fyi
Hmm, this is the first time I have heard of this. I still catch network news, YET I have not heard a peep. I wonder why? /S big, big, S
How is the beach? Sea levels rising yet?
More than a few observers have asked why anyone should trust Gleick’s scientific judgment if his judgment about how to deal with climate skeptics is so bad. -Gleick’s defense of his motives would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic: “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.”
On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from The Heartland Institute in mid-February. Gleick claimed he had received "an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy", and in trying to verify the authenticity of the document, had "solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name".[6] Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page 'Strategy Memo', had been forged.[22] Gleick described his actions as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case" and "offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected."[6][23]
Four days earlier, Gleick had resigned as chair of the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics. On Feb 21, the AGU criticized Gleick's actions in the Heartland affair, stating that the society "rejects deception regarding the Heartland Institute documents."[5] Gleick had also been slated to join the board of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), but that decision was changed, after his involvement with Heartland.[24] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute, stating "I believe it is critical for the board and the institute to have the opportunity to fully review the facts of the situation in order to confirm the truth of the statements I have made regarding my actions and to reach a careful and appropriate conclusion".[7]
Bump for later
I found the article hard to understand and poorly written.
Whenever you see a single cause analysis of climate change or most anything else, sit back an wait for the sequel. Someone is trying to sell something. Take the melting of the North Pole (which likely isn’t happening). First, we are told it is due to industrial co2 and overpopulation and the oceans are rising at a catastrophic rate. Next, all the fresh cold water resulting fron the melting would change ocean currents bringing on an ice age. Now, well the Nothern ice melts more some years than others giving us a Northern Passage on occasion every century or so.
That said, I would like to know the causes of climate change and their interrelationships. Fat chance that in a politicized world. At least it all has made Al Gore rich.
Doesn't matter if we win the argument they have the money behind them
A great column.
BUMP!