I’ve seen lots of quotes this week, many surrounding the Gleick Fakegate affair.
This one stands out.
From John Horgan at Scientific American who asks:
Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?
He writes:
I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once you lie, it’s no longer science.
Yeah, that bridge was crossed many lies ago.
Should n’t they be asking when will it be appropriate to stop lying, rather than stop lying?
I thought Kant gave us the categorical imperative, in which no lie is justified.
Ain’t it all about rationalization?
Ooops, correction.
Should n’t they be asking when will it be appropriate to stop lying, rather than start lying?
I thought Kant gave us the categorical imperative, in which no lie is justified.
Ain’t it all about rationalization?
It sounds more like religion to me
Beautiful. They are admitting that they have always been lying. Finally.
Reason # 1001 that this former subscriber only reads Sci Am free at the library. Sad.
Science News (I subscribe) is pretty bad on AGW but less strident and less overtly agenda political in other areas.
A war? Yes, it is a war. It is a war because the alarmist side has always refused to debate or look at real data. There is hardly any “official” data set left that has not been “adjusted” and even so — they are unwilling to honest debate.
As someone said about a related matter — and yet they still move.
Have there not been lies for years? Homogenized weather records, hide the decline, hide the middle age warming and the roman warming, hide the historical temp. records for New Zealand, hide the rainfall records for Australia,bury temp. records for over 20,000 stations, Antarctic ice sheet measures, etc. The list never stops.
Oh what a tangled web…
That tactic is called throwing “stuff” at the fan.
Since they soiled themselves, the only way out is to throw the “stuff” at the fan so everybody looks as dirty as they are looking right now.
A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.
— Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)
But it isn’t a war. War is the thing where people kill one another. Lying, fraud, and deception are all common in debates. Really, calling it war just maybe be justified on literary grounds, but not to explain motives. His first words were probably more interesting than his last ones.
Translation: “We can’t win on the science, so we’re abandoning all pretense and going 100% political.”
This is old news, of course, but it’s nice to see somebody admit it.
Anyone know if Gleick had a cat?
….I mean that could explain it…………….. 😉
Effects of Toxoplasma on Human Behavior
The truly sad thing here is that Gleick was so misdirected in his efforts that he (in J. Curry’s words) committed professional seppuku for virtually nothing. Heartland would have been happy to explain, as Mr. Bast’s note to Judith Curry shows, everything that Heartland is doing. If Gleick had gone to the meeting and dinner, and provided his soft shoe shuffle as entertainment, he probably would have gotten a lot more information than he did with his bungling and amateurish efforts at identify theft and wire fraud. Heck, he could have met a bunch of donors in person…
The Heartland documents prove that Heartland is doing exactly what it says it is – and on a shoestring budget, compared to its peers in the CAGW industry. If the best big oil can do is throw an occasional $15k at them, I don’t see what the issue is. Heck the EPA is funding Gleick’s pet project out in California to the tune of hundreds of thousands annually.
Also interesting that Gleick is better paid than “big oil-backed” Bast:
Gleick: $152,514
Bast: $145,135.
(And that for an officially shorter work week: check out the respective 990 forms for 2010: here’s the link to PI’s: http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Pacific_Institute_990_tax_10.pdf; we should all alredy have HI’s from Mr. Gleick’s little undercover endeavours…)
Truly, a moronic undertaking. When looking for a picture for the definition of “own goal”, Mr. Gleick has to qualify as a top candidate.
Yeah! I was once a subscriber of Scientific American, many many lies ago.
War……. that’s just about right.
We didn’t pick this fight, but now it’s a fight worth having…and winning!
But what are we fighting for?
Honesty. Full Disclosure. Adherence to the fundamentals of The Scientific Method.
Freedom from the soft tyranny of Climatology non-science politics, regulations, and waste.
An end to the obscene funding levels for an unproven non-science hypothesis, certainly.
Most importantly, we fight for the minds of the next generation of questioning and skeptical Citizens.
AGW War: What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing! That’s why it must be defeated.
http://youtu.be/01-2pNCZiNk
“They all lie” is simply incorrect. That’s not what happened here.
“They all use nasty tactics” would be a correct description, and is perfectly appropriate in a war.
‘Mr FOIA’ didn’t lie at all. He exposed the other side’s LIES by using improper and possibly illegal tactics.
Gleick lied. He used improper and possibly illegal tactics to expose the other side’s ORDINARY AND HONEST behavior, then realized that he wouldn’t get anywhere by exposing ordinary and honest behavior, so he added a complete lie to make the other side look bad.
When you have truth on your side you don’t have to lie, but you may have to get nasty in order to stay in the game.
Besides this superstitious tabloid, ironically calling itself “Scientific American”, there has been a similar quote in the other German controlled outlet called “Nature”.
I can’t see an analogy with a “war”, when all misconduct and tricks happen only on one side.
But such qutoes are helpful to understand the roles and motivations of these journals in the proliferation of the Hockey Sticks and similar bad science and why they still haven’t removed false papers of this sort from their archives.
From John Horgan at Scientific American who asks:
Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?
He writes:
I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.
==============
1) So, you have a student that you agree with.
2) Your appeal to authority, is said student.
3) You have no conception of science, “lies” do not withstand the rigors of experimentation.
4) “wars” have always been waged in science, the theory that best describes the experimental results generally gets a grudging acknowledgement from the participants, who then retreat to their respective trenches to plan a new assault on the theory.
Get used to it.
Lying is the stock and trade of the faithful not the thoughtful. Chris, Kant did give us that and he based much of his work on the ancient Greeks. The ethics related to lying are clear and unequivocal. It is not permitted. This and other incidents illustrate the both the nonscientific nature of lying and the old political saw, “the end justifies the means”, to which I always add maybe. I have never been able to find any philosophical defense of that statement. Science is an amoral enterprise, the associated ethical writings related to science seem to be quiet clear only the truth is acceptable. False statements and data are simply not permitted.
Yes, it’s the only defence remaining for their deluded cause. They have already fooled themselves so why not everyone else? Of course the consequence is no-one will believe anything they say any more so their strategy is as deluded as their cause.
Notice that it is implied that “skeptics” are liars also.
John Hogan is wrong when he says “…will probably just confirm their suspicions about environmentalists. ” because I am an environmentalists who does not believe in CAGW (or AGW). The so called environmentalists are socialists hiding behind an environmental mask. Just ask one of the founders of Greenpeace.
I believe, with science backing me up, that more CO2 will make for a better planet for all living things.
So, John Horgan states Gleik’s lie was “morally right, but strategically wrong.”
One wonders when Horgan would think it would be strategically right to lie?
Anything for the cause!
Along with Per Strandberg, I used to read that rag.