Playing Catch Up on Gleick

Well, as often seems to be the case, a Big Deal broke in the Climate News and I was not noticing. Sigh.

It involves fraud and deception on the part of the Warmers, in the person of Gleick.

It’s exploding all over, and I’m sure most of you are already aware of it, but if not, hit the links:

So looks like despite my desire to learn how the moon controls the precipitation of colloidal silver (and my waking / active times… my ‘natural free run’ day length is about 25 hours, as is the “lunar day” at 24 hours 50 minutes…) it looks like instead I’ll be playing “catch up” for the next few hours on the issue of Gleick pretending to be a board member and getting a clandestine document feed via email.

As an email administrator, one of the things you need to do is assure that you are protected from “spoofing” attacks. The easiest way to do that is to HAVE an email administrator who maintains formal mailing lists. For anything that matters, THEY are the person who validates that any given email address is, in fact, valid, and controls any changes.

Now you can see why.

When the various board members just have their own lists, or when “the secretary” can add folks or remove them at will: Eventually things will get out of sync. Folks will miss documents, and as can be seen here, unauthorized folks can get on the list.

One of the things that would slightly annoy folks at sites where my team managed the email lists was that they would call up with an email change, and we’d thank them for the update and ask that they hang up. (This was before the days of caller ID being everywhere). We would then call them back and ask for confirmation. (And often send a notification to the OLD email address as well…)

Such things are not just a formality. They are how you prevent this kind of fraud.

I wonder if the The Heartland Institute would like to have a Geek On Staff… There really is NO reason for this “spoof” to have worked other than lax enforcement of known standards of care with email lists (perhaps not the fault of the I.T. ‘department’ if the Board decided to do email via an informal exchange of addresses… becoming ever more common these days). Still, they OUGHT to have a formal mailing list of BoardMembers@Heartland.x.x and on it ought to be aliases for each Board Member of the form MemberOne@Heartland.x.x and only a VERIFIED and VALIDATED request to change the final address at which that alias points ought to be allowed. This actually makes it easier for folks to remember email addresses as they just need the name and @Heartland. Polish Point: Don’t make the names First.Last@ or similar. It’s too easy to ‘spoof’ via good guessing or via learning the method from observing one name. So “MikeS” for one guy “MSmith” for another and “EMSmith” for a third… Users can remember / coordinate that ‘wiggle’ easily and it blocks “SPAM by Guessing Names”…

Also, any sensitive documents ought to be marked to send to VERIFIED and VALIDATED addresses only. Both physical and electronic.

Ah well, folks will learn. One way or another…
Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Playing Catch Up on Gleick

  1. It certainly has been interesting. One commenter, “neilr” (a catastrophist as it turned out) bugged Steve McIntyre to write something about the Heartland documents. It seems that “neilr” thought this was horribly embarrassing for skeptics, and was attempting to show that such topics would be avoided.

    Unfortunately for him, he got what he asked for: McIntyre joined in the fun of analyzing and documenting the “Gleick tragedy” as it unraveled, a process that is still going on.

    I’ve have a bit of rhyming amusement with the affair, and posted a bit about it here:

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    Like you (albeit for probably a different reason), I am playing catch up as well. Indeed, I was led into the whole scandal by a comment left on an old thread of Tall Blokes.

    It just boggles my mind the amount of coverup and defending that is occuring on warmist blogs. They have no scruples. Even the once friendly MSM is turning in disgust from them.

    The deception was bad enough (perhaps even fraud). But the fraud is fraud, and I hope he is prosecuted for it. Martha Stewart did a lot less and got 2 years.

  3. The news story of Dr. Peter Gleick, and his involvement with AGU and the Geophysics Division of the US National Academy of Sciences may signal continuation of an intriguing tradition of those organizations:

    1. Fifty-six years ago in April 1956, Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda (Formerly known as Professor Kazuo Kuroda of the Imperial University of Tokyo) first reported evidence at the national AGU meeting that self-sustaining nuclear fission occurred naturally when uranium ores formed in the Earth’s early history [The U-235/U-238 ratio was much higher then].

    I was a freshman student then and had not yet met Kuroda. A friend who was present said that the Chair of the AGU session, a member of the Geophysics Division of NAS, scolded Kuroda publicly for reporting calculations that Enrico Fermi himself had shown to be impossible.

    Kuroda’s paper was rejected for publication. But he published the information later as two, single page articles in the Journal of Chemical Physics 25 (1956) pages 781 and 1295. His report was confirmed on 25 Sept 1972 when the French Atomic Energy Commission reported a natural nuclear reactor had occurred at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon, Africa.

    2.. Thirty six years ago in Jan 1976 Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I reported the Sun is the nuclear furnace that made our elements in:

    a.) An abstract submitted for presentation at the National AGU Meeting in April of 1976, and

    b.) A comment submitted for publication in Science.

    When we arrived in Washington for the AGU meeting, the published schedule of speakers had been changed, an astrophysicist with no abstract had been inserted to speak ahead of us, and the Chair of the AGU session – another member of the Geophysics Division of NAS – “forgot” to time the speakers.

    The comment submitted to Science was first rejected, but later published in Jan 1977, thanks to support from Dr. Raymond Bisplinghoff who was at that time Chancellor of the University of Missouri-Rolla, a member of the National Science Foundation Board and the National Academy of Engineers, and a personal friend.

    Click to access StrangeXenon.pdf

    It is intriguing that AGU and the Geophysics Division of NAS may still be involved in the political drama of AGW: Pseudo-science built on the false Bilderberg model of the Sun as a H-fusion reactor “in equilibrium.”

    Click to access Climategate_Roots.pdf

  4. Jerry Franke says:

    E.M., you definitely have a lot of ground to cover.

    I have been following this since it first broke. The most fascinating aspect of the affair was how quickly and how deftly Steve Mosher (and others)performed the “forensics” on the fake Heartland strategy memo to arrive at the conclusion that Gleick, himself, likely forged the document. Lucia’s Blackboard alludes to his work:

    There is so much out there now on the subject that I can’t seem to locate the original thread that the analysis appeared.

    WUWT has a thread within which a commenter (Kim2000) posted a suggestion that on a page of the fake document, there is a remnant of Pacific Institute’s header:

    Who is this Kim2000? Read the WUWT post. You may be amazed at the perspicacity of some young folks out there.

  5. Jerry Franke says:

    P. Gosselin has several posts on what is happening in that hotbed of climate change, Germany.

    Your absence from posting on the “Gleick Affair” due to other pursuits is not disappointing to me since I enjoy your other posts so much. The diversity of and detail of your research reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s essays and writings back in the 1960’s. With the amount of work you have posted, you have the foundations of a book.

  6. blueice2hotsea says:

    @ Jerry Franke

    As a long-time fan of the polymath Asimov, I can easily imagine he would have been delighted to call E.M. his friend.

    I recall reading that when Asimov first taught biochemistry at Boston University, it was a subject in which he had not had yet even taken a class. ‘All he had to do’ was learn the subject faster than his students. Whenever someone asked a question he couldn’t answer, he just said great question, I’ll get back to you later with an answer. And he did.

  7. Dave says:

    One thing to consider is that Heartland knew it was him and let him fall into his own trap. Something else that people might find interesting is that Anthony Watts is asking people to use a Java based stylometry application to see if the “incriminating” document was indeed published by Dr. Gleick.

    I will be interested in the results of this analysis.

  8. Even arriving late on the scene of the crime you manage to come up with something the rest of us missed. Heartland needs better “IT professionals”.

    This has been a terrible week for the CAGW alarmists. Gleicks’s “Fakegate” is not the main story by any means. The IPCC leaks continue and it is no longer the ZODs (Zero Order Drafts) that I am working on. Leaks of the FODs (First Oder Drafts) are starting to appear. The core problem with the IPCC’s “AR5” is that they ignored the growing body of peer reviewed science that points to the sun as the main cause of recent “Global Warming”.

    Take a look at the guest post on WUWT by Alec Rawls:

  9. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve generally found that “judge them by what they do” tells a lot.

    If this gets prosecuted, Gleick had no ‘top cover’. There is some hope.

    If he gets a walk, or a wrist slap coverup like in the UEA farce, he’s got top cover, the fix is in, and it’s very unlikely we’re going to ever see anyone “go down” for nefarious acts.

    In a world of laws, the cops would right now be putting his ‘paper copy’ into a lab to find what printer printed it and who’s finger prints were on it. In a world run by opinions of men, he’ll lose a couple of plum appointments for having gotten caught, but stay on retainer after a show “ethics review” that tells him not to get sloppy again.

    So we get valuable information in any case…

    I think this has both State and Federal laws broken, so we’ll get info about each jurisdiction involved too…

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    Interesting stuff.

    FWIW, I’d expect anything involving nuclear power to have government “minders” assigned to make sure any ‘sensitive’ information did not leak out.

    But don’t see how origin of the Sun would be sensitive. Then again, I don’t have $Millions riding on the fantasy of controlled hot fusion grant money…

    @Jerry Franke:

    Well, with Kudos to Mosher; I can see how he could ‘get it’ fast. An immediate suspect would be the person who “finds” it. A secondary suspect would be anyone named in the Memo as a ‘target’. In this case you have both. It’s a short step from that to looking for idiosyncratic or style clues that match.

    Most folks don’t have the disposition it takes to do a crime and get away with it. Part of what it takes is very good organization AND no ego getting in the way.

    For example: To ‘get away with murder’ is easy. The only problem is that you must murder someone you do not know and have no opinion about at all. Preferably in a place you never or rarely go (and while leaving little or no evidence that you were ever in the area). There’s nothing to connect you to them. Violates the first of the ‘trio’ of “Motive, Capacity, Opportunity”. (By keeping a very non-ego low profile, you can also ‘fog’ the issue of ‘capacity’… and if you succeed at leaving no trail of presence in the area, even opportunity can be fogged). The “Beltway Sniper” succeeded for just those reasons. The victims were random. He took the “crime scene” with him (his car trunk was set up as a snipers nest). He left no evidence of being in the area (no purchases and no big visibility). The only reason he got caught was that everyone was worried and he fell asleep in a public parking lot – he attracted attention. So a “one and done” and he would have been safe.

    In the case of Gleick, his ego got in the way (so he named himself in his faked memo) and HE had to be the agent of delivery of the Story.

    If he had simply sent the fake doc and copies of the real docs to someone else and NOT named himself in it, be would likely have gotten away with it.

    But folks who are that controlled rarely have the attitudes to commit the crimes in the first place…

    Or, to quote a cop friend: “We only catch the stupid crooks. Lucky for us, most of them are stupid.”

    Yeah, it’s taking me a while to find the original as well…

    @Jerry Franke:

    I think I’ve read every SciFi book Asimov wrote and many of his non-fiction works. The local library had them when I was a kid. Started at one end of the shelf and just worked through it all. Then found him in non-Fiction too…

    A joy to read. He shaped who I am in some subtle ways, I’m sure…


    I remember that story as well.

    One of his best murder mysteries had a Chemistry Prof. killed via someone putting a bit of grease on the valve of a high pressure Oxygen cylinder. Turn on the gas and BOOM! I was taking chemistry at high school at the time and we’d just been warned about oxygen and “no oil” in welding class…

    Asimov wrote about folks who ‘knew everything’ and that was my impetus to reject the “you must have only ONE specialty” that was shoved at me my whole life… Every time someone said that, I remembered folks who could both write chemistry books AND fiction…

    That my Chemistry teacher had been a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, a research chemist for US Steel, AND a high school chemistry teacher (in quasi-retirement…) also argued that ‘breadth’ could be mastered.

    Later I figured out that you CAN cover a heck of a lot, but not all, and that a bit more specialization would have made more money for me. OTOH, I feel like I’m ‘richer for the experience’ of covering more turf than most… even if some of it has thin spots…

    So, Thanks Asimov!


    It takes a lot of skill to ‘turn’ a mole. If that were the case, I’d expect the docs to have been doctored in crafty ways. They seem ‘straight’. I don’t see that as likely. Nice theory, but no evidence to support it.


    Well, IT. is my major tech field, and I’ve sent a couple of decades defending against just such Phishing attacks. After a while you get good at it ;-)

    That Rawls piece is nice…

    I think a ‘critical mass’ has been reached. Initially most folks ‘gave a pass’ to the odd bits that were a bit suspect. If they were ‘pushed’ they would simply choose to leave. Most folks don’t want to pick fights.

    But now, with the Climategate I and II out there (and especially with active espionage and deception from Gleick, per what he said he did): It reaches a point where folks, good honest folks, decide “No. I’m not going to put up with it. No. I’m not going to assume they are honest, fair, and nice, and just walk away.” I think there will be a lot more “issues” as the folks on the “inside” sort themselves into “Really honest good guys” and “perps in the making” and deal with the stresses that creates.

    And once a couple of folks on the “inside” start asking uncomfortable questions, even more folks chime in…

  10. adolfogiurfa says:

    It does´t matter how many “Climate Gates” or whatever, “they” will not change a bit: Using their most dear “precautionary principle”, “global warming”/ “climate change” now has become: “SUSTAINABILITY” and their private jets are being prepared to go to their next pleasure jamboree at Rio de Janeiro:

  11. adolfogiurfa says:

    Thinking about this and other things happening in these “interesting time”, just tell me, is this a coincidence or what?:
    An apocalypse (Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”) is a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e. the veil to be lifted.
    How do we explain this?, simply by saying that human nature is foreseeable, and nature itself follows cycles, repeating itself. Lies do not last forever…that´s what St.John knew and truth, in the end, always prevails.
    It´s over buddies!, and as George Carlin said: “pick your sh**s folks…the planet is not going anywhere…we are”

  12. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M.
    “If he gets a walk, or a wrist slap coverup like in the UEA farce, he’s got top cover, the fix is in, and it’s very unlikely we’re going to ever see anyone “go down” for nefarious acts.”

    Very much true — and I suspect that may be what we see. Perhaps he will get “200 hours of community service!” and then be allowed — no, required — to tour school class rooms teaching “the science of climate change.” :) But yes, when you see apparent criminals walk free, you wonder who is running the justice system.

    Which brings me to your example of the Beltway Sniper, John Allen Muhammad. I remember when he was arrested and his name and basic history became public. “Hmmmm…. John Allen Muhammad…African-American, ex-US Army…. I’ve heard that name before.” Anyone here remember a fragging incident in 1991 during Desert Storm? A certain African-American soldier named John Allen Muhammad dropped an incendiary grenade inside a crowded tent. He was arrested by MPs, and then…dropped out of the news. As far as I can tell he was never charged, tried, convicted or exonerated either. Any of those would have been a reasonable resolution, but instead he just disappeared from the news for the next ten years. Weird. This is one of those little tid-bits that keeps me suspicious of our glorious public servants.

    As for Gleick, he ought to go to prison; he himself says he is guilty. What REALLY puzzles me is how DeSmog and crew actually seem to believe Gleick is somehow innocent in some larger sense, and (even more bizarre), claim that the Heartland papers reveal some overwhelming but (as far as I can tell) still unspecified evil.

  13. John F. Hultquist says:

    In case you missed it, there is a print-&-post quote:

    McArdle Postulate

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    Above quote is 7 paragraphs below her A, B, C, list with ‘A’ being “Throw it in the Trash.”

  14. E.M.Smith says:


    I don’t expect the “core” of “they” to shift, but rather all the folks who are basically neutral and just went along for ‘the ride’ by trusting “them”. It is those folks who are now looking at the folks they trusted and adjusting their “trust metric” downward…

    Basically, when the Pope is shown to be very fallible, more folks become resistant to accepting the doctrine of Papal Infallibility… and you end up with 90+% of Catholics using contraception and new recruits avoiding the “Kid Diddler” church for the Protestant side…

    @Jason Calley:

    Interesting story on the sniper name. I’d expect a ‘web search’ to turn up likely birthdays on both (i.e. age a time of ‘event’) so you could potentially get a disqualifying age bracket…

    Per DeSmog: IMHO, a consequence of “moral relativism”.

    Remember that Hansen got “moral relativism” entered into English Case Law. He testified that the potential evil of global warming was so great that the crime of trespass and destruction of private property was forgivable in comparison as a ‘moral duty’ to stop the greater evil. And the court bought it, letting the folks who defaced the tower go free.

    That’s the lever. Now all you need to do is look at who uses it on whom…

    (To over-extend the metaphor… that would make the courts the fulcrum as they set the pivot point of relativism… So one could revisit the legal system with an effort to remove the pivot point, or slide it to a more reasonable place…)

    At this point we have that accepted as gospel on the side of AGW. They MUST accept it into their world view (or they would start to find ever more inconsistencies that were not explained… the ‘uncritical acceptance’ is a hallmark of such movements. From Islam, to Catholicism, to Royal Decree, to a herd of other cults through the ages – Scientology anyone? Jim Jones? Soldiers ‘just follow orders’? Only Classical Science encouraged dissent and skepticism, as distinguished from ‘post-modern “science” that is more directed advocacy.) So, since they can not reject that belief without destabilizing their world view, it must be integrated; which then leads ever more of them to see no moral “issue” in doing the same… “Gleick did it for the ‘greater good’, so it was moral. Just like English Law says…”

    BTW, you can also now watch for the USE of that ‘moral relativism’ as a signature in other folks. A “style marker” if you will. If you see someone making a moral relativism argument or justification, you know much about their overall world view and likely positions and subsequent actions. The lack of moral relativism also speaks to a persons foundation in core values (of several different systems, but SOME core values).

    Yes, thinking about that ‘psych profile’ of a person suffering from moral relativism, unanchored in any certain foundational philosophy, is disturbing. They could be bent to most any ends via a properly formed argument that places the fulcrum in the desired location. I doubt that is an accident… The destruction of the “religious anchor” has been a goal of the Progressive movement for near 100 years (and potentially from other movements for longer – such as the various governments, Masons, and other folks opposed to Papal Power. We see that reflected in current news where The Pope is having a standoff with Obama about who controls Catholic Institutions…) No, not an accident at all.

    Per “some unspecified evil”:

    Well, if YOU are absolutely sure you are right and (relatively) moral; then THEY must be driven by evil and be (relatively) immoral. The notion that the opposition seem to be OK one on one, so must be manipulated into their “bad” position by some larger evil power, is a common one. (Unfortunately often correct, too… but not always).

    That’s when folks start seeing conspiracy theories. It’s not enough that “we agree to disagree” or that “we have different premises, that we have identified, and can not figure out which is correct”. (You can see that dynamic all over the place. It is one that I regularly have to combat, even here. S.P. is pushing an “Oil Conspiracy Theory” per Syria, for example, and felt compelled to put it into the Defenestration thread. So I’ve tried to get it moved back to the Iran potential war thread where it is semi-related. Unacceptable is “our premises are different so we will not agree”…) So in terms of Heartland: The AGW folks are not making the “progress” they want so something must be thwarting them; they KNOW they are right; they KNOW their cause is just (so morally superior on the relativism scale): the necessary conclusion is that the other side is morally inferior or stupid and deliberately “damaging the cause”… That then means any ORGANIZATION helping it along must be a “hinge point” of “immorality”, relatively speaking… so any documents must be interpreted within that world view.

    It all starts from where your intellectual foundation rests.

    For me, it rests on:

    There ARE absolute truths (rare though they may be, and often with very difficult exceptions).

    Religion has often identified many of these (even if you must sort out some B.S. and other distractors).

    These Truths are attainable by anyone, on their own, without “moral guidance of a priesthood” (though such help can be helpful, it comes with a risk of propaganda, so must be looked at with some skepticism).

    The Classical Scientific Method is a gift of reason that answers most things well (even if with some amount of milling around and the occasional mistake; and ONLY if folks don’t claim to be doing Science when really doing “plausible advocacy”…)

    History is a great guide to how to do things wrongly.

    Trust the wisdom of others / elders; but ruthlessly verify…

    Tag all knowledge and wisdom with “degree of trust” markers. Some things are Known Truths, some are Speculation, some are “Likely True”, some are “Useful but unproven”, etc. ALL tags are subject to review on new evidence, proofs, or logical inconsistencies.

    (So, for example, “Thou shalt not kill” was tagged as “Likely Fundamental Truth”, but on checking was found to be a mistranslation of the original Hebrew of “Thou shalt not commit unjustified murder” – at which point “Christian Wars” exited from the ‘paradox’ box and entered the ‘shift of fulcrum’ box on ‘justification’… and reading the Bible in English had a softening of the certainty metric… which sent me off on a year or two of looking at Biblical Hebrew and deciding that the current crop of scholars were better at it than I would ever be and simply getting an annotated translation with the ‘issues’ in the footnotes was the superior ‘solution’ and I need not learn mediocre Hebrew. Basically, a published annotated Hebrew / English dual Bible was more likely to be correct AND reviewed than my learning Hebrew and being a novice at such translation. )

    (there’s more, but that’s the big lumps and this is getting long already)

    Notice that no “moral relativism” exists in that set (though “morality” does have some flexibility in it, as new Truths are learned and integrated and as older ones are ‘tag adjusted’).

    So once I’ve found that “unjustified murder” is evil and wrong, I’m not going to be an assassin for a living. (I can’t depend on others to decide what is unjustified, only myself… Morality can not be outsourced.-Fundamental Truth tag.) But once I’ve seen that, for example, the Nazi are “evil and wrong” and trying to destroy my country, my family, and my friends: then I can kill them as needed and enlist in the Army to do so (as did my Dad).-Logical Extrapolation tag.

    The “moral relativists” accept that “others” can make the relational argument, thus outsource the morality choice, and then simply act without skepticism. Not for me…

  15. Jerry Franke says:

    Continuing the OT subject of Asimov/oxygen/oil…
    I recall about 30 years ago there were several experiments performed by oil companies whereby pure oxygen was injected into oil bearing formations (underground combustion) to enhance formation pressure thereby driving trapped oil from the injection point to other gathering wells. I imagine that the process of hooking up the injection lines was very hazardous and doubt whether it was ever proven to be of greater value than CO2 flooding or water flooding.
    In the 1960’s I worked at a company building commercial airlines. There, everybody working on the final stages of the production line was given instructions with respect to the hazards of contaminating oxygen lines or fittings with hydraulic or other oils.

  16. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: Several years ago Haan, if my memory does not betray me, told that the explanation was simpler: It was related to the consequences of a miracle whitish powder currently inhaled precisely by those of the “liberal” side of the spectrum: Which,btw, they find perfectly justifiable after “A Brave New World”´s “SOMA”. (Of course a bit harder than “kool aid” but giving them the sufficient “courage” to persist in their ideology and to cope with the unbearableness of their lives and protecting them of the sudden realization of the moral vacuity of theirs)

  17. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M.
    “Interesting story on the sniper name.”

    Yes, very odd. I find multiple articles such as this: “The Seattle Times reports three witnesses recalling that John Allen Muhammad, the man accused of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper murders last fall, had thrown a grenade into a tent during the 1991 war against Iraq.”
    And then there is this,,2933,66665,00.html which says he received an Honorable Discharge in 1994, and does not mention the grenade incident. Odd.

  18. It’s the same man, the 1991 grenade incident and the later sniper attacks:

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  19. Jason Calley, et al.

    If Gleick’s actions were on behalf of really “Big Fish” . . . World leaders who, in fear of mutual nuclear annihilation, secretly decided forty-one (41) years ago to Unite Nations against an imaginary “common enemy” – “Global Climate Change” – and then base government policies on

    a.) Managable computer models of Nature, instead of
    b.) Experimental observations and measurements on Nature

    As suggested by the historical roots of the global climate scandal

    Click to access Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Then Dr. Gleick is just the latest addition to Big Brother’s long list of puppets.

    1. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Jim Hansen
    2. The Nobel Prize Committee that honored the above for their work
    3. Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC and others promoting falsehoods as science
    4. Research agencies (NASA, EPA, DOE) that used public funds to deceive

    Here is a video summary of deceit that culminated in Climategate:

    Click to access Summary_of_Career.pdf

    Here are papers documenting experimental data that were ignored:
    1. Solar composition:
    2. Solar structure:
    3. Neutron repulsion:

    Their computer models worked as well in climatology as in economics. That is why our economy is collapsing, the public is darn mad, politicians are running scared, and agencies that exposed government deceit are under attack.

    Unfortunately it will probably get much worse.

    It is easier to push a camel through the “eye of a needle” than a proud politician into an admission of powerlessness over Nature.

    There is no “easier, softer way” out of society’s current demise.

  20. The general public reacts strongly to hypocrisy. That is why tele-evangelists who consort with hookers are beloved by the media.

    While Gleick is not in the tele-evangelist class he is a true hypocrite. He once enjoyed delivering pompous lectures on “Scientific Integrity” and now he has become the poster child for scientific fraud:

    Oh, the irony! Enjoy!

  21. Jason Calley (16:35:49) :
    I don’t think you need to worry about Gleick getting a slap on the wrist or flagellation with a wet noodle.

    Heartland will sue for damages and these could be substantial if any of their sponsors withdrew support as a consequence of Gleick’s actions.

    At the very least Gleick will find himself in court like Michael Mann but will he have the deep pockets of an organization like the University of Virginia to bankroll him?

  22. kuhnkat says:


    “The “Beltway Sniper” succeeded for just those reasons.”

    Sorry to disagree, but, the Beltway Sniper was so successful because the Sheriff in the area with primary responsibility SUPPRESSED the early information that the suspects were 2 hispanic or dark complected men because this was prejudicial and biased against blacks. He actually ordered that women and minorities NOT be stopped and questioned at the checkpoints they set up!!

    Then, of course, they started bragging and left tarot cards that allowed the man to ID them and their vehicle with a quick arrest afterwards. Your basic premise, if they had stayed with just shooting and not gotten into the ego stuff, would have been correct, With Sheriff Moose having only white men checked they could have gone on for months before the investigation got jerked from him or they were accidentally nabbed.

  23. Evil Denier says:

    But you must understand: progressives punish those who are successful, with high tax rates. /sarc

  24. Pascvaks says:

    Related, as most things are in a wide-open discussion that touches many levels. Regarding integrity, global warming, federal expenditures, lying and deception in every walk of life, The Club of Rome, democracy as the worst form of government but the most effective we have, the price of gas, the cost of education, murder for hire, the next pope, Ali Baba and the Fourty Thieves, and let’s not forget Scheherazade, and a 1001 other factors that make life on the Third Rock a real blast too. Who is the most important politician you will ever vote for at the Federal level? Who is most likely to parrot your views and vote the way you would if you were voting for each and every issue yourself? If you truly want to change the direction that the country is headed in I mean, who is sitting in your driver’s seat, looking out your front window and glancing out the sides and rear, has his/her hands on the wheel, and foot on the gas/break? Why do all ‘good’ voters need to sit in the back seat and shout and scream at the driver to turn this way and that way? Why do we need to change drivers so much more often today than we ever have in the past?

    Honest, everything is connected; that’s the reason life is so damn complicated. Most Americans want to just vote for some bozo and reelect him/her till they die of old age. Why is a local ‘Joe the Plumber’ (or Jane) more important than a couple Senators or the occupent of 1600 Penn Ave?

    PS: The two party system is kaputski, we need to reinvent the system and national sport of “Riots in the House”. It’s so much better than “Survivor” or “American Idol”. Hornets! (I mean ‘Honest’;-)

  25. Mark Miller says:


    Have you checked out the video here, since referred to the stuff by Alec Rawls?

    “I’m a climate scientist. What I say is true…”

    After that I thought, “Dude. I used to have my doubts that humans caused global warming, but once I saw this video…and-and the cheerleaders…I was convinced, man!”

    If they can’t get you with fear, they’ll try to get you with flash and sex appeal. In a nutshell, this demonstrates the “messaging” of AGW alarmism. It’s a PR campaign. Sick. “Don’t worry about the science. Leave that to us. Just drink it down like Kool Aid…”

  26. Mark Miller says:


    Oops. Meant to start with: “Have you checked out the video here, since *you” referred to the stuff by Alec Rawls?”

Comments are closed.