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)
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.