AGU Ethics Director Is Also An Idiot

Not only is Gleick a criminal, but he is an idiot too.

ScreenHunter_31 Jan. 26 12.56

Twitter / PeterGleick: @RogerPielkeJr Uh, so Sandy …

Homer …… you are missing the most basic information about climate

ScreenHunter_32 Jan. 26 12.59ScreenHunter_33 Jan. 26 13.00

Glossary of NHC Terms

h/t to Tom Nelson

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to AGU Ethics Director Is Also An Idiot

  1. Anthony S says:

    Yeah, Gleick’s definitely clueless on this one.

  2. Good one. You provoked Mr. Gleick’s knee into a fine jerk. It is amazing how demented ideology makes people.

  3. Rosco says:

    Thieves are some of the most arrogant people alive – they possess animal cunning not intelligence.

  4. Here is a tough one to puzzle over. Who is dimmer? McKibben or Gleick?

  5. Norman says:

    How in heaven name can this guy Gleick be called a scientist? or even be member of any scientific organization? He obviously has not got a clue what a majot strom is as compared to a hurricane etc….

  6. Sundance says:

    I tweeted on this. I don’t think Gleick actually read the link that Roger provided because the information that Gleick was challenging was not Roger’s but rather information being provided by peer reviewed authors in an article. Yet Gleick turned it into a personal attack on Roger rather than arguing about what the experts in the article had written. Later roger came out with a defensive tweet as if he had done something wrong.

    When I see this type of behavior from Gleick, I find it disturbing. It is not how reasoned people conduct themselves and it seems to me that he is not stable or even “all there”.

  7. BBReggie says:

    This will sound like I believe in man-caused warming – I do not. But I am confused by the statement that there have been no major hurricane landfalls in the US since 1860?? Right off the bat I can think of Katrina, Andrew, Betsy, and Camile. (I’m sure there are others.) I mean … 1860??

    • Twilight Zone music ….

    • daveburton says:

      BBReggie, please read what Roger Pielke Jr. tweeted (above), more slowly. He didn’t write what you think he wrote.

    • The public debate is insanely incompetent, not least because academics like Pielke THINK they are writing clearly, but they are just showing off their “scholarship” rather than communicating for the scientifically inexperienced layman. He should have written, “the U.S. has gone without a major hurricane landfall longer now than at any time since the 1860’s”.

      • Strangely, I have no problem whatsoever understanding Pielke’s sentence or yours. But if I had to pick the preferable sentence I wouldn’t pick yours because your version is long winded and makes use of the passive voice. (Traits generally viewed negatively by those who worry about such things.)

      • BBReggie says:

        I’m not incompetent (my mother had me tested), I’m just old and slow.

    • kirkmyers says:

      Re-read Pielke’s comment. He writes “. . . longest stretch without a major hurricane landfall.” The key word is “stretch.” The last major hurricane (category 3 or stronger) to hit the U.S. was in 2005. From then until now, has been the longest stretch without a major hurricane since the 1860s. Incidentally, “superstorm” Sandy was not a hurricane when it came onshore. It was a strong topical storm. The combination a of high tide and a full moon caused the elevated storm surge.

      By the way, the last category 5 hurricane to hit the U.S. was Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

  8. Martin says:

    There once was a warmist called Gleick
    Who at Heartlands was invited to speak
    Instead of debating
    He tried infiltrating
    What a foolish obnoxious old sneak !

  9. Andy DC says:

    Sandy caused a major storm surge even if it was a minor hurricane.

  10. Chewer says:

    Never mind we’re in a major hurricane drought, the Cult knows if they back off their scare tactics, the torches and pitchforks will come out in full force.

  11. rw says:

    I suspect that Gleick feels the need to respond to statements like these by whatever means, to make it look like the statement can be countered. It may not even be conscious, people seem to do these things so readily and so adroitly.

    I’m fascinated by the way he twists the original statement out of shape – Pielke, Jr. speaks of a major-hurricane-making-landfall, and Gleick asks if it was “major” (yes, it was a major storm), if it was a hurricane (I don’t recall, but it may have been before it made landfall), and if it made landfall (right you are, Peter, it certainly did). With this maneuver, he draws attention away from the specifics of the original statement, thereby making it look as if he’s countered it. Pretty clever, even if it’s quite transparent to anyone who’s sufficiently alert. (Imagine an AI program that could do this – that would be an impressive achievement.)

    Of course, this sort of play requires someone who is always ready and willing to argue in bad faith. And this is the sort of vile person who has managed to commandeer the heights in our culture.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s