James Gleick (Photo credit: O'Reilly Conferences)
Peter H. Gleick made his living as a "climate scientist", but he's dealt himself a mortal blow: he engaged in unlawful activity, and worse yet, he got caught. Although all manner of misbehavior is acceptable among the Leftist followers of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming, getting caught is unacceptable.
Gleick tried to wriggle out by publishing a heartfelt apology:
"In a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name," Gleick wrote. "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts - often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated - to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate... nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case."
That's not likely to be sufficient, as Heartland is reviewing legal options in regard to the matter, and Gleick has been forced to resign from the National Center for Science Education. His name appears to have been removed from a Task Force on Scientific Ethics at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), a prominent science organization.
The guy served on an Ethics committee; underscoring the hypocrisy that has become so widespread among adherents to the Religion - and among the Left in general. His "apology" rings hollow in any case: in essence, he's simply blaming the victims. He stole documents and appears to have forged additional documents ; presumably because the material he stole was insufficiently damning, from his warped perspective.
In his view, the end justified the means; making stuff up to add to his "treasure" was entirely justified in order to bring down the enemy - those Deniers of the Faith. Not until it became clear that the truth was about to emerge did it occur to this dedicated apostle that he may have been, perhaps, a bit overzealous. Yet even now, he cannot bring himself to accept responsibility; while acknowledging that what he did was wrong, he was driven to engage in such behavior by the very people he attacked. They made him do it.
And they can't believe that many of us doubt them when they claim that "the science is settled".
Max--
You and I agree on a lot of things. We disagree on a couple--my take on Packwood is one--but, I can rely upon your respect for the things I view as important, just as I respect you for your views. We may not agree, but I respect you for your willingness to share your views with us, your viewers.
You know I got chased of a space some time back, when the comments became threatening to my businesses' existence. I live in a world where criticism can be an existential threat. I don't like it. And, I don't think it's right. But the rules are the rules, and you do what you must to live within the rules.
I've been asked about the difference between rule-sets, ethics versus morality. There are important distinctions. It is unethical to lie. Morally, it may be necessary to lie. "Do these pants make my ass look big?" is not a question dealt with within the framework of ethics. However, relying upon ethics, my answer would be truthful. Ethics rule morality. What is true is without price. Morality is all about price.
Ethically, I must tell you the truth. I must not conceal the truth when asked. I must not ask what the meaning of "is, is?"
The Man Made Global Warming hoax is pretty much over. But certain institutions continue to throw out condemnatory phrases at any and all excuse, such as the Democrat Party, SEIU, the Oregon Nurses' Association, the teaching faculties at our colleges and universities, and various important people, as the need arises.
You're not going to hear these words on publicly licensed news outlets, since the rules for licensure tend mitigate against frank discussions of what is apparent truth, since such discussion may tend to harm the feelings of those who hold them. Think, Afpel. How harmed he must feel tonight.
When discordance can end up with grievous financial risk, and loss, is it any wonder that I feel happy at this fellows loss? And yet, don't you feel that this rascal will soon find another nook or cranny that he will crawl into?
They do take care of their own, don't they?
.
Posted by: TMI | February 21, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Those who know what science is, know that there's always something more to be learned.
Which is--it ain't settled.
Posted by: Sam L. | February 22, 2012 at 08:50 AM
At times those who do underhanded things prosper. But, there's payback coming.
Do not fret because of evildoers,
Be not envious toward wrongdoers.
For they will wither quickly like the grass
And fade like the green herb.
Psalm 37:1-2
I hope the lesson he learns is more profound than his apology.
Posted by: T D | February 22, 2012 at 02:34 PM
I think I saw Gleick at the AMS presentation on AGW that OMSI blacklisted. At least I remember a guy of his composure wearing a beret along with a handful of 20-somethings after the presentation (also wearing matching berets, kinda creepy...). I overheard him saying something to the effect of comparing the proponents of the event to the likes of Phillip Morris and Big Tobacco and their obfuscation of medical research showing cigarettes were a health hazard. Or maybe it was Big Oil... Big Something. Man these guys are nuts! I've been keenly watching this controversy with great interest, this may well be the greatest scientific scam in history! Now where's my popcorn maker...
Posted by: Ryan | February 22, 2012 at 04:56 PM
TMI,
It would be unreasonable, and boring, to expect that intelligent people will come to identical conclusions in regard to every subject; it is not without reason that there is a sidebar link here that carries the subtitle "Brilliance on your schedule". :-)
To me, a large part of the problem here is the teaching faculties at our colleges and universities: almost universally leftist, they tend to inculcate their ideology - this is why, for example, Portland State University is currently awarding "occupy credits" to students involving themselves in the disruptions. The Gleick episode is merely the latest manifestation of what has been emerging from "progressive" universities over the years.
In that environment, "political correctness" is a one-way street; inapplicable to the cognoscenti. For them, anything is permissible, and those who differ are guilty of thought-crime.
I'm sure that our local "science writer" is crafting some sort of ironclad rebuttal in defense of the latest AGW scandal, however, as he tends to be a bit slow, it could be weeks before he trolls it around in final form. As for Gleick himself, he's committed the cardinal sin as far as the faithful are concerned: he got caught. So no, I don't think it likely that he'll return to his former revered status any time in the forseeable future. He's been disgraced to such an extent that he's had to resign from leadership positions, and invitations to sit on other boards have already been withdrawn (though I have a board I'd like him to sit on). His grant funding has boarded a light-rail train (without paying) and is flying down the tracks. Recovery will not be possible.
Now change pants - they make your ass look big....
Having worked in science for a number of years, I can vouch for the fact that it is never settled. That's what science is about.
Unfortunately, though some may hope that Gleick and his ilk have learned - and I suspect that they have - the lesson is not what they appear to hope for. All they've learned is that they need to be much more careful in their deceits.
Ryan, I didn't see him (which doesn't mean he wasn't present), but like you, did notice a few folks in "uniform". I suspect that they hoped to be a "presence" in the usual small crowd, and were unprepared for the 500 or so who showed up.
The problem is that this is not merely a scientific scam, but a deeply political one. That's why it's so scary.
Posted by: Max | February 22, 2012 at 10:49 PM
That board you speak of, Max; by any chance does it have a lot of nails in it?
Posted by: Sam L. | February 23, 2012 at 09:26 AM
Sam, you noticed. Yes, that was rather what I had in mind.
Posted by: Max | February 23, 2012 at 07:21 PM