Quote of the week

Yeah, the only problem with the quote is that it makes it sound like the actions are mutual on both sides. No-one is perfect and there are warts on both sides, to be sure. But the disparity is pretty striking.

So it’s a faux war to justify deceptive motivation is it? What hubris !
I think Kennedy explains this and the motivation for AGW as a “social advocacy”cause. .
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy, 35th US president (1917-1963)
It’s fear.
Born from an overly secure and priveleged society, this angst infects those who believe that the existence of others will somehow negatively impact them personally.
These angst ridden who need to practice this fear based manipulation, have no faith in themselves nor humanity.
Without faith they feel the need to control us whilst considering themselves elite, more aware and righteous than we the common people.
Yet their actions whist comically tragic and grandiose also reveal their “inferiority” in all respects to those they seek to control.
And isn’t that what fear inherently does , “lessen the man”?
Only the interior are incapable of using reason, logic or right to win their case and a quick examination of their tactics reveals most AGW adherents don’t even believe their own “science”.
Why would they use oxymorons and Orwelian “Newspeak” such as “Carbon pollution” which is simply cheap PR spin and propaganda not science?
Why try to shame dissent by using perjorative terms such as “Denier”?
That is the cheap bulling of the mentally defeated and neither open minded nor is it science.
Then there is the sheer volume of hyperbolic idiocy of the scenarios of destruction and doom culminating in prominent AGW cheerleader James Hansens claiming that the “seas will boil”.
Good leaders and those with natural authority don’t use fear nor panic but calm others. It’s, shysters and carpetbaggers who try to stamped others into action through fear, as do the AGW choir – and their main target is the innocents, they put fear into children and that is abuse.
Then the frauds and deceit – hockey stick, Climategate, data perversion ad nauseum etc etc.
How many AGW adhearents have been outraged by these wrongs verses how many have not only kept the faith but defended these untruths?
And lastly, why this constant, obsequious and demeaning “appeal to authority”?
Is critical thinking so despised and slavish obedience a necessary requirement for the AGW faith ?
As a layman, I certainly don’t need a degree in Climateology to discern fraud.

Stacey,
“On the Judith Curry update ‘oh the ironing’
A you must be pressed for time”
Smooth!

There is a Warmist trick of Mr. Horgan: “Talking about ONE lie”….
The truth are Gleicks actions: Trying to get a top chair in childrens education by claiming HIGHEST moral standards on one side (see his chair application), accompanied,
at the same time, by sneaky, lying, outsmarting and deceiving actions concerning an
American Institute….
We have to judge Gleicks parallel actions and whether both are compatible…..
For Mr. Horgan, he is a lost soul ..[how did he get a educational job himself}….
.even Kant literature about moral standards and peace made an impression on him and
won’t help him……he is too infected, read : “Gleick….a hero”….” with only ONE clearly MORAL lie”
and concluding with a students [his?] quote: ” We are in a state of war ….and people [good
or bad? All or only the villains?] always lie…..”
Why don’t we put an amendment into the declaration of human rights: “In case of war….people are entitled to always lie for their cause and abstain from truth…..”…. let’s get Mr. Horgan
to draw up this amendment……
JS

“But another philosopher my students and I are reading, the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, said that judging acts according to intentions is not enough. We also have to look at consequences. And if Gleick’s deception has any consequences, they will probably be harmful. His exposure of the Heartland Institute’s plans, far from convincing skeptics to reconsider their position, will probably just confirm their suspicions about environmentalists. Even if Gleick’s lie was morally right, it was strategically wrong.”
what a bizarre paragraph from Scientific American
Maybe the author is rhetorical musing about how Utilitarians would argue…but, leaves is unclear. So sad

The Medium is the Message: This is how a hoax dies.

Wow!
I think everybody should take a moment to digest just how completely surreal the fallout from this incident has become……..
Things have been crazy this week, granted! But now Scientific American is giving article space to a commentator proposing (and potentially inciting?) the idea, publicly, that TRUTH is IRRELEVANT in the debate over the extent to which Global Warming is settled science.
Can this really be happening?? Whatever one’s views of Heartland, of Gleick, of the science…can this really be the level that the public discourse has sunk to??? That this sort of reckless, immature proponent of the abandonment of all principle is influencing young minds in a philosophy class really does give rise to fear for the future of education. That a respected journal, supposedly upholding the principles of objective, scientific enquiry, should see fit to publish it is beyond shame. It beggars belief!

So, in the “war of getting good grades” it’s perfectly ok to lie to my humanities professor.
Got it.

cgh thank you.You’ve hit the nail on the head. Nothing strikes fear in
the hear tof a greenie like healthy, happy, PROSPEROUS-dark skinned
people..

“It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.”
Too bad that went go to war armed with nothing but blanks and dummies.
Horgan writes:
—-
Kant said that when judging the morality of an act, we must weigh the intentions of the actor. Was he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick’s lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous. Gleick, you might say, is a hero comparable to….
—-
Horgan needs some history lessons.
Not the “opinions” of the students sucking up to him.
Horgan’s paradox:
“Is it OK to lie to your professor if he asks when, if ever, is it OK to lie?”

Two nations that have a thriving trade relationship have never gone to war. By analogy, two sides of an issue are at war when either side refuses to:
a) Debate.
b) Open their data and methodology for all to see.
c) Follow legal means of obtaining information.
d) Refrain from lying about the other side.
e) Uses all their resources to destroy the other side.
By the way, none of the above items are characteristic of “science”. ALL the above items, however, are characteristic of “climate science”. Hence, “climate science” is not “science” at all. It is a political war with control of the world’s population at stake.

Political Junkie says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm
“On the Judith Curry update ‘oh the ironing’
A you must be pressed for time”
Smooth!
————————-
….. or maybe he was just … ahem… Board
_________________
Silly! I have more pressing issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments like that really get me steamed.

I like this on the Sci. Am. article: “About the Author: Every week, John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science.” So if he seems too tolerant of their students lying for the cause: that’s OK if you’re one of those professionally puckish people.