Fakegate/Gleickgate – Global Warming’s Piltdown Man

Fluffy:

I’m going to repeat in every thread about this that the fraud is not that [Peter Gleick] got documents under false pretenses. That’s investigative reporting and resourcefulness. HURRAH HURRAH HOO-RAH.

The fraud is that he took a document of unknown provenance (that he now says he got anonymously in the mail) and mixed it with documents of known provenance (the Heartland documents he used his fake identity to get) and then presented the resulting document collage to the press.

This is exactly the same as (not analogous to, but exactly the same as) having a fossil bone of unknown provenance, and then mixing that bone into the results of a documented dig. “Look! I found a new species!”

It’s cut and dried Piltdown Man style fraud.

And furthermore many of us think Gleick faked the strategy memo his own self and “Anonymous” was his Lucy Ramirez.

This entry was posted in Environment and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

 

 

27 Responses to Fakegate/Gleickgate – Global Warming’s Piltdown Man

  1. Pingback: SayUncle » Denialist!

  2. Pingback: The Gleick Tragedy | Watts Up With That?

  3. Russell C says:

    Myself, I will continue to remind people that this current situation has a bigger, older picture, and that Gleick takes on characteristics of a ‘Watergate burglar’, please see my article from a week ago: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html

  4. Phil says:

    Excellent observation. While I think it is worth noting that someone prominently associated with ethics organizations ought not to be posing as someone he is not, it is a gray area in journalism, and understand that some may find that aspect not only acceptable but laudable.

    However, that needs to be distinguished from his subsequent actions, which were not simply to release the vetted documents, but to combine vetted documents with unvetted documents(giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment that he isn’t the author) in such a way that recipients were mislead.

    Phil

  5. Addolff says:

    Unfortunately US law declares that impersonating someone IS illegal and punsishable by imprisonment. The forging of documents is something else.
    Gleick and others on the warmist side of the argument have failed to provide ANY evidence for CAGW, so have resorted to lying, falsifying evidence, manipulating data, illegally deleting emails rather than complying with legimate FOI requests.

    I’d like to ask one simple question – If the evidence for Catastrophic MAN MADE global warming was so strong, why do they resort to these tactics?

  6. Scott Covert says:

    It has also been noted that underhanded tactics in journalism are only generally acceptable when uncovering something VERY important with immediate negative effects to the public at large like Whistle Blower tactics.

    Generally acceptable in a moral context not a legal one. Illegal activities may be condoned and punishment mitigated when done for a good reason. They are still illegal.

    In this case, nothing important was uncovered, there was no immediate threat, and he had no moral imperitive.

    His actions were vindictive and malicious in my opinion.

    Praising him as a crusader and a martyr for the “cause”, only exposes whom his friends are and their character.

    If he isn’t totally ruined by this exposure of his actions, we are truly down the rabbit hole and our collective moral compass has no value or direction.

  7. Mike M says:

    Great analogy … oh wait! I think there was at one point a scientific consensus that Piltdown Man was the truth and maybe someone may have even muttered that the debate was over. I admit though that I’m a little fuzzy if the consensus was being greased by the government at the time?

  8. phinniethewoo says:

    excellent remark

    it isn’t a scientific thing at all to mix and match data, which is what our faux-friend Gleick did.

    Even if he got both data streams in an honest way.

    Unfortunately it is been done all over the place in the climate debate to take data from everywhere as long as it struts warmist alarmism..Here a picture of a polar bear swimming to a floe, he is drowning (maybe) oooh..so there must be warming (= the anomaly has a rising trend)

  9. Mike M says:

    Addolff says: I’d like to ask one simple question – If the evidence for Catastrophic MAN MADE global warming was so strong, why do they resort to these tactics?

    Maybe because their faux outrage was finally beginning to wear a little thin? Just a guess.

  10. John T says:

    Phil, I’d agree that creating a fictitious identity to get information is a gray area in journalism. But identity theft (taking on the identity of a real person) is over the line by anyone’s definition. That’s a distinction I think needs to be made, and a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

    Gleick didn’t create a fake identity, he impersonated a real individual.

  11. phinniethewoo says:

    if the science were so irrefutable why would they so anxiously lock themselves up in little echochambers?? Realclimate etc are good at shunting out everyone who dissents on their blog.

    Surely, the brainees can easily refute all the cheap Koch brothers hogwash??
    They seem not able to thats why we see climate experts ressorting to little nasty games like Dr (Philosophae Doctoris, lol) Gleick here.

  12. John Blake says:

    As we recall, the onus for perpetrating the 1908 Piltdown hoax as Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn man”) has settled on –of all people– Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist renowned for his subsequent opus “The Phenomenon of Man.”

    Not to make invidious comparisons, but (as Yeats put it) “an intellectual hatred is the worst”– and this sorry predisposition is absolutely an occupational hazard for such as de Chardin and his sad-sack successor, Peter Gleick. “The evil that men do lives after them…” So let it be with Gleick’s peculating Green Gang of Klimat Kooks, not least with Gleick hissef’.

  13. John Blake says: March 6, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    As we recall, the onus for perpetrating the 1908 Piltdown hoax as Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn man”) has settled on –of all people– Pierre Teilhard de Chardin…

    This rang badly untrue with me. But I hate superstition and would rather have the truth even if ugly. It turns out that the reason for suspicion over Teilhard was that he was living in the area at the time, and had been to Africa whence came some of the stuff. But I think, all in all, Wikipedia is on the money this time:

    The focus on Charles Dawson as the main forger is supported by the accumulation of evidence regarding other archaeological hoaxes he perpetrated in the decade or two prior to the Piltdown discovery. Archaeologist Miles Russell of Bournemouth University analyzed Dawson’s antiquarian collection and determined at least 38 were fakes. Among these were the teeth of a reptile/mammal hybrid, Plagiaulax dawsoni, “found” in 1891 (and whose teeth had been filed down in the same way that the teeth of Piltdown man would be some 20 years later), the so-called “shadow figures” on the walls of Hastings Castle, a unique hafted stone axe, the Bexhill boat (a hybrid sea faring vessel), the Pevensey bricks (allegedly the latest datable “finds” from Roman Britain), the contents of the Lavant Caves (a fraudulent “flint mine”), the Beauport Park “Roman” statuette (a hybrid iron object), the Bulverhythe Hammer (shaped with an iron knife in the same way as the Piltdown elephant bone implement would later be), a fraudulent “Chinese” bronze vase, the Brighton “Toad in the Hole” (a toad entombed within a flint nodule), the English Channel sea serpent, the Uckfield Horseshoe (another hybrid iron object) and the Lewes Prick Spur. Of his antiquarian publications, most demonstrate evidence of plagiarism or at least naive referencing. Russell wrote: “Piltdown was not a ‘one-off’ hoax, more the culmination of a life’s work.”[10]

    Dawson’s work prior to Piltdown had also been suspect. On one occasion, a collection of flints he exchanged with another collector, Harry Morris, turned out to have been aged with chemicals, a point Morris noted down at the time and which was later unearthed. There were also numerous individuals in the Sussex area well-acquainted with Dawson who long held doubts about Piltdown and of Dawson’s role in the matter, but given the sheer weight of scholarly affirmation regarding the find few if any were willing to publicly speak out for fear of being ridiculed for their trouble.

    Gleick – an utterly different kind of individual to Teilhard. Gleick was/is hysterical, narcissistic, opportunistic… a world of difference.

  14. mikemUK says:

    The Piltdown hoax/fraud was different in that it survived for something like 40 years as a largely academic issue.

    The climate change fraud on the other hand is not simply academic, there is a massive public financial consequence every year it survives intact, so we’d better hope it is overturned a lot sooner! – and we must not forget that Gleick and his ilk are the direct financial beneficiaries so long as they can keep the ball rolling by fair means or foul.

  15. Mike says:

    Interesting analogy. Evolution trued out to be true. Despite minor distractions like Piltdown Man the science came through. So it is with climate change. The basic science is sound and is not dependent on the personal idiosyncrasies of an individual researcher.

  16. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Isn’ “Meltdown Man” more appropriate ?

  17. David says:

    Mike says:
    March 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    “Interesting analogy. Evolution trued out to be true. Despite minor distractions like Piltdown Man the science came through. So it is with climate change. The basic science is sound and is not dependent on the personal idiosyncrasies of an individual researcher.”
    ———————————————————————–
    Actually Mike, the basic science of climate change , CAGW, is rife with similar acts, refusal to disclose data and meta data, attempts to destroy carrers of any scientist who does not support the “cause”, attempts to destroy journals which do not support the “cause”, false representation of IPCC reports being peer reviewed when many are simply extremist wild speculating advocate research, dozens of “disaster” what if studies, which never materialize, eic, eic. So really the Gleick affair is a microcosm of climate science in general.

    The only sound part of “CAGW” is that CO2 is a GHG which certainly promotes faster food and tree growth on less water in more diverse climates, and it probably produces moderate warming .5 to 1.5 C per doubling.

  18. Mike says:

    Get a grip there David. Almost all data is publicly available. The BEST temp study confirmed we are warming. Spencer, Chirsty and Linzden still have their jobs and their federal funding. The IPCC reports have always use both peer reviewed publications and institutional reports (the so called grey literature). The IPCC itself is an additional peer review process.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is not known precisely. But it is foolish to assume it is small when this is very much the minority view among the scientist who study this question.

  19. David says:

    Mike says:

    March 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Get a grip there David. Almost all data is publicly available. The BEST temp study confirmed we are warming. Spencer, Chirsty and Linzden still have their jobs and their federal funding. The IPCC reports have always use both peer reviewed publications and institutional reports (the so called grey literature). The IPCC itself is an additional peer review process.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is not known precisely. But it is foolish to assume it is small when this is very much the minority view among the scientist who study this question.
    =============================================
    Mike, you are a little confused. Mike said, “Almost all data is publicly available” Yes, and no. My point however was NOT that much of the data is NOW available, but that it took years to get the data, much of the meta data was never released, and very large flaws were found in the paleo studies, and in the T studies, like the claimed warming in Antarctica. Also many now peer reviewed sources were used in the IPCC, making absurd claims of impeding disaster, but publicly, the head of the IPCC claimed they only used peer reviewed reports. Of course you know this, as you know how the “team” in support of the “cause” did in fact hide their serious doubts about CAGW from the public, but revealed them in private e-mails, and did in fact try to destroy careers and journals who did not support the “cause” Also, the “Best” data shows that the GISS is straying ever further from the satelites, and still they are making unexplained adjustments to both the past and the present, cooling the former, warming the ladder. http://www.real-science.com/1930swerehotte And now doing to the artic what was done before to US Ts.

    Mike said, “ The effect of doubling CO2 is not known precisely. But it is foolish to assume it is small when this is very much the minority view among the scientist who study this question.”

    Actually Mike, the projected positive feedbacks, which are completely theoretical, depend on the least understood aspects of the affect of water vapor and cloud formation, so the strong feedbacks PROJECTED are the least dependable, while the “OBSERVATIONS” used by Lindzen, Spencer, and others, support the lower estimates of climate sensitivity. Additional peer reviewed studies support stronger solar influences on albedo and cloud formation then previously projected, further supporting lower sensitivity. These studies are reinforced by OBSERVATIONS. Additionally, science is not a popularity contest, but over thirty thousand scientist with over nine thousand PHDs disagree with you. So no Mike, I am not being foolish, and I have a good grip on CAGW post normal science.

  20. Policy Guy says:

    On line impersonation is illegal in California where he and the Pacific Institute are located.

  21. tadchem says:

    Actually, David, the University of Virginia STILL refuses to release the raw data compiled by Mann during his tenure there, in spite of the fact that the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Virginia funded the work.

  22. CBultmann says:

    Like the modern temperature record tagged on the end of the paleoclimate record gave the hockey stick more provenance even though the paleoclimate part was mostly a fabrication.

  23. Mike says:

    David: There is more water vapor in the atmosphere so the feedback is not just theoretical.

    “Also many now peer reviewed sources were used in the IPCC, making absurd claims of impeding disaster, but publicly, the head of the IPCC claimed they only used peer reviewed reports.”

    You are rambling. I can’t tell make heads or tails out of your gibberish. Try to be coherent.You might consider taking an English 101 course at your local CC. You very obviously have never studied science and you can’t until you learn written English.

    tadchem: The UVA dispute is about personal emails not data.

    Here is a place to start to learn the science for any of you who aren’t totally warped by conspiracy theories.

    http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ted-kaufman/climate-change-must-be-ad_b_1179804.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

  24. David says:

    tadchem says:
    March 6, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    ———————————————

    You are correct Sir, thank you.

  25. old44 says:

    a document of ALLEGEDLY unknown provenance

  26. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    March 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm
    “Interesting analogy. Evolution trued out to be true. Despite minor distractions like Piltdown Man the science came through. So it is with climate change. The basic science is sound and is not dependent on the personal idiosyncrasies of an individual researcher.”

    CO2AGW alarmism made a lot of hay in 1998 with MBH98, the original hockey stick, which was their ORIGINAL piltdown man.

    But I guess the soundness of the science does not depend on the personal idiosyncrasies of an individual researcher like Michael Mann, Mike?

  27. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    March 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    “The IPCC reports have always use both peer reviewed publications and institutional reports (the so called grey literature).”

    You call drafts and press releases from Greenpeace and WWF “institutional reports”… So that’s okay with you? That is the gold standard of CO2AGW science and you even defend it. Fine. As Greenpeace and WWF are ECOSOC NGO’s they are part of the UN anyway. So we can agree that the UN lets its NGO’s write the UNIPCC report.

    http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf