Jim Lakely of Heartland had said on twitter that Heartland had invited Gleick to speak and that Gleick had refused. I asked Lakely if they would provide me with copies of this correspondence (both to confirm their story and to pin down details of the chronology). Lakely has just provided me with this correspondence together […]
On January 13, 2012, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland CA announced that it was adding climate change as a new product line. Gleick’s Climate Rapid Response team-mate Scott Mandia praised this diversification: “The cavalry has arrived. NCSE, with its passion and experience defending science in our schools, will ensure that teachers […]
On Tuesday (after much amusement at Anthony’s), the AGU announced that, on Feb 16, Peter Gleick had resigned as Chairman of the AGU Committee on Scientific Ethics for “personal, private reasons”. David Appell has an excellent interview with Michael McFadren, President of AGU, at his blog here. Appell asked why they didn’t announce it at […]
See Andy Revkin here and Gleick’s blog here. Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for […]
Obviously there’s been lots of discussion in the past few days about the Heartland documents and, in particular, the fake Heartland 2012 Strategy memo. I presume that CA readers are familiar with the discussion at climate blogs and elsewhere. I’ve been busy on other matters this week, but have followed the discussions and commented a […]
Posted in Uncategorized
|
Tagged climateprogress, demelle, gleick, goldenberg, heartland, hickman, littlemore, ncse, revkin, rosenau, thinkprogress, timmer
|
Miller et al (GRL 2012) url has attracted much recent attention for its argument that volcanism can account for the MWP-LIA transition. In my opinion, it is important for another reason, a reason not mentioned and apparently not noticed by the authors themselves. It offers a highly plausible re-interpretation of Arctic varve series, an interpretation […]
Andrew Montford’s lucid account of the transformation of the UK Royal Society (here) starts with the 1753 “advertisement” to their journal, Philosophical Transactions: …it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art, that comes […]
On Friday, the UK Information Commissioner ruled against my request for (1) the attachments to the Wahl-Briffa email that contained Wahl’s surreptitious changes to the AR4 Report from the language sent to reviewers to language much more favorable to Mann and Wahl; (2) Wahl and Ammann (2004, submitted), cited in the AR4 First Draft, the […]
Although the IPCC calendar webpage doesn’t link to session documents of the 34th session (Kampala Nov 2011), David Holland has alertly located the documents – see here. IPCC rejected a proposal for anonymous peer review – see document here (page 12 on). We haven’t discussed this topic previously (in an IPCC context). On reflection, the […]
Phil Jones’ written answers to the Muir Russell panel shed interesting light on the insularity of IPCC authors, who see nothing odd about a system in which reviewers do not see either author responses to their review comments or the comments of other reviewers until long after the release of the final document. Jones’ comments […]
Climate Audit 