Josh on lying for ‘the cause’

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:

IPCC_lies_annan

Josh
www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, IPCC and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Josh on lying for ‘the cause’

  1. Snowlover123 says:

    Brilliant as always Josh.

  2. michaeljmcfadden says:

    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

  3. David L. Hagen says:

    What then is the appropriate punishment?

    The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.

    Deuteronomy 19:18-19 NIV

    Should he be branded the liar?

    You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    Jesus John 8:44 NIV

  4. John West says:

    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.)

  5. Pamela Gray says:

    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.

  6. A.D. Everard says:

    Brilliant as always, Josh. :)

  7. Rhoda R says:

    The path to hell in these cases is a decreasing level of trust in scientists of all stripes.

  8. mikesigman says:

    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.

  9. Aldous says:

    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:

    It’s often shared with great approval by alarmist types and to me encapsulates the well intentioned folly of their cause

  10. 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

  11. Theo Goodwin says:

    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.

  12. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    Lying and other things … for the cause?

  13. Rhoda R says:

    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.

  14. Mark and two Cats says:

    ” …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

  15. Greg House says:

    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.

  16. john robertson says:

    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

  17. Theo Goodwin says:

    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.)

  18. Theo Goodwin says:

    Aldous says:
    February 3, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    A clear case of self-loathing. Wouldn’t you agree?

  19. David L. Hagen says:

    Re: “he deliberately lied . . . to help motivate political action.”
    That destroys the scientific method, the foundations of civilization and his integrity.

  20. Theo Goodwin says:

    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.

  21. Sean says:

    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.

  22. bushbunny says:

    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.

  23. bushbunny says:

    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.

  24. Jimmy Haigh says:

    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.

  25. Greg House says:

    Actually, lying can be a right thing under circumstances.

    The problem with lying warmists is that they lie for a bad cause.

  26. Theo Goodwin says:

    Greg House says:
    February 3, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Scientists when acting as scientists never find themselves in those circumstances.

  27. Larry Wirth says:

    Pamela Grey, good job you don’t have a fireplace, right?

  28. James Bull says:

    Loved the cartoon brilliant as always, Josh you have a real gift ( enjoying the year passing looking at my Josh calendar)

    michaeljmcfadden says:
    February 3, 2013 at 1:59 pm Talking about anti smoking “research” .
    We lucky people in the UK have the EU funding research and anti smoking groups and now through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) they want to fund the tobacco growers.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9844515/More-of-our-money-going-up-in-smoke.html

    If it was not so sad it would be funny seeing our hard earned being used like this and in many similar ways to make europe such a world leader in one government department working against another!
    James Bull

  29. Caleb says:

    I quit smoking, but the nags cannot break the habit of nagging. I think nagging spoils both the quality of life and peoples health. With grant money, I could conduct a quasi-scientific study which proved nagging shortens people’s lives 0.06 hours per nag.

    In the end, nagging does not prevent death. Then the nags will stand before not science, but Conscience, and the first question will likely not be, “Did you ever smoke?” but is more likely to be “Did you ever nag?

  30. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Can the end be sufficient justification for the means? Everyone that is sensible puts a life jacket on when jumping into a hostile sea.The science was obtained by testing various jackets on allied airmen and prisoners of war in large cold seawater tanks.
    That does not mean you should not put on your life jacket, but it does mean that the scientists and observers who let allied airmen die to test the survival time of men in water will be judged by many as merciless killers.
    The ‘problem of global warming’ is ultimately turning out to be a spiritual, moral and economic crisis, much of which is self inflicted by unverifiable science.
    If scientist publish what they believe to be right rather than what the data depicts this is a fraud on the community in that we cannot make proper judgements based on scientific fact.
    In as far as the meme becomes self fulfilling then it causes a corrosion in respect for findings and of science itself.
    When the failure in the climate models is predicted by the global engines of commerce, such as China and India, and they take advantage of this, the economic crisis of job loss and recession
    sweeps the first world.

  31. LazyTeenager says:

    John West says
    (Ok, before y’all go all troll ninja on me, yes it’s taken out of context.)
    ———-
    No you didn’t just take it out if context. You misrepresented what the quote actually means. Deliberately and dishonestly.

  32. Die Zauberflotist says:

    LT,
    Relax dude….. we still have a catastrophe.

  33. Chris R. says:

    To Pamela Gray:

    I think the quote was about the bogus research done on harmful effects of
    secondhand smoke. It has become generally recognized that smoking harms
    those who practice that vice. However, as I recall, in the early 1990s, a
    “meta-analysis” of many different studies still did not show any effect of second-
    hand smoke at the 95% confidence level. So what the smoke-banners (in the
    U.S. government, no less) do? Why they lowered the confidence level to 90%,
    and then blared the news out in headlines all over the place. This truly was
    politics and “noble cause corruption” driving science.

    I note your objections to secondhand smoke are practical and personal.
    This is fine with me. Seeing to someone else’s comfort is part of
    civilization. But do not try to corrupt science on the subject of secondhand
    smoke to ban smoking.

  34. Justa Joe says:

    Actually I’m not even sure that it is science’s job to be involved with “saving the world” through influencing politicians. However, I guess that is probably unrealistic.

    We went from Einstein convincing FDR to pursue the A-bomb to a ham n’ egger like Mikey Mann trying to re-engineer the worldwide economy.

  35. Gail Combs says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    February 3, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well science and academia has certainly FAILED that criteria.

    United States Attorney’s Office Former Penn State Professor Charged in $3 Million Federal Research Grant Fraud

    Dean may face data fraud charges
    ….Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him.

    Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006 when he worked at the University of Groningen. In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him….

    US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

    FDA says CRO Cetero faked trial data… Cetero Research allegedly falsified clinical trial documents and test results over a five-year period.

    Red wine researcher flagged for fake data

    False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope

    Top Science Scandals of 2011: A list of this year’s most high-profile retractions and controversies in science

    10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World …Further Proof That Scientific Education Is Essential

    W. M. Briggs, our resident Statistician: The Future of Scientific Publications: Abandon Journals?

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy….

    Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.
    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    “14.12% …for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.” says scientist and universities have a major bit of housecleaning to do. …“misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.” is especially chilling to contemplate.

    There are now watch groups for scientific fraud:

    http://www.science-fraud.org/

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

  36. Gail Combs says:

    john robertson says:
    February 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    … 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    H. L. Mencken had it right. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

    I see nothing in the actions of the Regulating Class to make me think this is not the actual goal, especially when you add in the words of Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization.

    “Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy
    … Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It also scores highly from the point of view of redistribution policies….

    It is very clear the ultimate goal is “a new international order” based on the European Union Model ( Also see Global Governance: Lessons from Europe )

    Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
    …All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.

    …The profound shock of the recent financial crisis, our inability to face (let alone solve) global warming, the failure to halt nuclear proliferation, even the WTO’s stalled Doha negotiations illustrate that the status quo is no longer good enough….

    The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple….

    In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared. Can we maintain an open trading system without a more coordinated financial system?

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.

    At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity.

    To improve the way the international system works, we must “network” global governance in a better way…. To improve policy coherence, we need to build consensus.….To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens…. civil society and citizens need to ensure that the issues debated on the global stage are echoed and explained at the grassroots….

    The money quote is “…To improve policy coherence, we need to build consensus…..To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens…. civil society and citizens need to ensure that the issues debated on the global stage are echoed and explained at the grassroots…” That is where the Global Warming and the environment come in. As Mencken also said
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. “

    The question now becomes whether or not treaties can be used to get around the U.S. Constitution and essentially make the USA a subject state of the UN.

    For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
    Source

    Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds

    Treaties as Law of the Land

    Acknowledge That Treaties Are Laws

    Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution
    The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.

    The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”….

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    An act being unconstitutional however has never stopped the Progressives from using the Supreme Court to override the actual meaning of the Constitution. The classic case is FDR’s threat to pack the Supreme Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” so the Federal government could claim greater power than the Constitution allows.

    The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

  37. Gail Combs says:

    bushbunny says:
    February 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    ….. 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….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I just spotted another con here in the USA. SMART METERS! See my comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/03/playing-the-global-warming-morality-card-in-my-local-newspaper-a-religious-experience/#comment-1216259

  38. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 4, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Good materials you provided. Yes the goal is control. The goal of communism has always been control. If these people are not communists then they are useful idiots.

  39. Mindert Eiting says:

    Chris R. at 9:16 am. I could have written your text (in worse English). Could it be that Pamela is clairvoyant making it possible to expose this beautiful example of noble cause corruption?

  40. Merovign says:

    We need to learn continuously who is trustworthy and not, we should not attempt to set up a profession as “trusted” based on a static point and stop examining it.

    Such a profession would be the first place the untrustworthy would go. People should be at least a little skeptical of every profession.

  41. Brian H says:

    mikesigman says:
    February 3, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    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.

    Interesting recursive process; the very data that convinces them the planet is in danger is contaminated by the lies they consent to and create. So they’re also knowingly lying to themselves. Sluice away all that, and you’re left with the motivational nugget:We need/want to appropriate authority and power to run the world as we think it should be run.

Comments are closed.