Climategate’s Watergate

February 21, 2012 | Filed under corruption,Global Warming | Posted by

All that is missing is Deep Throat.  The Church of Global Warming has been given another black eye by one of its own leaders.

From FOXNews:

Theft, deceit and outright lies: How ugly can climate science get?

Prominent climate scientist Peter H. Gleick relied on deceit and subterfuge  to solicit a cache of sensitive internal documents from conservative think tank  The Heartland Institute before leaking them to the press — a fresh scandal that  further darkens the highly charged debate on planetary blue climate change.

The story gets worse. Gleick chaired the Task Force on Scientific Ethics, a committee of the American Geophysical Union.  A second story about this detail states the following:

The ethics task force is responsible for guiding the AGU on ethics and integrity in scientific activities. By his own admission, Gleick’s actions reflected a  serious ethical lapse — especially for the chair of the committee.

As to why he did it, Gleick wrote this:

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 … nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions  in this case.

Perhaps Gleick could explain the well-funded and coordinated efforts to attack dissenting scientists who disagree with AGW dogma.

 

 

« « When did Stagnation and Recovery become synonyms?
Fired ESPN Editor Claims no Racial Slam Meant with ‘Chink in Armor’ Headline » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 21, 2012.
Filed under corruption, Global Warming.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Walter_Cronanty

    So, “Big Oil” made him do it??!!!  Damn, that is one nefarious group.  Oh, and that crap about how he was frustrated about the ongoing efforts to “prevent this debate” is just that, BS.  “In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he
    believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. 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/#more-57134

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

    So in other words the “well funded” dissenters were correct in their opnion but that has nothing to do with the argument.  Got it.

  • GarandFan

     ”…to attack climate science and  scientists and prevent this debate>”

    DEBATE?  Those assholes are the one’s saying “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!”

    • jim_m

       Amusing isn’t it?  They have gone from saying, “The science is settled. Shut up you deniers!” to saying, “Stop preventing a debate about the science”.  Meanwhile, they assiduously avoid engaging in any such debate, refusing all invitations, and still prefer to make bogus claims about their so-called science and work to stifle any real discussion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

    SO attempting to publicize disagreement with the ‘establishment’ view is attempting to PREVENT debate?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      New Speak at it’s finest…

  • LiberalNightmare

     How long before he ends up in Obamas cabinet 0′ czars?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       After he gets out of prison (wire fraud, identity theft, etc.) which
      will mean “not in this [P]resident’s mal-Administration.

  • PBunyan

    If you have to make stuff up to make your point (a.k.a. Obamatalking) that pretty much proves your point is not a valid one.

  • herddog505

    The world turned upside down:

    — Criticisms and discussion of AGW (or whatever it’s called this week) is “stifling debate”

    — Refusing to pay for birth control and abortion is denying access to health care and discriminating against women

    — Children being sexually molested and abused by priests is an outrage (which it is), while children being sexually molested and abused by teachers is “hot”

    — The president ordering insurance companies to provide “free” drugs is a perfectly acceptable, normal exercize of his Art. II powers

    — A shrinking labor force is a sign of economic recovery

    This is beyond “you’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts”; this is into “you’re entitled to your opinion but you really need to seek professional help”.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      We have always been at war with Eastasia

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Cheer up Pete, things couldn’t get any worse…..oh, ..well…nevermind: “Subsidies For Green Energy Disappearing Around The Globe.” http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/subsidies-for-green-energy-disappearing-around-the-globe/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SayAnything+%28Say+Anything%29

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/NLDVHVBNBKSUODWOIAFHQBAHII Stan

    When will algore chime in? Bet free ride on the space shuttle all we will hear is crickets.

  • Commander_Chico

    Let me get this straight.  The documents from Heartland are authentic, aren’t they?  There’s no allegation they are forged, just that they were obtained by subterfuge?  So this is like an O’Keefe thing, pretending to be someone you’re not?

    • Ken in Camarillo

      Check this link:  http://www.theatlantic.com/megan-mcardle/
      She thinks one or more of the documents is fake, and from what I’ve seen of her writing, she wouldn’t automatically come to that conclusion based on whatever biases she may have. Actually, I think she’s pretty objective in a consciously disciplined manner.

    • herddog505

      No, actually one of them IS allegedly a forgery.

      The documents consist of climate policy statements, fundraising documents, board meeting notifications and even tax filings — as well as a memo titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” That memo, apparently the anonymous document that inspired Gleick to take action, describes plans to create an anti-global warming science campaign for grade schools that will “dissuad[e] teachers from teaching science.”

      The Heartland Institute calls it a forgery — and Bast says he believes Gleick may have written it.*

      What we have here is a man stealing a cache of genuine though innocuous documents, then shoving an inflammatory forgery amongst them, a wolf in the fold, if you will.

      We all learned a few years ago how ready the left is to create and peddle “fake but accurate” documents, and how ready lefties are to believe them.  That nasty ol’ climate deniers would connive to stop science classes just MUST be true, right?

      I am especially disgusted by this self-serving part of Gleick’s confession:

      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.**

      In other words, this crook’s definition of “rational public debate” is to pass around (perhaps create?) forgeries about his opponents’ views.  But this sort of thuggish, dishonest behavior has been par for the course for the left from the beginning of the AGW con game: gin up a lot of bogus “science”, prevent any potential critic from seeing the “data”, muzzle and smear anybody who asks inconvenient questions, and lie like hell about the other side.

      I add that this is yet another case of “that word doesn’t mean what you think it means”: apparently, lefties think that the word “debate” means “let’s talk about why we shouldn’t have to talk about it because it’s settled and we’re right and anybody who doesn’t agree is stupid and corrupt and hates (insert minority here)”.
      ===

      (*) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/#ixzz1n5UcU1d9

      (**) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Wasn’t the ’so called climategate’, of the University of East Anglia exposed because a huge batch of confidential emails were hacked.. so that is alright. Funny, I never recall any of the posters on Wizbang being troubled by the hacking.

    While posing as a sympathizer, in sending a letter with a false name to Heartlands Institute, to reveal its’ not so hidden ‘unscientific climate warming denial agenda’, and public list of of corporate donors, is a dastardly trick?

    Seems to me this is more of the usual selective indignation from conservatives about which tactics are permissable (conservatives’ or not worthy of reprobation), and which are contemptible, (the other side).

    • herddog505

      1.  Pretty sure that you’re not going to find many (if any) commenters here who shout, “HURRAH!  Somebody broke the law!”  That is the province of lefties (lefty worship of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning leaps to mind).  While I’m glad that the CRU was exposed for the collection of frauds and con artists that it is, the person responsible broke the law and should be prosecuted.

      2.  Um, how, pray, did this incident “reveal [Heartland's] not so hidden ‘unscientific climate warming denial agenda’”?  Aside from the memo that Heartland insists is a fake, the documents apparently involve nothing more than a lot of mundane items like donor lists, tax records, meeting agendas, contact information, etc.  Hardly a smoking gun.

      And given that your side has to resort the theft and forgery, I would be pretty chary of saying that anybody else is “unscientific”.  Or did I simply not see that my chemistry department offered courses like “Faking Evidence 205″ or “Advanced Techniques in Forgery 600″?

      3.  As for their list of donors, I would not be surprised to know that this sort of thing is public knowledge for those who care to look for it.  And even if it is NOT public knowledge, so what?  Until it can be demonstrated that Heartland is up to something nefarious (actually nefarious, not just daring to oppose lefty orthodoxy), then I suggest that donating to them is about as dodgy as donating to Planned Parenthood, the NRA, or any of hundred – thousands? – of advocacy groups and think-tanks in America.

      And what IS Heartland’s alleged misdeed (based, again, on a document that they claim is a forgery)?  Why, nothing less than the unforgivable sin of… being critical of AGW and organizing opposition to it.  THE HORROR!  What do you think their punishment should be?  Do you want them burnt at the stake, or will cutting out their tongues and reducing them to dial-up suffice?

      Let’s recall that Gleick whines that “a rational public debate is desperately needed.” Does “debate” not imply that there are pro and con positions, and that people who wish to take one of them MIGHT just want to do some research, which could possibly involve speaking with like-minded other people to develop the best lines of forensic attack and defense?  Or, as I wrote above, does “debate” mean in this case “shut up unless you want to talk about how much you agree with me?”

      • TomInCali

         >Pretty sure that you’re not going to find many (if any) commenters here who shout, “HURRAH!  Somebody broke the law!”

        Perhaps not, but where was the article on here about how that was the anti-AGW crowd’s Watergate? Where was the declaration that the anti-AGW groups were now hopelessly discredited by the actions of one individual?

        • herddog505

          1.  What was this “anti-AGW crowd’s Watergate” to which you refer?

          2.  While I can’t speak for the other commenters or blog owners, I think it’s a little unreasonable to expect people to crow over a defeat for their side, don’t you?  “HURRAH!  The other side just scored a TON of points!  WOO-HOO!  It’s party time!”

          • TomInCali

            1. The hacking of emails leading to “climategate”, as described earlier in the thread we’re both commenting in.

            2. The previous comment was “this is more of the usual selective indignation from conservatives about
            which tactics are permissable (conservatives’ or not worthy of
            reprobation), and which are contemptible, (the other side).” In your response, you’re just confirming that.

            While it may not be reasonable to expect people to celebrate a defeat for “their side”, I think it’s completely reasonable to expect people to condemn illegal or morally suspect behavior, such as hacking emails or pretending to be someone you’re not, regardless of whose “side” did it. But posts like this one just demonstrate that the indignation is indeed selective.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Steve, I have no objection to the prosecution of someone who hacks into e-mails. To the best of my knowledge, the identity of the climategate hacker is still unknown.
      The last time that I checked, nobody here condoned the aforementioned hacking.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      So what did you think of the East Anglia emails where the ‘scientists’ were discussing how to destroy emails to avoid freedom of information act type requests?

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Steve, did the East Anglia leaker insert forgeries into the dump?
      No?
      Then it’s not the same.

    • jim_m

      Let’s not forget that the climategate emails were also subject to a FOIA request and that the scientists in question were obstructing hte proper execution of that request.  No it does not excuse the hacking, but their unwillingness to come clean is explained by the content of the documents released. 

      Additionally, where the Heartland documents have already been shown to be, at least in part, a frayud, there has not been any question that the climategate emails are 100% authentic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Sisson/1268083386 Edward Sisson

    Commander_Chico says “So this is like an O’Keefe thing, pretending to be someone you’re not?”

    Major difference: Gleick pretended to be a Board member of a nonprofit, seeking documents provided to directors by staff of the nonprofit.  Speaking as a former nonprofit executive director, a former board member, and as a long-time advisor to nonprofit managers and board members, let me tell you: there is not a nonprofit in the country, not even the most pro-AGW-theory (and there are many pro-AGW-theory nonprofits) that will condone THIS deception by Gleick.  

    Imagine you are executive director / manager of a nonprofit and you have a board meeting convening right now.  Your directors are all in the room with you, and you are handing-out the board packets of reports, budgets, projections, etc., maybe even including a report from outside pro-bono legal counsel on some issue, for the meeting.  And you begin the meeting by saying “Even though these are confidential, it is OK with me if some outsider contacts me later by e-mail, pretending to be one of you, deceives me, and gets me to send him/her copies of the confidential documents I am now handing out to you.”  

    There would not be a board member in that room who would have any confidence in you, after you said that.  If I was a Board member, I would either immediately resign, or move that the manager be immediately fired for cause.  How could I, as an individual donating my time in the service of the nonprofit’s mission, ever trust that manager?  

    This applies even to nonprofits that engage in sending “undercover” investigators who pose not as a particular real person with “inside right of access” (such as a Director) but as a potential customer or applicant to some organization, in order to gather data from that organization that it normally discloses to real customers or applicants. O’Keefe’s videos show us only what the organization normally makes available to any real customer or applicant. To pose as a specific individual who has a special right of access to nonpublic information, in order to use that particular individual’s right of special access, is a very different thing. To do so with a Board member, no less, goes right to the heart of the organization’s managerial integrity.

    This is why I predict that we are not going to see any nonprofit, even the most pro-AGW, defending Gleick on this.  His action transgressed the fundamental integrity of nonprofit Board of Director relations with top management staff.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      …and O’Keefe was pretending to be a potential client/customer of Acorn; despite the over the top nature of his act they still found him credible.

    • TomInCali

      O’Keefe pretended to be a phone repairman in order to gain fraudulent access to a Congressperson’s office and their phone closet. But that’s different, because he wasn’t successful in getting juicy information before he was caught.