People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Peter Gleick Fits The Mold

It somehow seems fitting.  To many of us who have followed the ongoing "global warming" debate - such as it has been allowed to be a debate by the open-minded Left in this country - the theory that took on a life of its own and - somehow - became a social and political movement (call it "global warming" or "climate change " or "hey, we got weather") is based on a fraud.  Manipulated (and discarded) data.  Wild, unfounded, now-discredited computer models.  Ever ... evolving ... predictions of certain planetary doom.  Obfuscations.  Recriminations.  Plotting.  Deceiving.

A fraud.

Now we find out that one of the theory's/movement's leading proponents, Peter Gleick, is himself a fraud.

See "Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses."

And be ashamed for the scientific community.

- - -

As for the Heartland Institute, its leadership knows how to deal with fraudsters:
Statement by The Heartland Institute on Peter Gleick Confession

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

"An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

"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.

"Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

"We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

"We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions."  [link]
It would be sweet irony if the Heartland Institute, under attack in recent days for being "exposed" as getting its funding from right-wing (think Big Oil and the Koch Brothers!) slugs, obtains funding in the future from left-wing zealots like Peter Gleich and his Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security through the court system and a successful defamation suit.

Here's to the Heartland Institute and a successful scorched earth* legal crusade.

- - -

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage." Get your wallet out, big guy.

- - -

This speaks volumes.  Until days ago Peter Gleick was chairman of the Taskforce on Scientific Ethics.

Hilarious.  In a shaming sort of way.

- - -

Megan McArdle (herself a global warmist): "Gleick has done enormous damage to his [she means "our"] cause and his own reputation, and it's no good to say that people shouldn't be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?"

Second thoughts, Megan? Suddenly concerned about the company you keep?

 - - -

* I love words!