AGU Honors Gleick

If I was hoping to think about more salubrious characters than Lewandowsky, Mann and Gleick, the 2012 AGU convention was the wrong place to start my trip. All three were prominent at the convention.

AGU is a huge convention – over 20,000 people and thousands of presentations. Only a few presentations are sufficiently important to be featured on the AGU billboard leading to the conference halls. Almost the first thing that I saw at the convention was a billboard publicizing a session on the Mann case:
mann case

Also prominently advertised was the opportunity to meet one-on-one with an attorney (who I presume to have been Mann’s attorney):
attorney

Mann himself was honored as a new AGU Fellow for his achievements in orientation-neutral and low-verification paleoclimate reconstructions, with special citation to his innovative use of upside-down sediments and success in popularizing reconstructions with verification r2 of 0. In addition to his fellowship acceptance, Mann spoke at two other sessions. (My recollection of past AGU conventions was that members were limited to one oral presentation, but this policy seems to have been waived {SM Jan 7 – see note below].) One of the session chairs, who was six foot three or so, wryly asked the audience not to confuse with the little man he was introducing. Mann’s wing-woman in one presentation was the even more diminutive Oreskes, who peeking above the podium, was a fitting consort, both in rhetoric and stature. Oreskes’ opening image was, needless to say, a polar bear on an ice flow.

There were at least three sessions on blogs, one of which was convened by John Cook of SKS. Cook’s invited speakers were Michael Mann, Michael Tobis, Zeke Hausfather, Peter Sinclair. For some reason, Cook’s invitation did not include either Judy Curry or I, both long-time AGU members and proprietors of substantial blogs.

AGU used to be about physical sciences. Its erosion of standards was well exemplified by its inclusion of Stephan Lewandowsky, a social psychologist from western Australia, as co-convenor of two sessions. Lewandowsky’s field of social psychology has recently been severely criticized for lack of replicability. Indeed, Lewandowsky’s own recent work can perhaps be best described as a unique combination of Mannian statistics and Gleickian ethics. Doubtless, this will place Lewandowsky on the short list for next year’s AGU fellows.

But the most surprising, even astonishing, appearance was by Peter Gleick himself. Gleick did not simply return, but was honored by an invitation to speak at a prestigious Union session. I hadn’t even thought to look for Gleick on the program, but noticed him outside a session.

gleick

I then checked the AGU program and, to my surprise, learned that Gleick was speaking at a Union session. I went to his session with Neal King of SKS, who I’d been chatting with quite cordially in the early afternoon; I encouraged him to attend. Unfortunately, we missed the start of Gleick’s speech so I can’t comment on whether he was accorded a returning hero’s welcome or not. In any event, here’s Gleick on the podium. (I have a new phone; I hadn’t learned yet learned how to zoom or other obvious things so my quality of picture isnt great).
gleick speaking rescaled

Gleick’s welcome back to AGU prominence – without serving even the equivalent of a game’s suspension – was pretty startling, given his admitted identity fraud and distribution (and probable fabrication) of a forged document. Last year, then AGU President Mike McPhadren, a colleague of Eric Steig’s at the University of Washington, had stated on behalf of AGU that Gleick had “compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society” and that his “transgression cannot be condoned”. McPhadren stated that AGU‘s “guiding core value” was “excellence and integrity in everything we do” – values that would seem to be inconsistent with identity fraud and distribution and/or fabrication of forged documents, even by the relaxed standards of academic institutions.

Although McPhadren had stated that Gleick’s “transgression” would not be “condoned”, AGU’s warm welcome to Gleick shows that McPhadren’s words meant nothing, because AGU has in fact condoned Gleick’s actions. Take a look at the definition of “condone” in respect to an offence or transgression, where its etymology, curiously, derives from adultery cases. dictionary.com says:

1. to overlook or forgive (an offence)
2. (Law) Law (esp of a spouse) to pardon or overlook (an offence, usually adultery)

Another dictionary amplifies the second definition as follows:

2) to forgive the marital infidelity of one’s spouse and resume marital sexual relations on the condition that the sin is not repeated

It’s hard to contemplate a more vivid example of an institution pardoning or overlooking an offence and resuming relations. In other words, McPhadren’s words meant nothing. By its actions, AGU has “condoned” Gleick’s identity fraud and distribution and (almost certain) fabrication of a forged document.

Opposite the well-publicized session with Mann’s lawyer was a little publicized workshop of the AGU Ethics Task Force. (Update Jan 7: As I mention in a comment below, I presume that AGU scheduled them at the same time on the basis that people interested in ethics would not be interested in meeting with Mann’s lawyer and vice versa.) In any event, the ethics workshop was sparsely attended – probably the most sparsely attended session at the entire conference. Other than members of the Task Force, I doubt if there were more than 15 attendees (out of 20,000 or so.)

The session was led by Linda Gunderson, Gleick’s successor as chair of the Ethics Task Force, Linda Gundersen. Readers may recall Willis Eschenbach’s impassioned open letter to Gundersen last year. Willis was, as usual, plain spoken:

Make no mistake. If Peter Gleick walks away from this debacle free of expulsion, sanction, or censure from the AGU, without suffering any further penalties, your reputation and the reputation of the AGU will forever join his on the cutting room floor. People are already laughing at the spectacle of the chair of a task force on scientific integrity getting caught with his entire arm in the cookie jar. You have one, and only one, chance to stop the laughter…

You have a clear integrity case staring you in the face. If you only respond to Dr. Gleick’s reprehensible actions with vague platitudes about “the importance of …”, if the Task Force’s only contribution is mealy-mouthed mumblings about how “we deplore …” and “we are disappointed …”, I assure you that people will continue to point and laugh at that kind of spineless pretense of scientific integrity.

Gundersen spoke about AGU’s work on ethics, but made no mention of her predecessor as Chair of the Ethics Task Force and provided no explanation of his return as an invited speaker at a Union session. I asked Gundersen whether the AGU Task Force on Ethics had considered the Gleick affair and, if so, what were its conclusions. In particular, I asked whether they had investigated the forged strategy memo which Gleick had distributed, but had not confessed to.

Gundersen said that the Task Force had not considered the Gleick affair at all. It had done no investigation of Gleick’s conduct whatever. She said that Gleick wasn’t her responsibility and refused to be drawn into commenting on the affair in any way. She observed that the proposed Ethics Policy had not been in place at the time of the Gleick affair and that the AGU could therefore not retroactively apply the policy to Gleick, suggesting that this further demonstrated the need for an AGU ethics policy. She also observed that, in any event, the primary responsibility for enforcing ethics lay with the employing institution. (In Gleick’s case, the Pacific Institute, whose “investigation”, to my knowledge, did not include contact with Heartland Institute or any investigation of the document forgery.) [Update Jan 7- For the record, in response to Gundersen’s unsatisfactory answers to my questions, I told Gundersen that I thought that AGU’s failure to confront the problem warranted criticism and that I intended to do so as forcefully as I could.}

While I endorse AGU’s adoption of a more formal ethics policy, I do not agree that AGU was completely naked prior to adoption of a formal code. It doesn’t require a formal code for an organization to expect its officers, committee chairs and members not to commit fraud or to forge documents, as, for example, McPhadren’s original statement which relied only on AGU’s core value of “excellence and integrity”.

Willis had worried that the Task Force would respond to Gleick’s conduct only “with vague platitudes about ‘the importance of …’” or “mealy-mouthed mumblings about how ‘we deplore …’ and ‘we are disappointed …’. In fact, the AGU Ethics Task Force did not even do that much. They totally ignored the issue, while Gleick was welcomed back.

So for anyone wanting a break from Mannian statistics, Gleickian ethics, especially as synthesized by Lewandowsky, this year’s AGU conference was a bad one.

Don’t get me wrong. I had more pleasant moments at AGU than unpleasant ones. I arrived late on Monday, had excellent dinners with good company the next three days and, on Friday night was off to New Zealand and then Thailand. I’m home now. While I was away, I had to file pleadings in my Yamal FOI appeal, had a case conference in my Wahl attachment appeal and then had to file an application in the Wahl attachment appeal and am a bit weary of pettifogging by UEA lawyers. I’ve been reading the blogs. I’ve got a number of topics in inventory, but have been short on energy. I have some interesting angles on Hurricane Sandy and the New York Panel on Climate Change but they are large new topics and will take time to develop.

Update – Jan 7. A reader pointed out in comments that authors are only allowed one contributed submission but this restriction does not apply to invited presentations. I checked the AGU policy for the 2012 meeting here . It states:

First Authors can have a maximum of one (1) contributed and one (1) invited abstract, or two (2) invited abstracts.

So how did Mann (and Oreskes) come to have three podium appearances. The policy continues:

The only exemption to this policy is the submission of (1) additional contributed abstract to an Education (ED) or Public Affairs (PA) session.

Mann and Oreskes both took this policy to the limit: each made two invited presentations plus one PA session. The invitations are intriguing. Mann’s PA session was convened by John Cook of SKS. Oreskes’ PA session was convened by Mark McCaffrey of NSCE (Gleick was formerly a director of NSCE), while one of her invitations came from a session convened by Lewandowsky.

224 Comments

  1. Jeff Alberts
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, Mr. McIntyre. I was going through withdrawal… ;)

  2. Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, sir — you’re quite right to stick
    At the treatment of Golden Boy Gleick
    It is clear AGU
    Has declined, and it’s true:
    Peter’s rise is a new Nature Trick

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

  3. Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, Steve, and Happy New Year.

    Reading through your post, I was beginning to wonder if the AGU has silently adopted a new motto: “Mediocrity forever”.

    At the very least – since the AGU has apparently taken some leaves from the IPCC’s book on what to do when confronted with evidence of less than sound science and/or considerably less than honourable, ethical authors – one can only conclude that they sooooooooo don’t get it!

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

      one can only conclude that they sooooooooo don’t get it!

      Yes, they do … they just don’t care

      I empathise with SMc’s weariness

      • Neil Fisher
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

        One can only presume that they DO, in fact care – but only about being caught and having it publicised to their detriment.

  4. Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve McIntyre,

    It was nice to meet you face-to-face for the first time on Tuesday at the AGU meeting in the hall outside of Cook’s session on, ironically of all things, science communication.

    It was rather strange to be having a pleasant but brief chat with you while a few feet away Mann was chatting with what appeared to be six graduate students. It was even stranger that also a few feet away from us Gleick was in a conversation with someone. I do not know if you noticed, but they both gave some concerned glances our way (actually your way) and they must have caught us talking very loudly about them.

    I found the AGU meeting, my very first, to be vocally and openly uncritical of those advocating for alarming AGW by CO2 from burning fossil fuels. I think it is time for paradigm shift toward a more balance view at the AGU. I will go next year in that capacity.

    I think I still owe you a drink that I promised you during our chat?

    Happy New Year.

    John

    PS – Also, on a different day, for the first time face-to-face I had the pleasure to have a brief exchange of pleasantries with Judith Curry before her talk.

    • George Montgomery
      Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “I do not know if you noticed, but they both gave some concerned glances our way (actually your way) and they must have caught us talking very loudly about them.”
      And your point is? If I heard someone talking “very loudly” near me, I’d check it out too. If they were talking “very loudly” about me, I’d be a bit concerned too. And if they were talking “very loudly” about me in a uncomplimentary way, I’d be very concerned and seek clarification during a quieter moment.
      Being loud and personal, if not rude, in public is definitely an attention-getter. If you have an issue with individuals, man up and have it out with them personally, face-to-face. (There’s a pun lurking somewhere in that last sentence).

      • Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

        My point is providing a description of a situation.

        It was entertaining to say the least.

        John

      • Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I was describing a situation as I perceived it. I found it an entertaining situation, so I shared it.

        I do not normally intrude on private conversations in social situations like chats in the hall are. I think there is some measure of civil behavior to be observed in such situations. Those are my protocols. Yours may be different.

        During the question period in the sessions after presentations, there were some limiting processes as to the ability to get a question in. The AGU meeting forum is severly limited in that regard.

        I think that what is needed are presentations in the same session with alternate research results or several presenters known to be critical of each other. I personally think that is the paradigm shifter needed for the AGU meeting.

        John

    • Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      And the AGU should developed a more balanced view on that whole “round versus flat Earth” controversy, too. It has way too many round Earthers.

  5. DJA
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back and a happy new year.
    I thought your comments on Gleik and the AGU to be a trifle sarcastic, your restraint is admirable.

  6. Skiphil
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 7:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So glad to see you back Steve, and Happy New Year! I hope all the travels went well. Appalling that the AGU officers show no scruples about rehabilitating Gleick without even a time-out. It’s not possible to reconcile McPhadren’s previous statement with having Gleick speak at the first AGU national meetings after such words and deeds. HOW can someone who “compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society” be embraced with no consequences at the very next meeting of said scientific society? How is this even possible?

    Well, I would have thought that for “appearances” they would wait a year before giving him a speaking slot, but no…. apparently it was more important to put him right back on rostrum, serving the Cause.

    • eqibno
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

      This speaks volumes about the “orientation” of those individuals in charge of the society. That they espouse and support an alarmist stance is obvious by the nature of their proclamations. That they tolerate an immoral miscreant of the nature of Gleick is indicative of their commitment to the meme. That they embrace the pseudo-science of Lewandowsky demonstrates the paucity of real scientific endeavor that motivates them.
      Perhaps a grass-roots movement to return to the fundamental principles of scientific research ( as opposed to promotional advocacy) might yield something valuable… as there should be some decency left in the membership?

  7. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One would hope that with 20,000 members, there would be more critical comments and action with regard to the lack of ethics, etc. Maybe too many members are young and worried about their jobs.

    • Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

      My impression was a very significant population of mid to late twenty students at the AGU meeting. So, you may be right.

      John

      • Neil Fisher
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 8:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I would hope those members not so worried would make direct representations to the union regarding their thoughts on the matter – blog comments are all very nice, but it needs to be made official.

  8. Pat Frank
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, Steve, and best wishes for an invigorated 2013.

    Regarding Peter Gleick, “given his admitted identity fraud and distribution (and probable fabrication) of a forged document.,” he’d also be at least party to character assassination. Were the forgery indeed his, then he’d be fully and directly guilty of character assassination.

    In a side-bar, after exposure of Peter Gleick’s falsehood concerning Heartland, and his consequent removal from duties as science advisor to the NCSE, the NCSE board appointed Ben Santer in his stead, showing consistency in ethical standards for the position. Ben, of course, pre-qualified himself for the current NCSE board back in 1995, when he fabricated the “discernible human influence” statement in the 2AR SPM.

  9. Leslie Johnson
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back Steve. I hope you had a merry Christmas and a Happy new year.

    The Gleick affair just boggles my mind. If I had done the same thing to a competitor company, I would have been fired by my company, expelled from the professional associations, and faced charges brought by the aggrieved company.

    Apparently the rules that apply in the oilfield, don’t apply in academia.

  10. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, first, it was fascinating to read the outcome of what I had written to the lady in charge of burnishing the AGU’s ethical halo … nada. Nothing. Crickets. Thanks for that most revealing glimpse into the heart of darkness. “The horror …”

    Second, I seriously ’bout fell out of my chair laughing when I read that:

    Mann himself was honored as a new AGU Fellow for his achievements in orientation-neutral and low-verification paleoclimate reconstructions, …

    The first time I got that far I went “Wait, what??”. Then I read it again, and totally lost it. I particularly liked “orientation-neutral” reconstructions.

    When I had wiped the tears from my eyes to where I could read again, you got to the specifics, viz:

    … with special citation to his innovative use of upside-down sediments and success in popularizing reconstructions with verification r2 of 0.

    That was it. I was toast. Rendered hors de combat. I had to put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard just so I didn’t injure myself.

    To say that your travelogue was most informative, and even more entertaining, is to understate the situation. Keep’m coming.

    Well done that man,

    w.

  11. geologyjim
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As a career-long USGS research geologist, this is intensely sad news

    Gunderson has been head of the USGS Office of Scienific Integrity for several years.

    She is now retiring, but for her to show up as the entre-acte for a scum such as Peter Gleick turns my stomach.

    Once revered institutions like AGU, the Geological Society of America, AAAS, American Physical Society, have serially fallen in line with the AGW mantra and increasingly strident calls for more funding for alarmist global-warming activism masquerading as research. IT AIN’T RESEARCH IF THE RESULT IS PRE-ORDAINED.

    Eisenhower was right about fearing the rise of a technological elite.

    We must demand evidence for pronouncements, and be skeptical of all statements, whether scientific or political

    • tim irwin
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 2:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Jim -

      Your comments are appreciated. However, shouldn’t people like yourself, who are in the midst of all this madness, speak up? Gunderson shows up and turns your stomach? I agree. My objections would carry little weight compared to someone in the system such as yourself. Is it that difficult to speak up?

    • TomRude
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I am observing very closely the material coming out of the scientific organizations to which I hold membership. When a line will be crossed, I’ll resign my membership.

  12. Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    AGU punked

  13. Michael Larkin
    Posted Jan 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Good to see you back, Steve. It’s a depressing situation re: Gleick, but I can’t say I’m surprised.

    Regarding your lacking energy, have you tried high absorption CoQ10 capsules? They’re available on Amazon Canada/US. Thought I’d mention it as I take them myself and they definitely boost energy levels, especially in folk at about our age.

    • Stephen Richards
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Would that be 31yrs old ? :))

  14. Rob Honeycutt
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve… I’m curious where you find such a definition of the word “condone.” That is not what I have ever understood the word to mean, and it’s clearly not what my own dictionary says it means.

    When I look up the word I get this:

    Verb
    Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
    Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Rob, Steve gave definitions from two different sources. If you are curious where he found “such a definition,” I suggest you consider where he said he found the first set:

      dictionary.com says

      I’d like to think that reference is enough for you, but in case you need further assistance, here is a link. I trust that’s enough for you, but if you still need help, there’s a wonderful tool you could try. It’s called Google. Or Bing. Or Yahoo. Or Ask.com. Or any other search engine.

      If you’re really curious and you still can’t figure out where Steve found such definitions, I can provide further assistance. I understand reading simple sentences and doing internet searches can be very difficult for some people.

      • Rob Honeycutt
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Brandon… Here are the two different definitions:

        1) condone [kənˈdəʊn]
        vb (tr)
        • to overlook or forgive (an offence)
        • (Law) Law (esp of a spouse) to pardon or overlook (an offence, usually adultery)

        2) con·done
        /kənˈdōn/
        Verb
        • Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
        • Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

        The first definition is the transient verb form that is a legal (rarely used) definition.
        The second definition is what we all know to be the common use of the word.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:18 AM | Permalink

          Rob, first, I must ask you to acknowledge your difficulty in finding Steve’s source was, to be kind, pathetic.

          Second, I must point out there are two lines in the first definition. Only one is labeled “Law.” A normal person would take that to mean only one of the two lines is limited to legal usage.

  15. Don McIlvin
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back!

    In characterizing Gleick’s transgressions, you first wrote;

    “distribution (and probable fabrication) of a forged document.”

    then a a bit further you wrote;

    “distribution and (almost certain) fabrication of a forged document.”

    Perhaps I’m nit picking, but it jumped out at me, so I thought I would point it out. I guess you started out a bit charitable, but became less so the more you engaged the subject.

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Don, there is no doubt the document was forged. The only open question is whether or not Gleick is the forger. We can be almost certain he is, but since he never admitted to it, Steve isn’t stating it as fact.

      • Don McIlvin
        Posted Jan 11, 2013 at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I was commenting on the difference of degree where Steve discussed the Gleick authorship as “probable” first and then “almost certain” later – attributing the former as a charitable characterization.

  16. Rob Honeycutt
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If you look close, Steve, you’re using the transitive form of the verb, which has a very different definition from the common use of the word.

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Rob Honeycutt, assuming you’re talking about the word “fabricating,” you are completely wrong. Both “fabricate” and “fabricating” can refer to innocuous manufacturing or deceitful invention. The only difference in definitions is one is transitive and the other is not.

      • Rob Honeycutt
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

        No. Steve is using a specific legal terms that doesn’t apply to the situation. AGU clearly did NOT accept, allow, approve or sanction what Peter did. They did not “condone” the behavior. Steve’s use of the word, even in the context of adultery, would be where the spouse ignored known adulterous behavior and thus legally condoned the behavior. Clearly, again, NOT what AGU did.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

          It does help to be clear with what you’re talking about. Since I apparently misunderstood you before, could you clarify that you are claiming defining condone as “to overlook or forgive (an offence)” is “using a specific legal terms [sic]“? Or are you perhaps claiming that definition doesn’t cover:

          It’s hard to contemplate a more vivid example of an institution pardoning or overlooking an offence

          Because I’m hard pressed to make any sense of what you’re saying. The second definition Steve provided in no way contradicted the first. It just elaborated on a specific usage that falls under the first definition.

          If the two are not incompatible and both cover what Steve described, how could Steve be “using a specific legal terms [sic]“?

        • Rob Honeycutt
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

          You’re a very petty person when you’re cornered, aren’t you.

          What I’m saying is very very simple.

          There is one rarely used legal definition.

          There is a common definition that completely contradicts Steve’s selective defintion of the word.

          AGU clearly does not accept, allow, approve or sanction what Peter did.

          Is that simple enough for you?

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

          Rob, you’re just making this up:

          There is a common definition that completely contradicts Steve’s selective defintion of the word.

          You’ve done nothing to show this is true. In fact, when I’ve explained why your claim doesn’t make any sense, you’ve simply ignored what I said.

          In reality, all you’ve done is cherry-picked definitions from one particular source to support a ridiculous semantic argument that has no significance at all. Even if one agreed with your silly claims, it wouldn’t change anything about Steve’s post. His meaning is perfectly clear even if one disagrees with how he used the word condone.

          I’m amused someone relying solely upon (fallacious) semantic nit-picking would call me petty.

        • Gerald Machnee
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

          RE:Rob Honeycutt
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

          AGU clearly does not accept, allow, approve or sanction what Peter did.

          UH-OH.
          I must have missed something. How did they prove they do not condone what Peter did?

        • Neil Fisher
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

          AGU clearly does not accept, allow, approve or sanction what Peter did.

          ———

          I would suggest that allowing the author of such a transgression to be a “headline” speaker at the next meeting of the union is indeed condoniing the behaviour. For goodness sake, the man was on the ethics commitee and deliberately and with malice aforethought misrepresented himself in order to defame someone else – an extremely serious ethical breech, even disregarding his spot on the ethics commitee. To place him front and centre is unconsciencable at best and condoning the behaviour at worst. Given the union’s lack of any action against him, what is one to conclude? Even if one accepts that he got let off due to a technicality, how can he be “headlined” without the appearance of the union condoning the behaviour? And if it is indeed just an appearance of condoning the behaviour, why would they do this?

        • timg56
          Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

          Rob,

          While I am not interested in getting into pea splitting contest over the meaning of words, this statement of yours – “AGU clearly does not accept, allow, approve or sanction what Peter did.” – is plainly false.

          Unless you are of the opinion that words speak loader than actions.

      • Rob Honeycutt
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

        And Peter clearly states that he did not fabricate the letter. It was anonymously sent to him. What he did that was wrong (as he has admitted) was that he used false means to acquire documents in order to confirm the accuracy of the letter.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM | Permalink

          Rob, thanks for telling us what we already know. Gleick claims not to have forged the letter. However, Gleick is a liar and most people assume he’s just lying about that.

        • Skiphil
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

          And Peter clearly states that he did not fabricate the letter. It was anonymously sent to him

          First you showed that you do not understand the word “condone” — now you really need to do a close study of the word “gullible.”

        • mrsean2k
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:29 AM | Permalink

          Rob Honeycutt

          I’ve yet to see a statement from Gleick that unambiguously asserts that he did not forge the letter – but I’ve seen a lot of statements dancing around the subject.

          I’d appreciate a direct link to a statement that you believe qualified.

        • johnfpittman
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

          I second mrsean’s request. I also would wish such a link. The only statement I saw released by Gleick definitely did not clearly state he did not fabricate the letter. But then, one has to wonder with your “petty” parsing with Brandon, how you could not note the parsing that was contained in the Gleick statement about the forged document.

          On a different note, welcome back Steve. I hope this season of joy and thankfullness was a blessing to you and yours.

        • Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

          Gleick said “I do not know the source of that original document”. He took that document and placed it with others he knew to be genuine (he had phished them). Then tried to pass them off as one set. He lied when he referred to himself as a “Heartland Insider” in the emails he sent.

          Whether he wrote the text of the forged document is almost irrelevant. Trying to convince people that it came from the same source as the genuine documents was a an act of fabrication, a forgery.

          It is no different from placing the jawbone of an orangutan with the skull of a Neanderthal. Ever heard of Piltdown Man?

          He also lied when he said it was all to “confirm the accuracy”. He never mentioned the forged document in his phishing emails. He was after personal details of Heartland staff. He got them -home addresses and phone numbers- and he disseminated them. He should be in jail.

          My gast is absolutely flabbered that Gleick should be there and honoured in this way, (as prodigy not even as prodigal son).

          BTW, I had reported elsewhere that Mann “was made a fellow of the AGU earlier” in the year (it’s mentioned in his ‘defamation’ complaint against Steyn along with ‘his’ Nobel prize), but I didn’t know the actual award was given at this event.

          Maybe “Made Mann” would be a better title (Mann, Gleick, Lewandowsky, Mooney -all good fellas).

          The lawyer was probably Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility or Peter Fontaine, of law firm Cozen O’Connor.

          PEER ‘operates’ the CSLDF

          “AGU and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) have partnered to prepare … a series of webinars along with events at AGU’s 2012 Fall Meeting.”
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012EO430008/abstract

        • mrsean2k
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:07 AM | Permalink

          @David Ross

          Thanks for the response, but can you give me a source for those quotations? It’s not that I doubt what you’re saying (or disagree with your general premise), but I’d like to see as close to the original context as possible. – “that original document” could mean a few things depending.

          @Rob Honeycutt

          The same rules for the source you choose to share, please

        • Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

          @mrsean2k
          Sure, I’ve just started my own blog but the sources for those quotes and others can be found in a guest post I wrote for WUWT when the Gleick affair broke.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/things-about-peter-gleick-that-might-also-interest-or-intrigue-you/

          I should point out that the Piltdown analogy (a good one) originated from someone in the comment thread that followed, not me.

        • TerryMN
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

          And Peter clearly states that he did not fabricate the letter. It was anonymously sent to him.

          Also, the dog ate my son’s homework thrice!

        • manicbeancounter
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

          Rob.

          Whatever Peter Glieck may or may not have said about forging the document, it was this forged document that identified Gleick as the person who obtained the actual documents through impersonation.
          See this posting by Steve McIntyre
          http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/

        • Jonas N
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

          Rob Honeycutt

          And Peter clearly states that he did not fabricate the letter

          Sorry for being late to this discussion, but this is actually news to me. AKAIK Gleick admitted in HuffPo in a statement (crafted in a very lawyerly fashion, ie probably not penned by him) that he was the ‘Heartland Insider’. That he assumed a false identity to get hold of the genuine Heartland documents he the circulated. Regarding the faked one, however, he was vague and ambiguous:

          At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

          He claims not to know the source of the “original document”, but there is no real source of course. It is a fabrication, not an ‘original document’. And that it was ‘sent to him’ doesn’t exclude that he arranged this ‘sending’.

          Further, given the fact that the only real juicy bits were the wordings found in the fake memo, this clearly is/was the centerpiece of the whole affair. The one surrounded by questions wrt to its origin and author, how and under what circumstaces, what additional information etc, it was presented to Gleick.

          He most certainly did not state anything clearly denying what was the most contentious question surrounding his stunt: Who forged the fake memo …

          He seems remarkably uniterested in this, or to straighten any questionmarks. Or even to deny the (by then piling up) speculations that he was the forger.

          Further, he be now is a proven liar, lying even to trusted friends on his own side, hoping to deceive them. And there are issues with the ‘copy’ he was sent and subsequently converted to a pdf-file ..

          And just think of Gleick’s ‘story’ we are presented with and expected to buy: The information supposedly sent him by someone with Heartlanda inside knowledge contains specifics (and only those) he later solicited under a fake identity. And it isn’t even a strategy or a plan outlining a method and a goal. It’s not dated, and just weird in general. And even names Peter Gleick as someone of significance.

          The story you are pinning your hopes on requires two Gleick-style weirdos who don’t even talk to each other openly.

          Me too would like to see any further support or just statements asserting that Gleick is not the forger.

          Steve: it seems to me that Gleick’s search for the “real” forger is about as diligent as OJ’s search for the “real” killer.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

          The evidence that Gleick was the forger was discussed at length at the time. The matter should have been settled by a proper investigation. The issue at this stage is why the forgery charge hasn’t been investigated. Not by AGU, not by the National Science Foundation and, to my knowledge, not by Pacific Institute.

  17. Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @Rob Honeycutt

    In objecting to Steve M’s “condone”
    You are standing quite clearly alone
    For they did overlook
    The bad actions Gleick took
    And they knew it. It’s not “should have known.”

    Once informed, they made token sad noise
    But then offered the role Gleick enjoys
    In his podium role.
    AGU’s lost its soul
    And is now a mouthpiece for the Boys.

    You insist on what Glieck “clearly states”
    But the odds are that this dude relates
    What will serve him right then
    So he will lie again
    And (with help from you) hope that he skates

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

  18. iskoob
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 3:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RobH:
    “If you look close, Steve, you’re using the transitive form of the verb, which has a very different definition from the common use of the word.”

    No, it’s always used transitively.

    But then, you don’t know what a transitive verb is, do you?

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

      To be fair, I got the meaning of “transitive” wrong too. I couldn’t recall what it was offhand. At first I assumed he was talking about condone, but as you point out, it isn’t used intransitively. I then looked for a word that had some possible tense issue and messed up.

  19. Stacey
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @ian18888
    “……they just don’t care”
    My view is the organisation has taken a high moral position?
    All’s fair in love and for the cause.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

      @Stacey

      The only factor that matters (ie. is cared about) in this “war” is the spread of publicity through the MSM meeja

      Any dilution of message carried in the MSM is perceived as a threat to the cause. Obviously, the more publicity such a dilution receives, the larger the perceived threat. That is why Climategate worried them so – some of the MSM began half-heartedly, timidly reporting on it

      Convincing the populace that CAGW is both real and imminent unless “something is done” is regarded by the cause as its’ most noteworthy achievement – this is easily demonstrated by the ferocious intensity of reaction to any off-message reporting in the MSM

      So it follows that an incident such as Gleick’s stupid meltdown, as despicable as it was, is only important if the general populace come to know the detail of it. That didn’t happen (MSM editors are gate-keepers) so Gleick is back

      QED

  20. John Silver
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “some interesting angles on Hurricane Sandy”

    Interesting, but Sandy wasn’t a hurricane, It was a superstorm.
    Here is the definition of a superstorm:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstorm

  21. johanna
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back Steve, hope you got some warmth into your bones, and commiserations for having to tend to tedious administrative matters like FOI requests etc during your holiday.

    Your report on the AGU was gob-smacking. In particular, that the ethics session was so poorly attended is indicative of either ignorance or complacency on a frightening scale by those attending. I would have thought that an aspect of an organisation that plunged it into disrepute and was covered in the media worldwide would be of some interest, not least to journalists. But, I saw not a single report either on the ethics session or on Gleick’s instant rehabilitation anywhere, except in your post here. Amazing.

    Combined with Mann’s ludicrous award, the take-home message is that there are no standards whatsoever for scientific or ethical conduct within AGU. None. It’s just a front for an annual horse-and-pony show called the AGU Convention. It sounds indistinguishable from all those international climatefests at which people who mostly have all their expenses paid by others get together and make whoopee in the name of science.

    Perhaps they should just issue everyone with Shriners hats and hold it in Las Vegas next year.

  22. Mark McNeil
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, you were missed.

    I would like to see your comments on Sandy, especially after McCracken & McCarthy’s recent screed.
    http://www.ohio.com/editorial/michael-maccracken-and-james-j-mccarthy-climate-change-in-the-here-and-now-1.356331

    I would like to see more comments on mean sea level and measurements.

    I would like to see your comments on the recent IPCC draft and IPCC computer models FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4.

  23. Mark McNeil
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    P.S. By AGU’s behavior it can be inferred Peter Gleick’s lawyer wrote a threatening letter to AGU. Would such a letter be discover-able?

  24. Vieras
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A while ago I got my hands on the SKS secret forum posts. To find out how the SKS crowd thinks, I decided to read the posts of the Gleick saga as it unfolded over the days.

    Some of them did question the authenticity of the forged document:

    “To be honest, I wasn’t sure about that one myself.”
    “This would also possibly support their claim that the strategy document is a fraud.”
    “I am equally confident that the “strategy” document is a fake.”
    “It does not read like an internal memo.”

    But then there were some who posted:

    “I don’t think any of the docs are fake.”
    “I don’t think any are fake either. And I don’t think it was identity theft. This is damage control to demonize us…”
    “The strategy document could very well be an early draft witten by Heartland staffer.”

    It’s funny to read how the whole saga transforms from “This is very likely a smear campaign designed to do exactly what the leaked/stolen documents show.” to “Groan. An own goal.”

    Knowing that, guess how many SKS insiders suspected at any time that Gleick had forged the document? Nobody. That makes me wonder why the site is called Sceptical Science.

    Oh, BTW, one of the citations is from one who has commented here. Care to guess which one it is?

  25. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What a sad commentary on professional ethics, which seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.Readers may also recall the song.

    snip –

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Hmmmm. Maybe I should have quoted Bob Dylan (see here) to describe my expedition to Gleick’s lecture:

      You hand in your ticket
      And you go watch the Gleick

      Readers will remember the chorus, which apparently applies to AGU leadership:

      And something is happening here
      But you don’t know what it is
      Do you, Mister Jones ?

      • Eddy
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

        “You hand in your ticket
        And you go watch the Gleick”

        Cruel! But funny.

      • Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Bob Dylan, wasn’t he the one that said:
        You don’t need a waterman to know which one’s fake, it shows
        … or something like that.

      • Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Do you Mr. Jones?

        The thing impressed me the most was the banner about the attorney: one on one.
        I think we can only expect things to get worse. These people have a holy mission, and anything and everything is to be justified to achieve that mission

        • Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

          snip

          Steve: OT.

          In addition, blog policies discourage piling on generalized complaining. I realize that my moderation enforces this inconsistently – I have only so much time and energy – but nonetheless I ask commenters to comply with this.

        • Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

          I am somewhat mystified. The addendum was an extension of the first comment. Please instruct as to “piling on” and “generalized complaining”

          Or if you had other, more cogent reasons that you would rather not give, then ignore this question.

      • theduke
        Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Steve: you’ve quoted Dylan before and it seems that you are–like me– a fan, so here’s something for future reference:

        http://dylanchords.info/

        It’s all there.

      • pdxrod
        Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

        You Don’t Need A Weatherman
        The Climes They are A’Changin’
        You’re Bound to Fall

  26. HankHenry
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think Gleick himself would say his Pacific Institute has a special interest in policy. It seems an interest in policy is nothing but a distraction to reasoning about scientific matters. The science should be informing the policy not the other way around. Gleick’s place is in the audience not as a speaker.

    • theduke
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I agree with this. Gleick is 90 percent advocate and 10 percent scientist. He has no business participating at a conference of scientists. The Pacific Institute is a lobbying group that disseminates green propaganda. They are not interested in pure scientific research. They are interested only in research that fits the agenda.

  27. juanramireztx
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Wow. The mentally ill have taken over AGU.

    • A. Scott
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Good thing they have Lewandowsky on board then ….
      ;-)

  28. normalnew
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Depressing, but in this debate far from surprising.

    About the word condone I thing Stephen is right. Con, is the prefix and means ‘with’. So condone means: with – whats done

    Prefixes and subfixes are essential to understand in etymology of germanic languages.

    • Gerald Machnee
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Maybe condone is not one word. They could have meant “con” and “done”. There is more than one meaning for the first word.

      • normalnew
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

        nice catch, didn’t think about that :)

    • John Archer
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

      But, Normalnew, condone is Latinate, not Germanic. Yet another unfortunate consequence of the Norman Conquest.

      For what it’s worth here’s the definition given in my 2-volume 1993 edition of Clarendon Press’s The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles edited by Lesley Brown, price £499,999,999.99 at all good stockists {my interference in braces}:

      condone {IPA pronunciation omitted} v.t. M19. [Latin condonare deliver up, surrender, favour by not punishing, f. as CON- + donare give.] 1 Forgive or overlook (an offence; freq. a spouse’s adultery); esp. forgive tacitly by not allowing the offence to affect one’s relations with the offender. M19. 2 Of an action, fact etc.: atone for (an offence); make (a wrong) appear forgivable. L19. 3 Approve, sanction, esp. reluctantly; acquiesce in. M20.
      {Examples of usage designated by smaller font:}
      1 G. B. SHAW Is it your intention not only to condone my son’s frauds, but to take advantage of them? 2 I. MURDOCH The vague illumination of the lofty notions which may seem to condone all kinds of extravagance. 3 K. KESEY Like the whole thing had been planned by him, or at least condoned and authorised.
      {Derivatives:}
      condonable a. L19. condoner n. M19.

      Key:
      M19 1830-1869
      L19 1870-1899
      M20 1930-1969

      Incidentally, the con- (com-) bit is an intensifier.
      :)

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

        forgive tacitly by not allowing the offence to affect one’s relations with the offender.

        surely that exactly fits AGU and Gleick.

        • John Archer
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

          It surely does. :)

          Here’s a composite picture of the entry so you can see for yourself — I had to patch the halves together as the definition spanned two of the pages. But never mind the quality, feel the width! :)

          http://i47.tinypic.com/141qn3p.jpg

    • Thor
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Wiktionary.org states the following about the etymology of the word condone:

      From Latin condōno (“forgive”), con- (“together”) + dōnāre (“to give”).

  29. theduke
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, Steve.

    Question for anyone: Gleick resigned as chairman of the ethics committee but he is apparently still a member of AGU, no? Is there some way a petition or letter of some kind from concerned members can be started to get him removed from the Union?

    He’s getting away with his crimes and no one seems to care. If someone on the skeptical side of the argument had committed the same crimes, they’d be in court right now or convicted facing possible incarceration.

    On the subject of Lewandowsky, I particularly enjoyed this description: “Indeed, Lewandowsky’s own recent work can perhaps be best described as a unique combination of Mannian statistics and Gleickian ethics.” It tied the whole piece together very nicely.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Joe Bast and other Heartland officers have posted several times at WUWT. Each time, I and others have asked why Heartland has not sued, or filed charges against, Peter Gleick. Someone can correct me, but I’ve never seen an answer.

      Peter Gleick is walking at least in part because he’s never faced charges for his impersonation, fraud, and defamation. See 18 U.S.C. 1343. So long as that’s true, he can carry on as an innocent and partisan others such as the AGU can participate in the charade.

      Heartland remains silent. Their Gleick exposure Fakegate page displays polemics and opinion pieces, but no action. The statute of limitations on 18 U.S.C. 1343 is 5 years. One wonders what legal advice Heartland received, and I’m beginning to wonder if they are afraid of discovery.

      • Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

        It may not be their choice. Remember the names of donors and the home addresses of staff members were revealed by Gleick. Some may be concerned about their personal safety. They may think that prosecuting Gleick is not worth the attention it would bring, especially from the crazies.

  30. Philip Clarke
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony Watts weighs in with a comment on ‘professional ethics’ and a predictably ad-hominem attack on Gleick. I wonder if this is the same Watts who permits the moderators on his blog to log in under false names and pose as commenters to promote the blog party line ?

    The outspoken and regular WUWT poster ‘Smokey’ is in fact D B stealey, aka moderator ‘dbs’.

    http://en.gravatar.com/dbstealey

    Once this became public knowledge ‘Smokey’ fell silent, however another poster ‘D Boehm’ has continued with an identical line of asinine arguments and unreferenced and unsourced ‘killer’ charts…. and the moderators have curiously become anonymous.

    Of course WUWT is not in the same league as a professional scientific association, still it seems a prima facie case of a double standard. Here’s an extract from the WUWT site policy …

    “Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion.”

    Oh really?

    • John M
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Philip Clarke…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

      • Philip Clarke
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Gleick’s offence was posited on using a false identity, the thread is about the apparent AGU condoning of same. The proprietor of the ‘The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’ expresses the view that this is poor ‘professional ethics’ while we know he himself condones the use of false identities by his staff. And this is irrelevant? Is it only relevant when other people do it?

        • theduke
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

          There is a difference between using an alias and using a false identity to commit legal fraud. The distinction has apparently eluded you.

          Do you think at all before you post?

        • thisisnotgoodtogo
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

          Philip Clarke,

          You said
          “Gleick’s offence was posited on using a false identity”
          I think it was stealing a real person’s identity, no?

      • John M
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I guess that’s right.

        You did.

      • Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Well, there really is no way to tell
        Whether Jackson is casting her spell
        Obfuscating like Clarke
        For reality’s stark:
        “Richard Windsor” fakes IDs as well

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

    • Mooloo
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Quick, change the subject!

      Don’t want to talk about how guilty Gleick is, so we’ll try to get petty about the moderation procedure on another blog. Which is particularly ridiculous given that the moderation on pro-AGW blogs is much more heavy handed and partisan.

    • John Silver
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

      You didn’t understand the topic so you had to go way off topic?

    • bmcburney
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Mr. Clarke,

      You mean somebody was using an alias when commenting on a blog??? On the internet??? And you say some of the charts used in these comments were of dubious validity???? It’s an outrage!!!

      Obviously, that is practically the same thing as identity theft, intentionally misrepresentating the source of documents, (probable) forgery and outright libel. If only Anthony Watts were the former chair of an AGU ethics committee and was speaking at AGU shortly after engaging in conduct which the AGU refused to condone the two cases would be nearly indistinguishable

      • Philip Clarke
        Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

        You mean somebody was using an alias when commenting on a blog?

        snip

        Steve- there are very large differences between Gleick’s impersonation of a Heartland document in order to obtain documents and the use of pseudonyms on blogs. Gleick’s conduct was illegal, while there is nothing illegal about the use of pseudonyms on blogs. Blog policies here discourage coatracking topics and it seems to me that your complaints about moderation at WUWT are coatracking in a discussion of AGU.

        • Philip Clarke
          Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

          —-

          Steve: I dont know the answer to your questions. I’ll inquire about policies.

  31. Vieras
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ah, Phil Clarke. I can find you also as a secret SKS forum poster. Gleick was suspected because of the writing style of the forged document. How can you explain that none of you guys suspected Gleick for being the forger?

    If you guys can’t be sceptical about even this kind of an obvious situation, how can anyone trust you to look sceptically at anything?

    Or then maybe you guys are just protecting the poor soul and being nice towards him. In that case, how can anyone trust that you guys have the cojones to expose problems in the science your friends produce?

    • Philip Clarke
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Ah, Phil Clarke. I can find you also as a secret SKS forum poster.

      Er, no you cannot.

  32. junkpsychology
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One small correction: Stephan Lewandowsky’s background is in cognitive psychology, not social psych.

    Though whatever he used to know about cognition and methods for studying it, he seems to have forgotten.

    And the American Geophysical Union is pretty far afield, for any kind of psychologist.

  33. Tom C
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t understand why Heartland did not bring charges or at least a tort action.

    Steve: Heartland filed an information with the police. It was the Chicago police who thus far decided not to pursue Gleick. Perhaps Democratic politics have something to do with it, perhaps not. As to Heartland proceeding with a civil action, it seems to me that the issues are criminal rather civil. Heartland says that contributions are up – so this makes it harder for them to claim damages

  34. Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    We should all take note. The AGU, like other establishment organizations, has accepted Michael Mann, who I regard as a massive screw-up, Stephan Lewandowski, who is pretty obviously a charlatan, and Peter Gleick, a criminal.

    This should give you an idea of what they consider the stakes in this game. For them to accept these bozos means they consider its importance as pretty close to life or death.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, but why?

    • kim
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Onward the Long March,
      Zombie memes and zombie men
      Tread ghastly past death.
      =================

    • kim
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

      What bozos, these boys
      Cringing from fear of the warmth.
      Shiver, shake reason.
      ===========

    • theduke
      Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

      When you banish fellow believers, which would be the normal, ethical thing to do with people like Gleick, Mann and Lewandowsky, you diminish the consensus.

      You also accommodate the concerns of skeptics and other non-believers. In other words, you give ground.

      Like you say, Tom, “life or death.”

  35. john robertson
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back Steve hope NZ provided relief from this dreck.

    I find it quite logical that the political organization, AGU, would embrace these particular people, its the litmus test of climate-gate and they have to fail.
    For those who the gods intend to destroy, they first render insane?
    As the worm turns, the truly committed will become more blatant, shrill and desperately vicious.

    I rely on you for judgement of the mathematical manipulations, but draw my own conclusions of human nature, my take is its all down hill for the Gleick Squad and they were not very high to begin with.
    These 3, Mann, Gleick and Lewandowky are going to live in history.As another example of how waves of hysteria rock civilization.
    Hope you have an entertaining, joyful and profitable new year.

  36. Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Peter Gleick fits in so well with their agenda of obfuscation, manipulation and underhandedness that he was quite naturally welcomed back. He could quite naturally be Mann’s right-hand Man.

  37. Gillespie Robertson
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Fascinating and horrifying report.

    Forgive my pointing out that it’s ice floe not flow.

  38. HaroldW
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve-
    Did you attend the Mann session where he was to present evidence of missing years in tree ring chronologies? Or hear of it second-hand?

    Steve: I wasnt there on Monday. Didnt hear any such discussion on other days.

  39. john robertson
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Off Topic, but only slightly,

    Is there a valid reason for not posting the assumed mean temperature being used as the zero, in degrees C and its error range, on each and every anomaly graph?

  40. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Regarding the claim that the AGU is not condoning Gleick’s actions, based on some dispute about the meaning of “condoning”, I find that to be “pedantry up with which I will not put”, as the man said. I saw the good apologist folks coming almost a year ago. I knew that this kind of hair-splitting would be called on. I didn’t want the AGU folks, or anyone else, to be able to claim ignorance.

    Ms. Gunderson now claiming that the lack of integrity of Gleick’s actions were not any of their business at the AGU Integrity panel is fairly hilarious. Glieck was not just any AGU member. He was the Chair of the Task Force on Scientific Integrity of the AGU. On what planet is the highly public ethical cratering of the official AGU spokesmodel for integrity NOT the business of the AGU?

    I put Mr. Glieck’s replacement, Ms. Gunderson, on notice when she assumed the post last February. Inter alia, I wanted her to be very clear that inaction on this matter would be seen as condoning his actions. I wrote:

    Make no mistake. If Peter Gleick walks away from this debacle free of expulsion, sanction, or censure from the AGU, without suffering any further penalties, your reputation and the reputation of the AGU will forever join his on the cutting room floor. People are already laughing at the spectacle of the chair of a task force on scientific integrity getting caught with his entire arm in the cookie jar. You have one, and only one, chance to stop the laughter…

    You have a clear integrity case staring you in the face. If you only respond to Dr. Gleick’s reprehensible actions with vague platitudes about “the importance of …”, if the Task Force’s only contribution is mealy-mouthed mumblings about how “we deplore …” and “we are disappointed …”, I assure you that people will continue to point and laugh at that kind of spineless pretense of scientific integrity.

    So for all of you utilizing your semantic Procrustean beds for parsing “condone” to exactly the right size, the AGU “ethicists” were told beforehand that they could not claim ignorance. I informed them that inaction would be seen as being deliberate. Why?

    Because with such a huge ethical lapse on the part of the Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity staring them right in the face, inaction could only possibly occur through a deliberate decision.

    I find that inaction on the part of Ms. Gunderson to be reprehensible. Similarly, I find those folks wretchedly trying to reshape the word “condone” to relieve the AGU of responsibility to be sadly predictable. Ms. Gunderson obviously condoned his action, or she would have taken action.

    Ms. Gunderson, the person in charge of the AGU Scientific Integrity panel, chose not to even touch her predecessor’s obvious ethical lapse. This occurred after she had been notified that her actions regarding the amazing fraudulent activities of Gleick’s would be observed, and that any inaction would be rightly construed as being deliberate. At that point, I don’t care whether you call Ms. Gunderson’s lack of action on the Gleick case “condoning” his actions or not. I can tell you what it is.

    It is unethical, no matter whether you call it “condoning ” or by any other name. It stains the name of the AGU. It increases public mistrust in “scientific” societies, and by association, all scientists. It makes a mockery of the Task Force on Scientific Integrity—who could ever believe them now? It reflects very poorly on Ms. Gundersons reputation … or it should. Sadly, it may be seen as “protecting the team” or something of that nature, so it may be admired by some people.

    Ah, well. Seems like I must have been in this climate game for a while now, but I still get surprised. I expected at least a mush-mouthed and appropriately vague statement of regret for Gleick’s actions … instead, there was absolutely nothing at all.

    w.

    • sue
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

      +1 agree completely.

    • A. Scott
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

      On this I agree with you completely Wollis – Glieck was the head of AGU’s Ethics – their complete lack of action directly condones his behavior. Their inviting him back to speak without sanction seals the deal.

      It is disgusting and reprehensible that an admitted crook is allowed to continue as if nothing had happened.

    • Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Well said Willis.

      Pedants resort to word games when they don’t have a valid argument.

      The CRU was hacked. Those emails were stolen. Arrest that criminal, whoever he is. Gleick, fraud, forgery? Nonsense, it was a leak from a whistleblower. The man’s a hero. He did it with the best possible intentions. They’re not skeptics. They’re deniers. There’s only one thing that gets denied -the truth. It’s settled science. What do you mean “oxymoron”? Trick? It’s just “the term scientists and mathematicians often use to denote a clever shortcut to solving a vexing problem”. Decline? No its just a “divergence problem”. It’s all been dealt with in the literature.

      snip – piling on

    • timg56
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Well said Willis.

      That anyone can attempt to brush this way is both incredible and assinine.

      Having your Ethics Committee chair engage in clearly unethical action is the sort of thing that should have the organization aghast and embarassed.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Willis — now that AGU has shown their corporate ethics hand, maybe it’s time for a follow-up letter.

  41. Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    One comment of clarification; whilst you have done an admirable job of top-notch character assault, the fact the Mann had more than one talk is not a matter of “rules being waived”. Members are limited to one unsolicited presentation, but can give more than one presentation if they are invited to give the other presentations. I think you can check the program to see if the presentations were invited or not.

    Otherwise, your comments were spot-on. Gleick’s membership in AGU should have been revoked and he should not have any association with the organization. His actions were both reprehensible and prosecutable.

  42. JohnB
    Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Not to beat a dead horse:

    Both definitions of “condone” used by Steve come from freedictionary.com which has some odd words and definitions IMH (and non-professional) O. The definition used is more like ‘pardon’ (maybe it’s juudicial vs. executive).

    I like the Merriam-Webster definition at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condone:

    : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

    JohnB

  43. snarkmania
    Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The fact that Gleick was invited to give a Union Session speech probably reflects an inertia in AGU. Some in leadership and in general membership still support him. My guess is that many in the AGU do not support him. Or at least, they don’t support what he admitted to doing.

    But AGU leadership is currently considering releasing a draft official statement on climate change that, to me, may make Gleick look like a skeptic in comparison. The credibility of the collective of AGU is now at stake, not just that of one high-profile evangelist.

    By having commented within AGU, and/or making technical contributions, any AGU member had a chance to reflect their concerns on these climate issues.

  44. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The heaping of awards on Mann, Gleick, etc reminds me of the financial near-collapse and bail-out in 2008 when the financial institutions dumped bonuses on themselves as a reward for “good work”.

  45. Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be getting their pants in a twist about the technical differences between sock puppets, social engineering, pseudonyms and hacking, but there are more interesting things buried here under a complete lack of self awareness. Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others, we will not speculate as to motive, at least not here, wonders why he is shunned by those he threatens and their colleagues.

    Make no mistake about it, Steve is right when he sensed a hardening of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU clearly based on an increasing understanding that the climate system is entering dangerous areas driven by human forcings and disgust at the tactics of those trying to stop any actions to deal with the problem.

    Steve: I don’t understand your complaint against Climate Audit. If there’s anything inaccurate in this or any other post, I ask that people inform me of the inaccuracy. In addition, I seldom comment on policy and most of my rare comments on policy seem relatively uncontroversial to me (or even provoke criticism from “skeptics”). If you can point to any statement of mine about policy that provokes the sort of “disgust” that you allege, I’d appreciate it if you would provide me a link so that I can reflect on the point. It seems to me that people who are seriously concerned about the future should be the ones who take the lead in opposing bad ethics and poor statistical and scientific practices among their fellow travellers.

    Nor did I comment that I “sensed a hardening of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU”. I primarily noted Gleick’s surprising return to AGU. I hadn’t associated AGU’s welcome to Gleick as being connected to AGU attitudes to Climate Audit and sincerely hope that this is not the case.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Eli Rabett (Jan 7 14:40),

      Josh Halpern, if I did not periodically remind myself that you are said to be a university level professor of chemistry I could never believe it. Somewhere in your opaque blathering there seems to be some kind of accusation against Steve. Alas, misty indirection does nothing to advance rational discussion.

    • Willis Eschenbach
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Eli Rabett said (emphasis mine)
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be getting their pants in a twist about the technical differences between sock puppets, social engineering, pseudonyms and hacking, but there are more interesting things buried here under a complete lack of self awareness. Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others, …

      No, Eli, either say exactly whom, or don’t make the accusation. Your kind of anonymous accusation, nudge, nudge, wink, wink might pass for ethical action with the AGW crowd you run with. For me, it is cowardly and underhanded. I’ll be interested when you have the balls to name names and provide citations. Until then, you’re just part of what Spiro called the “nattering nabobs of negativity” …

      w.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others

        Yes, I’m curious about this as well. As too often, Rabett is opaque to the point of incoherency. Is Rabett concerned about people accessing pdf’s of academic articles from online sources without purchasing the articles from the journals? Many authors regularly post such articles on their websites, but one can download them without having to “smash and grab”. I’m puzzled. Or is Rabett concerned about authors being asked to archive data?

        • kim
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:50 AM | Permalink

          Speaking of smashing and grabbing, I rather like ‘opaque to the point of incoherency’. I’m gonna have to resolve to be less clear and concise when I write.
          =========

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

          C’mon Steve you’re an intellectual rent seeker. As the Idiot Tracker put it Steven McIntyre

          uses the coercive power of the state to force other people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor. He does not produce himself — he uses the data of others, repackaged and sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.

          and then, of course you wonder about the high regard you are held in by those you have cost time and effort complying for your rent demands.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

          In an old comedy sketch Beyond the Fringe, there’s a sketch in which a soccer coach tells a player: “You know how a team sometimes plays better with ten men than eleven. We want you to be that 11th man. There’s the end of the bench. Stay there.” If Eli Rabett was as concerned about the importance of climate policy as he claims, he should consider being that 11th man. Uttering his nonsense in public does more to make skeptics of the undecided than anything ever written by Heartland or Anthony Watts.

          If climate scientists are funded by the public to collect data, publish articles in academic journals using that data, articles which are cited by IPCC to inform proposed policy, then obligations to archive data arise on many levels. Most journals require authors to make data available (all should). Under the terms of most funding, the data is not the personal property of the scientist involved. The terms of many grants require authors to archive data (all should.) I’ve asked journals and agencies to do nothing more than to comply with their own policies.

          Rabett’s idea that data collected with public funds is the personal property of the scientists in question is repugnant. I entirely support the idea that scientists should have a period of time to publish such data, but the data needs to be archived with the article publication. The “rent-seekers” that Rabett should be concerned about are those scientists who have taken public funds to collect data and who refuse to archive it.

          Further, by Rabett’s bizarre standard, the authors of the multiproxy studies that I’ve criticized – Mann, Jones, Briffa, Crowley, Hegerl, Moberg, Gergis, etc – are “rent seekers”, since none of them collected the data that was used in their multiproxy studies.

          In addition, if scientists seriously expect the wider public to adopt climate policies, then they cannot play hide-the-weinie with data. On the contrary, they should do whatever they can both to be open and to be seen as being open.

          The point hardly seems worth arguing. I also note that I asked for data long before I started the blog. My requests for data were for the purpose of assessing the studies. I was doing so out of personal interest and that remains my primary interest. The blog has provided a method of shaming data obstructionists – a tactic that Myles Allen, for example, has endorsed.

          If Rabett wishes to advance his own cause, he would be far more effective if he encouraged authors to archive data, as supporting data obstruction contributes to making skeptics out of the undecided – a point that even Gavin Schmidt has somewhat conceded, as, for example, in his advice to data obstructionist Gergis.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

          Steve:

          Or is Rabett concerned about authors being asked to archive data?

          Apparently so. Raping and pillaging could never have had the impact on good relationships this did. It can only end in the International Criminal Court.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

          Eli Rabett, rated as one of the worst professors ever by his students, may know about intellectual rents, being a wholesale conveyor belt of the Consensus dogma. But apparently he hasn’t grasped the idea behind ‘show your work’. Odd for someone who (mis) labels himself as an educator. Perhaps Rabett’s odd fascination with labeling and libeling those in opposition helps explain some of my country’s educational deficiencies.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

          Ah yes, Emails. Please excuse Eli but that appears to be the data that the rent seekers are seeking.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

          ” “Or is Rabett concerned about authors being asked to archive data?

          Apparently so. Raping and pillaging could never have had the impact on good relationships this did. It can only end in the International Criminal Court.”

          No need to bother the Hague on Eli’s account: looting, pillage and rapine have little effect on data.

          It’s burning that plays hob with the signal to noise ratio.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

          Another Ivy League academic resolutely against showing one’s work and thus the ability to replicate science that has already shaped public policy? We’re truly honored today.

        • theduke
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

          Eli, quoting the Idiot Tracker because he’s too cowardly to make the accusation himself, writes:

          . . . he uses the data of others, repackaged and sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.

          Using the data for whatever reason is certainly preferable to misusing the data, which seems to be the modus operandi of the “others.”

        • Skiphil
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

          re: “intellectual rent-seekers” ??

          Alas, Eli Rabett is merely regurgitating one of the scurrilous memes preferred by apologists for data-hiders, obscurantists, and ideologues of the activist world.

          Had Mann, Jones, and their clique behaved with ordinary scientific and ethical rectitude all of these issues would have been much more easily addressed. Instead, we had this kind of scandalous history (for just one set of examples):

          Mann: “Dirty Laundry” from MBH98-99 CA post Dec 1, 2009

        • Skiphil
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

          What Eli Rabett & co. ignore is the 15+ years of data obfuscation and worse which has gotten us to this point. Not only have publicly funded scientific studies and records been abused, but the public record in the USA and many other countries now contains much inaccurate information thanks to the recklessness of some of the TeamClimate clique. For instance, policy makers and many millions of people have been presented with misinformation which still needs correction in many places of record:

          Al Gore and “Dr Thompson’s Thermometer” #2 CA Post Nov 10, 2007

        • Bob K.
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

          Rent seeker?? It sounds like Eli’s been running with the crowd that reads Adam Smith, wears skinny black neckties, and thinks Ayn Rand is a goddess. It was silly the first time this lame trope was brought up, and repeating it doesn’t make it sound any less lame.

        • sue
          Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

          Well said Steve! Eli, are listening?

        • kim
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

          There’s no room at the end of the bench. Robert, the Idiot Tracker, has nailed himself in place there.
          ================

    • theduke
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

      From Esquire magazine on “Why Do People Refer to Themselves in the Third Person?”

      Elsa Ronningstam, associate clinical professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and author of Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality: “Referring to yourself in the third person creates distance between ‘I’ and ‘he.’ So if you have an exaggerated view of how great you are, you could be using this distance to make yourself even bigger. Or, if you’ve achieved major success suddenly, using the third person could be a way to adjust to the bigger role that’s been assigned to you. It’s a way to enlarge yourself to fit that role.”

      • kim
        Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for this. I made up ‘We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.’ because I had an exaggerated view of how little We are.
        ==========

      • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

        You are assuming something about Eli which you disagree with. As several have noted, Eli is a bunny.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM | Permalink

          … All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

        • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

          Beware the Jabber Wonking son. .

    • snarkmania
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Mr. Rabett, did you attend AGU this year?

      I attended AGU and I didn’t sense any hardening of attitude. I sensed the opposite.

    • HaroldW
      Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Paralipsis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack.

      • Scott Basinger
        Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

        “Paralipsis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack.”

        ^ This. Except it’s not really effective.

        Smash and grab would imply that the ‘intellectual output’ that is paid by the taxpayer shouldn’t be open source. Pretty smallminded of you for a so-called academic.

    • John Archer
      Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

      @Eli Rabett

      You wrote:

      Someone, let us not say whom, conducting…

      Dropping that grammatical brick holed the irritatingly indirect and pretentious style of your missive well below the water line there, Gollum.

  46. Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Eli was under the impression that Michael Mann’s lawyers are Peter Fontaine (US) and Roger McConchie (Canada). Did either of them talk at the AGU Fall conference??

    Steve: As I mentioned in the post, I went to the Ethics workshop, rather than the workshop with Mann’s lawyers, which was scheduled at the same time. I presume that AGU scheduled them at the same time on the basis that most people interested in ethics wouldn’t want to go to the workshop with Mann’s lawyer and vice versa.

  47. Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t “pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The Heartland Institute, let me explain why.

    Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious violations of federal law he committed.

    Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago, along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public decide if justice has been served.

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

    • kim
      Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Merry Fitzmas, and a blind, just, New Year.
      ==================

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Thank-you very much for the explanation, Jim. It completely clears the air. May justice be served.

    • theduke
      Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you, Jim. If Joe Bast or anyone in management at Heartland had done to Pacific Institute what Gleick did to you all, he’d be in court right now facing a lengthy prison sentence.

      I look forward to your presentation on Gleick. That he is out operating with impunity at an event like the AGU convention is inexcusable.

  48. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I had commented on Eli’s vague, nasty, contentless accusations, asking him to have to courage of his convictions, and to either put up or shut up:

    Eli Rabett said (emphasis mine)
    Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be getting their pants in a twist about the technical differences between sock puppets, social engineering, pseudonyms and hacking, but there are more interesting things buried here under a complete lack of self awareness. Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others, …

    No, Eli, either say exactly whom, or don’t make the accusation. Your kind of anonymous accusation, nudge, nudge, wink, wink might pass for ethical action with the AGW crowd you run with. For me, it is cowardly and underhanded. I’ll be interested when you have the balls to name names and provide citations. Until then, you’re just part of what Spiro called the “nattering nabobs of negativity” …

    For those not following the story, Eli still hasn’t had the balls to back up his slime with the slightest bit of actual facts. He considers it adequate to continue wallowing in the mud. Instead of providing us with a single bit of actual evidence that Steve is teh eeevil, his idea of a citation is to bring in an Eli clone. He’s found some other brain-dead anonymous internet popup who clearly doesn’t like Steve either, so Eli quotes him … yeah, that’s real solid, Eli, real convincing. Random Eli Clone #2 makes the unsustainable claim that Steve

    … uses the coercive power of the state to force other people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor. He does not produce himself — he uses the data of others, repackaged and sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.

    Eli … …

    … aw, never mind. Bottom-feeding scum-suckers like you never pay attention anyhow, why bother? I’m not angry with you, Eli, I feel sorry for you. I sincerely hope someday you have the spine to stand up erect. I realize it’s hard to do, what with the notochord and all, but you really should give it a try. Crawling on your stomach just looks so undignified … not to mention slow and uncomfortable

    w.

    • Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that calling another a scum sucking bottom feeder was a sign of mild distaste. But then again Willis posts on WUWT.

      • Willis Eschenbach
        Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

        snip

        It seemed like you tried to aim some of your patented bunny venom at WUWT, but as often happens, your words were far too vague and disconnected to make out any rational meaning. You said “But then again Willis posts on WUWT.”

        Um … well … yes, I do.

        What would it mean to you if someone were to say to you “But then again Eli posts on Rabbit Run”. What point would you think they were trying to get across to you or others?

        My problem is, I don’t know what “Willis posts on WUWT” means. Is it like “Willis wears combat boots”? Is posting on WUWT, twice voted the best science site on the web, suddenly a sign of something bad? If so, speak up there, son, don’t hide your light under a bushel, tell us all—what bad thing is it a sign of?

        Once more, this is just more of your citation-free 100%-accusation style of posting. Perhaps that impresses the rubes at Rabbit Run. Here, not so much.

        In any case, you’d do well to sharpen up your insults, Eli, at least to where they are comprehensible. They don’t do much good if the folks you are trying to insult can’t understand them …

        w.

        PS—Are you ever going to muster up the balls to actually link to something, anything, to back up the slimy content-free accusations you started your day by throwing at Steve above? He may be too Canadian to call you on your bullshit, Eli. I’m not. Put up some actual evidence, or retract the accusation.

        • Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

          FWIW

          While I was away, I had to file pleadings in my Yamal FOI appeal, had a case conference in my Wahl attachment appeal and then had to file an application in the Wahl attachment appeal and am a bit weary of pettifogging by UEA lawyers. I’ve been reading the blogs.

          Willis might also look at the comments here and here and here

          Now Eli is not telling you these were his observations at AGU. Eli only spotted Steve twice in passing as he hopped in and out of some talks, but it is fairly indicative of the regard he is held in by climate scientists. YMMV, but that is why it is yours.

          And, of course, the best indicator was Jim Hansen’s remarks about Steve’s tying up the GISSTEMP server

          Do we want to lower ourselves to debating with a court jester? Of course that’s what he wants.

          I don’t have a strong preference as long as it is not taking a significant amount of my time.

          I have not read the stuff you are referring to [McIntyre's whinge to Town Hall, more later- ER], but as I recall, as soon as I was told about the matter, I said that he was welcome to the data

        • Jeff Alberts
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM | Permalink

          Grant Foster says: “Eli only spotted Steve twice in passing as he hopped in and out of some talks, but it is fairly indicative of the regard he is held in by climate scientists.”

          Somehow I doubt if Steve cares how “climate scientists” regard him. Their opinion, as much of their science, isn’t worth spit. You, however, should really seek professional help.

        • kch
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

          Jeff Alberts-

          Actually, I believe that ‘Eli Rabett’ is the nom de jerk of Josh Halpern. Grant Foster posts his pseudonymous assaults under the handle ‘Tamino’.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Jan 25, 2013 at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

      For anyone who has not seen this previously, a link on BH led me this this fascinating intellectual evisceration of Eli Rabbet and a variety of other phantasms of the climate science debates:

      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-1257

      The many comments by ‘VS’ on that thread, who appears to be an accomplished statistician, are fascinating on a range of issues related to abuses of statistics by certain climate scientists.

  49. Posted Jan 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You know, I just had a very uncharitable thought about Gleick, the little pisher in the big green pond – and erstwhile “reviewer” of (at least one) book he hadn’t read. Not to mention perpetrator of ignominious acts with malice aforethought and flogger of fictions he claims to have “received in the mail” – yet for which he has provided no evidence.

    Compared to Donna Laframboise’s spectacular journalistic coup* – for which she certainly has provided verifiable photographic evidence – Gleick’s highly unethical acquisitions and propagations just seem absolutely ludicrous.

    And all this required nothing more on her part than being a damn good investigative journalist in whom a real leaker with genuine goods could trust.

    I suspect that the information bestowed on Donna – which she is readily sharing with the world – will turn out to be far more interesting, and have a far greater impact than any of Gleick’s antics.

    It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Gleick is absolutely green with envy!

    * If you haven’t heard the news … Fifty shades of red for the IPCC

  50. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    In Australia, we have just had a copy cat of the Gleik affair.
    I’ll not describe it. See https://indymedia.org.au/2013/01/07/uncovering-the-real-hoax-anz-bank-greenwash-while-financing-coal-and-climate-change

    The Australian Securities & Exchange Commission has impounded a computer and phone and has been on TV mentioning offecnces with maximua of $100,000 fine and/or 10 years behind bars. Investigation continues, but the accused has confessed in public.

    In a jaw-dropping move, the head of the Australian Greens party, Senator Christine Milne, appeared on TV supporting the action of the alleged offender, saying in effect that the fate of future generations was more important than false representation and misleading statements.

    Thank you, Steve, for keeping the pressure on matters like this. When they get out of hand it’s anarchy.

  51. nexed
    Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Eli Rabett quotes an anonymous commentator in order to impugn Steve by claiming he freeloads off the work of others. So this anonymous commentator (me) decided to research the equally anonymous comments left about the good professor Rabett at the handy site: ratemyprofessors.com. And lo and behold, we find the following comment: “HORRIBLE! HIS LECTURES ARE COPIED AND PASTED FROM THE INTERNET.”

    Well, well, well. Some lovers of irony, not me to be sure, might say that professor Rabett has been well and truly hoisted by his own petard.

  52. gs
    Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Iron Law of Bureaucracy comes to mind.

  53. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: Eli Rabett
    Posted Jan 9, 2013 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    FWIW

    Eli, as Willis said, if you have anything useful, say it. Nobody wants to read your useless junk about AGU. You have not reported critically on any presentation. So quit trolling here.

    • Jeff Alberts
      Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 1:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Grant Foster never has anything useful to say. He’d much rather stir people up.

      • Jeff Alberts
        Posted Jan 11, 2013 at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Correction, I meant Halpern, not Foster. I got my sock puppets mixed up.

        • Posted Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

          You got your taxonomy wrong too. Pseudonyms not sock puppets. Sock puppets are people who praise their own hard work using a pseudonym. Kind of like [name deleted]. There. Fixed that for yah

          [RomanM: Badmouthing specific individuals is strongly discouraged.]

        • Jeff Alberts
          Posted Feb 2, 2013 at 2:45 AM | Permalink

          Since your “pseudonym” talks about itself in the third person, praising itself, Sock Puppet is more than appropriate.

  54. James
    Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There is some good discussion at Jo Nova’s site on this : http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/american-geophysical-union-cheat-decieve-steal-its-ok/

    The letter to the AGU at comment #7 raising many of the points you mention re Lewandowsky, Mann and Gleick are covered in that. Will be interesting to see how much feedback the AGU get from this.

  55. Laura
    Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I came to this blog as a scientist genuinely interested in what I thought might be legitimate observations about shortcomings of climate science. Reading this as someone who was at AGU it jumped out at me that the author makes a truly baffling assumption that the lawyer available is Mann’s lawyer (this service had nothing to do with Mann) and later in his post takes this bizarre paranoid presumption as fact (“the session with Mann’s lawyer”) when making a cynical conclusion about the convenient conflict between the ethics session and the availability of the lawyer. You can see plainly from the photo of the “Lawyer Availaible” session that it took place from morning to afternoon of every single day of the conference. Thank you for making it plain to see that you are either a) not interested in honest discourse or b) completely out of touch with reality. Either way you saved me the (waste of) time it would have been to take your claims seriously.

    Steve: If you are as much of a scientist as you claim, then you should try getting your facts rights. You can see plainly from the image showing the announcement of the workshop on “Mann’s case” that it was on Wednesday between 12:30 and 1:30 – exactly the same time as the workshop of the Ethics Task Force. As I stated, the workshop on Mann’s case was presented by Mann’s lawyer – see http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/an-inside-look-at-the-michael-mann-case/.

    As you observe, there was a “Lawyer Available” at other times, but that was different than the Mann Case session. Before pontificating, I’d urge you to get your facts right.

    • kch
      Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

      You apparently see fit to dismiss the entirety of Steve’s work based on his mistaken impression of an AGU session that he did not attend. I would agree that it is unfortunate, and probably should be corrected. It does leave a couple of questions, however:

      1) Did you read any of the actual observations that you are herewith dismissing? If you arrived at this blog ‘as a scientist’, it seems puzzling that you make no mention of the science to be found here.

      2) If blog errors are cause for dismissal of a person’s work, how do you feel about the work of those that have committed outright illegal actions? As examples, look at Gleick (phishing at least), Hansen (arrested at protests) or Jones (blocking FOI).


      Steve: in fact, there was nothing incorrect in my statement. The Mann Case session was exactly opposite the Ethics Task Force workshop and was a different than the Lawyer Available facility. The session on the Mann Case was presented by Mann’s lawyer, as I stated – see http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/an-inside-look-at-the-michael-mann-case/.

      • kch
        Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Steve-

        My apologies. You are, as usual, correct. I should have gone back to re-read the relevant section in your post. I guess I made the mistake of accepting a self-proclaimed scientist’s statement at face value. After years of reading this blog, I’d have thought I’d know better…

        • Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

          Ha. Pseudonymous self-proclaimed scientist to boot (alliteration dependent on the silent p – allowed?) A female persona and air of bogus authority is one of many variants that can lead up the garden path.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Laura (Jan 10 09:28),

      Yes, Laura, “Thank you for making it plain to see that you are either a) not interested in honest discourse or b) completely out of touch with reality.”

      Now perhaps you can read the site with a genuine scientific spirit, unless you were only here for a drive-by sneer. You will find plenty of knowledgeable and engaging people around here if you want to try some “honest discourse” — why not give it a try?

  56. Paul H
    Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I am a little unconvinced by your “AGU Honors Gleick” narrative. Was it really the AGU that honored Gleick? Or some other individual or group that invited Gleick to that session? I would favour the latter explanation.

    Any scientist can ask to chair a session. After that application has been accepted it is up to the session chairs to invite speakers, accept or reject abstracts, and to arrange the schedule. This has to be carried out to certain criteria, but these criteria, to my knowledge, don’t extend to censuring scientists that have behaved unethically outside of their immediate scientific work through what amounts to censorship. I would argue that a more accurate label would be “Session Chairs Honor Gleick”, or something to that effect. Irrespective of his past wrongdoings, Peter Gleick remains a knowledgeable and talented member of his scientific peer group. His past wrongdoings haven’t changed those professional achievements. Given his invitation to that session, he would appear too to still have the respect of his colleagues that convened the relevant session based on those achievements. For the record, I find it a bit unusual that he was invited, and I don’t necessarily agree with that decision. I would want to hear the reasoning of the conveners before jumping to a conclusion. But I do not find it at all noteworthy that he was allowed to present at the meeting.

    To those that haven’t seen yet, Gleick gave his talk in session U33A “Unsolved and Emerging Problems in Water”, which was convened by Shafiqul Islam, Praveen Kumar, and Elfatih Eltahir (all of Tufts Civil Eng Dept.). His talk was titled ‘Hard water problems and soft water paths: The “supply versus demand” conundrum’.

    • Salamano
      Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

       
       
       
       
      weak.
       
       

    • Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Paul H:

      Steve, I am a little unconvinced by your “AGU Honors Gleick” narrative. Was it really the AGU that honored Gleick? Or some other individual or group that invited Gleick to that session? I would favour the latter explanation.

      I think you need to attend a little more to the detail. The heart of the narrative for me is:

      Willis had worried that the Task Force would respond to Gleick’s conduct only “with vague platitudes about ‘the importance of …’” or “mealy-mouthed mumblings about how ‘we deplore …’ and ‘we are disappointed …’. In fact, the AGU Ethics Task Force did not even do that much. They totally ignored the issue, while Gleick was welcomed back.

      That is so astonishing that it’s hard to do it justice. If the Ethics Task Force do nothing about Gleick and the AGU has no objection to him as a speaker (which we surely would have heard about by now) Steve’s narrative is for me wholly convincing.

      What’s less and less acceptable is this kind of nit-picking when so much is wrong, at such cost to the truth, in one of America’s and world’s most prestigious science institutions.

      • snarkmania
        Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I believe both Steve and Paul are right.
        Steve didn’t paint the entire organization with a single brush, and Paul pointed out other aspects. Both ring true to me.

        I don’t know what Willis expects as the outcome of his past blog post. He’s not even a member of AGU (at least he wasn’t last year). If he wants to change things at AGU, I think he should join AGU. And honestly it doesn’t cost very much and there are no onerous admission requirements. You don’t even have to be a scientist.

        Steve: I think that Willis’ hope and expectation was that AGU would act properly on its own accord. It shouldn’t require Willis’ efforts to try to “change things” at AGU; it should be the responsiblity of AGU and its memberships to act with responsibility and dignity. having said that, I think that AGU membership is good value though I’m somewhat disappointed at the prominence accorded this year to the Gleick-Lewandowsky-Mann claque.

        • Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

          Ah yes, put the blame firmly where it belongs: on Willis, for not joining AGU. That would clearly have changed everything.

          There’s a parallel for me here with what
          Jonathan Jones
          said to Richard Betts on Twitter yesterday, about deciding not to be a reviewer of IPCC AR5:

          I can’t speak for others, but fundamentally I don’t see it as my job to help fix a broken process implementing a stupid idea

          The whole tweet-stream, starting with Richard’s point (with which I have more sympathy than this one) is worth a look.

          Unlike being an IPCC reviewer there are other rewards of being a member of AGU, as Steve makes clear in his piece, but the idea that the missing ingredient in this sorriest of tales was Willis’s membership is ludicrous.

        • snarkmania
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

          I am likely on your side. But I saw the original letter-to-AGU post Willis made last year on WUWT. I posted on that one as well. I supported Willis’s letter and suggested he submit it to AGU directly. I even looked up the contact information and shared that. But he chose not to follow up, I think.

          In the meantime, I followed up on my own to develop scientific content to present at AGU which was of a very skeptical nature (for second year in a row). I also enrolled in a Ph.D. program since Willis’s letter-to-AGU post, which is relevant to my skeptical concerns.

          Also, as a member, I have followed up on some of AGU’s outreach to members for their feedback.

          Like you and Willis, I am a skeptic who likes reading and posting here for sure. But ultimately one can’t expect massive institutions to follow blog posts, or blog comments. AGU is not a monolith to be howled at in the moonlight. I think one who has insights that they feel are important to share, should get in it, get dirty. Consider AGU as a giant blog site maybe, and that your papers and posters are somewhat more formal blog comments.

        • Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

          Really interesting. Do Steve or Willis know your real identity?

        • snarkmania
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

          Steve visited my poster at AGU. I always enter my name on my comments here, but for some reason, it’s set to an old comment name I made up. My name is Michael G. Wallace

        • Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

          Thanks Michael! It’s interesting (as an aside) how systems can conspire to make these things more difficult than they ought to be. The BBC recently changed their commenter profiles to favour real names, if that’s what people wanted to use. Like you, perhaps, I’d been trapped into registering as and being displayed as a pseudonym without spaces and so appeared for many years as rdrake98. Then the change was made and was backdated – but, as always, they missed a few. This doesn’t help with my little interaction with David Miliband, a reasonably important UK politician, in May 2008. rdrake98 asks him a question and Richard Drake responds to his reply. I wasn’t in fact as mixed up as this might imply. But we get there in the end, I hope :)

        • snarkmania
          Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

          thanks back at ya! I always learn something here.

        • snarkmania
          Posted Jan 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

          Steve wrote “I think that AGU membership is good value though I’m somewhat disappointed at the prominence accorded this year to the Gleick-Lewandowsky-Mann claque”

          I’m also disappointed at that, very much. But I’m not surprised.

          There is maybe another side to this, for me at least. Heartland is likely no more a monolith than AGU is. Yet Heartland’s high profile Science Director, Dr. Jay Lehr (a hydrologist like me) has been involved in some occasional acts of possibly bad professional judgement, once even leading to a prison sentence.

          Moreover, not so long ago skeptics (including myself) seemed to be successful at debunking his ‘megawatershed’ concept, upon which an international business had been structured. After our concerns were raised (in a blog, http://www.waterdoc.org, and in comments directly on Wikipedia) the ‘megawatershed’ term was removed from Wikipedia and the business has apparently vanished.

          Personally I don’t see the value of that history to Heartland, but I’m not a member. And in comparison to AGU’s ongoing relationship to Gleick, it’s not so different.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jan 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

        The mandate of the Ethics Task Force http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/pdf/TaskForceCharge_2011-11-21.pdf included:

        Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies.

        You’d think that the fact that their Ethics Chairman had committed identity fraud, distributed a forged document and had probably forged the forged document would be relevant to a review of the current state of AGU’s ethical standards/

        • Skiphil
          Posted Jan 18, 2013 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

          Shameless Peter Gleick cites info he obtained from his phishing scheme against Heartland. So much for his faked remorse. See his comment on Heartland paying Fred Singer at link:

          https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/476034159119458

        • snarkmania
          Posted Jan 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

          Those attacks on Dr. Singer in particular really tick me off.

          My feeling is that Fred Singer knows more about climate change science than Lehr and Gleick and Lewandowski and Boslough and Hansen and Mann and (fill in any name of just about anyone) put together.

          And he communicates those insights most professionally, whatever his other interests or affiliations.

          I attended a presentation of his in Albuquerque last year. There I witnessed the Gleick-based fraudulent accusations thrown at him from a prominent member of the audience. The timing of Singer’s talk there, last February was roughly synchronous with Gleick’s initial accusations against Heartland.

          That whole business about where the money comes from (not to mention the business about the false memo), was totally irrelevant to the science that Dr. Singer presented. Personally seeing him get falsely smeared, was something I’ll never understand.

    • snarkmania
      Posted Jan 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I am on the same page with you. But it is funny to me that Gleick’s paper has virtually nothing to do with scientific questions of climate change predictive certainty and verification of that.

      To me, that is the problem with this controversy between Heartland and AGU. It’s more about hydrologists (Lehr and Gleick) than HYDROLOGY.

  57. Posted Jan 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting to see that NCSE hosted a session. Looks like the NCSE is still full in on the warming alarmism, having learned little from the Gleick debacle . . .

    Incidentally, Steve, minor typo: It is NCSE, not NSCE.

  58. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jan 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It is difficult for me to take seriously a grown man who refers to himself in the third person and sometimes as a bunny, but I must point out to him that, while maybe hare-brained is too strong a term, certainly it is misguided to not recognize the intellectual benefits of having an internet that allows access to scientific data that a non member of a science community can critically analyze and use to test the validity and conclusions of papers. That the members of the community evidently avoid these critical analyses makes this access even more important.

    Further I would say, cutesy references to bunnies does not defer from what otherwise appears as a brutish big brother attitude that implies that taxpayer funded researchers should not share their data with interested parties but by inference they should fund and publish their own research and do it to the exclusion of obtaining data from the “community”.

    I think the motivations of people like Eli become rather clear in that they would prefer that the climate science community did or was able to ignore those individuals, who would analyze these data and particularly those who would have found the need for more complete data and have gone about attempting to obtain it. I think the Eli’s of the world see this reaction of the climate science community to these individuals as a major impediment to the public relations campaign of obtaining immediate mitigation of AGW. What Eli has expressed in this thread with regards to the community ignoring SteveM is more wishful thinking than dealing with reality. I say this and at the same time realize that the climate science community continues to have many unresolved issues and problems.

  59. Skiphil
    Posted Jan 16, 2013 at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Update re Lewandowsky’s ‘science’

    Jeff Condon has a nice dissection of later rantings from Lewandowsky:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/yellow-science/

    Note: correct name of journal in question is ‘Psychological Science’

  60. Posted Jan 31, 2013 at 4:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey, Willis, you lying scum, I need to talk to you but I don’t know your email. I quote you from WUWT:

    “Of course, since he can’t control the conversation here, he doesn’t hang around much” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/)

    You know full well I’m banned there (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/), you slimy liar. Your pal AW is too afraid of me to let me comment.

    Steve: William, I think that you’ve confused Willis with Michael Mann, whose email address you probably know already. Normally this sort of language is not permitted here (nor is there normally any need to remind readers of this). However, your rhetoric says more about you than the object of your affections. No one will ever characterize your rhetorical style as Churchillian; Nixonian springs more to mind.

    • Willis Eschenbach
      Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 5:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Steve, thanks for leaving the message up, so that I could respond.

      Hey, William, thanks for the heads-up. I’m sorry you are so upset about this, I was unaware of any of it. You link to to something or other at the stoat blog, but I never go to Weaselville, it’s bad for my digestion … in any case, I’ve added a retraction and an apology right where I made the comment.

      Sadly, however, you have the stick by the wrong end. I had no idea that you were banned at WUWT, and although I do forget things occasionally, I think I’d remember that. I’m not a moderator, and I’m not in on the moderators’ discussions, so I have no clue who is banned from WUWT and who is not, that’s not my job, I’m occupied with scientific research and writing. I’m a content creator who depends heavily on the great work of the moderators, but I hardly interact with them at all. Heck, I hardly interact with Anthony, which is a shame ’cause he’s a great guy, but we both have our own lives and don’t talk much.

      As to whether I’m lying, perhaps you are judging me based on what you might do. Me, I simply do not do that—it is anathema in my world. I am often wrong, but I do not lie to people. It’s an oddity of mine, strangely enough one passed down from my great-grandfather. By all accounts he was a fearsome man, a master mariner called “the Captain” by all and sundry, including his wife and his 13 children.

      My grandmother brought us kids up by what she called the Captain’s Code, which was a collection of the Captain’s rules for life. The Captain was a seaman, as am I, and his words have always resonated with me. For example, part of his Code was

      “When you go into a fight make sure the deck is clear behind you. You may need to step back.”

      I greatly enjoy both the practical and the metaphorical aspects of that, it’s been most useful to me. Another thing he said was

      “If it is necessary to frame your diploma and hang it in the living room, there must be something wrong with your education.”

      But I digress … here’s my point. One of the core parts, the critical, defining parts of the Captain’s Code was:

      If there is a man who can call you a liar, kill him. If you are one, kill yourself. There is no room for either of you.

      His words were law to us children, so that’s how I grew up, an anachronistic kid living on a remote cattle ranch in a cleared area in the middle of a wild forest, steeped in the ancient code duello where calling a man a liar was about the worst thing you could do next to being a liar yourself. I lived among cowboys who followed the same rule, poor men who owned little in life but their saddle and their honor and their word, and who guarded them jealously. It was how we lived.

      Now, the Captain was born in 1848. I was born 99 years later, and this is 2011, we don’t kill people (or ourselves) for lying these days. So I live by a more modern version of the Captains Code. But as the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined.

      And as a result, I am not a liar, my friend, it’s not in my lexicon, and I will thank you to keep a civil tongue on the subject. Calling a man a liar is not an accusation to be made lightly, and certainly not one to make before you have the ironclad evidence in your hand. In this case, you didn’t have one scrap, shred, jot, or tittle of evidence that I was lying … perhaps being a Wikipedia editor for so long has given you an inflated idea of the worth of your unsupported opinion, I don’t know.

      I do know that calling a man a liar based solely on your own guesses about his motives and intentions is not what the Buddhists call “right action” for any honorable man.

      I suspect you fancy yourself an honorable man, and I have every confidence that you could be one, and indeed that you may have been one at some earlier time. I think it is something you both can do and want to do. And if so, you have my support and my best wishes for your success. From my perspective, you are another tragic victim of Noble Cause Corruption, and that is a very difficult condition from which to recover. Sadly, there’s no “Twelve Step” program for that, it needs one.

      Because you can’t keep justifying your actions on the grounds that you are Saving The Planet™, William, in the world of climate science that excuse is long past its use-by date …

      In friendship and sorrow,

      w.

      • Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

        @WE: its good that you’ve retracted. Its bad that you’ve done so unpleasantly. Its also bad that you’re not prepared to admit that you were, indeed, lying originally. But that you’ve had to wrap your retraction up in such a mess of irrelevant words is telling.

        • thisisnotgoodtogo
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

          “@WE: its good that you’ve retracted. Its bad that you’ve done so unpleasantly. Its also bad that you’re not prepared to admit that you were, indeed, lying originally. But that you’ve had to wrap your retraction up in such a mess of irrelevant words is telling.”

          It doesn’t make much sense to me, William. If he was intent on spreading a lie, he could have ignored your comment and left his comment be on the high-volume WUWT.

          Instead he corrected immediately upon notice.

          I read WUWT and I didn’t know you were banned.

        • thisisnotgoodtogo
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

          maybe it’s just not as big a news item as you think it must be ?

        • Willis Eschenbach
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit

          @WE: its good that you’ve retracted. Its bad that you’ve done so unpleasantly.

          Unpleasantly? Let me get this straight. You wrongly and falsely accused me of being a liar. I denied lying completely, but I immediately posted a retraction and an apology for my misunderstanding, along with an explanation of my position.

          … and in response, you get upset with me, you think I’m being a big krool meanie to you for the manner in which I pointed out that you were acting dishonorably? … you don’t like the style? The style? You’re upset because I didn’t use the properly deferential tone when I pointed out that you were acting like a sleazebag?

          You have been caught publicly and falsely accusing a man of being a liar, and you want to bitch because he didn’t tickle your tummy and blow in your ear when he called you on it?

          Really?

          William, truly, you are one of a kind. That was me being pleasant. [snip]

          Its also bad that you’re not prepared to admit that you were, indeed, lying originally. But that you’ve had to wrap your retraction up in such a mess of irrelevant words is telling.

          Oh, man, now you want to double down on your arrogance, and once again accuse me of being a liar? I guess it really is true what they say … [snip]

          I took the trouble to try to explain my position to you … wasted effort it seems. So let me simply say it once again, William, and I’ll leave it there.

          I did not, and I do not, lie to you or anyone. The problem appears to be that you are judging me based on what you might do in my situation …

          w.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

          A discussion of lying is perhaps appropriate in a thread about Peter Gleick. I’m prepared to stipulate that Connolley is well-qualified to opine on Gleickian “ethics”. I’ve given the exchange a much longer leash than permitted under CA policies. Had Connolley’s repartee been more Churchillian, I might give some further indulgence. However merely calling someone a “lying scum” is more B-movie than Churchillian. So I’d appreciate it if William at least raised his rhetorical game if he wishes to continue to violate blog policies on politeness.

        • HaroldW
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

          Hmm…I always thought that it was a Wikipedia principle to “assume good faith”…guess not.

        • Jeff Alberts
          Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

          All Connolley has to do is open his virtual mouth and all opinions of him are confirmed. amazing.

        • AndyL
          Posted Feb 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

          > I’m prepared to stipulate that Connolley is well-qualified to opine on Gleickian “ethics”

          A perfect example of how to apply the stiletto. I wonder if Connolley even noticed?

        • Seele
          Posted Feb 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

          William, it was most kind of you to draw my notice to the excellent scientific work of the late Prof. Marcel Leroux. It was clear that Leroux must be notable indeed if his Wiki page was subject to the ministrations of such an august personage as yourself. And in mitigation of Willis Eschenbach’s rebuke above, I would like to note in your favour that you have refrained from using such harsh language on Leroux’s Wiki page. Indeed, there doesn’t seem to be a Wiki page for him any more.

  61. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 3, 2013 at 5:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    ping

  62. Skiphil
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the topic of AGU activity and condoning bad behavior, there is a new item on an AGU “science communications” workshop:

    No detail given on Mann’s remarks, but how interesting to see that Science Mag. channels angry propagandists such as James Byrne without providing any critical or contrary view at all:

    Science Mag. on AGU “communications” workshop

    photo caption:

    “Mann up. At the Granby conference, Michael Mann told attendees about personal and political struggles he has experienced related to his research on the “hockey stick” graph on global temperatures.”

    [h/t Tom Nelson]

    • Skiphil
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I note that there seems to be no interest from the Science Mag. writer or anyone at the AGU workshop in knowing whether any criticisms of climate science are ever accurate. It is enough to assume that Mann & co. are embattled Galileos desperately in need of more effective “communications”….

  63. zefal
    Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 5:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John Hunter,

    Not everyone can be as congenial as you.

  64. Posted Jan 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    ?????

6 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Full story here [...]

  2. [...] the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco from December 3-7, and blogged about it Saturday. Of the 20,000 people in attendance, McIntyre writes that he was shocked to run into Peter Gleick [...]

  3. [...] http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/ [...]

  4. [...] And by his dishonesty as well. And so to the post of the day: [...]

  5. [...] the latest AGU meeting. He discusses some of what went on in a post worth reading, entitled “AGU Honors Gleick“. Dr. Gundersen, it seems, has done absolutely nothing regarding l’affaire Gleick. [...]

  6. [...] http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/ [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,113 other followers

%d bloggers like this: