lead the war against climate science in the United States, is funded among others by tobacco firms, fossil fuel companies and one of the billionaire Koch brothers…
    The use of so-called thinktanks on both sides of the Atlantic seems to me to mirror the use of super-political action committees (superPACs) in the US. Since the supreme court removed the limits on how much one person could give to a political campaign, the billionaires have achieved almost total control over politics. An article last week on TomDispatch revealed that in 2011, just 196 donors provided nearly 80% of the money raised by superPACs.
    The leading Republican candidates have all but abandoned the idea of mobilising popular support. Instead they use the huge funds they raise from billionaires to attack the credibility of their opponents through television ads…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists

    another unbelievable george…

    12 Feb: CNN: Soros undecided on pro-Obama super PAC
    Monday night, the president’s re-election campaign announced it would urge donors to contribute to a super PAC supportive of his candidacy called Priorities USA.
    The move represented a reversal of Obama’s position on the third-party spending giants, which were made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2010 on the Citizens United case…
    Soros added that he’s always been open about giving away his money, and only does so on principle, “not for pursuit of my private interests.”…
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/12/soros-undecided-on-pro-obama-super-pac/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    “….Andy Revkin get’s it right:……”

    He does indeed, but for how long?

    The Moonbat came out with strong criticism of the Climategate 1 players immediately after the emails were released but, after a visit by ‘the boys’ he softened his line considerably.

    Today, the dear old Guardian (even after Gleick’s confession) are still referring to it as a ‘leak’ – how pathetic can you get?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Michael

      I’d say let them. I do suspect that if they continue to ignore requests from Heartland’s lawyers to remove the documents and publish a retraction they do will be on the end of a court case for libel eventually.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Speedy

    If the ABC was Relevant (Pt 49)(The Confessor.)

    Bryan: Peter Gleick, welcome to the program.

    John: Pleasure Bryan.

    Bryan: So you’re sorry.

    John: Yes. I’m sorry.

    Bryan: Really sorry?

    John: Really sorry.

    Bryan: Really, really, sorry?

    John: Yes. Really, really, really sorry Bryan.

    Bryan: Because you impersonated bona fide officials, fabricated documents, libeled your opponents, and failed to engage in legitimate public debate with people whom you defame and secretly fear?

    John: No.

    Bryan: No? Then why are you sorry?

    John: Because I got caught.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Whoah hold on a second there, not so fast Speedy!
      I’m sure we’d all be tickled pinko if the Gleickster had been cranking the printing press in the wee hours.
      But where is the proof that he created the fake document? At the moment it’s a kangaroo court.

      Also great comment on WUWT is this one.

      Most damning inference I’ve seen is a few comments later and I like the logic of that.

      It seems likely but we don’t know for sure. He could have been used.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        Andrew – point taken:

        Bryan: Because you impersonated bona fide officials, fabricated documents, libeled your opponents, and failed to engage in legitimate public debate with people whom you defame and secretly fear?

        Three out of four, then, at the very least.

        Plus, of course, Peter doesn’t seem to be making a great deal of effort to assist in tracking down the “fabricators”, for reasons best known to himself.

        Perhaps his apology would be a little more convincing if he did – or would this need him to claim the 5th amendment?

        Cheers,

        Speedy.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    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.
    His attitude to me is bizarre, as he also forwarded to me, their previous conversations where he made things very clear.

    In Tamsin’s closing email to Peter Gleick ( that I am party to)

    “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

    Peter had accused me of being ‘incredibly offensive on twitter (ie i thought my followers would mean like the vile abuse Katie Hayhoe had received (@KHayhoe –i s one of my twitter followers).’

    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.. and to publically apologise.

    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 are 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.. (not directly connected, but I thought he was being twitchy or ‘boasting’ ?)

    @BarryJWoods @icey_mark @flimsin gee, what have I done now?—
    Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) February 15, 2012


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    brits and readers of UK Independent may be more familiar with Hari:

    21 Feb: Telegraph: James Delingpole: Peter Gleick – the Johann Hari of climate ‘science’
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/

    Wikipedia: Johann Hari
    Johann Eduard Hari (born 21 January 1979) is a British journalist who was a columnist at The Independent and The Huffington Post, and contributed to several other publications. In 2011, Hari admitted to plagiarism, was suspended from The Independent and surrendered his 2008 Orwell Prize. He also admitted to making Wikipedia edits, under a pseudonym, to attack his critics, and has said that he plans to undergo training in journalism ethics. In 2012 his website announced he was not returning to The Independent because he was writing a book…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mat

    C’mon Jo, you’re making a false claim yourself with the timestamp issue. Here is what Gleick says:
    At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail…

    If we follow his story, he received the Strategy document as a hardcopy in the mail early in the year, then got the board meeting material, then scanned the hardcopy Strategy document (with timestamp) for distribution. No problem there.

    Because of the accuracy of the figures in the scanned strategy document, I see only two possibilities:

    1) The document was sent to Gleick by a Heartland Insider in early January, ie it is authentic.
    2) Gleick got hold of the board meeting notes, then wrote the strategy to fit the figures, ie it is fake.

    —————————————

    REPLY: Yes, maybe Gleick got the doco in the mail in a big envelope with no folds earlier. Possible. So he’ll be helping out the investigation with details of the postmark, date etc ?? Where is that info? –Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John from CA

      from Gleick’s confession:
      (Note: the comments section is now open)
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html?ref=green

      “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 program strategy.”

      “I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”

      He doesn’t clearly state that the strategy document he circulated was the same “anonymous document” he received in early 2012.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      He is hoping you would say that. However, he doesn’t confirm that the mailed document was indeed the fake. What he did was make vague references to anonymous documents and hope that people made the join in their head that he was mailed the fake one. But he doesn’t actually come out and declare that he received the fake in the mail.

      This is because he lawyered up and got someone else to write this for him. And they wrote something that gives the right opinion but doesn’t actually lie.

      Read it again, Mat, and stop trying to defend the indefensible.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tel

      It would appear that the document timestamp would point to (2) as the rational conclusion… unless there was a highly unlikely scenario that someone at Heartland first set their computer’s clock to a future time (by a month, correctly anticipating future events down to the day) and then changed their timezone to Gleick’s timezone, and then sent it by email. Not impossible, but completely incredible.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    EEB

    Obviously, Gleick will no longer enjoy the accolades afforded him as one of the high priests for the Church of Gaia. Too bad, that was a sweet gig. Perhaps he can pursue a new career in music…as Felonious Monk.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “What ultimately makes Gleick a truly pathetic figure is that what he did, even if it had been successful, would have had no discernible effect on the final outcome of the war, except possibly hastening it. There’s simply no way that a vitriolic squabble between a cabal of activists and an institute the ordinary person had never heard of, was going to reverse the declining belief in the threat of global warming. The Heartland Institute extracting huge sums of money in punitive damages from prominent media outlets will however, have a huge propaganda impact.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/fakegate-claims-its-first-scalp/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    GIVE HIM A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR CHRIST SAKE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    This: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/17/what-if-they-are-wrong/#more-7152 was posted over at Judith Curry’s blog right about the same time as the whole Fakegate/Gleickgate thing was happening.

    I guess the correct answer to “what if they are wrong?” is “they double down and try to find any way possible to convince people that they aren’t wrong!”

    Luckily this is blowing up in their faces. Hopefully this is just the merest beginning of science being restored to being science. We have seen MANY times in the past the damage done to the sciences and to society as a whole when science ceases to be science and becomes propaganda. Let’s hope this latest episode helps us to avoid at least some of the catastrophic outcomes that usually occur when science becomes corrupted by ideology!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    It took a while but this story has finally come out in the Sydney Morning Herald (linked). However while the SMH correctly reports that Gleick obtained documents by deception it doesn’t mention anything about the documents being fake. Interesting that professor David Karoly is quoted as saying the information about the funding used by Heartland should be out and available to the public. I wonder if he thinks Heartland’s funding compares with that received by his chosen field of research?
    What is obvious in all this is just like the reaction to Climategate I and II, the alarmist brigade are in full denial mode!

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-admits-ruse-that-exposed-institutes-climatechange-agenda-20120221-1tlv1.html#ixzz1n2WVV92G


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    “UPDATE: So when will DeSmog retract it’s false claim the documents came from “an insider”?”

    Never, they’re a PR firm supported by Big Green by proxy of Big Energy and they’ve been loosing readers by the month, so they’ve done the only thing extremists do when they’re loosing ground: taking the full leap into fundamentalism of martyrdom, after all that’s what they’re paid for to do at DeTalibanSmogblog. :p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    note Gleick’s Pacific Institute is partly funded by Soros and Soros involved elslewhere. no surprise:

    21 Feb: Newsbusters: Iris Somberg: Soros-Funded Group Admits Lying to Acquire Heartland Climate Documents
    Pacific Institute, the group that lied in order to obtain the documents, received $275,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2006…
    Politico reported that the left-leaning DeSmogBlog and Climate Progress were among the first sites to publish the materials on Feb. 14. They noted that Climate Progress is affiliated with the Center for American Progress (CAP), but did not point out that CAP received $7.3 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    is this up for an award for the most DISHONEST piece of post-gleick reporting so far? truly unbelievable:

    22 Feb: ABC: Sara Phillips: Why the Heartland scandal doesn’t matter
    Which bits are fake and which bits are real will probably never be fully revealed. Certainly Bob Carter, one of Australia’s most prominent climate sceptics has admitted working for the Institute. He is named in the documents as receiving $1,667 per month for the work…
    The documents were obtained by climate scientist and Huffington Post blogger Peter Gleick. He has admitted posing as a Heartland board member and asking for the documents to be resent to him to confirm the veracity of ones that came to him anonymously. As Andy Revkin has pointed out in the New York Times, despite the Heartland Institute representing climate science dishonestly, it does not excuse dishonesty in obtaining the documents.
    Gleick has admitted his shame in how he conducted himself.
    The exposé has been hailed by some as a kind of anti-climategate…
    But these memos and emails will not have the same impact on the world as those climategate emails for a couple reasons. The first is that they don’t purport to show anything that people didn’t expect. People always expected deniers to have funding sources, and guessed that it would likely be petroleum companies and the American right wing. Not many people expected scientists to misrepresent their science – and as it turns out, they didn’t.
    But also, we’re over it.
    The debate over whether or not the climate is changing is so 2010. In fact, it’s so 1992…
    The majority of Australians have absorbed this information and shifted their attention to more immediate concerns, such as how to address it…
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/22/3436126.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the deceit of the MSM knows no bounds:

    21 Feb: Washington Post Blog: Stephen Stromberg: Why Peter Gleick’s sting of the Heartland Institute hurts the climate change cause
    Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents.
    Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted Monday night that he dishonestly obtained fundraising and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank. In the process, he’s done more to discredit himself and his work than he has to expose cynicism and collusion among global-warming deniers…
    Taking the high road is not easy or fun. But Gleick and the rest of us who favor decarbonizing the world economy have to be, and should want to be, the adults in the debate. Gleick’s confession and apology Monday are more than climate scientists ever got from deniers for the overblown “Climategate” e-mail scandal. But it would have been far better if he hadn’t needed to provide either.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/stephen-stromberg/2011/02/24/ABUFa8O_page.html

    WaPo: Stephen Stromberg is a deputy editor on the PostOpinions staff and writes editorials on energy, climate change and other environmental issues. He first joined The Post in 2006, writing about homeland security and public health for the editorial page, before he spent 2007 and 2008 covering the presidential election and the Great Recession for The Economist. Stromberg rejoined The Post opinions section in 2009. He also wrote for Salon.com during the 2004 presidential election, and before that for the Los Angeles Times editorial column
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/stephen-stromberg/2011/02/24/ABUFa8O_page.html

    is it really possible this could be in WaPo? yes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    21 Feb: Mercury News: Dana Hull: Peter Gleick cancels plans to join the board of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education
    The National Center for Science Ecucation, a not-for-profit membership organization that defends the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools, had been looking forward to having Gleick serve on its board of directors; Gleick was scheduled to formally be installed on the board Saturday.
    But Gleick offered to withdraw from the board Monday, saying his presence would be a distraction. His offer was accepted.
    “I’m very sad, because I was so looking forward to working with Peter,” said NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott in an interview Tuesday. “He will continue to make an important contribution to climate science. This is a temporary setback. His abilities have not been challenged, but he has admitted to an ethical lapse. We will be seeking a board member of comparable status.”…
    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20011749

    “comparable status”!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lars P.

    Wow, can it be that all this CAGW scam is just a consequence of toxo?
    Self destroy wishes and lack of logic? Scary thought…
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/toxoplasmosis-could-that-latent-infection-affect-peoples-behavior/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    FT, hang your head in shame. if u read all of this, u will see they are completely misrepresenting every aspect of the story:

    21 Feb: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Climate expert admits to tricking institute
    A prominent proponent of the need for action on climate change has admitted he tricked a free market think tank into sending him a batch of its confidential fundraising and strategy papers that he leaked anonymously to journalists.
    Dr Peter Gleick, a water scientist and winner of a 2003 MacArthur Foundation “genius award”, said a “serious lapse” of his professional judgment and ethics led him to deceive the Chicago-based Heartland Institute into sending him budget and strategy papers earlier this year…
    This document, which is written in a different typeface to the other papers, outlines plans to develop a “global warming curriculum” for school classrooms showing “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”…
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bbada27c-5cb5-11e1-ac80-00144feabdc0.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    Someone’s been fly fishing, and caught a big one.

    Seems to be Gleick’s assertion of receiving documents anonymously in the mail is probably true. The authentic looking fake document, wrapped in the bait of the real funding documents. Gleick used his deceptive means to verify the funding docs, and assumed all were therefore good. Hook now well planted in gullet. The rest is history.

    Come in spinner. Maybe it is Alene Composta after all. She lives!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    MSM proprietors need to get rid of their CAGW hacks now. no wonder MSM has almost no credibility and are losing “customers”. Goldenberg’s piece is junk from start to finish. still have not found one article that even hints that Gleick’s so-called “confession” does not state he did not create the fake document. not one! how monolithic can the MSM get?

    21 Feb: UK Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists
    Scientist Peter Gleick apologises for ‘serious lapse in judgment and ethics’, but supporters say Heartland remains the villain
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate?newsfeed=true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and don’t for one moment imagine Fox News is reporting on this issue accurately. anyone reading this would still believe all the documents are from HI:

    21 Feb: Fox News: Chair of scientific ethics committee has ethical lapse
    Gleick — an internationally recognized hydroclimatologist and author of the respected annual report “The World’s Water” — said he received an anonymous document in the mail that tipped him off to what he described as Heartland’s efforts to muddy public understanding of climate science and policy. He released the documents to expose their efforts “to cast doubt on climate science.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/task-force-on-scientific-ethics-has-ethical-lapse/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Gleick’s “terrible twin” Zwick (LOL) is up and running with two pages of unadulterated nonsense:

    21 Feb: Forbes: Steve Zwick: Heroes And Zeroes: Why Gleick Was Right To Leak the Docs
    Noted hydroclimatologist and author Peter Gleick has spent his adult life measuring the impact of climate change on water resources. Last night, he took one for us all when he put his career in jeopardy by revealing that it was he who acquired and leaked documents to DeSmogBlog and others showing how the Heartland Institute – one of the loudest voices in the climate-change-denial choir – gets and spends its money.
    In so doing, he delivered a massive body blow to the denialsphere and moved the world closer to finding a solution to the climate-change challenge. That’s because his find exposes yet another piece of the denial machine that has been assembled over the past two decades to discredit legitimate climate science. It renders their utterances irrelevant, and provides yet more evidence that Heartland’s activities aren’t those of a charity, but of a PR agency acting on behalf of a few deep-pocketed paymasters who stand to lose if the world acts to mitigate climate change…
    Heartland only disputes the veracity of one memo – the one that came in the mail, and therefore can’t be traced through e-mail. All the other mails, however, support the most damaging evidence from the memos…
    Rather than try and hit these mind-weeds as they materialize, I have created what I’m calling a climate science book club, where we will examine a new wave of works which are designed with the general public in mind. These are books published by respected scientists like Michael Mann and Spencer Weart, or lifelong conservatives like John Reisman. I’ve chosen a few that are not only comprehensive, but well-written and easy to grasp, and will include a few that denialist posters suggested as well. By focusing on books instead of blogs, we will be limiting our discussion to well-structured treatises and, I hope, elevating this “debate” above the level of tit-for-tat sniping that the denialists have created.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe

    The story makes the Financial Times, of London
    Climate Expert Admits To Tricking Institute
    .
    scroll down to USA & Canada sub heading.
    The article requires registration, though basic registration is for free.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    btw google’s top gleick grouping has:

    “all 172 news articles »”

    click on that and u get ten links, most of which i’ve posted above. at the bottom of the ten, u get:

    “All 94 related articles »”

    click on that and u get:

    “No articles related to peter gleick were found”

    must keep the meme tight!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Bolt hasn’t written a word. his Tips page which has been up since last nite hasn’t published a single Tip.

    as for the endless gillard/rudd stories, who cares? as if there’s any difference between any of them. it’s the policies we care about.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Yeah, Bolt is getting a way behind the 8-ball and the long delays in getting up comments, if at all, are becoming rather tiresome. Gillard is so yesterday’s news … hast la vista, Juliar!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    sorry for all the postings, this is my last for now, and it’s the maddest of them all, no surprise when it’s Laden:

    21 Feb: Science Blog: Greg Laden: The Heartland Science Denial Documents and the Future of the Planet
    The best available evidence now suggests that the most damning of the “Heartland Documents” — the strategy memo which explicitly states that Heartland’s strategy is to interfere with good science education in order to advance their political agenda — is legitimate. The legitimacy of the document was being questioned because it was physically and stylistically different from the other documents with which it was released. We now know that the strategy memo was sent to climate scientist Peter Gleick and that Peter then took steps to acquire corraborating documents from Heartland (see “The Origin of the Heartland Documents.”) The “one of these things is not like the others” defense is now obviated….
    Had Peter Gleick obtained these documents using certain methods, and had he been a journalist, he would be up for a Pulitzer prize for investigative reporting. Had he obtained the corraborating evidence of Heartland’s unsavory strategies using a slightly different approach, he’d be fired by his editor. The thing is, Peter Gleick is not a journalist and it is absurd to hold him to “Journalistic Standards.” Peter is like the rest of us: He knows enough about the science, the politics, and the economics surrounding the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change to have been very frustrated with the mindless zombie-like hate filled denialist movement, bought and paid for by the corporations and individuals with the most to gain from ignoring the science, to have risked falling on his sword for the benefit of the next generation. Thank you Peter….
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/the_heartland_science_denial_d.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Laden isn’t real bright is he? Just because Gleick claims “the document” was sent to him in no way constitutes evidence that it came from HI. The longer this goes on the dumber they look.

      Wasn’t some moron MattB saying something about spin somewhere recently? Apparently he and his sort like to bring that up so often because they do it so often…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe

    What do you call a hydrologist that leaks :-?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    sorry folks, just one more:

    Richard Black has a new story up today:

    21 Feb: BBC: Richard Black: Airlines and tar sands proxy for bigger climate battles
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17112187

    from the first comments i’ve read; there are no doubt many more in the 124 so far saying similar:

    “I’m amazed, although perhaps I shouldn’t be. No mention of Peter Gleick?
    After your article sneering at the Fakegate farrago and all the glee over the ‘leaked documents’, have you no interest in the fact that Gleick has now confessed?
    At the very least some hearty condemnation would be appropriate although an apology on your part wouldn’t go amiss either.”

    “Continually censoring comments about Fakegate when it is the lead environmental story does not put the BBC in a good light. If Richard Black saw fit to comment on the original release of these stolen and fake documents then the BBC has a duty to report the latest news about who was the source and to correct its original report. An apology would be wise as well.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Magoo

    The comments in this article look quite interesting. Nobody’s buying the UCS whitewash:

    http://blog.ucsusa.org/gleicks-actions-dont-excuse-heartlands-anti-science-campaign


    Report this

    00

  • #
    fenbeagleblog

    Gleick rides forth upon his high horse, righting wrongs….

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    truly the final one:

    Bolt now has about 33 comments in his Tips page for today, and the page is so far down his blog by now, it might not get more. only two references to the Gleick story, tho Gleick’s name not in the comments. one comment is to desmogblog (with a critical comment) and the other is to thinkprogress blog (with a mocking comment about deniers)!!

    i cannot believe no-one has linked to WUWT or CA or Jo’s page. something’s wrong.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      the thing that is “wrong” is that this is of great interest to few but passing or little interest to many. There are not too many media outlets of any persuasion that would rank this story very high in comparison with other events.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry.

        It’s going to be wrong for AGW, Gee Aye. Little earthquakes are rocking the foundation of AGW. Because the foundations are so weak, it is only going to take a few more aftershocks to knock over AGW completely.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross James

    It does look like an unexpected outcome is beginning to filter out from the melt down courtesy of Pat’s searches for news.

    It looks like the following:

    1) despite the best attempts by Heartland to remove this stuff from the Internet the leaks show an organisation with very specialised donors for specific funding to OPPOSE.

    (Did you just come from Mars? The organization is an advocacy group,a THINK TANK of a particular philosophy to draw from.By the way it was NOT a leak it was STOLEN by trickery and fraud.Have you read anything about Dr. Gleick’s criminal behavior recently?) CTS

    2) the lobbying encompasses Universal Health, Fracking, Education of Climate in Schools, funding of alternative climate science that directly attacks the IPCCs credibility.

    (The IPCC is a GOVERNMENT panel that advocates a course of action based on their selective meta analysis science papers that are mostly composed of unverified modeling studies) CTS

    What anti-warmists – (those opposed to the evidence that radiative forcing of CO2 raises the climate temperature to levels that could place undue economic collapse on the global economy and population genocide) will have to understand is the following:

    Any money tagged to oppose a global community headed in a direction of the ACCEPTED mainstream science community numbering in the 10,000+ will be looked upon when coming from MINORITY groups as plain and simple: propaganda.

    Simple formula for all to learn:

    UNDISCLOSED DONORS of MONEY to OPPOSE IS OFTEN SIGHTED AS CORRUPTION REGARDLESS.

    (Where is the DeSMog list of all it’s funders and donors? Any anonymous ones there? We know WWF/Greenpeace/Sierra Club have anonymous donors too?) Jo

    Jo – you mentioned upper to 1.2 Degree Celsius of global warming as your understanding of climate change. This is in agreement with mainstream science however is the minimum now. Christy – a mildest climate scientist has upgraded his temperature (+) five times over the last 20 years in direct response to observed temperatures.
    EVEN FOX news placed emphasis on the money for comments rather then the confession of the person who came by them.

    (Yet Still you can’t find THAT single mystery paper that supports the IPCC…) Jo

    Despite those who wish differently here that such is not the case. It is well known despite the popularity of some less constructive web sites to mainstream science, the same are still looked as odd, often way off the mark, a novelty to journalists and helps create a sense of opposition to mainstream science that some sectors of the press love to get there paper circulations up. Nothing like a bun fight.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Ross,
      you say here:

      UNDISCLOSED DONORS of MONEY to OPPOSE IS OFTEN SIGHTED AS CORRUPTION REGARDLESS

      The Sierra Club took $25 Million from a Company whose major operation was the Fracking you so rail against.

      The only reason that came out is that they were caught out when it was discovered. The Sierra Club themselves did not disclose this, so that then makes this $25 Million an undisclosed donation.

      Why is what you call what one side does Corruption and yet what The Sierra Club did is OK by you.

      Might you explain that, Ross.

      Oh, and Ross, it’s cited, not sighted.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      So let me get this straight, along with the Sierra club slight-of-hand there’s the widely publicized $100 million Exxon Mobil give Stanford University over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.

      And BP Amoco Plc and Ford Motor Co. gave Princeton University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels (BP $15 million, Ford $5 million). The gift is part of a partnership between the companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change.

      But the evil Heartland Institute took $25,000 from the Koch Bros for, what was is it now? Oh yes, health research.

      What exactly has melted down here?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      ‘Nothing like a bun fight.’

      Can you please go back under the rock, Ross. You are a unethical deceiver, like that criminal Gleick. He started this Bun Fight you want to blame everybody else for. Why would you be so biased about it. Oh, That’s right, you are a fighter for the ’cause’.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Magoo

    A great little movie of an interview with ‘Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization’:

    http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    “That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).” (From Revkin)

    And I am finding it hard not to hold back my tears.

    This is a potential boomerang for the warmists, but maybe nothing more. Any “news” services which have exploited the faked e-mail will, I trust, have no option but to reveal its true nature. That’s better than nothing. I just searched the website of the UK Daily Telegraph, home of the polemical and witty James Delingpole, but also to warmist Geoffrey Lean and Louise Gray. As far as I know, Delingpole’s DT writings only ever appear on-line, although he gets into print in the (lower circulation, higher brow) Spectator from the same stable. Lean and Gray are published by the DT in both media and Lean has a blog, too. In fact, even warmist bloggers outnumber sceptics at the DT. My point is that the DT, well lawyered-up, no doubt, never, as far as I know, printed the Heartland story, so now its warmist scribes have no need to back down, or mention the contretemps at all. As far as I can see from a search of the website, James Delingpole is the only DT writer to have referred to this business. For all of the blogs and one or two newspapers which rashly splurged on this “story”, most remained reticent and will continue, I fear, to do so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    Hi CTS,

    The dispute is over the unseen unverified large POSITIVE feedbacks that the warmists is constantly on the prowl for.

    Yes it is. A list of positive feedbacks:

    http://www.azimuthproject.org This is a good web site on this subject.

    (You failed to post the science papers that we wanted not a website for us to search for it in) CTS

    It has been over 15 years of searching and too bad for them it is never found.

    That is simply an untruth. For you to say is undermine the very statement that Jo willingly mentioned – up to 1.2 degree Celsius.

    (You did not post a counterpoint to my statement therefore it is still unchallenged) CTS

    (You also exposed your ignorance of a proposed dual effect that CO2 is supposed to have on the climate.Jo was talking about the CO2 molecules itself (Logarithmic curve of CO2) which is not disputed by skeptics or warmists while a second effect is the POSITIVE feed backs the one that was supposed to cause a run away warming trend to our doom) CTS

    Meanwhile there have been a number of published science papers by Dr. Spenser et al alone who show undeniable empirically based NEGATIVE feedbacks being a dominant feature in the planets climate)

    So you know and can be better informed along with others here who deny that even CO2 forcing even exists:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/ [Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”]

    (The link you posted does not support Positive feed backs at all.It was about whether CO2 can be a greenhouse gas or not.Dr. Spenser published several science papers and blog presentations that empirically show that NEGATIVE feed backs does exist.He posted it in the same blog you posted a link from) CTS

    (Here is one reference from his blog Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans) CTS

    So CTS there is very good sound reasoning behind my leading you to understand that much of what goes around is very bad science that rolls around like loose marbles in the blogspheres.

    (No what you did is to convince me that you are irrational and illogical) CTS

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      Sorry to bud in CTS.

      Ross, don’t ever expect a critical mind to enter a site that has a heading that goes like;
      ‘an international collaboration to create a focal point for scientists and engineers interested in saving the planet.’
      Wood for trees is just another biased greenie site. interested in saving the planet from what, mankind?

      Ross, you have recommended viewers to visit Roy Spencer, I recommend the viewers have a look at the comments of the following link where Roy’s gets science on ‘backradiation’ gets trashed.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/

      there is very good sound reasoning behind my leading you to understand that much of what goes around head is very bad science that rolls around like loose marbles.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      (You failed to post the science papers that we wanted not a website for us to search for it in) CTS

      That’s because there ARE NO papers on CO2 “positive feedback”.

      A site search on “positive feedback” returned eleven documents, all of which are articles. These articles, in turn, contained the following mentions of “positive feedback”. First, their own definition:

      A feedback is said to be positive if warming leads to further warming, and cooling to further cooling. Otherwise it is said to be negative.

      Not really correct in a scientific sense, but let’s run with it. It is followed in another article with this gem:

      Since a higher albedo results in a lower temperature for the Earth, you may wonder what happens when there is more snow and ice? This results in a lower absorption, which leads to less heat, which results in even more snow and ice. This is an example of positive feedback, which is a reaction that strengthens the process that caused the reaction.

      Quite apart from the fact that it doesn’t even actually really fit their own tortured definition of a “positive feedback”, it ISN’T an example of one anyway.

      The only other information offered in the quote is a link to the Wikipedia entry on “positive feedback”.

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

      Buried in yet another article is this quote from the British MeT Office:

      Clouds could create positive or negative climate feedbacks and are an ongoing area of research. One example is low-level clouds, especially stratocumulus, which help reflect sunlight and keep the Earth cool. The more stratocumulus we get over the planet, the more cooling effect. If our warming climate creates more low cloud, this would be a negative feedback — helping to offset the heating by reflecting more sunlight away from Earth. If our current climate change means there will be less low cloud overall, then this would be a positive feedback — contributing further to the warming by allowing more sunlight in.

      At least the MeT have the good grace to admit that the overall effect of clouds “could be” positive or negative. No such doubt at the website offered by Ross, however. Three times (that I found), the above quote is subtly altered to remove the “doubt” factor. Example:

      Clouds create both positive and negative feedbacks. For example, low-level clouds, such as stratocumulus, reflect significant amounts of solar radiation. If our warming climate creates more low clouds, this would give a negative feedback. But if makes there be fewer low clouds, there would be a positive feedback. To complicate the situation further, clouds can also keep infrared radiation from leaving the Earth’s atmosphere.

      And that’s it folks. Nothing on CO2 induced “positive feedback” that I could find.

      This is the first I have gone at looked at one of Ross’ links. Are they all such EPIC FAILS?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Ross, it sounds like you’ve just gotten into the climate change thing. Isn’t it fun. Tell me, what data will falsify the CAGW hypothesis? You know, Karl Popper and all that…

      Also, can you please name a single published, peer reviewed scientific paper that explains the CAGW hypothesis? Thanks champ.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    I just took a look at the Desomogblog propaganda site. They have decided to dig themselves in deeper!

    News flash: when you find yourself in a hole stop digging! It sort of reminds me of the Nazi war criminals that were convicted for war crimes relating to the atrocities that were committed at the Belsen concentration camp during WW2. The night before their executions, they maintained a stoic attitude and sang patriotic songs. Still, it didn’t prevent that sudden jerk at the end of a rope they all experienced the next day!

    The fools at Desogblog should remember these words, “Irma Grese, please step forward.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Owen Morgan -
    u have nailed the problem. MSM is one hundred percent behind the CAGW scam. here and there, someone, preferably a polarising person from the right, is allowed to have a sceptical CAGW BLOG. they rarely get their sceptical pieces published in the printed paper.

    look at the coverage of Gleick. the MSM is obfuscating every aspect of the story. senior “journos” have been put on the story and yet those commenting can’t make head or tail out of the reporting. many ask what’s the problem if ALL the material came from HI. how sick is the MSM?

    if we do not want to allow carbon dioxide to be COMMODIFIED, creating the biggest,baddest, maddest financial bubble of all time, we need to forget partisan politics and start sending the pollies letters (better than emails) refusing to give our consent to the greatest financial scam in history. do not allow the “journos” to divide us along partisan lines. the australian public do not want a carbon tax and they do not want an ETS. turn this 400,000 into a million this time and warn all Political Parties that the public will not stand by and allow this nonsense to proceed:

    3 Dec: SMH: Paul Sheehan: The Liberal base had already voted
    Malcolm Turnbull had long languished in the opinion polls, but now his party’s grassroots had mobilised against him. ”I have never seen anything like it,” said Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells when I called to ask why she publicly abandoned Turnbull’s leadership on Friday. By yesterday afternoon her office had logged almost 8000 emails and calls opposing the proposed emissions trading scheme…
    By my rough estimate, more than 400,000 such emails and calls have been sent to the 99 federal Coalition members over the past two months.
    It is an estimate Senator Cory Bernardi, from South Australia, thinks is conservative.
    Fierravanti-Wells sent me a representative sample of the voluminous, vehement messages, such as this:
    ”As long-term Liberal voters, we are deeply concerned about recent events; it seems utter lunacy to push through the ETS right now … We can no longer vote for the Liberal Party if Malcolm Turnbull remains as leader.”…
    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-liberal-base-had-already-voted-20091201-k3pr.html#ixzz1n4zQat8K
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-liberal-base-had-already-voted-20091201-k3pr.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    re the article by Megan McArdle, senior editor for The Atlantic:

    Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

    after reading the piece, in one sense, you could say at least McArdle includes more detail than the rest of the MSM.

    she includes the email sent out by Gleick initially, which she says was sent to a “bunch of climate bloggers”.
    it begins:
    “Dear Friends (15 of you):”

    McArdle: “Some of the climate bloggers are praising Gleick for coming forward, and complaining that this is distracting from the real story. And I agree that it’s a pity that this is distracting from the important question about how fast the climate is warming, and what we should do about it.”

    in the end, though, McArdle’s piece is so garbled, u cannot blame the first person to comment who states:

    comment by nellcote: “So at the end of the day the original Heartland docs are genuine, confirmed by their own mailing. I don’t understand why Gleick even apologized.”

    this is precisely what is wrong with all the coverage.

    for starters, who are the 15 who initially received Gleick’s poisoned email? methinks they were not ALL bloggers.

    given it was the style of the forged document that caused Mosh to finger Gleick, why does McArdle go to great lengths to analyse it as something Gleick received anonymously?

    why the headline, McArdle, which says the documents are from Heartland, when your own piece will contradict this? this has been a uniform tactic of ALL MSM coverage.

    as for the WSJ interview with Joseph Bast of Heartland, why isn’t this in the printed version of WSJ? not too many people bother to check out WSJ videos online.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #

      ^ This.

      Essential reading for anyone interseted in the subjects of ethics and critical thinking. Another classic example by our good friend Steven on how personal dogma can destroy your professional reputation. It would be unfair to label the article as doublespeak. I think it more appropriate to coin the term triplespeak.

      Philosophers talk about the “dirty hands” problem: are lies OK in the pursuit of truth?

      Priceless!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Apologies if this has already been posted – if so I missed it. The Heartland Institute has created a new website:

    http://fakegate.org/

    I’ve emailed congratulating them and suggesting they add this site and ACM to their blogroll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    OT

    have justheard kevin 07 has just resigned. Ditched the lot.

    Game on ladies and gents, game on!!!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      He ha sditched his post… not his seat… yet:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kevin-rudd-quits-as-foreign-minister/story-fn59niix-1226278546981

      It does put an axe over the current Government if he does resign. They would lose majority and if the by-election went to lib/nat it would be game over for the Rainbow Coalition. I guess all will be revealed on Friday in another teary speech.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Madjak

        Credit where credit is due. He has done the honourable thing by not lowering himself to guilleards level.

        If he thinks the alp is gonna change he’s dreaming. I think he’ll start his own party. And I think it will probably do well.

        He sure has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the faceless ones and their selfish, petty and obscene behavior.

        Talk about jumping the shark!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Winston

        Game on! Rudd has jumped before being pushed at the upcoming Caucus meeting and will hang his seat like the sword of Damocles over Gillard’s head until she is screaming for mercy. If she thought he was dangerous as foreign minister, he is even more of a threat from the back bench, and he can always just resign if that doesn’t work and do her in that way- for him it is Win-Win, for her any way you slice it she is a shot duck, and good riddance.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Cookster

          Yep, in moving to the backbenches Rudd is following the exact same path used by Paul Keating prior to taking the leadership from then PM Bob Hawke. However I’m not sure what effect, if any, a change of Leadership to Rudd might have on the Carbon Tax set to commence on July 1.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Juliar

    Come on Quintein Bryce, double dissolution and an election.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Let’s not go through all this again.

      The Governor General can only call a double dissolution of both Houses under very narrow, very specific circumstances as defined in the Constitution.

      Regardless of how this pans out, it is not one of those times.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        Yes I know how a double dissolution works as I have studied it at tertiary level and that is what I am wanting in the near future because it is likely that Independents and Rudd could cross the floor which results in the ALP to not be able to pass bills.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Sorry Juliar,

          But your explanation DOESN’T give rise to a double dissolution.

          A bill has to PASS the House of Representatives and THEN get knocked back by the Senate, TWICE, before the double dissolution comes into play.

          The Independents and Rudd, and or anybody else can cross the floor and vote against bills until the cows come home, and it won’t lead to a double dissolution. In fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.

          The House of Representatives (Lower House) has to PASS the legislation, and then have it knocked back – TWICE – in the Senate – before it leads to a DD.

          All of the “numbers game” woes currently exist in the House of Representatives. The Greens control the Senate by a comfortable margin.

          So I repeat, NOTHING that is currently happening (in the Lower House) is likely to give rise to a DD.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        The GG can dismiss the Reps. Immediately.

        An election is then inevitable and within a short period.
        If the Senate subsequently blocks crucial legislation, then the PM can go to the GG and request a DD.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Juliar

    The ALP is finished. Who would possibly consider them as an option to vote for?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      YAAAAAAAY!!

      We can get rid of Gillard and the ALP and their “derdy carbon” reducing climate change policy, and replace them with, er, Tony Abbott and the Liberals and their er, “dirty carbon” reducing climate change policy.

      One insignificant shuffle in Australian politics, one giant leap for spelling and pronunciation.

      Meanwhile, The Goracle’s “Inconvenient Truth” will continue to be screened three times a day at a school near you.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        I understand what you say there, MV, and respect your opinion immensely, but you have to admit that the only politician in Oz to actually state his partial skepticism of the climate science paradigm is Abbott. He professed to understand that the MWP, RWP and the LIA were a reality (sorry don’t have the link) and while he stated that the “climate science debate” was crap, he would have had to be an utter moron to argue that the CSIRO and the Climate Change Department were incorrect by denigrating their credentials as the supposed experts in the field. Even if his personal opinion was that the whole thing was a total scam and he was keen to sink it, then the only smart thing to do would be to keep that belief and plan of action well and truly under his hat, rather than giving free ammunition to Labor to shoot at him from a position of moral superiority (especially a long way out from an election), when they are clearly doing a brilliant job of killing themselves off and he doesn’t even need to fire a shot to see them into probable oblivion. In the absence of any other option, I believe a vote for anyone else may as well be a vote for Labor, who are steadfastly within the cult in their thinking and unshakeable in their faith and big government, anti-industry ideology. One step at a time, get the Carbon tax off the table (he has promised that centrally) and then barrage Tony with letters asking for a Royal Commission into Climate Science and the role of the BOM and CSIRO. If he can be convinced that this will save him a bucket of money being pissed up against a wall on a lie to make our industries uncompetitive and unprofitable, I’m sure he is a pragmatist at heart and he will look to prune expenses anywhere he can and it will be an attractive option for him. If he has a landslide majority, he could look to settle some scores with the ABC and insist on it reflecting the broader population, not just their own opinions and beliefs. We’ve been chipping away at the edifice piece by piece, it is not time to back out now. If Tony won’t play ball, the he will get his marching orders too.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Good reading W.

          :)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          Abbott has had a bit of an education in logical thinking (philosophy at Oxford etc), which one would hope also includes a view of industrial history and the vital importance of a cheap energy source like coal in an economy such as ours. In fact last year I heard him in a televised “town hall” debate in Queensland, when questioned by an agitated alarmist from the audience, state that we would be using coal fired power at least to the end of this century. The impression he gave was of a full steam ahead approach.

          When semi-educated ex-union officials like Gillard and Combet say things like that, and they do, it is to appease the workers, when in fact, along with Rudd they are deeply committed to green energy policies, UN style, and the phasing out of fossil fuel use in Australia.

          Semi-educated because they haven’t got a clue that the implementation of such policies is the fastest road to national economic ruin.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Sorry Winston, but you are wrong on so many counts it’s hard to know where to start. Maybe I’ll just work through your post from the top. Please note that nothing below is an endorsement of any of the named politicians – I wouldn’t give you two bob for the lot of them in a chook raffle:

          . . . you have to admit that the only politician in Oz to actually state his partial skepticism of the climate science paradigm is Abbott.

          Wrong.

          Tony Abbott is the only conservative politician to state his “partial” skepticism; sort-of true, but he has never uttered one word of “skepticism” that he hasn’t subsequently backed-down from, including his famous “crap” comment.

          Conversely, sitting in the Senate is Barnaby Joyce who has only ever expressed total and complete “skepticism” about CAGW. Far from giving him a voice, the LIBS, NATS and the LNP have for years been doing everything within their power to silence him.

          Even more to the point, in the House of Representatives the Libs have Dr Dennis Jensen, the ONLY sitting member of parliament with any sort of relevant scientific qualification. Dr Jensen is a total skeptic too. Is he perchance the opposition spokesman on the environment? Not on your nelly. That position is reserved for Greg Hunt, who is a bigger, more committed watermelon than many sitting Labor members.

          Here is a link to Dr Dennis Jensen on the Andrew Bolt show, working overtime to avoid having to admit his views hold no water in the Liberal Party because it is full of watermelons.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X4hMzNFZ1U

          . . . he would have had to be an utter moron to argue that the CSIRO and the Climate Change Department were incorrect by denigrating their credentials as the supposed experts in the field.

          Why? Do you honestly believe there is a possible “conservative” voter left in Australia who actually still accepts the crap put out by these bodies (and the BOM)? Not a week goes by that at least one of these organisations puts out a paper or a press release that a reasonably well-informed junior high school student couldn’t rebut to the point of ridicule. Dr Jensen could be having a field day (and I suspect wants to) but is deliberately constrained by the Liberal Party.

          Even if his personal opinion was that the whole thing was a total scam and he was keen to sink it, then the only smart thing to do would be to keep that belief and plan of action well and truly under his hat,

          If true (and I have my doubts), from the electorate’s point of view this is simply the Gillard “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”, but reversed. The electorate has never, and will never, forgive Gillard her subterfuge. You really think it will work out otherwise for Abbott?

          One step at a time, get the Carbon tax off the table (he has promised that centrally) . . .

          Yes, Abbott has promised that. But not the Liberal Party. Abbott is not the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party STILL have as their official, written platform a “carbon reduction” policy, a “climate change” policy, and an “Emissions reduction” policy that includes an emissions (carbon) trading scheme.

          We’ve been chipping away at the edifice piece by piece, it is not time to back out now.

          If by “we” you mean us ordinary, taxpaying, conservative Australians, then I would agree with you. If, however you are including the LIBS, NATS or LNP, then I would desperately love you to quote an example. Doesn’t even have to be a whole chip. I’ll settle for a flake.

          If Tony won’t play ball, the he will get his marching orders too.

          Enter, stage right, Malcolm Turnbull.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Winston

            MV- I’m sorry but you are right about Barnaby, mea culpa- I actually meant amongst those with leadership aspirations, but it was remiss of me not to include him. I note Abbott keeps Barnaby very close by, uses him to in some ways say what he is reluctant to say for want of painting a target on himself, and Abbott seems to be on a similar page to Barnaby in a lot of things. Malcolm Turnbull is merely tolerated by Libs, I believe, who only defer to him because of fear of poking the snake- I think the Libs know he is electoral poison among conservatives- any who have read conservative blogs know he is hated often more than Gillard and co (note: post #94 above by Pat, which I think scotches that notion)- he’s history and his party should kick him out prior to the next election- he is baggage they can do without!
            By “we” I do mean hard working conservative protestors who are determined to highlight the hijacking of our nation by zealots, I’m not remotely a member of the Libs, in spite of my nom de plume (more Orwell than Howard or Churchill)- voted for Don Chip and Bob Hawke initially, before turning to the “dark side”, Lol! Abbott hasn’t promised anything re Carbon reduction and is not obligated to that agenda, IMO, and surely he is allowed to do so at the next election, not before so his arguments can be white-anted by his opponents. As you know, it’s not just the conservative voters Abbott has to convince, it is the swinging and undecided voters that decide elections and he wants them onside, not swayed by spin doctors for Labor spreading a campaign of character assassination. Just look how they’ve attacked him for merely being in opposition. They will latch onto any leverage point if you give them one!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Well, four thumbs down for stating what is demonstrably true and is known as such deep down in everybody’s hearts.

            1) – Tony Abbott has never made a comment skeptical of “climate change” he didn’t subsequently back down on.

            2) – Dr Dennis Jensen, and Barnaby Joyce are the only two Australian politicians who have been steadfast in their opposition to the insanity of “climate change science”, and both have been largely silenced on the subject by their respective parties.

            3) – Despite the fact that most Australian conservative voters now see the CSIRO, The Department of Climate Change, the BOM, AND the ABC for that matter, as departments corrupted by the CAGW insanity, the LIBS, NATS and LNP continue to protect and nurture them with their “cone of silence” approach to their “scientific” announcements.

            4) – Despite continually expressing outrage at Gillard’s “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” lie, a substantial number of readers here are happy to see Abbott win an election employing exactly the same kind of lying to the electorate.

            5) – People here actually unconditionally believe a single politician’s verbal promises, despite the fact that the politician’s own party has specific, written policies in place that contradict those promises.

            6) – People who have worked very hard to “chip away” at the lies and conceits of CAGW “theory” are now prepared to stand back and let a bunch of politicians take all the credit, even though said politicians actually SUPPORT CAGW “theory”.

            7) – All faith is placed in the on again, off again assurances of one single politician, when a replacement for him – somebody much more amenable to the international banks that ultimately finance the Liberal Party – sits patiently in the wings waiting for Abbott to make one single blunder.

            Good luck with all that. Meanwhile -

            8 – “An Inconvenient Truth” CONTINUES to be screened three times a day as gospel truth at a school near you, with not a murmur of dissent from the LIB NAT LNP ranks.

            Time to take my own advice to the trolls and quit while I’m behind.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            MV
            I hope you are not correct, but I would be the last person to try to dissuade you from your belief. You may well be proven right in time. I do think, however, that Abbott has been unfairly vilified primarily because he is a man’s man, completely anathema to the metrosexual revolution which derides such masculine role models in favor of gender neutral males of the wet blanket variety. He is a surf lifesaver and volunteer fireman, prepared to muck out toilets in the course of doing so. Has there EVER been a previous PM of this country in modern times so lacking in arrogance as to do that. Perhaps my character assessment is misplaced, in which case I’ll happily fall on my sword as penance. But, I feel he has been strategic in representing his opinion, and would have been stupid to be otherwise. If he reneges, then I’ll never vote Liberal again.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Cookster

            Malcolm Turnbull is not and never will be the solution. He me too’d to Kevin Rudd’s ETS. As soon as Abbott took control the conservatives went from no hope to short priced favourites. I think you underestimate the influence on the Australian political landscape of the Canberra Press gallery and the wider MSM. We all know journalists are generally pro AGW so Abbott needs to tread carefully to remain a creditable alternative otherwise the sheer weight of rage from the MSM will paint Abbott as Extremist and the average politically apathetic Australians don’t vote for extremists. This is why Abbott does not go the Barnarby Joyce route. Joyce can take this position as he is not the leader and Abbott can use him to attract sceptics but apparently not yourself.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Posted this Reply to Seven Mosher at CA Feb 22, 2012 at 1:58 AM :-

    Whoever wrote the memo (or part of it) knew the language of communications. I googled this part sentence from it (sans quotes):-

    Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences

    After the first quotes from the memo, at about page 5 the search turned up ‘Communication Foundations and Analysis’ Part 1 Chapter 4:-

    Planning Written and Spoken Messages

    http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0324587902_143597.pdf

    The words: cultivating; neutral; voices; audiences; and, audience’s occur frequently.

    Wouldn’t this point to someone like Richard Littlemore rather than Gleick?

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-confesses/#comment-325301


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Compare this:-

      “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences” – fake memo.

      With this:-

      “You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message” – a real memo.

      The first is the PR language of ‘Planning Written and Spoken Messages’ (previous comment above) of which James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog are exponents.

      The second is a memo by Frank Luntz. Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz. Luntz was an expert on the use of language – he wrote the book “Words That Work”. Luntz’s memo outlined a strategy on the environment for the Republican party. This is part of his advice on global warming (pages 137–138 of the memo):-

      http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/pr-versus-science-the-luntz-memo/

      http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

      Hoggan cites the memo here:-

      http://desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

      Littlemore cites the memo here:-

      http://www.prairiedogmag.com/archive/?id=76

      Deduce what you will, but I suppose that could be nothing.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Luntz memo:-

        “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community……..Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate (page 137)

        “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming” (page 142)

        Fake memo:-

        “….the topic of climate change is controversial and
        uncertain” (page 1)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    • #
      Mark D.

      Squizzy? you people from OZ sure do have some interesting words.

      Good link though and an example of real science being followed. I wonder if our Ross James will comment on the analysis presented from your link


      Report this

      00

  • #
    • #
      Truthseeker

      Sliggy, when I voted, over 63800 people had voted on the “election now” poll and the vote was running at over 82% for yes (election now) to less that 18% (no) thats almost 6 to 1 for an election now.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    Why are the alarmist windsocks defending Gleik?
    Rather than defend the allegations that he fabricated the policy document they should be setting him up as “one bad egg”.

    Surely a crime committed by one person is much less damaging to “the cause” than a criminal joint venture involving at least one another cLIEmate scientist?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Ross seems to think that it is just AWFUL that there is a privately funded group that “attempts to discredit the IPCC”.

    1. I believe that there SHOULD be at least one (and preferably many) groups trying to discredit the IPCC. One of the goals of life should be to discredit people who claim they are right but are clearly wrong, and their insistence on “rightness” is going to cost the globe TRILLIONS!

    2. The IPCC does a pretty darn good job of DISCREDITING ITSELF, along with the Hadley CRU, CSIRO, the Australian BOM, and others I could mention, but if a paltry amount of funding to a private think-tank can help the process along, then that is all to the good.

    We live in sad times, scientifically speaking. 100 years from now, scientists are going to look back at this era and compare “climate science” to “phlogiston theory” and they will probably (correctly) discern that phlogiston theory had more merit than much of what passes for “climate science” these days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott Severin

    Ross James is (Snipped for unnecessary comment) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    PeterB, I agree with Ross then, “Ross seems to think that it is just AWFUL that there is a privately funded group that “attempts to discredit the IPCC”.”

    It is awful that it’s left to a privately funded group to try to match the excessive one-sided government funds. The government(s) ought to set up agencies to audit the IPCC, their citizens deserve to know that IPCC conclusions are robust and that local scientists are paid to find holes in them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    The case could turn nasty. Heartland wants Gleick penalized, even jailed. Gleick, his career in tatters, wants to take Heartland down by outing its wealthy anonymous donor and probing ties to supportive lawmakers.

    Glieck’s lawyer John Keker says:
    John Keker, “Heartland no doubt will seek to exploit Dr. Gleick’s admitted lapse in judgement in order to further its agenda in the ongoing debate about climate change, but if it wants to pursue this matter legally, it will learn that our legal system provides for a level playing field.” Keker added, “Dr. Gleick looks forward to using discovery to understand more about the veracity of the documents, lay bare the implications of Heartland’s propaganda plans and, in particular, determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.”

    The blokes on the ropes and he thinks he is going to get some sort of discovery as well as attack lawmakers. Gliecks’ lawyer is a dumb as he is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    Only a Gleick head would do what Glieck did.


    Report this

    00