E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts, scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.
Now Gleick admits that he posed as a board member to get and then distribute to the media sensitive documents from a conservative think tank that is a leader in questioning mainstream climate change science.
And ethicists are criticizing the man who took others to task for what they say was stepping way over the ethical line. The think tank, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, said it is considering legal action against him.
Gleick, who won a MacArthur genius award and is co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, was chairman of the American Geophysical Union's ethics committee. He also had a column at Forbes.com where he criticized climate skeptics and trumpeted the resignation of a scientific journal editor who published a disputed study. He admitted Monday night that he solicited and leaked the Heartland documents, writing in a blog post on The Huffington Post.
Gleick resigned from the chairmanship of the ethics panel last week.
"What a mess," said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's leading scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some committees. "It's compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the ethics committee of a professional society. ... It's an ethical morass that he finds himself in."
And Gleick's actions cast unwarranted doubt on the work of other scientists, Frankel said.
Last week, someone identifying himself as "Heartland insider" sent 15 media members and others six documents, purportedly from Heartland. They included a fundraising document, a budget and a two-page "climate strategy." They showed the think tank receiving millions of dollars — more than $14 million over six years from one anonymous man — in big contributions with plans to teach school children to question mainstream climate science. It also showed funding of scientists who are climate-change skeptics.
Heartland said the two-page strategy document was a fake and the others were stolen. The Associated Press, which received the documents along with other news organizations, was able to verify the accuracy of several of the most sensational parts with the individuals named. The documents caused a stir, mirroring the hacking of climate scientists' emails two years earlier from a British research center.
"My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous well-funded and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists," Gleick wrote. "Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this case."
Not good enough, Heartland president Joseph Bast said in a press release: "It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts and organizations we work with."
The issue is about deception and there are only a few things that could possibly warrant that — and embarrassing Heartland isn't one of them, said Dani Elliott, who teaches ethics at the University of South Florida.
The geophysical union, a scientific society, said in a statement that Gleick's actions are "inconsistent with our organization's values."
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
First and foremost, "follow the money", the GURU OF GREEN, Al Gore has invested in and has made millions off the, " green machine". Al Gore has built a million dollar "beach front" mansion, you know you pathetic liberal environmental lemmings, on the same beach front that, according to Al, is suppose to be under hundreds of feet of ocean because of melting polor ice caps. When Obama turned down the Keystone pipeline, a Canadian official said, "fine if you want to turn all 50 States in your country into Federal Park reserves, go ahead, we will sell our oil to China". And so as we all pay higher prices at the gas pump and grocery store, thank one of your berkenstock, Prius driving, avid recycling, liberal environmental activist lemming. So park your "evil" SUV, hop on a bicycle, and peddle your @ss down to your nearest "Mother Nature Church", and when they pass around the offering plate, dig deep and give all because Al Gore and his "green" buddies need more of your GREEN.
The reason this Glieck idiot "hacked" these documents is because he attached forged information to them, trying to tie Heartland to "conservative interests". By "attaching" conservatives to Heartland, the "anonymous" donor money was suppose to be tied to none other than "the Koch Brothers". Why them you may ask yourselves? Simple, because liberals have tried to "demonize" the Koch Brothers for years now, and by the simple mention of there names, liberals heads start spinning and green pea soup spews from their mouths. Ever since those e-mails were leaked, debunking the "science" behind global warming, nobody talks about it anymore. Remember how for awhile there it was daily front page news? International conferences were being held, all over the World, and the "guru of green" Al Gore was flying all over in his personal jet as "guest speaker". In the news recently, Al Gore was "whining" about how none of the Republican candidates were talking about "global warming" in their debates. And thats what this recent "hack job" was about, a pathetic attempt to reinvigorate the "global warming" movement and sully the names of those who debunked global warming, by trying to tie them to "big evil corporate money".
And I'm sure that these scientists from all around the world are ALL on Al Gore's payroll! LOL!! I'm sure that the leaders of all of the foreign countries are more than happy to pour so much of their country's money into the pockets of Al Gore - for a ruse. How stupid the rest of the world must be. Isn't it amazing how an American Democrat can get the rest of the world to join in with him just to fool a few Republicans? I bet your ego has gotten such a boost from being one of the few people in the world whose IQ is in the stratosphere - enabling you to see through this sham. Kudos to you!
But, it confuses me as to why you find Al Gore's capitalistic ventures to be so objectionable; yet the capitalism of the oil magnates is quite acceptable. Do you honestly think that the intentions of those running the big energy corporations are pure as the driven snow? Do you think that the heads of these corporations are actually living in humble modesty? If not, why are they to be viewed as being any different? Do you find the idea so astonishing that the energy companies would fight to maintain their income just as fervently (if not more so) than Gore would fight to protect his? Perhaps these CEO's should be considered for sainthood.
I find it funny how pointing out the supposed unscrupulous actions of Heartland is a "hack job," yet pointing out the supposed unscrupulous actions of scientists around the world is supposed to be a valiant attempt to uncover the deceipt of 10's of thousands of evil scientists.
Double standards and hypocrisy - seems to be becoming the norm these days (for both sides of an issue). Oh how high and mighty - the self-righteous have become - and oh how the mighty will fall.
Mauserhead,
Nobody has to demonize the Koch Bros, they do a remarkably good job of themselves.
Mruseurhead, where is your evidence of this? I am betting that you are a died in the wool Republican. That's their mantra. Throw out ridiculous lies in the hopes that the masses won't investigate and believe it to be true. That is the main reason I am a Democrat. It's not because I totally agree with Democrat policies, it's because I can't STAND the Republican machine with their lies.
What this guy did was wrong. His handling of the situation caused his entire arguement to be put into question. I understand why he did it. He is trying to expose the climate change spin-meisters for what they are, paid cronies of big business. He did it because he felt it was imperative to stop the bogus arguements and get people on the same path toward a greener future. He believed in his cause enough to forgo his own ethics in order to get the truth out. But in so doing, he undermined his own message, although no less true. I thought it funny that Heartland was crying foul because they lost credibility. A false accusation that leads to loss of credibility is slander (or libel, one of the two). A true accusation that leads to loss of credibility is called the truth, and the loss of credibility is warranted.
If the scientist had not been so corrupt and manipulated their research to intentially show that global warming was so bad so the Govt's could justify collecting "carbon taxes" this would not be a problem. Now that being said where is th eoutrage toward Al Gore for going around the world selling these lies to other countries claiming it was all going to be so catastrophic and if not undercontrol within ten years it would be the end of mankind. Where is the outrage for that lie he sold? It was all about money plain and simple. The hilarious part to me was that so many beleived it. Our Govt runs more scams than anyone on earth. You do know that the govt is still going forward with the carbon tax on power companies and such right?
What seems funny to me is that some people actually believe that these scientists who claim global warming are all American. What seems equally funny is that some people believe that this was all started by Al Gore.
It seems that some people will believe anything.
Where is your evidence of this?
Our Govt runs more scams than anyone on earth. You do know that the govt is still going forward with the carbon tax on power companies and such right?
Thank goodness there are still intelligent people working for the government to offset the liars from the business mafia. The Tbag BS is now an exposed scam. Get a new script!
For the sake of argument let us say that there is global warming going on to some extent, and that a percentage of it is caused by mankind. Because the time scale of past climate fluctuations is generally so huge I do not believe we can accurately quantify exactly just what is going to take place, and when.
However that aside if it is true that what has already been spewed into the atmosphere has essentially taken us past the point of no return, (and that if we were to instantly now stop all further dumping of Carbon Dioxide, and other gases which affect this change even more extensively) we would continue to see a warming of the earth over the next few centuries at a minimum. Then perhaps it would be better to spend our limited dollars now on helping the affected areas (agriculture, coastal lands, shipping, and docking ports, etc) to begin to adjust to the new reality than essentially waging a losing battle with not only the existing super economies of the world, but the new growing economies that will continue to spew green house gases regardless of what the more developed nations do.
Will the opening up of the North West passage be a boon to our economies ? How about the prevention of new and inevitable ice sheets moving forward and grinding slowly over our Northern hemisphere destroying everything in their path ? In reality will our distant ancestors want to return to a cooler world or will they have acclimated themselves to thrive in a warmer world ?
There is much to think about and it is not all black and white. How should we deal with a warming climate change ? Is it necessarily all bad ? How best to spend our limited dollars dealing with what at this point already may be an inevitable result ? The warm earthers have an agenda, and it is not necessarily that they are wrong about a warming climate, or what may be in fact be a main contributing factor to it. Their agenda appears to be based more on just what we ought to be doing about it, and how best to spend the limited resources we have available.
Instead of becoming panicky perhaps we should embrace the change and adjust intelligently to what is coming with a well thought out plan that can be implemented gradually as the change takes place over the next couple of hundred years. Spending our money wisely to best mitigate what is inalterably coming our way.
Larry, the problem is that curbing further pollution IS the most economical way to address the situation, and the earlier that it is started - the more effect it will have. How often do you hear about "acid rain" and the "Ozone holes" anymore? That is because actions taken were effective in reducing the problem. And the way that we dealt with acid rain was from the Republican conceived idea of cap and trade. Yes a conservative Republican under President Bush (the first one) is the one who came up with the idea - it was more business friendly than simply mandating that all businesses adopt measures to curb a known problem.
Doing the other things that you suggest - to the level necessary - simply is beyond the capacity of any country - or the world for that matter. We should start taking those measures to help with what is already happening; but there is absolutely no way that we will be able to do enough once we reach a tipping point. It took 400 years for the Dutch to get their dike/canal system to it's present state, and it takes millions of dollars a year to maintain those dikes. How much do you think it will cost to build a comparable system around the metropolitan areas of the US? If the sea level rise is only half of what climatologists predict, Miami would have to be completely moved to central Florida and Manhattan would be deep underwater. How much do you think that it would cost to irrigate all of Texas? If all of our major growing regions are shifted northward, how much do you think it would cost to re-establish those farms elsewhere (though I would imagine that Canada would love becoming the "breadbasket of the world").
Ever hear of the phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" The point is that it is much cheaper to reduce the cause than it is to deal with the effects. Even if warming is inevitable, reducing the acceleration would buy us more time to implement strategies to deal with the effects. We should not adopt the attitude that if it is inevitable we should just say "damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead" - to our destruction.
You are correct in saying that "warm-earthers" have an agenda. The agenda is to take steps to try and reduce the fallout from our actions. Given the severity of the consequences if this actually happens, and the fact that once it is to late - it will truly be to late - I can understand their feeling of panic. The thing is that no one truly knows' exactly when we will reach a point of no return - when the reaction will become a runaway train - feeding on itself; we only know that we are already seeing things happening that can lead to that point (so we are getting ever closer). We won't know when we have reached the point of no return until well after we've actually passed it. So are we simply supposed to continue along our merry way - until the hammer falls - as if nothing bad will ever happen? Or should we start now taking the easiest and cheapest measures to try and avert what would be a global economic meltdown of epic proportions - with the knowledge that the sooner we start, the more effect it will have?
Rick, I am sorry to inform you that arguing with these idiots is kinda like wrestling with a pig. If you are not getting some fun out of it, don't start. They will not stop nor will they try to understand what you are saying because they are driven by impulses below the level of rational change. You might have an effect on the middle of the pack but the far right wing extremists are more willing to make stuff up than they are interested in listening to intelligent discourse.
tex - well, I DO have fun debating them. And it is primarily for the "middle of the pack" that I post - answering questions they may have heard and wondered about. And you can knock some sense into the heads of ultra-right wing (or ultra-left wing) zealots (on some subjects) - it just takes ALOT of work. It helps if you understand where they are coming from and debate them in their own terms.
Really? He's sweating what he did... exposing the Heartland as an political body and as far from a scientific body as Heaven is wide? C'mon, ethically he was REQUIRED to expose the charlatans.
This doesnt have anything to do with global warming. This guy tricked an organization into giving him their information and then distributing it after adding probably some more bs to make them look bad. These types of stories just muddy the waters. I think most people wont deny that climate change is happening, its the cause that is being disputed, and rightly so. But to the skeptics, if it is not man made does that still make it right to pump pollutants into our environment? A lot of the global warming concerns could easily be related more to pollution concerns and would have more teeth. It is quite strange that the biggest skeptics tend to be related to the big industry polluters. Just like some of the biggest promoters are most likely connected with green technologies. I dont think that is a coincidence. Either way pollution is bad and the public is caught in a tug of war between people trying to make a buck. Let the science speak for itself.
Gleick is accused of making foolish people like the Heartland Institute look foolish? He should be congratulated for being able to trick professional liars in showing their hand more fully.
Yeah - Payback's a bitch!
Scientists these days are like politicians-they have their corporate managers or some type of benefactor giving them grants and research money. They come up with whateve conclusion they are paid to....for or against global climate change they are the same one and the same-hired guns to support their bosses. One day they'll be in the same category of trustworthiness as lawyers.
deleted misplaced post
Rick actually spending money for what is already going to occur would be a better allocation of resources. That isn't to say that if some economically viable and acceptible solutions are discovered and which to some even small degree may slightly delay the onset should not be undertaken. However the tipping point for a number of inevitabilities has already been passed. Although these changes are not going to be immediately catastrophic they will occur. using the slow onset over decades, and centuries to properly prepare we can mitigate these developments more or less to coincide with our responses. Whether we like it, or not much of Florida (to take an example) is going to disappear with the rise of the ocean. It will not happen overnight, but it will gradually, perhaps very gradually happen. Better to understand now what is going to take place at some point in the future regardless if we stop tomorrow dumping anymore green house gases into the atmosphere. Now obviously if that were to happen then the extreme range of climatic change would probably be halted, and in perhaps two to five thousand years the earth may regain its equilibrium to that of today. So yes if it can be done as I outlined earlier as unlikely as that may be then that would be a good thing, but it will still not stop the impact of what has already been dumped into our atmosphere. For that remedy we will have to wait until the earth can recapture what excess heat trapping gases have already been deposited into our present ecosystem.
Larry D.-1460372
The old man dying of cancer ploy - Does he take the chemo that makes him sick the rest of his days, or does he do his bucket list and live a short but well life?
in perhaps two to five thousand years the earth may regain its equilibrium to that of today.
In less time the ice age will start. There is no happy equilibrium. The ice cores show us a world of change. However there is a hope that the temperature regulator of clouds will kick in and keep us within a couple degrees F of today. We could adapt and prepare for the cold. Think, 100,000 years of real cold. Florida will be dry all the way to the Bahamas. Thing about ice ages - very dry with deserts and glaciers.
They say they tracked the cause of the ice ages to orbital perturbations. Why then, can't they predict the onset to within a thousand years? Have a nice day.
Take a few minutes and see how climate scientists mis-represent the data. Professor Muller is kind of a "fair witness" here in that both sides respect his work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Is anything in Chicago legitimate, true or not corrupt? LMAO hahhaaha apparently not....
I listened to a man on the radio who has tried to get the whole global warming debate into court so evidence could be looked at and a unbiased decision reached about how valid the claims were.It went nowhere.
I think its all about money,taxs and control of people.
Let's look at what is actually going on here. It is the same tactic used by the 'immigration' lobby. When you discuss 'global warming' as being a threat to the planet why not be honest and say that you really mean, 'man-made' global warming. Its like the immigration argument leaving off the 'illegal' part. The climate is changing; always has, always will! We have real cold weather where we seldom did before and the warming isn't always bad. Plus, when neither side of the debate is truthful why would you expect folks to care enough. Let's face it, this argument is mostly about money on both sides; your money. Why not an honest debate. Now, what do we do about the warming part of this, block out the sun or raise your taxes!
Yes there is weather change. Parts of the world get hotter and parts get colder. The desert of yesterday is the rain forest of tomorrow. The problem is that these things happen over thousands of years, and the rate of global warming since we have measured our impact on it has only happened in the last 100 years or so. Mother nature can't adapt fast enough to the change. WE can't adapt fast enough. The global warming scientists would love an honest debate. The doubters do not.
I love how people are claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with man made global warming is just an oil shill.
I'm waiting for explanations on why the Sierra Club accepted contributions from the natural gas industry.
All I hear is chirping crickets.
If anyone on here thinks that Global warming is just abunch of made up @!$%#, please read up and become informed:
80% of the World's Glaciers are shrinking and have been shrinking for decades.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/nzglacier.html
But more importantly, Arctic Sea Ice has been declining for decades:
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/arctic-sea-ice-continues-decline-reaches-second-lowest-level
Glaciers were receding long before man put any measurable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The glaciers in Glacier National Park were already receding in 1850. New information shows that the glaciers in the Himalayas have not lost any ice in 10 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
Arctic sea ice has been recovering every year since 2007. And in October the Arctic was refreezing 40% faster than normal.
http://nsidc.org/asina/2011/110211.html
economykiller
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but if you look at the graph (Fig. 3) from the page you have linked to it shows that The arctic Sea Ice has been steadily declining since 1979.
Again, a quote from your own link:
"Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less than previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern"
80% of the globes Glaciers are receding at faster and faster rates.
Since the Industrial Revolution started back in ~1750 we can see how in 100 years the CO2 output had already started to work it's magic.
The emerging countries (China, India, ..) say they deserve cheap energy to get what the West (US, Europe)has. They need to burn coal - a lot of it. They refuse to meaningfully limit CO2 emissions until their people are middle class world citizens. So, here are the results of that. A question is then, should we make war - after all, those emissions threaten us all with disaster - according the warming believers. Is it war then or do you really believe AGW is mostly hype?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html
Problem with climate science vs. is other fields is not being able to just get the earth to "agree" to a clinical study and send it into a lab, with a similar planet acting as the "control". So the scientists do their best to observe, observe, observe, and they do a great job of tracking where things are going. But I think there will always be dispute over the actual cause or causes. We can measure effects of many substances, but in the end, it is still correlative data. It doesn't make either side necessarily wrong. I'm still of the school of thought, however, that the elephant in the room is simply too many people, and neither the right nor the left will discuss that. It is easier to demonize the "evil westerners" than it is to say maybe all the pollution problems in our world are a COMBINATION of years of over-polluting AND years of over-populating. When you bring discussion of change to policies of a third world country, then you get accused of being uncompassionate. But I think this also needs to be part of the discussion. Many scientists have said they believe the planet is warming, but at this point we may just have to deal with it and may not be able to stop it anyway?
Another major issue with climate science is that it isn't an exact science. The scientists in the field barely know what they're speaking to. The honest ones admit that and continue to research and test theories to improve our knowledge, the dishonest ones try to cover their limited knowledge up. Even modern computing power cannot accurately model all of the inter-related climate effects and feedback loops simultaneously. Maybe once we get quantum computers up and going, they'll be able to more accurately model the Earth's climate.
3rd article I've read this week about those screaming about global warming and the profits they stood to make off investments if they convinced somebody of their lies. These people are scammers and global warming is a load of crap and I'm not buying into any of it. Science is the new white collar crime of the 21st century (includes the last 20 or so years from the 20th century). People need to quit believing most of what they hear. The same thing is what is wrong with the medical community. There will never, ever be a cure for cancer as long as there is vast amount of wealth to be made from it.
I believe that it is high time that intelligent Americans realized that the big corporations, with the blessing of the United States government have consistently lied to the American public about a myriad of social and political issues. Anyone who has made even a cursory study of history will realize that.
We have been told that Smoking will kill you immediately and that it is therefore a social imperative to make insulting presumptuous personal remarks to people who do. Actually, when people with a sedentary lifestyle and other mitigating factors including a genetic pre-disposition smoke, it probably isn't the best thing for them. However, the dangers have been grossly exaggerated, and people who are rude have been brainwashed by the media.
There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else the corporations and the government see an advantage to be gained. Where? In the caves of Afghanistan? There is no need to bomb those people back into the stone age. They never left it. The CIA caused the problem by following the same silly foreign policy that killed so many young men in Vietnam.
Marijuana, one puff and you're hooked for life. It turns people into mindless zombies who never do anything with their lives. Two words. Michael Phelps.
The economy is on the road to recovery. Yeah right!
And on and on with the most ridiculous drivel imaginable.
Wake up! There has never been a time when we have not been lied to and misled by the powers that be. Everyone who tries to make people aware of the real situation is not a fire-breathing radical who is out to destroy America.