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.
That Horgan feels it is even acceptable to raise the question shows how far science (or conceptions of it) have fallen.
Both Mill and Kant would have been horrified at what Horgan is proposing. He should have gone with Plato instead as he may have entertained the question, being the first to propose the acceptability of the Noble Lie.
Also, what business has this person in teaching philosophy – especially when he is so obviously leading his students to certain politically correct answers (and mauling Mill and Kant in the process).
I never thought that many of the highly educated and intelligent scientists pushing the AGW mantra actually believe in it. It’s like being member of communist party in a Stalinist regime, you know it’s wrong, but you dare not leave and ‘betray’ the cause. Once regime falls they all switch loyalties overnight and ‘en masse’. Just look at the east Europe’s ex-communist states, and who is in power now, the same old lot, just wearing different insignia.
If this war is a war it is not about data and science but about the hearts and minds of an electorate. The two sides have polarised and acquired followers, the bulk of these followers see only the science presented by their side and don’t really understand it anyway. It now appears to be a war of attrition, so it will continue until one side runs out of either soldiers or some vital raw material. The soldiers are measured by the opinion polls. The raw materials are political power, funding, access to the blogosphere, clever articulate men and the weather. I don’t think access to the learned journals and scientific opinion really comes in to it.
Anthony: This confirms how correct you were to take the high-ground and do the right thing with the private information you obtained with the CG2 files (update 38) – and now that’s a double blow to the warmists as some of them feel it’s acceptable to lie in the cause of political advocacy.
By the way (rhetorical question); did you tell your family you were expecting 2012 to be a “quiet” year?
War ? maybe
But I refuse to destroy the village in order to save it.
Gleik has violated the Geneva(CAGW) convention
polistra says:
February 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm
“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.
You are perfectly right. The difference is not so subtle not to be easy understood and clear for anybody rational who wants to look at.
Mike says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“I have heard much out there lately that what Dr Gleik has done has “hurt the cause of climate science.” Since when has climate science… or any other science for that matter, been a “cause?” Isn’t that a little like saying you’ve hurt the cause of chemistry?”
You are right to point this out. It is lying through omission – actually a typical propaganda action. It may hurt CAGW theory support but CAGW is not “climate science” but a theory inside of it.
The same is valid for other such distortions of the english language “skeptics being against climate change” or “denying climate change” – nonsense wording. One gets packaged under “climate change” the whole CAGW theory and only the theory and should not buy it.
On the “it isn’t a war” comments. They maybe right, it is not a war in classical way of speaking but it may have casualties. I saw a very disturbing comment on this matter:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/18/climate-fast-attack-plan/#comment-172071
We must have our priorities clear set, and to my understanding climate change alarmism is not helping to it.
The same piece also asks some questions John Horgan thinks are difficult:
Let me answer them for him.
“Shouldn’t you lie if your girlfriend asks you if you like her new haircut?”
Answer: No you should speak the honest truth if you don’t like her new haircut. If she can’t respect your opinion she is not worth to be with. She doesn’t have to change her haircut. It’s her life. You have to respect that as well. Love is more than just a haircut.
“If your boss, who’s a vindictive bastard, asks your opinion of his new business plan?”
Answer: Tell him the truth. Remember this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/friday-funny-an-inconvenient-lesson-from-60-years-ago/ (point 4)
“What about lying in order to reveal a plot that you believe imperils all of humanity?”
Answer: That’s a very difficult one. Only if there is sufficient prove and in the case of CAGW there is still not enough evidence around. The observations still point to a mild warming by a doubling of CO2.
Let me ask John Horgan one question in return:
– Should you get delusional in your plans to try to save the planet?
ONly one word come to mind reading the article and the description of the course he teaches — FACILE
The whole alarmist crimatology was founded and developed with the intent to prove AGW, rather than investigate climate.
Mike says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“I have heard much out there lately that what Dr Gleik has done has “hurt the cause of climate “science.” Since when has climate science… or any other science for that matter, been a “cause?” Isn’t that a little like saying you’ve hurt the cause of chemistry?”
You don’t provide a source; which person said that? I don’t remember anyone saying Gleick had hurt “the cause of climate science.” A lot of people including me might have said, he has hurt his own cause, he has hurt the alarmist’s cause… that is not the same thing.
We don’t think in such strange, wrong, ill-defined categories. I categorically refuse your fuzzy accusation.
I guess all this puts a “crease” in AGW. LOL
What “debate” is the author talking about? The CAGW religious zealots do not participate in debate. Doing so would be blasphemy.
Robert of Ottawa says February 25, 2012 at 4:52 am: “The whole alarmist crimatology was founded and developed with the intent to prove AGW, rather than investigate climate.”
Indeed.
The IPCC is in business for one and only one reason: to bolster the case for Disastrous Anthopogenic Global Warming (DAGW), and how (and how much) to “fix” it.
The third paragraph of the IPCC charter dated 6 December 1988 states: “Noting with concern that the emerging evidence that the continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”
The IPCC charter: http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNGA43-53.pdf
You only have to lie if you don’t have the truth on your side.
I had posted this in the main Gleick thread, but it seems even more appropriate in relation to this story and the current SciAm staff:
To be a good leftist, you have to believe in these definitions:
GOOD: = anything that I do, or want to do, or that my friends do. Because we are GOOD people, and GOOD people can do no wrong.
EVIL: = anything that my enemies do, or want to do, or that their friends do. Because they are EVIL!!! and everything they do is EVIL!!!
1st corollary: Because my enemies are EVIL anything I do against them, no matter what it is, is automatically GOOD!!!
2nd corollary: Laws are only meant to apply to EVIL people, since I am GOOD they never apply to me or my friends!
If you understand how deeply they believe these rules, the rest of their actions and beliefs become incredibly transparent.
What exactly is “the cause?”
It sounds like an insider term for a political movement to me…
It IS war. A battlefield in a larger war but war nevertheless…
I especially love the last few lines at about 1:50 or so.
In recall my ethics class in college, where we discussed hypothetical situations such as hiding Anne Frank’s family in the attic. If the Nazi’s came to search your house, is it permissible to lie and tell them no one is in the attic?
Many if not most people would agree that is an acceptable lie. If you’re truly convinced you’re preventing a greater evil, then exaggeration, fraud and outright lies are acceptable.
Remember, these people are zealots. They hold irrational beliefs about fossil fuels, “Big Oil” and the climate. They see shadow conspiracies where none exist. They are delusionally fighting non-existent boogeyman. They are convinced they know the truth and that those who disagree aren’t just wrong, but evil.
I’m surprised we haven’t found more Peter Gleick’s out there.
The lie is one thing. Most revealing are the coverup and rationalizing after the lie is exposed.
TomB says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:50 pm
On the other hand, a major part of espionage is feeding false information to the enemy.
The British invented an entire, fictional, army, just to convince them that the invasion was going to happen at the Port de Calaise (sp?) instead of Normandy.
The fact that the German’s bought the rouse saved thousands of Allied lives, and may have been the reason why the invasion was eventually successful.
John Horgan: Director of Science Writings
Since Horgan teaches his student’s that there are times when lying is OK, I presume it’s OK with him if a student of his lies, plagiarises, cribs, whatever to get a better grade. It’s OK, because flunking out has catastrophic consequences.
Or is it just the usual liberal view that you can lie to anyone if it agrees with my point of view.
I’m so glad he’s teaching science.
“the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war ..”
Who ended the debate and turned it into a war? When you insult your opponents as “deniers” and claim the “science is settled”, it sounds like you are trying to stifle debate.
“But it isn’t a war. War is the thing where people kill one another. ”
This became a war when the UN banned DDT, after the publishing of “Silent Spring,” which lead to the deaths of millions in the Third World to malaria.
The “Climate Wars” may be the first Internet “World War”.
It is asymmetric in that the warmista has a very full war chest. They have the science journals and much of the Main Stream Media on their side. They have hundreds of millions of dollars being shoveled their way by grateful governments. The warmista has even been able to infect the information chain running through schools and universities.
They have all this and yet small enterprises like Heartland and WUWT still shake their world and make converts everywhere the Interweb reaches. We are outgunned and outfunded and yet we still cause consternation and our message is more accepted than the “we are all doomed” message.
The sea is not behaving abnormally, the tropical tropospheric hot spots haven’t happened and the temperature models have failed to predict what is happening.
So they, the warmista, are forced to lie, cheat and steal to keep their rubbish religion alive. They have had to politicize the whole debate because thinking people understand the science and so the appeal is now to left/liberal thinking. The fact that SA is justifying deceit is astonishing by itself but let’s all understand that this really is the end of there being no science debate. There is and we need to keep on pushing it home.
No accelerated sea level rise. No tropical hotspots. The CO2 theory is as dead as Julius Caesar. Fools like Gliek have at least seen that fact. Smarter fools may never get there but their relevance is fast vanishing.