Yazzur wrote:I suppose Gleick's resignations are appropriate given all of the remorse and resignations from the participants of the stolen "climategate" emails. <sarcasm>
My hat is off to the whistle-blowers; those who made public the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 e-mails. My hat would be off to Gleick, too, if he hadn't faked that memo.
It is a travesty of justice that none of those exposed by the Climategate e-mails were arrested for conspiring to destroy evidence requested by a FOIA-- a crime in the UK, where the conspiracy occurred-- or was even fired from his position. In my opinion, the fact that none of them got more than a slap on the wrist is pretty strong evidence of just how influential this confluence of interests is. It may not be an actual coordinated international conspiracy, in the sense that there is no one at the top issuing orders to underlings on how to carry the conspiracy out. But as far as the results go, this confluence of interests has the same effect as an actual international conspiracy.
The whitewash of those climatologists is certainly strong evidence of how deeply entrenched this "Cause" is, and how much political influence they have. But altho that's disappointing, it's not really surprising. After all, the IPCC is composed of not just climatologists, but climatologists and politicians. When it comes to global warming alarmism, there is a confluence of interests between people who are supposed to be scientists prostituting science for their political agenda and for grant money, and politicians looking for a way to get voters to pay attention to them by making them afraid.
One hand washes the other.
Seems like Gleick may have redefined the term own goal. Most likely he destroyed any chance of ever being able to present what may have been somewhat relevant information he had obtained from the Heartland institute by a clumsy attempt to sensationalise what he had found as well as doing a great deal of damage to the climate scientists.
Is it possible that the infamous memo is not a fake, you may have to believe that the Heartland institute and supporters are able to create evidence that this was faked. I'm no believer in complex conspiracies of this type as the sources for this information seem to be widely varied and credible.
I guess now there even greater chance that those that believe that there is no AGW conspiracy will be left to watch uneasily as human Co2 emissions are allowed to grow expediently.
As it is now the position of those who deny that humans are responsible for any dangerous climate change (it's just easier to say deniers, I hope this is a better description for you) that although the planet seems to be warming this is normal and nothing to do with the increase of CO2 levels from 280ppm to 390ppm (approx %40).
We will now just have to wait and see, this would not really be such a catastrophe if this does happen, except the one thing I am certain of is the fact that there are significant delays in the climate system, this is the danger of getting this wrong any corrective action would almost certainly be futile. Hope I'm still totally wrong about this in ten years time but, I still need more evidence to convince me at this point.
Some random links related to the Gleick fiasco (is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't know how to "google" ?:
You have to feel a bit sorry for Mr Gleick. I don't think it is the worst crime in the world to give a different name in order to get some pretty damning information. That information revealed that some "independent" and high profile climate change deniers are funded (via Heartland) by big US corporates. Mr Gleick is embarrassed simply for changing his name to get information - he thinks scientists should stick solely to their research and not involve themselves in policy debate. But the ones getting paid by the corporates should be the ones who are embarrassed!
t included, he claimed, plans to create an 'anti-global warming science campaign for grade schools that will dissuade teachers from teaching science'.
Heartland has labelled that document a 'forgery' and says it is now considering legal action against Gleick.
But the environmental activist, who forwarded his finds to to campaigners and journalist, said he was angry with the way the organisation subverted the science for its own ends.pq