A Gleickgate “teleconnection” or coincidence?

In my recent post on Gleickgate (also known as Fakegate), I had written:

He certainly succeeded in generating enough blog and MSM coverage that at the AAAS Annual Meeting held in Vancouver – which just happened to end Feb. 20 – the AAAS president was sufficiently “alarmed” to echo and amplify Gleick’s “concerns”.

[Excerpt from the Guardian]

Was AAAS president Federoff one of [Gleick's] 15 “fences” – or perhaps one of the 15 had “teleconnections” to Federoff?!

In January of this year, Jeff Condon at The Air Vent had made a valiant attempt to warn the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) that appointing Gleick to their board was not a wise move – and that they would come to regret this decision.

NSCE had decided to expand its mandate and jump into the climate wars, in order to combat the forces of darkness etc. in the schools of the nation.

Included in his Feb. 23 post, is a press release from NSCE in which one finds inter alia:

The scientific community is applauding NCSE’s new initiative. Said Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

“Teleconnection” or coincidence?! You be the judge!

No, I am not suggesting that either Leshner or Federoff was one of the 15 “fences”. However, YMMV, but I do consider the AAAS “amplification” of the new, improved warm-side mantra to be somewhat, well, alarming!

In the meantime … while I have seen no sign that Revkin, Goldenberg, Hickman or Black have apologized for their role in promulgating the contents of Gleick’s forgery, the Chicago Tribune has an editorial worth reading:

Climate madness

Skulduggery undermines the case for global warming

Earlier this month, the Internet lit up with a tantalizing whodunit. Someone had leaked to bloggers confidential internal fundraising and strategic documents from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think-tank that questions global warming orthodoxy.

The apparent goal: to discredit and embarrass those who raise doubts about the science behind climate change.

Heartland officials cried foul, asserting that at least one of the documents was forged. They vowed to track down the leaker and pursue charges.

This week, Peter Gleick saved them the trouble of a search. He confessed that he had assumed a false identity to obtain some of the documents and then leaked them. That sounded plausible: Heartland had said last week that someone got the documents by calling its Chicago headquarters and posing as a Heartland board member seeking information, the Tribune reported.

[...]

[Climategate], too, was an embarrassment to serious scientists who warn about the dangers of climate change. RIP, any chance for global climate action.

Now this fresh climate madness, with Mr. Ethics stalking his Chicago-based foes from afar.

Gleick may have thought he could undercut Heartland and thereby advance the case for global warming. Instead, he fueled doubts about which side is right in this long-running debate.

That’s a shame. Science relies on multiple layers of honesty. They include the honorably conducted gathering and analysis of facts, a perpetual quest for irrefutable evidence supporting conclusions — and trust that everyone is acting with integrity.

When scientific truth becomes sufficiently compelling, it matters little what the critics or skeptics say. It doesn’t matter if everyone doesn’t believe. Doubters cannot make the Earth flat.

But stunts such as Gleick’s — this effort to sully opponents with dishonest tactics — undercuts scientists around the world as they marshal evidence to convince an increasingly skeptical public about the dangers of global warming.

About these ads

6 thoughts on “A Gleickgate “teleconnection” or coincidence?

  1. Still with the bias: “marshal evidence to convince” …
    They’d be better off gathering evidence to determine the truth, or as close to it as is possible. “Convincing” is the business of analysts, journalists, politicians. Not ex-scientists prostituting themselves to shape policy. (“Ex-”, because they utterly abandon science when they undertake to manipulate public opinion. )

    As for your “teleconnections”, I suspect they’re no more mysterious than telephones. In fact, probably identical.

  2. Heartland “Fakegate” : why the perps should be prosecuted
    (illustrated version) Posted on 24th February 2012 by UKIP Scotland

    by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    “Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the
    Palace of Westminster (don’t tell the Clerk of the Parliaments),
    at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more
    brilliantly than usual on “global warming”, and engagingly answered
    many questions from Parliamentarians and the public.”

    see video + more at the Website……………..

    http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/heartland-fakegate-why-the-perps-should-be-prosecuted/

  3. Hi Hilary, I can’t help but think this has a lot to do with Gleick ingratiating himself with his new side project at the National Center for Science Education. Amonst Jeff Condon’s email exchanges is this: “That’s why we oppose teaching belief systems in schools (like ID) and why we oppose teaching bad science (namely, the “alternatives” to explaining climate change.)” Robert Luhn, followed by “Here’s what Genie Scott says: NCSE has always encouraged the teaching of the scientific consensus at the K-12 level. For one thing, students at the pre-college-level receive instruction in basic or foundational scientific principles, for the most part, rarely if ever venturing into cutting-edge topics. Furthermore, classroom teachers are not researchers, and should not be expected to choose between competing views of issues that are in contention within the scientific community. We probably agree that teachers should take their lead from the scientific community.”.

    How it tailors with the fake memo ” Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools… His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

    Further the NCSE TACKLES CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL press release states “In this expansion of its core mission, NCSE will help parents, teachers, policymakers, the media, and others to distinguish the real science from the junk science that deniers are trying to push into the science classroom.” (J.Condon). It’s like the memo was written as a response.

    With Gleick as the ‘new kid in town’ on the NCSE board he has a boost as go-to-guy when education is on the table. As he has consistently pushed to be noticed in a higher profile role, perhaps this path became a viable option. At the same time he may have taken the opportunity to settle old scores within the climate community.

    Seeing as how Gleick was to become a board member of NCSE on Feb. 25th, the timing looks attractive for the mission.

    Thank you for the time and effort you put into your blog, it’s much appreciated…. Jeff

    • Hi Jeff,

      Thanks … and welcome to my quiet little corner of the blogosphere!

      I can’t help but think this has a lot to do with Gleick ingratiating himself with his new side project at the National Center for Science Education…

      I’m not sure that “ingratiating” is a word that comes to mind when I think of Gleick! But I don’t doubt for a moment that this particular appointment added greatly to his high opinion of himself – and his abilities.

      As you may have gathered from my posts here and/or comments elsewhere, I don’t subscribe to the Single Point of Conflict (SPOC) theory, but I do agree with your observation that he’s been seeking a higher profile role.

      However, if he had succeeded in such a somewhat narrowed “mission”, how could he ever take credit for it?! Keeping quiet about his “accomplishments” would be quite out of character for him, don’t you think?!

      If you haven’t yet seen it, btw, you might be interested in my post earlier today: Gleick and the green factor$

      Hilary

  4. What seems to ‘precipitate’ from this very cloudy soup is indeed an effort by Gleick to raise his own status and profile. Anthropology suggests that status is the overriding motivation across almost all cultures, even at the expense of personal survival. He seems desperate for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s