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.
I would like to thank the Moderators, Anthony Watts, Guest Writers, and the many contributors to this blog for their efforts to keep the discussion civil and truthful.
Fortunately there is the internet, free speech, and a number of courageous scientists who continue the pursuit of the truth and process of science. The essence of science is the pursuit of the truth.
The IPCC and associated climategates (plural not singular), are destined to become the largest scientific scandal of all time.
John Horgan are the following examples acceptable science? Does the new chairman of ethics for the AGU have any comment concerning the ethics of what appears to be data manipulation to support an agenda? Are there any extreme AGW paradigm followers that could respond to these questions?
“Lying is done with words and also with silence.” Adrienne Rich
Seagate
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites gives a rate of 0.5 mm/year to 0.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). A better approach, however, is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsided areas (Figure 4). This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change, as discussed above). These sites give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry, and the smell of a “sea-levelgate” gets stronger.
When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal, and they extended the trend up to 2003, they seemed to have faced a problem: There was no sea level rise visible, and therefore a “reinterpretation” needed to be undertaken. (This was orally confirmed at the Global Warming meeting held by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in 2005, which I attended). Exactly what was done remains unclear, as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the additional “corrections” they now infer. In 2003, the satellite altimetry record (Aviso 2003) suddenly took a new tilt—away from the quite horizontal record of 1992-2000, seen in Figures 5 and 6—of 2.3 (±0.1) mm/year (Figure 7).
As reported above regarding such adjustments, an IPCC member told me that “We had to do so, otherwise it would not be any trend,” and this seems exactly to be the case. This means that we are facing a very grave, if not to say, unethical, “sea-level-gate.” Therefore, the actual “instrumental record” of satellite altimetry (Figure 10) gives a sea level rise around 0.0 mm/year. This fits the observational facts much better, and we seem to reach a coherent
picture of no, or, at most, a minor (in the order of 0.5 mm/yr), sea level rise over the last 50 years.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf
“Estimating future sea level changes from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner
“In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of + 10 +/- 10 cm (or +5 +/- 5 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”
Hurricane Gate
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
“After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe…..
..The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record…Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).”
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
A few years ago, one of my brothers gave me a SciAm subscription as an Xmas gift. I was grateful — but hadn’t been reading it for about a decade and was shocked at its deterioration. That 12 mo worth of issues (~2008) is stacked mostly unread and in some cases not even looked at now; I’ve been “intending” to scan them someday for something worthwhile. Perhaps in my dotage to help recall the bad old days.
As for the war of lies: speak for yourself(selves).
Since you ask …
Calais
ruse
Sure, you can lie in war.
Propaganda, misdirection, deception, are tactics used to defeat an enemy.
However, the only reason there is a war, is that the whole thing is based on propaganda, deceptions and misdirections.
If there were solid science behind the AGW position and it were truly “settled”, no war would be necessary.
Since there is none, the time os ripe to retire the frauds of climate science and start fresh with some honest people who want to know the truth and are not gung ho advocates of what is essentially a a bankrupt political position.
Yes, politicians lie and we tell little white lies to our friends and faimilies. However, the whole premise of the scientific method depends on telling the truth about your findings, and not just the truth, no dissembling is allowed either. Whatever happened to the days when scientists understood that, even if their premise was proven wrong, it was still a contribution to science, perhaps just in showing that that path they took was the wrong one. Maybe this has changed because their is no money or recognition in that. Also, the current state of climate science certainly shows how prescient was Eisenhower’s valedictory speech.
Regarding lying: when I was a lad more than half a century ago, the parish priest challenged us catechism students to name the worst sin we could imagine. My mind raced, and I thought up some devilishly bad sins, even though I was a neophyte in this world (I could certainly do much better today).
But the good father stunned us all when he said, “To tell a lie is the worst sin” — meaning deviation from or denial of the Truth is the most grievous sin that exists. I have pondered that proposition ever since.
Henry James Jr., American author and philosopher, wrote:
The worst infidelity is the fear that the Truth will be bad.
What he meant was that we must have faith in the Truth, no matter how scary it might seem at first inspection. And to lie, to deliberately discard the truth for whatever motive, is the most unfaithful act imaginable.
….this concerns lying to the faithfull and good people, but you may lie
to the devil…..to the infidels….to the anti-Christ….to the blasphemists….
…but not to the Skeptics, we are the faithful good people and we have the
truth on our side…..whereas the alarmistic CAGWs are the bad guys…..
and deserve to be chastized….
In reading the article it is clear that Heartland is right to bring a lawsuit. Gliecks actions have caused permanent damage to Heartland. Horgan has bought and promoted the lie that Glieck started. And I’m sure global warmers will never stop promoting the lie. Peter Glieck must make restoration—if such a such a restoration equal to the damage done is possible. And I don’t think it is.
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.
It is war – a religious war. The warmist church/cult is complete with dogma, a priesthood (climate scientists, Al Gore), devoted acolytes (the MSM, journalists, IPCC, Gleick) and faithful followers (Hollywood celebrities, Greenpeace members, etc.). All discussion is couched in terms of “belief” and “denial”. Any disagreement is met with fierce resistance by the acolytes and followers because of its threat to their core belief system and by the priesthood because of its threat to their money and their power. And most of these people wouldn’t be caught dead praying to an “imaginary friend in the sky” because they’re just too smart for that.
“Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?”
If you can seriously ask that question without shame, you have admitted to being prepared to lie already.
DirkH says:
February 25, 2012 at 5:16 am
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.
Gee DirkH… I guess that since the title of Horgan’s column was “Should Global Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?”, I didn’t really need to quote a source. But even beyond that…. the word “cause” keeps popping up all over. Do a search on the climategate e-mails and how often the words “the cause” is used by the Climate Science community. Just one example: Michael Mann “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”
If you want more specific quotes and sources, I’d be glad to oblige:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-peter-gleicks-sting-of-the-heartland-institute-hurts-the-climate-change-cause/2012/02/21/gIQAqqGkRR_blog.html
From The Guardian column by Suzanne Goldenburg: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate
“What Peter Gleick did was unethical. He acknowledges that from a point of view of professional ethics there is no defending those actions,” said Dale Jamieson, an expert on ethics who heads the environmental studies programme at New York University. “But relative to what has been going on on the climate denial side this is a fairly small breach of ethics.”
He also rejected the suggestion that Gleick’s wrongdoing could hurt the cause of climate change, or undermine the credibility of scientists
The use of the term comes from both climate scientists and those who write about it… at least from those who are sympathetic to the CAGW side.
I could go on…
for joachim seifert: not sure what point you were trying to make, but given your reference to the “devil … infidels… the antichrist… the blasphemists” I assume it was something pseudo-theological.
SINCE your point was theological, allow me to point out that Christianity has *never* condoned lying, even to ones enemies. (I am told that the koran does, but I don’t know that for sure) In Ephesians 6:14, Paul mentions the metaphorical armor a Christian must have and the first item is the “belt of Truth”. The point is that the Truth is not just a moral value, it is one of the most powerful weapons at ones disposal. To abandon the Truth is to abandon some of your best armor. (a timeless lesson Gleick just found out the hard way)
In Proverbs, one of the books revered by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we find:
“Let not mercy and truth forsake you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart, and so find favor and high esteem in the sight of God and man.” Proverbs 3:3-4
and for good measure I’ll throw in a new testament endorsement of the scientific method:
“Test all things; hold fast what is good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21
In terms of the ethical question of lying to save Anne Frank, I don’t think even in that instance lying is “justified”, meaning it should be considered faultless; BUT… there are times in life when all the choices in a certain situation are bad. If you are hiding Anne Frank, you have to choose between the evil of lying to civil authorities (no direct harmful result) or the evil of subjecting her to an unjust imprisonment and eventual death. (direct harmful result, with the point that this would be a perversion of justice) The person given that choice must literally choose the lesser of two evils. Lying is not “justified” in this instance, but it is still the most moral choice because every other choice is more unjust and worse in its immediate effects.
How does this apply to Gleick’s case? There were MANY other choices available, no matter how deeply he believed, as others show with their actions every day. Even if he believes that catastrophe will result from the skeptics beliefs, it was still ridiculous to say that lying and stealing were the ONLY options left open to him in this situation. That’s why the Anne Frank comparison is false.
Lying may be necessary as a true last resort – but “last resort” NEVER means “I’m annoyed by these people and sick of trying to do things the hard way.”
eyesonu says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:30 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.
—————————————
Now you’ve got me creasing up with laughter
———————————
That may be in starch contrast as to what was meant.
___________________________________
Attempts to smooth it over create yet another wrinkle? Time to hang it up…..
I think the problem is the same thing it always is when it comes to government funding: the people receiving the taxpayer’s money don’t want to lose it. They don’t want to do the hard work of making an honest living. It’s all about money. The people who control the government funds are enriching themselves and their cronies at the expense of everybody else. They’ll do just about anything to stay on the government gravy train, and skeptics threaten that gravy train. Therefore they target skeptics.
RockyRoad says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm
“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.”
Ain’t that the truth?
Mac the Knife says:
February 25, 2012 at 12:46 pm
===============
Luther Wu says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“Comments like that really get me steamed.”
===============
I missed the additional comment by Luther Wu above in my earlier posting (moderating/commenting time?)
That really scorches my panties.
“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.
—————————————
Now you’ve got me creasing up with laughter
———————————
“Comments like that really get me steamed.”
—————————————-
That may be in starch contrast as to what was meant.
___________________________________
Attempts to smooth it over create yet another wrinkle? Time to hang it up…..
————————————
That really scorches my panties.
=========================
Let me set the record straight. Now I have aired my dirty laundry.
Mike says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:41 am
“Gee DirkH… I guess that since the title of Horgan’s column was “Should Global Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?”, I didn’t really need to quote a source.”
Oh. You mean THEM. Sorry.
“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”
Try here:-
“Strong words, and true ones too, but Gleick himself has failed to live up to them — and his actions have hurt not just his own professional reputation but the cause of climate science as well.”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html
“Two nations that have a thriving trade relationship have never gone to war.”
Germany and France had a thriving trade relationship in 1914. In fact there was a famous book, “The Great Illusion”, written in 1909 which argued that a general European war was now impossible because the European economies were all so intertwined. Since they would all lose, nobody would possibly start something this suicidal.
Well, at least he was right about a general European war being suicidal for everyone.
Scientifik Amerikan has been promoting Green Fraud, AGW and related scaremongering since the early 90’s (when it was acquired by a German publishing company). Its first mentioned climate change in 1993 (shortly after the acquisition), and has been going strong ever since: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=want-to-learn-more-about-climate-change
Technocally military deception operations isn’t lieing. Its much harder than that! The IPCC/ hockey team have repeatedly been out classed by the likes of the climategate email leaker who has covered him self so well we still don’t know who it is or the person who switched sides while they were making the british “No Pressure” ads. Those were master pieces but that’s about it. Except for a few people that got easy video of climate fanatics saying stupid things at various conferences; It really isn’t our style to play the game. We dont need to. We’re winning with the truth on our side. You really don’t need to deceive an idiot.
I think we truly have reached the point Eisenhower was warning us about. Government grants are a stand-in for intellectual curiosity. As a side effect, moral fortitude goes by the wayside. Who cares if it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do? It’s all relative, and we need that grant money. Indeed, intellectual curiosity is no longer applied to research, but instead is applied to rationalizing actions.
“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.
—————————————
Now you’ve got me creasing up with laughter
———————————
“Comments like that really get me steamed.”
—————————————-
That may be in starch contrast as to what was meant.
___________________________________
Attempts to smooth it over create yet another wrinkle? Time to hang it up…..
————————————
That really scorches my panties.
_____________________
Let me set the record straight. Now I have aired my dirty laundry.
=====================
I boast about being good with one liners, but the irony is that I’m going to have to fold on this one.
I use to subscribe to Scientific American but I had to stop when they drifted into Gaia worship. If they ever drift back to covering science, and only science, I’d be happy to subscribe again.
Peter Kovachev says:
February 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
Why extend the laundry list of forced and over-starched wordplay? They’re all fabric-ated from whole cloth.