An open letter to Peter Gleick following his admission of dishonesty and potential crime.
Dear Dr Gleick,
Your recent actions have caused a lot of anguish to those affected, however, I find to my own surprise that I am somewhat grateful to you. You see, your actions have confirmed the depths to which climate activism will stoop in its clamour for ‘the cause’.
Furthermore your own stance on integrity and scientific ethics now looks plainly to all like hypocrisy. Of course this is not entirely news to climate skeptics who have been able to see through your actions for some time, but it is quietly satisfying to know that your own hand has exposed your true nature to a wider audience.
Indeed your so-called apology, and the continued insistence by your supporters that your actions were justifiable given the ‘moral high ground’ of the climate issue you serve, only diminishes your cause further. It seems absurd that a scientist of your supposed standing can become so partisan. Such behaviour is the very antithesis of what is expected from one who upholds scientific methods.
You say:
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.
When you point a finger, look down at your hand; there are three pointing back at you.
Events this week have indeed shown how well-funded climate science and activism are in contrast to the paltry sums identified in support of skepticism. Does it not seem ironic that after years of ‘the science is settled’ from Al Gore that you are now calling for debate? When you say that skeptics seek to prevent debate, and I can read their own words to the contrary, it does you no favours. Again your words and actions elsewhere betray you.
Many of us have travelled from belief to scepticism and found our journey hastened by the very devices employed by you and your supporters. Your whole demeanour strengthens my resolve to continue in this debate. At least I am true to my scientific roots that require an open mind on scientific theories; nothing I have seen in IPCC reports, publications or blogs convinces me that the evidence for CAGW is overwhelming.
So I will keep on trying to understand and debate new evidence that arises on both sides of the climate debate. It amazes me that you can see that somehow as ‘antiscience’. If you see that as undermining climate science, I can only say your hypotheses must be built on very shaky foundations and I must add a vote of thanks that you have revealed now by your actions the desperation of those losing the battle for hearts and minds.
Yours sincerely,
Verity Jones
Digging in the Clay 
Hear! Hear!
Very well said, Verity
[Reply – thank you! V.]
Indeed, Verity.
Seems they’re getting increasingly desperate.
This sort of thing probably doesn’t help.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
Even Mother Nature seems to have it in for the Warmists.
Pingback: Thank You Peter Gleick | Cranky Old Crow
Pingback: Climate change faker…’thanked’ | pindanpost
Pingback: Climate change faker…’thanked’ | pindanpost
Well said Verity
“nothing I have seen in IPCC reports, publications or blogs convinces me that the evidence for CAGW is overwhelming.”
and that is why true believers like Gleik are so desperate. The CAGW Emperor most definitely doesn’t have any clothes and now all the crowd, thanks to skeptical little boys like Steve M, Anthony, Willis, Moshpit etc (and girls like Donna, Jo, Hilary and your good self of course :-)) are laughing their socks off at him.
Despite the fact that the volume of the laughter is becoming increasingly louder, the Emperor’s courtiers (like Hansen, Gleik etc) are still trying to pretend that he isn’t naked. They know he’s naked. They know it’s not actually warm at all but rather that it is getting colder and that as a result that the Emperor’s appendage has shrunk to so small a size that they have to use an increasingly more powerful magnifying glass inorder to see it.
As sadly all too many men often do in this circumstance, in order to protect their pride they often exaggerate and make up ever more incredible tales in order to make themselves feel good amongst their peers. Some have even been known to surgically ‘enhance’ their manhood such is their lack of confidence and self-esteem in the showers at the sports club.
KevinUK
“When you point a finger, look down at your hand; there are three pointing back at you”
I’m sure I’ll be able to use that somewhere soon (with attribution, of course).
As Oscar Wilde said to a friend when he’d heard someone make a very pithy comment. “I wish I’d said that”. The friend replied “You will, Oscar, you will!”.
LIKE….!!!!… Well I am Irish… 🙂
Verity
Do you think Gleicks action was a last desperate throw of the dice because he believed the tide of the settled science of climate change was starting to go out and -like King Canute- tried to stop it? Of course in Canutes case he was trying to prove the point that even Kings can’t control natural forces. Perhaps Gleick has been looking at the last decades temperature data and has started to realise that even climate scientists can’t hold back natural forces.
tonyb
Everyone loves the story of David and Goliath.
Today we have the well funded CAGW armies crumbling under attacks from unpaid partisans. Robert Townsend wrote the wonderful “Up the Organization” that contained this quote:
“There is nothing to distinguish their generals from their private soldiers except the star they wear on their collars. Their uniform is cut out of the same material, they wear the same boots, their cork helmets are identical and their colonels go on foot like privates. They live on the rice they carry on them, on the tubers they pull out of the forest earth, on the fish they catch and on the water from the mountain streams. No beautiful secretaries, no pre-packaged rations, no cars or flattering pennants… no military bands. But victory, damn it, victory!” [Jules Roy, “The Battle of Dienbenphu”, Harper & Row, New York, 1965].
Having been raised in the western hills of a once English colony I hope you will not find it impertinent if I make one small critique. Your statement that Kevin quoted . . .
“nothing I have seen in IPCC reports, publications or blogs convinces me that the evidence for CAGW is overwhelming.”
. . . might be interpreted to mean you believe CAGW is happening but a little bit more evidence is needed, unlike, say quantum physics, for which the evidence does seem overwhelming.
Other than that, I agree.
You have been re-posted on FB, Verity. I admire your writing and your thought processes. Superb!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ClimateRealistsResource/
Thank you all for the ‘likes’ and positive comments. Actually I should hat-tip Charles Duncan for the idea. Although the sentiments are mine he suggested it as he said he’d thought of writing such a letter (directly to Gleick).
@Hilary Ostrov (hro001)
Mutual appreceiation society 😉
@catweazle666
And this could be even more worrying: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/bicentennial_decrease_of_the_total_solar_irradiance_leads_to_unbalanced_the/
@Kevin
LOL! You know it is actually becoming fun again. After all the analyses we did, I was convinced as a sceptic and was getting very bored of the the same old same old.
@MostlyHarmless
Repeat at will – just my take on something that is said often in my family and is worth remebering in all life situations. Good Oscar Wilde quote!
@Tonyb
You know I do think there is a real desperation starting to show. There is also increasing boldness in saying skeptical things ‘in broad daylight’ as it were and I think I detect a subtle change in policy language too – although that is very hard to be sure about.
@gallopingcamel
Good analogy – just think if we really had been organised, we’d probably never acheived as much – partisans know where to hit hardest locally I guess.
@John F. Hultquist
Fair comment. [I was tempted to complain bitterly that you quoted me out of context ;-0] You know I’m surprised I don’t have more errors [and real howlers] considering I mostly post late at night when I’m tired. Maybe people are just too polite to point them out or they think I would mind. It rather know where I’ve gone wrong – whether it is something ill thought out or an oversight, major or minor.
@David Spurgeon
Very interesting group with lots of activity – thanks!
Even though I retired in 2002 I get immense satisfaction from the activities of my ex-colleagues in the Duke University Physics Department. In particular I recommend Robert G. Brown and Nicola Scafetta. I don’t have the same positive feelings about the Nicholas School of the Environment with William Chameides as Chairman.
While I don’t always agree with “rgb” you have to love his comments on data spool integrity:
I hope you will agree with me when I demand that scientists be held to the same standards that apply to engineers:
I read both comments yesterday, but didn’t get a chance to write the reply here then; I even had a whole blog post in mind, but here is a rather diminished reply. I’ll restrict it for the moment to emails as you are talking about wider accountability, with which I mostly agree.
Academics are in a position of luxury if their emails are not under scrutiny by someone and if they have not been required to archive them by project. Industry often requires of its employees strict complience in this regard and companies are held to account in detail for any public money received for R&D or otherwise. Having been in this position I have had to return all raw data, team lab books and copies of emails as well as final reports to the funding body. It was clear at the outset that this was a requirement and the company had agreed to it.
I suppose I have plenty to write on this if I could anonymise it sufficiently without losing the points of interest.
Hypocrite – Person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/nov/30/pressandpublishing.themonarchy1?INTCMP=SRCH
“Bugging, blagging, breaking the law”
We need Gleick to be required, in a settlement with Heartland, to appear on a public platform and debate the technical merits of CAGW. Not the emotion, not the fear, the evidence of the models’ correctness in anticipating the last 34 years, and the last 34 years in providing the unique signatures of CAGW. Let Gore et al help. Let the cards fall as they may, and let the tax-paying public decide.
Hear hear!
Gleick
verb intransitive
1. To commit an act of unbelievable stupidity.
2. To lose your head when all about you are keeping theirs.
2. To impersonate another, for financial or other gain.
4. To impersonate a climate scientist.
5. To perpetrate a transparent fraud.
6. To inflate one’s own importance, esp. in writing (see also blogs, troll).
7. To admit to holding the gun, but not to pulling the trigger.
8 To commit professional suicide in writing (see also Twitter, blogs).
9. To lose the approbation of one’s peers (see also Monckton).
10. To become a hermit (see also Herman’s Hermits song titles, esp. “The End Of The World”. “What Is Wrong, What Is Right”, “If I Fell”, “Moonshine Man”, “I’ll Never Dance Again”, “Don’t Go Out Into The Rain”, “The Story Of My Life”, “I Understand (Just How You Feel)”, “It’s Nice To Be Out In The Morning”, “My Reservation’s Been Confirmed”, “Where Were You When I Needed You” and others)
11. To come to an end; terminate
[from Old German gleick, a narcissistic egotist, from Middle German gleck, an act of self-immolation]
Oh very good 😀
There’s also a discussion over at Climate Audit – starting here: http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/#comment-326196 that goes though poss etymolgy.
I hadn’t seen that, thanks. The idea just popped into my head when I came back to check comments here. Took me 1 minute to write most of it, and 5 minutes to research Herman’s Hermits song titles. All my best ideas come on the spur of the moment – my friends are then either laughing their socks off or staring at me in disbelief. Have you read “The Peter Principle”? People rise to their level of incompetence, and in the case of our Peter, fall back out of sight. When I flee this mortal coil I shall donate my brain for research. Perhaps someone can figure out how it works, ‘cos I can’t.
That’s ()ne way t() d() an ()pen letter)
but this endless climate scheme is getting s()-()h tires()me.
Feet ()f clay, tricky massive eg()s …
Have some comic relief,
Lt.
I’m afraid this merits a weak 😐 from me. Even the music being by Incompetech.com (if that was the joke).