Post by Brandon Shollenberger
Rhetoric in climate change debates has never been highbrow. There’s lots of name calling, gotcha games and other petty behavior. Still, there’s something about suggesting people you dislike should die that turns most people off. That’s why I was somewhat surprised when I read a blog post by Greg Laden which has this hypothetical situation:
Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are in a boat. They are in the middle of a deep, cold lake. If the boat sinks they will die of hypothermia and their corpses will sink to the bottom. There is a device in the boat that will sink it instantly, or alternatively, propel the boat to the safety of the shoreline where there are three martinis waiting for them, but it all depends on all three of them correctly answering a question…The question is, “Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.”
You’ll note Laden doesn’t actually suggest anyone should die. He makes it into a game, suggesting they “Agree or Die.” And it is still just a hypothetical situation. It’s not pleasant, but it’s not horribly horrible either.
Naturally, Peter Gleick couldn’t live with such a tame statement, chiming in to say:
Very nice, Greg. Thanks.
And the Coulter, O’Reilly, Limbaugh situation seems like a win-win no matter what they answer. (btw, check the spelling on Coulter.)
That’s right. Peter Gleick thinks three people dying would be a “win.” The only other winning option to him is for them to agree with him. He is, quite literally, suggesting it would be good if people who don’t agree with him died of hypothermia.
Having found the link to Greg Laden’s post in Peter Gleick’s Twitter feed, I naturally responded to him there. Having nothing but contempt for Gleick, my Twitter response was not kind:
@PeterGleick It was nice to see you say it’d be good if people you dislike died. You really are insane!
Gleick’s response was… interesting:
@Corpus_no_Logos I guess you didn’t bother to read Laden’s piece. No one dies.
Of course nobody died in the piece. I was talking about what Gleick said, not what Greg Laden said. After completely missing the point, he promptly blocked me.
This is progress. Remember, Michael Mann recently said in his AGU presentation:
And to me, probably the best indication of the fact that there is, we are making progress is the heated rhetoric, the violent heated rhetoric, that we are now seeing from climate change deniers. It’s become far more outlandish, far more violent than anything we’ve seen in the past. And to me, that’s the signature of a dying campaign.
I’d say Agree or Die is pretty heated rhetoric. That means Peter Gleick is making progress for us!
Related articles
- Peter H. Gleick, ‘genius’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Fish Gotta Swim, Birds Gotta Fly, and Peter Gleick Gotta Lie (fakegate.org)
- Watch Michael Mann’s self aggrandizing AGU presentation (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The MAD MEN of Climate-Change Alarmism (wattsupwiththat.com)
Hypothermia? In a global-warming-world? Surely he meant heatstroke?
I guess it doesn’t occur to some people that others might be willing to die rather than agree with something they believe to be wrong. Especially if that could lead ultimately to others starving to death. Perhaps the greatest moral challenge our time is finding somebody, anybody, who would choose the personal integrity option.
Laden’s post is as infantile as insulting someone while claiming otherwise because it was delivered in an interrogative sentence. Gleick cheers out of desperation.
As you say, their gibber is just another example of the inanity of AGW rhetoric.
it is possible to answer Yes to Laden’s question and still think him and the Gleicks of the world are dangerous eco-fascists ready to ruin the world in their misguided attempt to save it.
I find Mann’s comment strange in the extreme. If anything I see MSM and people in general doing exactly the opposite of what Mann infers re a “dying campaign”. What is “dying” is faith in Climatescience and the blind acceptance that the models they use are accurate.
As for the inference that Gleick hoped people die – I have to say I find the interpretation tenuous.
I believe such an interpretation is akin to Alarmists labelling those who dare to question the dogma Denialists.
Gleick is such a deeply flawed individual that I would suggest we do the cause of true science no favours by stooping to the same low standards as the Alarmists.
This article is “fluff” and is disappointing
You need to check the presentation here. Without Gleick’s 2nd statement being put in italics, your post doesn’t make much sense.
Laden has previous form. He was kicked off a blogging network for making “behind the scenes” violent threats against a fellow blogger who disagreed with him. Fortunately that blogger stood up and spoke out.
It doesn’t surprise me that Gleick would jump into bed with him. These two have no morals. What is perhaps worse is that so many turn a blind eye to this behaviour.
I think you need a bit more of the example from Laden to understand his point, which is not “agree or die”:
“They don’t know who is asking the question. It could be the Heritage Institute, it could be Michael Mann with his finger on a remote that operates the device. But they are told that the best available science will be used to determine if they are wrong or right.
They will all answer “yes.” ”
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/19/why-you-sound-so-stupid-when-you-say-global-warming-has-stopped/
Let’s also remember that Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh aren’t the most moderate of people. How many have they wished dead during their careers? The fact that they have all supported torture by waterboarding may be the most karmic analogy to putting them in that boat over cold water, although obviously supporting real torture is far worse than a thought experiment. I suspect there is no accident that those three were chosen rather than, say, Lindzen, Spencer and Salby.
Gleick has become emboldened by the failure of Heartland (criminal Damage, Defamation, False Statements) or the FBI (Identity Fraud) to prosecute him. A normal person would have been so ashamed they would have quietly disappeared, but not our Peter ‘the climate warrior’. It is not too late to make an example of him and expose the whole sham in a Court.
There is a consistent wish of an end to human progress and anti people sentiment (wishing even deaths) running through alarmist and ‘green’ hopes for the future.
These comments are totally in keeping with the AGW/CC approach to solving the “problem” by imposing draconian measure on us all in order to save the planet from their fearful imaginations.
You have cut too much context from the analogy. It not a case of “Agree or Die” as you suggest. It can be better described as “Get the answer correct or die”.
Greg Laden is saying if the lives of Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh depended on them answering the question “Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.” correctly then using the best availably science they would answer it differently than they do now. Greg is suggesting Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are not currently interested in answering that question correctly.
Greg Laden’s middle name wouldn’t be “Bin” by any chance, would it?
Given that the global warming tribe are supposed to be largely scientists with a love for facts and “truth”, daydreaming violence and/or death for their opponents seems an odd way to go about things. So does hatred, for that matter, and name calling and all the rest.
All they have to do is show us the evidence they purport to have. Science down through the ages involved showing and teaching. If they are right, show us.
Is that so hard? Well, yes, of course it’s hard. They don’t have it to show. That means they KNOW it’s not true, hence the hatred.
For all those warmists out there who truly believe, please, ask those climate scientists to show what they have. More people become skeptics because they look into the data for themselves, or try to, and come up against a wall when it comes to the pro argument. Skeptics become skeptics not because they’ve been blinded or bought. If you truly believe the world is in danger, insist that climate scientists show what they claim to have.
It must really annoy the genuine believer that climate scientists are refusing to show their work when the world is so at risk. Honestly, start insisting and see what you find.
Hypothetical situation:
You are a prominent albeit narsacistic “Climate scientist” who despite hoping for catastrophic global warming, has seen no significant global temperature increase for over 14 years. All the peer reviewed science you treat as holy writ has been shown to be completely without skill by those you despise. Your opposites both know this and report it to an ever attentive public, frustrating your efforts at accruing increased acclaim and fortune.
Now you have a choice.
You can act in accord with established scientific ethical behavior that you have criticized your scientific opponents as lacking, admitting the predictive failure of all the pathetic theories you hold dear, and use your immense “genius” brain power at actually advancing scientific understanding of our world,
-or-
you could commit fraud against a celebrated advocacy group of your scientific betters that had invited you to tell them why you believe you are correct. By employing identity theft you fraudulently impersonate one of their board members, and finding no smoking gun to support your paranoid view of a grand anti-global warming conspiracy, commit forgery by creating a document filled with the same bizarre rhetoric which only you and your cohorts use in your conspiratorial ranting. Further by using the same false delusional “document”, you proclaim to the world you have discovered the vindication of all your (paranoid delusional) suspicions .
Of course everyone, including those you counted on for support sees through your illicit, hypocritical attempts at discrediting your opponent, thus revealing the true content of your pathetic character.
So which do you choose to do?
Oh yeah, a couple of years later you publicly wish your enemies would die.
Sounds a bit like the good old Witches’ trial to me, devised of course simply to remove something percieved as a problem without bothering about the truth of the matter.
If you aren’t a witch you drown, if you are you live but are put to death. In the end the truth of the case didn’t matter, once accused you were toast and the “problem” was quickly despatched either way.
I don’t understand why you bother cultivating the Martyr Complexes of some of these people.
If O’Reilly’s in the boat, the lake must be pretty shallow.
Jimmy Haigh. says: July 18, 2013 at 12:07 am
Hypothermia? In a global-warming-world? Surely he meant heatstroke?
Or in this case, backstroke.
By withdrawing access to reliable, dependant energy sources and replacing them with unreliable energy sources which are particularly unreliable during extreme weather events will result in a lot of people dying needlessly.
Mr Shollenberger, I have very little good to say about either Gleick the liar and disgrace to science or Laden, who was indeed thrown out of Freethought Blogs for using violent and threatening language to a co-blogger called Justin Griffith, but I think your post is oversensitive and too quick to take offence. People make “win-win” jokes like that all the time. Yes, Gleick is LITERALLY suggesting it would be good if people who don’t agree with him died of hypothermia, but the point is that his words were never meant to be taken literally.
Here in the UK an unfortunate man called Paul Chambers had to fight a case all the way to the High Court to quash his conviction for making an obviously joke threat on Twitter to blow an airport sky-high if it did not reopen quickly enough for him to fly to see his girlfriend. The common sense attitude in these circumstances is to mildly reprove people for making a joke in poor taste, or laugh at it if that’s how your sense of humour takes you.
Of course a sceptic would never be dumb enough to get in the boat in the first place and it’s only in the nasty fantasies of warmists that they get to a point where they could force them.
@John.
It is indeed “agree or die”. The “truth” is a matter of science not a simple case of observation. You don’t know the “truth”, Gleick doesn’t know the “truth”, Laden doesn’t know the “truth”. They just claim that they do – hence the false premise of this thougt experiment. It is revealing that there is no “I don’t know” or “I am not certain” or even “in parts yes and in parts no” options to Laden’s question.
I would bet a penny to a pound that Anthony would say he does no know the “truth”, similarly with other high profile skeptics like Steve MacIntyre, Andrew Montford etc.
Why I feel more comfortable beng a skeptic is that the large maority of them (maybe 97% of them) would feel the same. you can stick to the “truth”, skeptics will stick with the science.
“That’s right. Peter Gleick thinks three people dying would be a “win.” ”
The leftist liars and thieves have become ethicists. Ethics is their replacement for morality. They needed to replace Morality with Ethics to justify mass killings (Gleick); genetic manipulation of children (Liao), brainwashing and conditioning (Liao), etc etc.
When you see an Ethicist approaching, RUN.
From my art studio I note that everybody dies but when us Ivy League inorganic/organic/genetics chemists with a further background in micro-fabrication go Galt due to persecution of both open and critical thinking in science, everybody also dies a lot younger, and Republicans get half the blame.
Thomas says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:47 am
“Let’s also remember that Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh aren’t the most moderate of people. How many have they wished dead during their careers?”
Zero. Why do you ask? Hey, we can play this game too.
How many has Obama wished dead during his career?
Nothice that his wish is the command of the drone pilots.
Hundreds? Thousands?
It’s all part of the sick wish-fulfilment fantasies of these loathsome and insane cultists. Let’s never forget the 10:10 video, which is the archetypical version of their hate and anti-life religion.
Just a variation of the ghastly video that portrayed the murder of innocent men women and children by being blown up in front of others if they dared to be a sceptic and which most alarmists thought was hilarious fun, it is symptomatic of a fanatical cult mindset. They hate sceptics not because the are wrong but because they could well be right, it would mean the end of a socio political narrative called man made global warming. They are wrong in all respects and including a distinct and shared lack of moral decency.
“but it all depends on all three of them correctly answering a question…The question is, “Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.””
So they all say No and go to shore QED.
The answer to the hypothetical question is obviously “No”, so Martinis all round.
Only the lame brained and deceitful would say “Yes” and I don’t think they should go to the bottom of the lake, but rather if they are ‘climate scientists’ they should be forced to do something useful and get a real job in the real world.
“[…] That’s why I was somewhat surprised when I read a blog post by Greg Laden […]”
Why would you be surprised by anything Greg Laden writes? The only thing surprising about Greg is which hymn he will choose to sing from the Official Hymn Book of the Church of CO2-based CAGW. And it’s no surprise that he’s always a little off-key.
Try finding something he’s written that’s brilliant, insightful, acccurate, and civil all at once. Now that would be a real surprise.
Incidentally, the scenario described is the description of a terrorist / hostage incident, the three hostages are in jeopardy of their lives – the scenario also does not say what the “correct” answer is the hostage taker could easily declare both answers as wrong and sink the boat. It’s a bit like Sophie’s choice.
When your out to ‘save the planet’ everthing is OK in your own mind, Even hopping other people die , and it is hardly the first time AGW fanatics have expressed this type of view.
If you put 3 climate alarmists in a boat, they’re still just as stupid.
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.
Terry Pratchett
“Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.”
There’s 3 questions there, not just 1:
1. is it real? seems to be, though the ongoing temperature record manipulations make it look more than it really is
2. is it human-caused? probably partly, yes
3. is it important? not really, since natural variation seems to drive much larger swings in temperature than global warming does (witness the last 15/17 years of no warming).
But I guess that wasn’t the point….
Agree or die. Godwin’s law prevents me from stating the obvious.
Get ’em in front of a Nuremburg style tribunal and hang the lot of ’em – isn’t that the Delingpole solution.
@Geckko
Absolutely, in the analogy the “correct” answer is subjective. Even using only scientific evidence there will be a certain amount of subjectivity and as you say the answer will be on the balance of probability rather than a definitive statement either way.
However, I do not think the analogy is about finding the answer to the question. It’s about if you they care what the correct answer is. He’s saying Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are not interested in finding the correct answer only finding the “answers” they want. The hypothetical situation is to force them to want to find the correct answer and then he suggests their opinion will change.
But I think the same criticism could be made of Greg Laden as well. The debate is quite polarised and many involved are looking for the answers to support their “team” rather than trying to find the correct answer.
no pressure?
“Noooooooobody expects the Gleickish Inquisition. My chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and a near fanatical devotion to The Cause! Um, I’ll come in again…”
H/t Monty Python.
Was this really worth a post on WUWT?
The trouble is, the whole scam is born out of the minds of neo-leftists, neo feudalists, & eco-Stalinists, encouraged by the bloodsucking intellectual onanistic lawyers & the like, who want to reduce the global population to 500 million. It I they who with arrogance contempt for their fellow human beings, want to decide who lives & who dies. After all that is what Agenda 21 is essentially all about, a Socialist Dystopia, run by the neo-elites, (my euphemism)! Their dilemma< how to actually carry out their envisaged atrocities of max execution, by conventional gas, by shale gas, or just plane good old fashioned starvation! I re-phrase my old question to them all, "Just how many people must die (directly or indirectly) as a result of failed computer models, green policies, green energy/renewables, put a figure on it, is it 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000, before you change your mind?"
pl forgive the typos, max should have read mass! 😉
Well, at least they’ve admitted they don’t really believe the global warming pause is hiding in the water.
Re: omnologos July 18, 2013,12:32
“it is possible to answer Yes to Laden’s question and still think him and the Gleicks of the world are dangerous eco-fascists ready to ruin the world in their misguided attempt to save it.”
That is so true it bears repeating.
Many people understand that there may well be some warming (though far less than the alarmists tout), but 1. the potential harms are not great; 2. our ability to accomplish any reduction is slight; and 3. what little we can do at this time cannot be achieved without inflicting greater harm.
This posting is a brilliant confirmation of Michael Mann’s comment.
Big discussion about little people.
‘ Kasuha says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:40 am
Was this really worth a post on WUWT?’
Yes indeed it was. It serves to remind us of the twisted minds of the malignant narcissists and fanatics who drive the AGW/CO2 fraud with their lies and fake science.
Agree or die sounds familiar. Maybe Gleick is green with envy and thinks his face should be on the cover of Rolling Stone instead of Flashbang’s?
My senario is that he, Mann, Trenberth, Hanson, Cook, Schmit, Jones, et al are all stuck in the middle of that same lake …. period, end of story. What happens to them? We don’t care because they all paddled themselves there in the first place.
Bob says: Big discussion about little people.
Leprechauns protest!
Here are a couple of quotes from the CRU emails by Dr. Phil Jones.
On hearing the death of a leading global warming sceptic, John Daly:
in another email he writes:
Here is the railway controller, Rendrand Pachauri, on sceptics:
Here is a story about fear and violence over global warming:
Yet Michael Man has the audacity to say:
It is their campaign that is going through the pain of its dying days and he knows it. Today, the media are questioning the temperature standstill in unprecedented numbers! Back in 2010, after sceptics had pointed out the lack of warming, they were far more silent. A continued lack of warming (in the absence of major volcanic eruptions) will end their scandalous campaign. It has to.
nataliesolent says:
July 18, 2013 at 2:10 am
Mr Shollenberger, I have very little good to say about either Gleick the liar and disgrace to science or Laden, who was indeed thrown out of Freethought Blogs for using violent and threatening language to a co-blogger called Justin Griffith, but I think your post is oversensitive and too quick to take offence. People make “win-win” jokes like that all the time. Yes, Gleick is LITERALLY suggesting it would be good if people who don’t agree with him died of hypothermia, but the point is that his words were never meant to be taken literally.
***************************************************************************************************
Pro 26:18 Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death
Pro 26:19 is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”
Beware of people who make threats then say, “I am only joking”. It is a cover up of their true inclinations.
Bert Walker says:
July 18, 2013 at 1:49 am
Hypothetical situation:
————————————————-
Bert, we have a real life study needing to be studied.
This could be important research and provide enlightenment.
What’s in the head of a prominent scientist that he would lie, cheat, steal and forge documents?
Now why wouldn’t Lew or some other respectable shrink delve into Pete’s psyche?
This has got to be one for the textbooks.
cn
1. Is it real? Yes
(… there has been warming – although we don’t honestly know how much or what happens next)
2. Is it human-caused? Yes
(… in part – 8 billion largish organisms changing land use, converting energy etc will have an effect – but again we don’t know how much, whether it is significant or even if the human-caused result is warming or cooling overall)
3. Is it important? Yes
(… very! The impact of some of the policies being proposed on the back of AGW would set civilisation back decades. They would be particularly devastating for the people who would most benefit from what we already have)
4. Is it funny, clever or acceptable to premeditate drowning people? No (not even hypothetically).
In Australia this might be considered a death threat and make headline news…..if it was against a warmist! I doubt the ABC will even look at this one!
Petty tyrants must have only sycophants surrounding them. As they have no other real source of affirmation. So of course it is agree or die.
John says:
July 18, 2013 at 1:19 am
“Greg is suggesting Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are not currently interested in answering that question correctly.”
Then Laden must listen to the Evil Triune almost as much as Thomas does:
“Let’s also remember that Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh aren’t the most moderate of people. How many have they wished dead during their careers?”
However, Limbaugh would probably still thank them both for providing him with living space within their brains.
Steve B,
Sometimes it might be a coverup of their true inclinations. The reason I know of Greg Laden is that at the time of Gleick’s little scheme Laden wrote a blog post advancing a stupid conspiracy theory in defence of Gleick and then, when people called him out on its ridiculousness pulled back and said it was all a joke. I thought that was sly and disingenuous. I don’t believe Laden would have pulled back if no one had called him out.
On the other hand, sometimes what is claimed to be a joke really is a joke. The other day I wrote a blog post asking whether it was better to hang or hang, draw and quarter telephone salespeople. I do not actually wish to do either. It was just a joke, as I think Gleick’s “win-win” remark was just a joke.
In this case I don’t even think it was a joke that unintentionally revealed Gleick’s true inclinations (as distinct from a coverup of his true inclinations, or a deniable way of expressing his true inclinations while avoiding just criticism, as I think Laden’s post that I mentioned above was). I think it was just Gleick saying the first vaguely humorous remark that popped into his head. It’s a boring old chestnut of a joke that thousands have made in some form before him, but for that very reason we should not read too much into it.
The “No Pressure” video was, I think, unintentionally revealing of the makers’ inclinations and fantasies, although not of their actual intentions.
Peter Ward,
Excellent observation. You took Laden’s pointless thought experiment and made out of it something that taught a lesson about logic.
Steve B,
Sometimes it might be a coverup of their true inclinations. The reason I know of Greg Laden is that at the time of Gleick’s little scheme Laden wrote a blog post advancing a stupid conspiracy theory in defence of Gleick and then, when people called him out on its ridiculousness pulled back and said it was all a joke. I thought that was sly and disingenuous. I don’t believe Laden would have pulled back if no one had called him out.
On the other hand, sometimes what is claimed to be a joke really is a joke. The other day I wrote a blog post asking whether it was better to hang or hang, draw and quarter telephone salespeople. I do not actually wish to do either. It was just a joke, as I think Gleick’s “win-win” remark was just a joke.
In this case I don’t even think it was a joke that unintentionally revealed Gleick’s true inclinations (as distinct from a coverup of his true inclinations, or a deniable way of expressing his true inclinations while avoiding just criticism, as I think Laden’s post that I mentioned above was). I think it was just Gleick saying the first vaguely humorous remark that popped into his head. It’s a boring old chestnut of a joke that thousands have made in some form before him, but for that very reason we should not read too much into it.
The “No Pressure” video was, I think, unintentionally revealing of the makers’ inclinations and fantasies, although not of their actual intentions.
Peter Ward,
Excellent observation. You took Laden’s pointless thought experiment and made out of it something that taught a lesson about logic.
“Peter Gleick Makes Progress… by Hoping People Die”…instead of contributing to their deaths.
On the other hand: It was a joke. (Gleick’s response that is). As a libertarian I agree with the three of them on only a few things and I find Coulter despicable, Limbaugh laughably despicable but less so than Coulter, and O’Reilly and Limbaugh both to be pompous asses. Most of what all three of them say is theatre just to get ratings, sell books. Can I find thousands of progressives, politicians, and MSM members I also find shallow and despicable? Sure. Feel free to use them in boat jokes too.
Anthony, in my opinion you do yourself and your credibility no good at all by engaging in this nonsense. Truthfully, all parties concerned are behaving like 12 year olds.
Ok so we have Hansen, Gore, and Mann in a boat … scratch that …. We have Hansen, Gore, and Mann on camera with Wonder Woman’s Lasso of Truth around them ………
It’s important that warmists want to silence skeptics.
Skeptics want warmists to keep talking, as they get increasingly shrill and their “projections” become even more outrageous.
Eventually, the general population will notice.
It’s difficult to say whether folks like Laden and Gleick had a psychological propensity for lying and violence before they became activists for the cause of causing great harm to humanity in the guise of “saving the planet” or in the process of pimping for said cause. Perhaps a bit of both. Something for social science and psychiatry to puzzle over in the future, I guess.
Let’s say you died and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter is there checking people in. He says in order to get into heaven you must correctly answer this one question. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old or 6,000? How would you answer?
I sent to the Pacific Institute communications folk and COO:
Subject: Conduct unbecoming of a president
From: Ric Werme
You might introduce Dr. Gleick to the high road. Or at least the
Pacific Institute vision.
The Vision and Mission statements are at http://www.pacinst.org/about-us/mission-and-vision/ :
With respect, neither this article (which amounts to extrapolating a silly thought experiment which will never actually happen – giving a whole new meaning to “reductio ad absurdum”), nor a good many of the comments (Alan the Brit: “bloodsucking intellectual onanistic lawyers & the like” – as a lawyer myself, thanks for that wonderful image) are up to the usual high standard of WUWT threads.
Can we please move on to “puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change and recent news”, as it says on the tin?
It has already happend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people
As good ‘ol Pol Pot puts its “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”
I am taking a week off from writing about Global Warming on my obscure blog. I find it lowers my blood pressure, and reminds me how beautiful high summer is. “Stop and sniff the roses.”
However the subject is always muttering about in the back of my mind, like thunder over a hill. It is something you can’t escape, especially with the hearings starting in Washington.
With so much of the current political agenda based on Global Warming, and with the science behind the theory as solid and seaworthy as a cardboard boat, what we are left with is an agenda with no foundation.
It is like declaring marshal law due to an invasion of leprechauns; once people discover the threat doesn’t exist, the actions look foolish.
The thing about declaring marshal law is that it is temporary. It only lasts as long as the threat does. When the threat is removed, the power is given back to the public. However some politicians cling to power like a child does to its binky.
What was the AGU thinking when they made Gleick the chair of their new “new task force on scientific ethics and integrity” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO470009/abstract
I know we’re looking at this in hindsight but a person selected for such a position should be beyond reproach. However, the problem is surely systemic as evidenced by the welcoming back of Gleick to AGU in January of this year: http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/
And for a final laugher, read the abtract for Gleick’s paper here (first one): http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_U21C.html
imagine if you work under Peter Gleick at the Pacific Institute. Are you ever going to present any objective information about the climate that doesn’t support global warming. No, you would be out the door by the end of the day.
What if you are one of the students of Greg Laden. How many F’s versus A’s do you want.
What if you work at the UK Met Office. What about NCDC. GISS.
Let’s say you are just trying to get a PhD (or keep your research position) at any nondescript university anywhere.
The intimidation factor and personal risk taken when not towing the party line in climate science has almost no bounds. Here’s hoping they never gain enough political power to enforce their musings.
The question is, “Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.”
I may have missed it, but there is no question. Questions end in ? not .. So Mr. Laden ought to get this correct before we go any further.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 18, 2013 at 5:15 am
It’s difficult to say whether folks like Laden and Gleick had a psychological propensity for lying and violence before they became activists for the cause of causing great harm to humanity in the guise of “saving the planet” or in the process of pimping for said cause. Perhaps a bit of both. Something for social science and psychiatry to puzzle over in the future, I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The amount of hubris that is accepted today never ceases to amaze me (I do not know if it was different at other times). The great injustices that can be committed in the name of “saving the world” shouldn’t be a surprise. I can only imagine what evils I would be capable of if I thought myself capable of such godlike goals.
Though, I don’t recommend trying to convince them otherwise. If you fail they think you are crazy, if you succeed they feel you have harmed them in some way. Perhaps I would too if I thought myself a god only to be shown I was not.
Can someone clarify something for me?
Does the correct pronunciation of “Gleick” rhyme with “peek”, “peck”, “pick” or “pike”?
Just curious… plus it’s important for the limerick writers.
” Mike McMillan says:
July 18, 2013 at 2:08 am
If O’Reilly’s in the boat, the lake must be pretty shallow.”
It is shallow, filled that way by a Legion of Pundits and ‘Journalists’ less intelligent, more ‘extreme’, thoroughly orthodox, and better at the art of Ingratiation than he. . . . warmist lackeys every one.
Really? Laden and Gleick smugly pontificate based on their beliefs, and it gets blown out of all proportion? Who *really* cares? Only the few devoted who actually read the drivel they spout… ignore them. They’re irrelevant.
As for the Mann, his gibbering is that of someone hoping that the more he repeats a meme, the more likely it is to come true. Let him. Reality will simply continue to bite him on the arse, and eventually render him as ineffectual and insignificant as Paris Hilton.
DaveF @ 1:45am:
My first thought too, although I felt a bit bad for thinking it.
I was going to say beware of an over-reaction to this. Then I thought this is parallel to calling sceptics ‘deniers’, with the clear implication of what that means. Do the warming lobby actually equate climate denial with holocaust denial? It’s pretty tasteless to say the least, as is Gleick’s response. I would beware of reading any more into it than that.
If the boat did sink, do you think it would find Trenberth’s missing heat?
There was a liar named Gleick
Who let out a terrible shreick
When he discovered he was wrong
And it wouldn’t be long
Before he and his crew were up sh*t creick.
pokerguy says:
July 18, 2013 at 4:59 am
“Anthony, in my opinion you do yourself and your credibility no good at all by engaging in this nonsense. Truthfully, all parties concerned are behaving like 12 year olds.”
Hey, it’s the best “Climate Science” they got.
“Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are in a boat.”
Intelligent clear thinking individuals would first think to have survival suits; further frustating the likes of psychopathic narcissists.
Russ R. says:
July 18, 2013 at 6:19 am
“Can someone clarify something for me?
Does the correct pronunciation of “Gleick” rhyme with “peek”, “peck”, “pick” or “pike”?
Just curious… plus it’s important for the limerick writers.”
Looks like a name with Germanic origin; we would spell it “Glike” here in Germany.
DirkH says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:17 am
“Looks like a name with Germanic origin; we would spell it “Glike” here in Germany.”
…ah, pronounce, that is…
@DirkH – you can spell it that way too. He is not worth the trouble of a spell check.
Thomas says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:47 am
“Let’s also remember that Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh aren’t the most moderate of people. How many have they wished dead during their careers? ”
_____________________________________________________________________________
The answer to you question I believe is zero. If you know of an instance where either one of them has wish someone other than a terrorist or a convicted murderer would die please provide the date and other pertinent information about such a statement, otherwise stop asking rhetorical questions.
While not the main point the question is, as Mona Lisa Vito would put it, a bs question.
Peter Ward largely nailed it, although I’ll add that science really isn’t equipped to answer questions like “is it important?”
As for the main point, I don’t think Gleick literally wants those three dead, but even as a joke, it is boorish and disgusting. (A joke about generic telephone salesmen or lawyers is fundamentally different than a joke about specific people).
Gleick has earned, and deserved contempt. Nothing more, but nothing less.
elmer says:
July 18, 2013 at 5:33 am
“Let’s say you died and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter is there checking people in. He says in order to get into heaven you must correctly answer this one question. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old or 6,000? How would you answer?”
Well,Elmer, it says in the book that one day of God is like a thousand years; that rules out the 6,000 year answer. BTW a day and a night of Brahma are about 9 billion years IIRC….
Bruce, it scans better if amended:
There was a liar named Gleick
who let out a terrible shreick
when he found he was wrong
and it wouldn’t be long
ere he led his crew right up sh*t creick.
I really worry about Gleick and Crew,maybe all the pretense is making them unbalanced in the mind
The old saying about stones and glass houses applies in this case. There is a fair amount of snide comments made by skeptics here, and those are the ones not snipped by moderators. While this latest Twitter-twaddle does nothing to raise my opinion of Peter Gleick, I really doubt anyone in the warmist camp will disown him on account of it. They’ve already accepted (if not endorsed) his fraud and likely forgery; why would they be upset at a tasteless joke?
Effort expended in piling on Gleick would be better directed elsewhere.
“Winston Smith loved Big Brother”.
The AGW extremists would cause Orwell to be very very afraid.
It was three questions, not one. BTW, what was the correct answer?
Thomas says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:47 am
“Let’s also remember that Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh aren’t the most moderate of people. How many have they wished dead during their careers? ”
=============
Ah, striking out for ‘moral equivalence’ are we? Does it make the Glieck and Landen less morally wrong if the people they are wishing dead participated in equally wrong moral behavior (not that I have knowledge if they did or didn’t)? I would have to say no, it doesn’t make it less aborrent.
What an idiotic series of questions. Is climate change real? Of course it is, climate has always changed. Is it human caused? Are they supposing that climate was static before mankind appeared? The real question is how much of any change is due to man’s influence, and whether the resulting change is good or bad. So far it’s looking pretty minimal. Is it important? Only to the funding and egos of climate scientists.
OK, if you’re going to identify specific individuals in a hypothetical way to wish them ill, at least make it funny. There are many variations on the three people in a boat/plane story which can be used to skewer anyone you want. The Greg Laden post is all build up and no punch line.
Gleick’s comment is just stupid. If in the hypothetical situation Coulter, O’Reilly and Limbaugh all answered the questions “correctly” it would mean nothing as the answers were obtained under duress.
John says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:29 am
However, I do not think the analogy is about finding the answer to the question. It’s about if you they care what the correct answer is. He’s saying Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are not interested in finding the correct answer only finding the “answers” they want.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
My take is that much like the warmists, these three are so radical because it makes them lots of money and/or Fox management requires it (for money also). Fox and these three, by design, appeal to a special group that is entertained by and willing to spend large sums, including buying their books, to hear and read what they have to say. As to if they believe what they say or it’s mostly an act, one might look at Coulter’s boyfriend as one example. When large sums of money are involved it’s amazing what people will do to prostrate themselves with little regard as to how it affects others.
The Will to Live says that they should say, “Yes,” to the question. As the answer was under duress, it says nothing about their real thinking and just because they are forced to agree does mean that they really agree; and does not change the fact that the real answer is clearly “NO.”
It is important to call out those who first think it, then say it, then eventually will act it. We discipline children, else they continue behavior. Just as the 10:10 videos (as recalled above) were atrocities of intentional goals. Recall the early days of Hitler in the mid 1930’s, folks pretty much ignored the goings on until it was too late. History repeats.
Woah. I submitted this post not 12 hours ago. I didn’t even know it had gone up, much less that there had been this many responses. Let me try to catch up. I’ve noticed a couple comments in a similar vein, and I’ll group them together.
Thomas:
John:
Both of these comments dispute that Greg Laden’s metaphor was, “Agree or Die.” Both suggest it was actually, “Get the answer correct or die.” What both ignore is Laden defines “correct” as, “The answer I like.” Claiming:
Is really just claiming, “My view is right so you have no basis for disagreeing.” It’s a classic logical fallacy known as begging the question. You say you’re right then you use that to “prove” you’re right.
A fair-minded individual would accept that different people can look at “the best availably [sic] science” and disagree.
Natalie Solent:
So do I. I also think the comment James Delingpole made about Michael Mann, referenced by Mann in the quote in this post, was a joke. That’s why I drew the parallel. So when you say:
I hope you realize that’s what I was trying to do. I may not have succeeded due to lack of writing skills or some such, but it hardly seems fair to call me “oversensitive and too quick to take offence” when I tried to do exactly what you said I should do.
pokerguy:
Given this is a post I wrote, I think you should at least include me in your criticism. Regardless, could you clarify what you mean when you say I’m “engaging in this nonsense”? What “nonsense” am I engaging in?
I mocked a guy for calling the deaths of people he dislikes a “win.” I pointed out an interesting parallel where Michael Mann criticized behavior almost identical to behavior Peter Gleick engaged in. I then showed how Mann’s position would suggest Gleick’s behavior indicates skeptics are winning the public debate.
What exactly is bad about that? Should I have kept silent and ignored the fact Peter Gleick suggested the deaths of his opponents would be a good thing, or is there some aspect of how I presented the issue that bothers you?
Kashua:
elftone:
If Peter Gleick had been fired and/or shunned by the community after the fiasco with the Heartland Institute, I’d agree. If he wasn’t invited to speak at the AGU, I’d agree. If he wasn’t, by far and large, accepted into the scientific community, I’d agree.
But the reality is Peter Gleick is more accepted in the scientific community than nearly all skeptics. He can get more media attention than nearly any skeptic. As long as that’s true, it is worth calling him out on his nonsense.
Besides, if Michael Mann is going to use a certain type behavior to make a point, why shouldn’t I use it to paint him as a hypocrite? He is one, and he deserves to be labeled as one.
Good World Empire (“UN”) activists get martinis in Dubai. Obviously they should really think this through.
Brandon. S. writes” Given this is a post I wrote, I think you should at least include me in your criticism. Regardless, could you clarify what you mean when you say I’m “engaging in this nonsense”? What “nonsense” am I engaging in?
I mocked a guy for calling the deaths of people he dislikes a “win.” I pointed out an interesting parallel where Michael Mann criticized behavior almost identical to behavior Peter Gleick engaged in. I then showed how Mann’s position would suggest Gleick’s behavior indicates skeptics are winning the public debate.”
Yes, I see that now. My apologies. If you’re happy how you come off here, that’s fine. To me it seems nothing more than a schoolyard spitball fight.. In any case, I was much more invested when I thought it was Anthony, as I care about the credibility of our leading lights greatly. And in that regard, I wish he hadn’t wasted a post on this.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:39 am
“Effort expended in piling on Gleick would be better directed elsewhere.”
You mean I should be working instead of reading about a new idiocy by Gleick? Where’s the fun in that?
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7:
What effort are you talking about? This post was made for fun. The point was entertainment and enjoyment. It didn’t take much effort to make, and as far as I can see, nobody has put much effort into responding to it.
pokerguy:
I don’t like the idea of this appearing as “a schoolyard spitball fight,” but since I have no idea why it appears as such to you, I can’t do anything about it. It’d probably help if you answered any of the questions I asked of you.
How does this post detract from anyone’s credibility? Anthony Watts criticized James Delingpole for what he said that led to Michael Mann’s quote in this post. He’s now allowed a post which criticizes Peter Gleick for a similar comment. That seems like the exact sort of behavior you’d expect from a credible source.
“There is a device in the boat that will sink it instantly”
And who would that be?
“You have cut too much context from the analogy. It not a case of “Agree or Die” as you suggest. It can be better described as “Get the answer correct or die”.”
No, it’s “give the answer I want, or die”.
“The hypothetical situation is to force them to want to find the correct answer and then he suggests their opinion will change.”
What makes you think they don’t already want to find the correct answer? Because the one they have judged as being more likely to be correct differs from yours?
““There is a device in the boat that will sink it instantly”
And who would that be?”
A single “pin” that holds it together, like the legendary boat Nero gave his mother. The crew, however, couldn’t swim so refused to pull the pin.
Peter Ward says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:10 am
“Is global warming real, human caused, and important, yes or no.”
There’s 3 questions there, not just 1:
1. is it real? seems to be, though the ongoing temperature record manipulations make it look more than it really is
——————–
To the extent that average global temperature can be measured or recreated from proxy data, it is probably warmer now than 320 years ago in the depths of the LIA & than 160 years ago at the end of that cold phase, but it’s most likely not warmer than 80 years ago. It’s definitely still cooler than at the peak heat of the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm Periods, & the Holocene Optimum. The Eemian, the previous interglacial, was even warmer. So it appears that Earth is presently in the warm phase of a multi-decadal oscillation in century-long cycles during a millennium-long downtrend. We’re headed for the next long glacial.
———————–
2. is it human-caused? probably partly, yes
———————–
IMO, humans may have some minor effect on global temperature, but there is insufficient evidence to say whether the net effect of our activities is to cool or warm the planet. In any case, whatever effect we have is at most a tiny fraction of the 90% assumed without any scientific basis by the IPCC. It’s largely about the oceans, the changes in & disruption of whose currents chiefly caused the Cenozoic glaciations.
———————–
3. is it important? not really, since natural variation seems to drive much larger swings in temperature than global warming does (witness the last 15/17 years of no warming).
———————–
You’re right. Any anthropogenic effect will be negligible, at most one degree C higher from an increase from present 400 to 600 ppm of CO2, but most likely the air won’t contain that much even under business as usual over the next century, since natural sinks in a homeostatic world will regulate its concentration. A warmer world with more plant food in the atmosphere is generally a good thing. Significant ice sheet melting would require even higher temperatures for thousands of years, which is probably not going to happen, although no one can know how much longer our current interglacial will last.
———————–
But I guess that wasn’t the point….
Students of science seem to be having some difficulty understanding this scenario, from the hair-splitting and generous interpretations.
I am sure students of history are having far less difficulty.
Brandon Shollenberger says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:32 am
“”pokerguy:
I care about the credibility of our leading lights greatly. And in that regard, I wish he hadn’t wasted a post on this.”
How does this post detract from anyone’s credibility?”
Pokerguy is obviously mightily irritated that someone captured Gleick’s idiocy.
You get the most Flak when you’re over the target.
Please carry on.
Fantasies aside.
I’ve heard approaching a person that is drowning, is almost as dangerous as an alligator.
One drowns its “victim” on purpose, the other out of panic.
DirkH:
I don’t approve of this sort of reaction. I’ve seen pokerguy post a number of times, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s some sort of close-minded warmista. I don’t agree with him, and I suspect his reaction is misguided, but I don’t believe that merits jumping to conclusions about him.
elmer says (July 18, 2013 at 5:33 am): “Let’s say you died and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter is there checking people in. He says in order to get into heaven you must correctly answer this one question. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old or 6,000? How would you answer?”
I’d answer “yes”. 🙂
JaceF says (July 18, 2013 at 2:44 am): “It’s a bit like Sophie’s choice.”
Or the Kobayashi Maru Test?
TimC says (July 18, 2013 at 5:34 am): ‘With respect, neither this article (which amounts to extrapolating a silly thought experiment which will never actually happen – giving a whole new meaning to “reductio ad absurdum”)…’
I don’t think this is “reductio ad absurdum”. I used to understand the term just as it was used on “The Big Bang Theory”, but then I saw the comments under the YouTube clip and looked it up on Wiki.
This is similar to the Richard Matheson / Twilight Zone / Movie of “The Box”. Press the button and someone you don’t know will die, but you will get $1 Million.
I can restate the question as Gliek and the other three are in the boat, but are in 1936. Press the button and Adolph Hitler dies. Alternately 6 million jews do. One of the options involves the death of Gliek and co. but it is not known which one. Do you press the button?
or they have to answer the question “What is the airspeed of a cocoanut laden swallow?” (See Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the answer). Or even what is your favorite color.
Throw Gleik into the chasm of eternal peril.
Laden is an attention seeking idiot, a troll.
Enough said I think.
Well, since butthead O’Reilly is actually an AGW acolyte he would probably only be in the boat to hit on Ann Coulter. Saying O’Reilly is an AGW skeptic is like saying Mosher is. That’s an epic fail from the gitgo.
Therefore both Laden and Gleick just exposed themselves as grinding political axes as they only inserted his name in there because of something else he said that they don’t agree with. I can only speculate, but perhaps O’Reilly made them angry talking about the Trayvon thing, government spying, or gay marriage.
We report, you decide 😉
Blade says (July 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm): “Saying O’Reilly is an AGW skeptic is like saying Mosher is.”
IIRC, Steve Mosher describes himself as a “lukewarmer”, which I would classify as a CAGW skeptic. Can anyone else verify that?
BTW, he’s co-author of The Crutape Letters.
If you add that letter to CAGW skeptic then he has sufficient wiggle room to argue that point, but he is no AGW skeptic, he is a true believer in the all-powerful CO2 molecule and that man is responsible for most of it.
As for the book Mosher and Fuller wrote, it’s only value would be for when either of them get called up to testify in Congress for AGW legislation allowing the pro-Warming anti-Taxpayer forces to hold it up and say: “See, even ‘Skeptics’ support this carbon law”. I can’t say for sure but it might even be what got Mosher invited to BEST in the first place.
But Steve can certainly speak for himself, when he doesn’t hit and run that is.
Greg Laden, Peter Gleick and Obama are raving against oil at a pipeline with a group of occupy activists. The occupy activists have vandalized the pipeline and highly flammable petrochemicals are dripping all around them. Behind them a hippy activist holds up a candle and chants hope and change. If they are do not immediately extinguish the candle it will ignite the petrochemicals and immolate them.
Do you:
1. shout a warning
2. get out your iPhone and prepare to capture their immolation on film
3. throw your shoe at Obama causing him to step back and knock the burning candle into the stream of flammable chemicals resulting in a huge explosion that vaporizes them.
Hmmm Greg, What should I do?
Most important fact to know to solve Ladens dilemma/riddle is who rigged the mechanism?
If the note with the question(s) is signed Dana Nuccitelli, Greg Laden himself, Peter Gleick or Fred Singer for that matter they would know what to answer.
If this is not known their best option is to wait as long as possible in case additional information becomes available before they decide. Now waiting is a breach of the Precautionary Principle so if this is not allowed I recommend yes.
When will Laden give the right answer to his riddle, is there a link to it?
(sarcasm is on)
For myself I suggest the following dilemma:
Greg Laden is in a boat in the middle of a deep, cold lake. If the boat sinks he will die of hypothermia and his corpse will sink to the bottom. There is a device in the boat that will sink it instantly, or alternatively, propel the boat to the safety of the shoreline where there are three martinis waiting for him, but it all depends on him correctly answering a question…The question is, “Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh have opinions on just about anything. Is there any field exept for AGW where anyone that disagrees with them would assume they know they are wrong in the case they argue?”
They can give but they can’t take. If a skeptic had made the same statements naming Gleick, Mann, and Laden (for example), they would be screaming about “Death threats”
What worries me more is that some of the more fanatical believers might think it’s a good idea and try to take overt action at some point.
Someone should tweet a link to this post to Peter Gleick. I wonder how he’d react upon seeing it.