Tricks at the Pacific Institute

As reader Paul Matthews observed, the Pacific Institute has a new (Feb 27) press release on its website today, but has deleted its Feb 21 and Feb 22 statements. I presume that this was a trick (TM – climate science) to hide Gleick’s decline.

A residue of the Feb 22, 2012 press statement can be seen in the cache shown below.

34 Comments

  1. Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    It’s history as ‘wiki without history’. It makes disappearing people so much easier.

  2. Tom Blanton
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    OT but thought it interesting…

    Michael Mann is taking questions live at the Guradian.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a

    • Bernie
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

      I just posted this at BH:
      I tried to follow the questions and Michael Mann’s responses. He did not answer any of the tough questions. One question was posed as to whether he had tried to get Steve McIntyre investigated for connections with the fossil fuel industry. He said he never had. A little latter the same person pointed to the Climategate emails that proved he had spoken to people about doing it. The original question and all questions referencing the CRU emails seem to have been air brushed from history along with Mann’s weasily response. The record of this discussion should not be trusted.

      • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM | Permalink

        The original question and all questions referencing the CRU emails seem to have been air brushed from history along with Mann’s weasily response. The record of this discussion should not be trusted.

        Lying for the greater good. As with The Times omitting a crucial phrase from David Kelly’s letter. TM Climate Science / Gleickenspiel.

  3. ChE
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    It’s not a trick(tm), it’s amateur hour. The concept of document management is outside of their paradigm.

    Does it also strike anyone as odd that they slipped “social equity” in at the end of the current statement?

    The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    That sticks out like a sore thumb, at least to me.

    • Fred Harwood
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

      Very odd, and telling; the post-modern mission statement.

      • NeedleFactory
        Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

        Also Known As: the modern post-mission statement

    • JEM
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

      If one reads Gleick’s past public writings, and what his ‘Pacific Institute’ has extracted from the Federal government in grants, that’s been part of the game plan all along.

      What I wonder about is still what made him think he could get away with this – has he done similar sorts of black-hat opposition research in, say, the California water-infrastructure work that’s been his primary focus for the last decade-plus?

      I suppose I could learn how to write a FOIA request…it might be interesting to see what turns up in our state government’s dealings with him.

      • theduke
        Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

        Speaking of federal grants, look who’s on the PI’s advisory board (ht to Hillary for the link):

        Ms. Nancy Ramsey, President, Morningstar Imports, a small Sausalito-based company. Independent analyst on disarmament, security issues, and international telecommunications. Ms. Ramsey is also a Legislative Director for Senator John Kerry (D – Massachusetts).

    • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

      Does it also strike anyone as odd that they slipped “social equity” in at the end of the current statement?

      ChE, “social equity” is one of the “three pillars” of “sustainable development”. You can expect to see it popping up in papers all over the place on the road to Rio (and in all 3 WG reports for AR5, assuming Pachauri’s 2009 “vision” hasn’t changed!)

      This is all way O/T for this thread, so I won’t go into detail; but if you’re interested, pls see: Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

  4. 007
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Everytime I hear of one of these rewrites of history (see also EPA Grant Website) I reminded of a story Milan Kundera relays in his novel The Book of Laughter and Forgetting.

    http://underbelly-buce.blogspot.com/2008/05/gottwald-clementis-tigerhawk-and-hat.html

  5. Copner
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    The Feb 21 statement – the one that said Gleick remains President – had an extra comma.

    I am the only one who noticed that?

    • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

      I’m (not) sure I, did.

      • ChE
        Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

        A new online language is hatched. Gleickese.

  6. Lewis Deane
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    “I presume that this was a trick (TM – climate science) to hide Gleick’s decline”

    Very droll! But it was so much easier, in earlier periods, to ‘change’ history! and, even then, the change never stuck.

    What is a curious question, for me, is how quickly the British Establishment, such as the BBC and the Guardian, embraces such farces and how much it tells of the long decline and fall of British power and the desperate wish of such an Establishment to find a new ‘roll’ for itself, where it could ‘punch above its weight’. For, in a sense, wasn’t the IPPC and ‘climate change’, if not a British, then a Commonwealth invention? Such history is revealing – a legacy of the end of Empire!?

    • SteveW
      Posted Feb 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

      As a freeborn Englishman I wholly reject that. We already have a massive worldwide role in policing abuse of the Queen’s English all over the internet. We simply don’t have time to do that and maintain any illusion of impartiality in our press (especially the state owned bit of it).

  7. Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Such deletions are unscientific
    Changing history, to be specific
    While their logic is hazy…
    If they’ve really gone crazy
    Institutionalize the Pacific!

    And while they have their private soiree
    Public files live at the EPA
    Let’s inquire what messages
    Influenced these passages
    It’s time for an FOIA

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

  8. Jack Maloney
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

    I don’t see the point in rummaging through PISDE’s news releases. They are a private, political advocacy outfit, very much like Heartland Institute, and they do the same kind of predictable advocacy stuff. Gleick’s ham-handed HI “revelations” have been unsurprising and rather meaningless, and I suspect any “revelations” from PISDE will be much the same. People should have better things to do.

    • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

      So you’re saying that the Heartland Institute regularly ‘disappears’ news releases when they’ve changed their mind on a difficult issue? Would you like to give an example?

    • John A. Fleming
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

      The difference is, the PI wheedles tax dollars from the Govmt and spends it on its advocacy. Taxes are extracted from you and I at the point of a gun, and passed out as political patronage.

      The HI, otoh, has to convince its donors the old-fashioned way: by earning their trust, and delivering on their promises.

    • Keith W.
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

      John got it in one. Pacific is a government funded concern, while Heartland is privately funded. Legally, I can FOIA request all records of all research done by PISDE that was funded by Federal Grants. I cannot ask anything of Heartland, anymore than I can ask you, Jack, what was on your tax returns.

      • RayG
        Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

        Hmmmmm. FOI the PI. That could be interesting!

      • Craig Loehle
        Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

        Just because someone gets a government grant does not mean you can FOI them. They must be a government entity. Green advocacy groups get gov’t grants all the time. A private individual can sometimes even get a gov research grant–can’t foi them.

        • j ferguson
          Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

          Craig,
          Are not the documents related to the granting agency’s administration of the grant and the periodic reports from the grantee subject to FOI? …and possibly any written interaction with the grantee by the grant administrator?

          john

        • Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

          We cannot pry
          At the PI
          The public’s eye
          Just wouldn’t fly

          But that’s all right
          We’ll know despite
          Their hurried fright
          To keep from sight

          It’s EPA
          At end of day
          Where we can say
          “FOIA”

          The magic key
          That sets us free
          Has got to be
          Transparency

          Since public dough
          Has made it so
          If they say no
          They’ve got to go!

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

  9. kramer
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

    I presume that this was a trick (TM – climate science) to hide Gleick’s decline.

    That was a good one… :-)

  10. Foxgoose
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    Didn’t Mashey report Heartland to the IRS on the basis that their 501(3)(c) tax status had been infringed by “non-factual” political lobbying?

    Gleick’s Pacific Institute also advertises its 501(3)(c) status and yet they seem to feel free to indulge in blatant “fact-free” lobbying like their “Climate BS of the year” award.

    Is there a special IRS exemption for “planet saviours”.

  11. Chris S
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    It’s interesting that the Pacific Institute is hiring an independent firm to review the allegations, as seems to be the norm now in climate science.

    • Copner
      Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

      Sir Alastair Muir Russell is probably available if needed!

  12. Thor
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    Straight into the memory hole. The 2012 version of Minitrue is efficient – it’s just so much simpler to achieve instant world wide editing when no hard-copies are involved.

  13. Gary
    Posted Feb 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    Double-plus ungood.

  14. D. Robinson
    Posted Feb 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    OT – I was going to try and give PI credit for the number of research studies indexed and available on their website. It does look like Gleick has done some work. Then I started reading them, in particular:

    http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise_sfbay/index.htm

    I had some fun comparing the predictions of sea level rise to what has actually been observed, because as usual, there seems to be no interest in validating past predictions.

    EPA 1983 referenced by Gleick:
    1980-2000: Conservative 2mm/yr Central Estimate: 5.5mm/yr Observed 1.9mm
    2000-2020: Conservative 3mm/yr Central Estimate: 8.5mm/yr! Observed 3.1mm

    Also forecast, 1 meter total sea level rise 1980-2050 or 2100 To Date: .071m

    So, to make 1m from 1980-2050 we only need 24mm per year. To make it by 2100 we only need 10.55mm per year. Looks like they are on the money.

    In all fairness to Gleick, he was referencing other studies and using them to estimate the impact and cost of adaptation in the SF area. Hope nobody took him seriously though.

  15. Posted Feb 29, 2012 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

    A minor point, but posting it here for the record.

    Pacific Institute have updated their http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/ page, which now shows Elena Schmid as “Acting Executive Director” on the “Pacific Institute Staff” page.

    Curiously (or not), Gleick is still listed as “President” on the above page, as well as on http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/board.htm. There is no indication that he is “On leave of absence”.

    Perhaps the Advisory Board held a séance, in order to seek the advice of the absent (In Memoriam) Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, who declared that this was ‘the right and ethical’ thing to do?!

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] ett av alla dessa forskningsinstitut som lever högt på att trumpeta ut klimatalarmism. På Climate Audit har man noterat att det skett små förändringar i hur institutet ser på denna [...]

  2. [...] Tricks at the Pacific Institute (climateaudit.org) [...]

  3. [...] Tricks at the Pacific Institute (climateaudit.org) [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,329 other followers

%d bloggers like this: