Comments for Climate Audit

Comment on Heartland by Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:27:37 +0000

puh-leeze. There is overwhelming evidence that Gleick wrote the fake memo himself after he got the Heartland documents. In my opinion, Gleick’s story about getting the fake memo in the mail is a limited hang-out to make his actions seem less sordid. There isn’t a shred of evidence for a sting operation other than Gleick’s own increasingly improbably assertions.

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by theduke

theduke — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:00:16 +0000

Tom Gray: Apart from the fact that you seem to be “screaming” the loudest on this thread, you are ignoring a basic fact regarding the controversy over climate change: One side, Manned by people like Gleick has declared “the debate” over. They have moved beyond “debate” to tactics that seek to injure the other side and/or squelch debate.

You also seem oblivious to the fact that climate research continues and from all appearances seems to be expanding. Climate research on the subject of global warming is no longer the exclusive domain of a small clique of scientists with self-reinforcing views. This is where all the sound and fury of the political/social/economic debates will be resolved once conclusive evidence one way or the other is discovered in research.

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by Max Beran

Max Beran — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:50:27 +0000

I served on a WMO Commission for Hydrology working group in the early 1990s with Peter. I think it was to frame a hydrological input to GCOS, the proposed Global Climate Observing System. He has contributed to studies of the impact of climate change on the hydrological cycle and water resources. He had a geography background as I recall. The period was on the cusp of when it became off-limits to speak against the theory.

Comment on Heartland by don

don — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:49:54 +0000

Hmmm, the plot thickens? The Atlantic’s Mcardle speculates the anonymous faked memo sent by snail mail (very difficult to trace, if at all) to Gleick was an elaborate sting: Either by a private person or someone in HI. If the latter HI, according to Mcardle, deserves a place in the “supervillain Hall of Fame.” I don’t know why? Stings are done everyday, is it only moral when the State or its agents do the sting? (Or, it’s only science when the state does it or funds it?) As long as the private persons or HI’s actions are legal, and even if they’re not legal, the sting only offers the culprit (target of the sting) the opportunity to be good or bad. Gleick choose badly. The interesting question is why was Gleick chosen for the sting? Did someone know he would fail the test or were other persons sent that fake memo and are not talking?

Comment on Heartland by Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:49:05 +0000

Actually, this is kind of erie/disturbing. Let’s say you had a particular POV that you wanted to promote. What model would you use to get your POV across?

1. Gather up the information that is readily available (Stuff from the Heartland website, tax forms, etc. (*)) If this isn’t enough…
2. Gather up information that is not readily available (trick Heartlands into revealling confidential information (**)) If this isn’t enough…
3. Alter gathered information to suit your POV (Koch (***)) If this isn’t enough…
4. Create a story that clearly expresses your POV (the memo (****))

Why would anyone think something like this would work?

Make the following substitutions:
* published tree ring data, etc.
** unpublished data from pals
*** truncate data as required or flip upside down or just mislabel
**** creative use of PCs to create to the right looking graph

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by Duke C.

Duke C. — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:42:24 +0000

Well. Gleick was clearly obsessing over the donor list. This would point towards a strategy to target donors on the list ala Glen Beck his advertisers. Easier to prove damages if those who now have the list move forward with that strategy.

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by Keith DeHavelle

Keith DeHavelle — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:33:29 +0000

I think all sides of most issues have those who would advocate unreasonably and at time unethically for a cause they believe in.

Yes, each side has the odd individual
Who could act like a criminal at large
But the last of their ethics residual
Went when they put that person in charge

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

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by John Silver

John Silver — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:47:37 +0000

I think they called Richard Millhouse Nixon “Tricky Dick” for a reason.

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by theduke

theduke — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:46:31 +0000

Gleick wrote the following in September of 09, a cpuple of months before Climategate and Copenhagen. In hindsight, the rhetoric tells you it was only a matter of time before he did something stupid:

http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2009/09/07/new-mccarthyism-fear-of-science-and-the-war-on-rationality/

He reminds me of the SDS/Weathermen types in the 60s who started playing with explosives and blew themselves up.

Comment on Peter Gleick Confesses by Ian Blanchard

Ian Blanchard — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:38:52 +0000

Dave S
Crowley is at least a peripheral member of ‘The Team’. Some further information can be found on the topic search function at the top left of the page.

I seem to recall some comments he made disparaging Steve Mc, which he has subsequently retracted and apologised for. Not sure what thread this was discussed in though.

My assumption with regard to ‘low tactics’ is a veiled referece to Climategate.