James Annan writes on his blog here: http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
He sketches this response:
Josh
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant as always Josh.
Interesting cartoon! The essence of the quote actually pre-dates the climate debate though:
“Yes it’s rotten science, but it’s in a worthy cause. It will help us get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society.”
Alvan Feinstein, Sterling Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, Yale University School of Medicine, quoting an antismoking epidemiologist on the studies of the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke. (Feinstein, Alvan R. “Justice, Science, and the ‘Bad Guys.'” Toxicologic Pathology:20:303 (1992)
One of the great mistakes that activists in both the smoking and climate debates make is forgetting that a good bit of the “drive” on the other side of the issue comes from idealism and not greed. Yes, the 800 million dollars a year pumped into Tobacco Control through the MSA made a huge difference in the smoking ban movement in the US and elsewhere, and I’m guessing the folks here can probably point to similar levels of money being pumped into the “Green” and AGW movements, but a lot of what those movements accomplish also comes just from people and researchers who are TRUE BELIEVERS… and are willing to bend the means in order to achieve the ends.
As Josh cartooned and the 1980s epidemiologist said, “It’s in a good/worthy cause.”
What’s that quote out there about saving us from well-intentioned people?
– MJM
What then is the appropriate punishment?
Deuteronomy 19:18-19 NIV
Should he be branded the liar?
Jesus John 8:44 NIV
I don’t think y’all appreciate just how much work it is to make sure the “evidence” supports the “right” conclusions and policy decisions.
From James Hansen’s bio page at NASA:
” The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
(Ok, before y’all go all troll ninja on me, yes it’s taken out of context.)
Second hand additional CO2 will not harm me, nor will it harm the person who pumps out the additional CO2. But smoking is harmful. Trust me. It will destroy your lungs and kills those you love with all your heart and soul. Second had smoke makes me cough, dries my eyes out, and makes for an uncomfortable environment when I have a chest cold. Good riddance. The two issues are not comparable when you consider on the ground experience.
Brilliant as always, Josh. 🙂
The path to hell in these cases is a decreasing level of trust in scientists of all stripes.
It’s a good cartoon and point, but it’s lost on far too many AGW believers…. I’ve been told many times that lying about the data was fine since the goal was to save the planet. They really don’t see anything wrong with that statement.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again no cartoon better sums up the view, economic illiteracy and the overall willingness to commit to dumb precautionary priniciple reasoning of the alarmist camp than this one:
http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2009/12/e091207-pett.jpg
It’s often shared with great approval by alarmist types and to me encapsulates the well intentioned folly of their cause
MikeSigmun wrote, “I’ve been told many times that lying about the data was fine since the goal was to save the planet. They really don’t see anything wrong with that statement.”
Yep, and that’s exactly their weakest point, and it’s a weakness that the True Believers are *always* endemically incapable of seeing… so they just keep on doing it. The detailed science needs to be examined by those with the skills and the drive to do the job, but in terms of communication to the wider body of people, the real punch is in hitting simply at their most outrageous lies. Once you’ve shown someone that that “side” can’t be trusted, then that someone will be open to listening to the evidence on the other side.
The biggest problem is getting past the five enormous logical fallacies of
1) “everyone believes this so it must be true” (ad populum), and
2) “The cognizant authorities have all agreed this much be true” or “The EPA or WHO or Director General of the Environment says…” (ad verecundiam), and
3) “The scientific consensus is…” or just “everybody knows…”) (ad populum), and
4) “Our children will suffer…” or “look at the suffering this condition will cause…” (ad misericordiam) {particularly effective if you can drag the children or the sufferers up on camera, in front of legislative bodies, or at least use their images in your campaign}, and finally
5) “The only people holding your view are the corporations making money off it.” (or the shills, dupes, fronts for them): ad hominem (also a “guilt by association” fallacy)
Once you’re able to expose your opponent as having clearly and inarguably lied, not just once, but repeatedly … then people are open to thinking about how they’ve been misled by the tricks above.
– MJM
Science must attract people who possess sterling character. There will be times when character is all that keeps a scientist going. Science cannot allow the public to believe that scientists lie.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Lying and other things … for the cause?
Theo Goodwin; Science IS allowing the public to believe that scientists lie – just by staying mute while The Team plays havoc with the data and the process.
” …I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis”.
-algore
Pamela Gray says, February 3, 2013 at 2:26 pm: “But smoking is harmful. Trust me. It will destroy your lungs and kills those you love with all your heart and soul. Second had smoke makes me cough, dries my eyes out, and makes for an uncomfortable environment when I have a chest cold.”
==============================================================
I am just curious: would you find lying about smoking being harmful justified? Theoretically, of course.
But, it’s for the cause.
This is the communication problem and why the cause is lost.
As a layman, I do not have a handy mental picture of how weather works and becomes climate, nor does the endless averaging and recalculating of weather station temperature data make any sense to me.
Human nature, I do have a reasonable sense of, the team have demonstrated that they do lie, will lie and see no flaw in lying to further their cause.
Then they retreat under questioning to, “Respect my authority”, yet do not see the problem.
What the IPCC, UN, our bureaucrats and governments have communicated, is their mendacity
Rhoda R says:
February 3, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Yes. And that silence will bring into science more people of low character and they will tell more lies. When CAGW blows up just watch the assistant professors, and some associates, take jobs as assistant deans or leave academia. (In the US, the number of assistant deans grows as needed.)
Aldous says:
February 3, 2013 at 3:08 pm
A clear case of self-loathing. Wouldn’t you agree?
Re: “he deliberately lied . . . to help motivate political action.”
That destroys the scientific method, the foundations of civilization and his integrity.
Greg House says:
February 3, 2013 at 4:39 pm
The other side of the coin is the question “Would you tell the truth about something that the politically correct deem harmful?” Thirty years ago, definitely. Today, not so much.
Any scientist that deliberately lied about their data and/or results, no matter what their motivation, is no longer a scientist and their work is not science but science fraud.
Furthermore any such scientist who committed this fraud related to work in which they received federal funding, is guilty of an offense and should have their funding clawed back. Any federal official whom overlooks this fraud, once it has been drawn to their attention, and fails to initiate appropriate enforcement action, is complicit in this fraud and should be both criminally charged and subject to employment termination. As I see it, there is no transparency and a lot of corruption going on in this Obama administration.
I would further add that any ethical university employing such a “scientist” should revoke their tenure and terminate their employment.
The Truth Will Out, while governments who took up the climate change to heart, spent millions or trillions of dollars on a fraudulent based theory or hypothesis.
The Truth Will Out. (I’m not sure if I have already posted this) sorry Mod if I have). If the motivation was to get government action on a falsely biased hypothesis and data manipulation
that has resulted in zilch as far as cutting carbon emissions, then like carbon trading cons, it is fraud. Who wins, not the consumer who is paying extreme electricity rises, but the manufacturers and installers of solar and wind turbines. Then all the subsidies of course. For Australia, we should be spending money on more levies for flood prone cities. They built them on flood plains there before they realized the danger, now blaming climate change. Our bush fire areas should be reexamined regarding their management, and one good motive was funding rain water tanks for urban areas. They stopped that subsidy years ago. I think those climate change mongers, should be shamed in public at least the millions or trillions wasted on unnecessary carbon emission cuts and installing solar panels and useless wind turbines.
There is one fundamental difference between the smoking versus CAGW thing: it is a fact that smoking does harm people’s health, and it is not a fact that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the earth to get dangerously hot.
Actually, lying can be a right thing under circumstances.
The problem with lying warmists is that they lie for a bad cause.