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)
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.