Submission + - Counter Attack on Peter Gleick's claims against Heartland Institute (realclearpolitics.com)
Rolgar writes: On Tuesday, we read that Peter Gleick admitted had leaked insider documents from the Heartland Institute, including one particularly damning document that the Heartland Institute claims is a fake. Today, admitted skeptic Robert Tracinski is claiming that IT forensics prove Gleick is the liar, and this was an attempt by Gleick to recreate a mirror of the email leak from last year back at the other side.
Because of Gleick's position at the Pacific Institute, Tracinski calls into question the credibility of the entire Global Warming movement, saying he was not a lone wolf acting alone, but he is a leader of the movement who previously was considered very creditable, but now he has sacrificed that credibility to try to score points playing politics instead of maintaining credibility.
In related news (linked to by Tracinski, links to related articles within), scientists who had recently claimed in the Wall Street Journal that climate change is not settled, have responded to a single response to their initial column claiming further evidence that carbon dioxide's effect is overestimated in every model, and that over the past two decades, the IPC has released three predictions, each one lower than the last, and none doing a very good job of predicting where temperatures were headed, if carbon dioxide is the dominate cause of temperature that is claimed.
As a mild skeptic, I could understand last year's claims that scientists didn't have time to respond to every open records claim by denialists, when a 20 minute request would take weeks or even months to respond to, preventing the scientists from doing real work. This however looks like a very stupid or desperate move, and makes me think that barring an amazingly accurate run of predictions by the scientists and their models, this debate is going to be decided for the denialists because the models, and therefore, causes of the last century's warming aren't correct.
Because of Gleick's position at the Pacific Institute, Tracinski calls into question the credibility of the entire Global Warming movement, saying he was not a lone wolf acting alone, but he is a leader of the movement who previously was considered very creditable, but now he has sacrificed that credibility to try to score points playing politics instead of maintaining credibility.
In related news (linked to by Tracinski, links to related articles within), scientists who had recently claimed in the Wall Street Journal that climate change is not settled, have responded to a single response to their initial column claiming further evidence that carbon dioxide's effect is overestimated in every model, and that over the past two decades, the IPC has released three predictions, each one lower than the last, and none doing a very good job of predicting where temperatures were headed, if carbon dioxide is the dominate cause of temperature that is claimed.
As a mild skeptic, I could understand last year's claims that scientists didn't have time to respond to every open records claim by denialists, when a 20 minute request would take weeks or even months to respond to, preventing the scientists from doing real work. This however looks like a very stupid or desperate move, and makes me think that barring an amazingly accurate run of predictions by the scientists and their models, this debate is going to be decided for the denialists because the models, and therefore, causes of the last century's warming aren't correct.
