Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
The Origin of the Heartland Documents
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
“I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. 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, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”
Wow, what a Tavistock mind-fuck. This psyop manipulation shit is out of control.
Hey, congrats for falling prey and posting this intentional manipulation here, for the unsuspecting to feed upon…
COR, seriously, relax. Peter Gleick is on the ethics committee of the American Geophysical Union. On Jan 17th, he was appointed to the National Center for Science Education.
This is serious shit. This guy’s career is done, and the fallout will likely reverberate throughout all the blogs and newsprint services that ran with the original story.
So you are the guy on the blog team who calls out corrupt central bankers, but then believes in central banker fabricated “climate change” and also the honesty of government watchdog agencies such as the SEC, the FDA, or the “ethics committee of the American Geophysical Union” (small fries)?
That’s nucking futs.
COR, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your conspiracy theories run so deep that I’m having a hard time keeping up. Perhaps you’ll elaborate on your “central bankers” theory.
yeah, you have no idea what I am talking about… in fact, i am off my rocker. how convenient…
KGB style.
Yep, I’m KGB, hanging out here on iBC. Can you believe you get this shit for free?
COR, are you retarded? Wood is discrediting the climate change bullschiess machine by showing you an article about how one of the true believeing warmists went “KGB” (ironically) in trying to hoax an opponent.
Maybe your paranoia is merely a result of poor reading comprehension? That CAN be amended you know, with practice.
_____________
Wood — I went to school with this clown. He was a goof, who has since become vile:
In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore’s press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.
________
Not to worry WS, I deal with my share of lunacy charges such as COR. The “growth spurt” for me, was, they don’t intend to change. They lack rationality. Also, they’re self-destructive. Negativity is their only lasting “emotional” button. By definition, insults and offense are the only language that compute in their mental disorder(s).
Glad you hound out the truth on “global warming.”
Yes, “we” (or “I”) are all wrong and you are all right. How convenient for you.
No, he’s right sometimes, and you are a nut, biting at your own fingers.
_______
Jake wrote: “Wood is discrediting the climate change”.
What Wood has done in his climate change posts and others is demonstrate his inability to understand science in general.
You agree with Woood’s conclusions at times, but I believe that it is due to your occasional unwillingness to understand science rather than due to an inability.
My favorite piece of recent “scientific research” showed topographic, stratospheric images of the earth. The publication’s “recordings” began in 1992-3. Who was President then? If you scanned over each year’s mean temperature zones, there was no global warming until… drum role please… you guessed it: 2000. From 2000-2009 (This was published last year), there was dramatic global warming.
Of course, there are no politic$ involved there, right (!)?
Maybe you ate a bad clam.
HoHoHo.
Who you callin’ a Ho?
Due to an inability…?
To finish sentences?
Sorry Otts, but I know enough scientists with enough natural skepticism about this (and other) subjects to swallow the Left’s holy communions wafer of “settled science” (an unsettling term for any rational scientist).
And the East Anglia and other coverups… the ham handedness of the IPCC’s “claims” now rendered laughable. The fights over the various models? For this highly politicized garbagio I’m to accept the stilletoing of my economy?
No thanks, Frank.
The hubris of thinking we can somehow arrest progress, human nature, etc, and actually leave the world a BETTER place… well, we’ve seen it before I guess.
_____________
I’m glad you know some skeptical scientists. I don’t know any other kind, though I’m sure there are some out there.
Settled science? Only amateurs and deniers apply it to something so broad as “climate science”. Real scientists generally reserve its use for specific findings that have been repeatedly tested and found to be robust. Climate scientists are not an exception:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Skepticism should only be a first step, however – a motivation rather than a conclusion.
True skeptics question both the consensus findings reported by the scientific community and the criticisms of those who disagree with the consensus and weigh the relative merits of each position.
The major weakness of the anti-consensus community is that it repeatedly fails to show findings that allow us to explain the temperature record and predict future trends better than do the consensus models.
I don’t expect every anti-consensus finding or claim to be accompanied by a full-blown climate model, but I tend to discount those that fail to:
–verify that the finding is not already accounted for in the consensus models
–quantify the expected temperature impact over time and show that it isn’t just a short-term cyclical factor
–deal with any additional implications of the finding
Failure to verify what’s already in the consensus models is usually the work of pundits and paid mouthpieces who aren’t interested in the science. If you see statements like “it’s the sun”, or “water vapor is a much bigger factor than CO2”, you’ve found an example of such a failure.
Failure to quantify impacts or to show that the impact is not just a cyclical factor is a very common problem with the work of anti-consensus researchers conducting actual science. It takes a lot of energy to change global temperatures, and some of the findings celebrated on the denier sites that Wood likes to visit just don’t amount to much. In other cases (the cosmic ray findings would be one such), a researcher has identified a cyclical factor that cannot explain or predict a temperature that has been rising for many decades.
Failure to deal with additional implications is what I see when the anti-consensus community criticizes the assumptions or results of the models, but doesn’t take note of the fact that such criticism creates a problem for the critics to explain. For example, there are critics (including anti-consensus scientists) who complain that the consensus models use too high of a number for the direct temperature impact of changes in CO2 levels. However, if the models adopted a lower number that would satisfy the critics, there would be an unexplained and raising gap between model output temperature and the temperature record. The critics fail to identify other factors that would fill in that gap or to provide convincing evidence that a lower CO2 factor is correct and should be used in spite of the damage done to the accuracy of the models. Another example would be the crowing by the anti-consensus community that global temperatures haven’t risen over the past 13 years. This is incorrect, once you account for cyclical (El Nino, La Nina, etc.) and one-time (volcanic eruptions) impacts, but, if you want to ignore such impacts and swallow the “no-warming for 13 years” claim, you need to explain the extremely rapid temperature rise into 1998 without being able to use the very strong El Nino of 1998 as part of the explanation.
So, a skeptical look at the criticisms reveals a lot of scattered nitpicking at best and deliberate distortion at worst. It isn’t much different in form from the criticisms of evolutionary theory, though climate theory hasn’t had the time that evolutionary theory has had to refine with the evidence and accumulate a track record of robust findings.
Ott, there is nothing more needed than to show that the models, and I mean all of them, have been wrong.
I don’t need to tell you why they have over-estimated the CO2 feedback. I just need to show you that the models have it over-estimated.
Is it due to aerosols? Cosmic rays? (Funny that you write-off the recent CERN research as if it means nothing). Clouds? The increasing uptake of CO2 by a thriving landmass?
Do tell, in GISS Model E, how they account for clouds? You’ll note by examining the literature, as you claim is not done by the skeptics, that the GISS Model E does not appear to account for clouds, nor does it account for cosmic rays.
By themselves, inaccurate models are no big deal. It is only when their erroneous projections are used to drive policy and thereby command shifts of capital expenditures in the billions of tax-payer dollars that the problems occur.
Were these models used to command billions in the equity markets, Hansen, Schmidt, Trenberth, Jones, et. al. would have all long since been out of business. As it stands, their funding comes from the government. Although a generation worth of models have been wrong, the $$$ spigot continues to flow, regardless of whether the models actually work.
Were these climate scientists subject to market forces, they would not be developing models anymore, because they have failed. They would have been replaced with a new crop of scientists who would likely approach the problem with new insight.
Instead, they have dug in their heels, become politicians and policy advocates first, and scientists last.
Ottnot, more evidence of the faulty (if not near fraudulent) science being promulgated by the IPCC and it’s political scientists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#more-57212
Ottnot, yet another scientist comes out to discuss the non-science of the IPCC process. Will appreciate your response after you read these.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/21/dutch-scientist-says-5th-report-draft-exemplifies-worst-features-of-science-calls-for-a-critical-review/#comments
“The hubris of thinking we can somehow arrest progress”
Right. The only way we can reduce traffic deaths is to drive less. That line of argument is far beneath you and not one that can support intelligent discussion.
Ottnot, respectively, there are many scientists who disagree. Read on, brotha.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
scientists are bullshit left brainers who have to resort to practices started by some people 200 years ago. It’s amazing we haven’t been able to advance our methodology and ways of thinking, even though science at least is flexible enough, the process itself is doing things again and again until they get different results, (the definition of insanity!) and if they don’t they make some conclusion that since they haven’t observed a black swan that it doesn’t exist (metaphorically speaking). Science of course is bullshit because it’s limited only to what we have observed within a given series of experiments that limit synergistic effects, and effects in other areas of the universe at different temperatures under unforeseen circumstances or levels of consciousness or under an earth with a stronger or weaker magnetic field that we may not be able to test for several lifetimes. It often makes the assumption that because a result of a study was correlated a certain way that it can determine or infer causality but statistics 101 says otherwise.
Physics is fine, mathematical laws are at least constant as far as the representational systems of reality go even though the context is a bit more fixed than actual reality. (1+1=2 only because you assign 1 as the first number 2 as after and adding 1 assigned to the rule that you take the next number in sequence… But occasionally in reality you have synergy where say you add a board that supports 100 pounds of weight to another that supports 100 pounds and you bind them together and get one that supports MORE than 200 pounds (such as 300). The math equations in the limited context are right, but in the context of “if I am limited to driving 10 mile per hour and am 100 miles away” It will take you 10 hours to get there, but in reality you can get there in less. Math puts limits on things but is structurally right, where as science puts no limits and is often structurally wrong. (only accepted as a valid theory or law because you can’t or have been unsuccessful in proving it wrong). For this reason physics allows the compensation of the weaknesses of both math and science at times.
Sorry, Ott, but all I have is the Left’s repeated attempts to hijack the economy in the name of “doing something” when in fact, they’ve no idea whether their recommendations would have any effect at all.
The Kyoto Protocols are one egregious example, malpractice lumped with incompetence resulting in? Bubkis.
___________________
Ottnot, I am noting your statement about my “inability to understand science.” What is notable is that you have no evidence of that, save for your own opinion.
You’ll note that a prominent “climate-scientist”, FORMER ethics chair of the American Geophysical Union, FORMER board member of the National Center for Science Education, and likely soon-to-be former member of the National Academy for Science, has committed wire fraud, and likely a variety of other crimes.
You may accuse me of having an inability to understand science. But when what I believe is powerful enough and has enough support to have caused Gleick to commit personal and professional suicide, because he can’t prove it with science, I know that there is truth to it.
What I understand about climate science was powerful enough to cause Gleick to try and discredit the anti-consensus not through science but through confusion, slander, obfuscation, and fraud.
Gleick’s actions prove that the anti-consensus is indeed good science, because if it wasn’t he would have used science to disprove it. Instead, he relied on theft.
People who call for an “honest debate” really want just you to accept their point of view.
There is no honest debate. Simple google “climate change” or “global warming” to behold the vast array of moneys that have been thrown at this “effort.”
Qui bono?
________
“Honest debate” can also mean stop trying to bullshit me. That’s the plain English version.
“stop trying to bullshit me” means, “stop giving me a point of view in-congruent with my belief system”
It’s political season. America can’t afford jokes. The gloves are off. You question staidness, a Dirty Dengy black eye you’ll get.
We can do it Korean and or Latin America style: Democrats hanging from banisters and balustrade as far as I care.
D. equals trojan hourse traitor (practically, key distinction AND YOU KNOW IT!).
Yikes… this is some pretty nasty stuff, Otts.
And it just keeps coming. What’s worse, the “rational scientific community” is doing the “nothing to see here,” routine, just like they did with the East Anglia e-mail doc dump.
What have you got if you don’t have your credibility?
__________
Jake, it gets better. Watts has secret access to Phil Jones and other scientists private files, including investment information. What did he do? He didn’t pull a Gleick. He actually emailed the scientists so they could close up the leak/access and change their passwords.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/an-example-of-a-different-ethos-when-you-have-access-to-private-documents/
The contrast with the “ends justify the means” crowd is sharp, no?
___________