1 of 3
1
IPCC advocate and scientist, ethics expert Peter Gleick snares himself
Posted: 05 March 2012 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/

The man needs serious help.
The only thing he uncovered with this impersonation and then the theft, is that a privately funded think tank spends a small sum on pushing it’s agenda.
This was already public knowledge.
Peter got caught and admitted the theft because he was almost instantly recognized in the writing style of the fake “internal memo” he attached when sending, which gave a juicy slant.

From the article

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.  Gleick frequently led the charge to shift the debate away from science, which he claimed was settled and unassailable, to the funding and motives of his critics.  Note that with this action, Gleick has essentially said that the way to get a more rational debate on climate, which he often says is his number one goal, was not to simplify or better present the scientific arguments but to steal and publish details on a think tank’s donors.

Gleick’s significant ethical lapse should be a warning.  When we convince ourselves that those who disagree with us are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but are instead driven by evil intentions and nefarious sources of funding, then it becomes easier to convince oneself that the ends justify the means. 

How true.
Peter had just been offered a chance to talk at Heartland, expenses paid, with a donation to his charity of choice. He declined, and immediately began his operation, instead.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 07:21 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

Huh?

Why is this news?

There’s nothing in there that we don’t already know. Gleick has been public about exactly how he got the documents right from the beginning.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 10:29 AM by TromboneAndrew ]
 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
TromboneAndrew - 05 March 2012 10:25 AM

Huh?

Why is this news?

There’s nothing in there that we don’t already know.

Ethics Expert who has lectured The Senate admits impersonating a past senator in order to steal private documents and expose the private details of donors…. Are you suggesting that I should know that you know this already ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
TromboneAndrew - 05 March 2012 10:25 AM

Huh?

Why is this news?

There’s nothing in there that we don’t already know. Gleick has been public about exactly how he got the documents right from the beginning.

When he impersonated..at that beginning ? Or some “other” beginning ? -  As in when he was ID’d out of all the people on earth as the probable writer of the forgery…by sheer luck… ! 

Public from “the beginning” in that way ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

I’m sorry if I’m a bit short with you on this. It’s just that I’m pertty sure that we already have a thread dedicated to thus stuff on here already.

And, yes, to all questions above, except that it isn’t established yet just who the forger of that one document was. As if that invalidates the legitimacy of all of the others, which it does not.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2010-08-15
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 07:10 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/

The man needs serious help.
The only thing he uncovered with this impersonation and then the theft, is that a privately funded think tank spends a small sum on pushing it’s agenda.
This was already public knowledge.
Peter got caught and admitted the theft because he was almost instantly recognized in the writing style of the fake “internal memo” he attached when sending, which gave a juicy slant.

You don’t think the thing about The Anonymous Donor was pretty telling?
The Anonymous Donor something like over eight million bucks from one individual to underwrite Heartland Institute.  One extremist with deep pockets can be instrumental in establishing a lobby organization dedicated to stonewalling our nation’s learning process.

I find it appalling.

To these Heartland Institutes and it’s more focused backers such as The Anonymous Donor it’s a war, give no quarter. 

Heartland Institute repeatedly shows itself to be a huge lobby effort that is not interested in learning what science has to offer. Only in forestalling recognition of the seriousness of what modern science is finding out about this planet, it’s atmosphere and climate… you know the stuff we depend on.
~ ~ ~

FC - why do you believe Heartland Institute is the good guys in this?

Good guys for whom?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 04:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
TromboneAndrew - 05 March 2012 10:09 PM

I’m sorry if I’m a bit short with you on this. It’s just that I’m pertty sure that we already have a thread dedicated to thus stuff on here already.

And, yes, to all questions above, except that it isn’t established yet just who the forger of that one document was. As if that invalidates the legitimacy of all of the others, which it does not.

How could the answer to “Was he ‘public’ since the beginning of his operation to impersonate and then steal, or was he public since he got caught ?”, be the same answer ?
Obviously , it cannot be “yes” to both.

Peter did not actually deny being the author of the forged document. He chose to carefully babble in circumlocution, while pretending to cover the topic, thus offering a further dishonest presentation within his partial admission.
He has not admitted writing the forgery, and has not denied it. Check this yourself.
He was first publically ID’d as the probable forger he was not ID’d as the thief.  : )  So to believe he is not pegged AS THE FORGER, is plain funny.

IOW, He got named and then made the damning admissions after being linked…to…the thing…he did NOT do.

Yes ???

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 06:05 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 05 March 2012 10:32 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 07:10 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/

The man needs serious help.
The only thing he uncovered with this impersonation and then the theft, is that a privately funded think tank spends a small sum on pushing it’s agenda.
This was already public knowledge.
Peter got caught and admitted the theft because he was almost instantly recognized in the writing style of the fake “internal memo” he attached when sending, which gave a juicy slant.

You don’t think the thing about The Anonymous Donor was pretty telling?

“Pretty telling” is “pretty vague”, and ominous sounding. What do you mean ?

The Anonymous Donor something like over eight million bucks from one individual to underwrite Heartland Institute.

That is peanuts to a wealthy individual person, yes, and fairly small compared to the bankrolls of some opposing groups. It’s neither surprising to me nor scandalous.

One extremist with deep pockets

Now the donor is being painted as an extremist, although no evidence was given. That seems wrong to do

I find it appalling.

To these Heartland Institutes and it’s more focused backers such as The Anonymous Donor it’s a war, give no quarter. 

Heartland Institute repeatedly shows itself to be a huge lobby effort that is not interested in learning what science has to offer. Only in forestalling recognition of the seriousness of what modern science is finding out about this planet, it’s atmosphere and climate… you know the stuff we depend on.
~ ~ ~

FC - why do you believe Heartland Institute is the good guys in this?

Good guys for whom?

I have no idea why you immediately begin to misrepresent what I said. I did not indicate that Heartland is the good guys and their opposition is the bad guys. Let’s be clear right now about your rhetoric. 

To illustrate this point, citizenschallenge, I will refer back to my comment about the article as I posted it :

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.  Gleick frequently led the charge to shift the debate away from science, which he claimed was settled and unassailable, to the funding and motives of his critics.  Note that with this action, Gleick has essentially said that the way to get a more rational debate on climate, which he often says is his number one goal, was not to simplify or better present the scientific arguments but to steal and publish details on a think tank’s donors.

  Gleick’s significant ethical lapse should be a warning.  When we convince ourselves that those who disagree with us are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but are instead driven by evil intentions and nefarious sources of funding, then it becomes easier to convince oneself that the ends justify the means.

How true

To repeat once more for you, citizenschallenge:

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.

Clear enough ?

Thank you

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 06:33 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

Ah, I was apparently wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents

Gleick ‘came out’ a week after he leaked the documents.

And some info on the contents:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack

and the consequences for Gleick:

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml

On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.

Okay, that info dug up, what exactly is your point? Are you doing yet another attack on Gleick (justified or not) or is there some other point you want to bring up? For example, do you think that climate change is happening or not? After all, that’s what this whole schebang is about.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
TromboneAndrew - 06 March 2012 10:00 AM

Ah, I was apparently wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents

Gleick ‘came out’ a week after he leaked the documents.

And some info on the contents:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack

and the consequences for Gleick:

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml

On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.

Okay, that info dug up, what exactly is your point? Are you doing yet another attack on Gleick (justified or not) or is there some other point you want to bring up? For example, do you think that climate change is happening or not? After all, that’s what this whole schebang is about.

This “whole shebang” is not about climate change real vs not real or anything about that stuff. It’s it’s about a public figure whose tricks and lies vs. his lectures on ethics, are of interest - and perhaps exposing a few facts about the case to those only familiar with what is presented by venues such as The Guardian.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

As an example: The Guardian presents events like this :
Guardian:

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

Reality: He did not use a false name, that is, a fictitious name in the way it might most commonly be thought of.

He apparently used the ID of a real person, to gain control of the documents. The account being hijacked was that of a former US Senator.

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 10:48 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

More from The Guardian

Gleick, a well regarded water scientist, has been an important figure in the increasingly heated climate wars, and has sparred often in print against Heartland and others who deny the existence of climate change, such as the Republican Senator Jim Inhofe.

Last month, Gleick signed on with a new initiative to defend the teaching of climate change.

He offered that bruising experience on Monday as an explanation for his actions.

Reality: The most obviously burning or bruising public incidents he has sustained in recent months comes from other climate scientists calling him out, and then Heartland’s guy ripping into his Forbes blog piece.  This public humiliation started on the Amazon book site, with his fake review of Donna LaFramboise’s book on IPCC connections and misbehaviours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
FrenchCurve - 06 March 2012 10:32 AM

This “whole shebang” is not about climate change real vs not real or anything about that stuff. It’s it’s about a public figure whose tricks and lies vs. his lectures on ethics, are of interest - and perhaps exposing a few facts about the case to those only familiar with what is presented by venues such as The Guardian.

Oh, well, ok. Have fun with that. Maybe someone on here conducts business with Mr. Gleick and your warnings will steer them clear of trouble.

As for myself, neither he nor the Heartland Institute are sources of any kind of information that I depend upon.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

Here is the quick response effort to squash Donna LaFramboise. The slide into full public exposure showing how the response team operates started accelerating October 16, 2011. None of his colleagues could effectively jump in after he flubbed things,  and he was left alone to face the music.

It’s remarkable how the team has become so lazy and accustomed to having their word accepted,  that some have come to behave as though they believe anything can be said, anything at all, and it will get a “pass” grade, in mainstream media review. They are still right to some extent.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5

He hadn’t read the book and he ran into a heap of scorn at Dr. Curry’s Climate Etc.  and other blogs.
He could not produce a single lie from the book after claiming it was a compilation of lies.
He said it was about denying the science, once more, when in fact it had about only about 2 lines obliquely regarding the science. It is about IPCC connections to Greenpeace, WWF and such, and misrepresentations and misbehaviours - all very well documented.

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

It goes deeper. Institutions are quietly rewriting history, some even disappearing their mentions of funding flowing to Gleick’s causes or of their relationship to Gleick.

The EPA is thought to have removed some of their history.

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 02:09 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2010-08-15
FrenchCurve - 06 March 2012 04:23 AM

To repeat once more for you, citizenschallenge:

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.

Clear enough ?

Thank you

What isn’t clear to you is that Heartland Institute consistently uses tactics that show a complete lack of integrity.  They consistently misrepresent the state of climatological knowledge and the content of specific papers in a manner that is nothing less than dishonest, fraudulant and frankly treasonous to our children’s future well being.

The way they massaged the “ClimateGate” emails by snipping sentences and presenting them way out of context and claiming nothing but the basest motives to the scientists {nor ever presenting a hint of alternative interpretation, only demonizing} - is another example of the serial dishonesty Heartland practises in their lobby effort to stop any and all recognition of the seriousness of society’s impact upon our planet’s biosphere.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 07:41 AM
FrenchCurve - 06 March 2012 04:23 AM

To repeat once more for you, citizenschallenge:

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.

Clear enough ?

Thank you

What isn’t clear to you is that Heartland Institute consistently uses tactics that show a complete lack of integrity. 

So you say. Comment on Gleick’s dishonesty, impersonation, theft, forgery etc ? No ?

Please do start a thread on Heartland dishonesty if you care to explore that for us, and thereby to back your claims.
Meanwhile do go ahead and explain your previous comment “You don’t think the thing about The Anonymous Donor was pretty telling?”

What tells what, citizenschallenge. Thanks

[ Edited: 07 March 2012 08:00 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1