Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Our favourite identity thief Peter Gleick, who stole documents from Heartland while serving as chairman of the AGU ethics committee, has written a deliciously confused piece in which he urges people not to give up, despite the inevitability of serious climate change.
Saving Earth: Don’t Fall Into Climate Change Fatalism
Peter H. Gleick
08/01/2018 05:23 pm ET
Guest WriterYou reap what you sow. The chickens have come home to roost. The ship has sailed. The s**t has hit the fan. The English language has no shortage of idioms describing lost opportunities and the consequences of failing to act. And we’ve failed to act on human-caused climate change. It is here, with a vengeance.
We see it in massive wildfires sweeping across the western United States, Scandinavia, Canada and Siberia; the brutal heat waves and rising seas; dying coral reefs and acidifying oceans; the destruction of the Arctic and melting of Antarctica; crop failures and supercharged hurricanes.
We told you so, over and over, but you wouldn’t listen. (There, I got that off my chest.)
…
It’s too late to stop severe climate change – indeed we see it around us. But it is absolutely not too late to slow the rate of climate change, to accelerate the transition away from coal, and then oil, and then natural gas to the diverse and increasingly inexpensive and effective suite of renewable energy options available to us. We can, and must, still act.
…
Gleick and his friends are discovering too late that fear does not motivate people to act. Prolonged chronic fear creates political paralysis.
A senior politician once taught me the secret of negative campaigning. You don’t try to frighten people into voting for you, because that doesn’t work. Instead you deliver negative messages to people who support your opponents. Negative messages make people feel disengaged, negative messages convince opposition supporters to stay home on election day.
Since only climate alarmists believe negative messages about global warming, Gleick and his buddies have been shutting down their own supporters far more effectively than we ever could – their climate scare stories terrify those who believe into disengaging from the political process.
Somehow I doubt Peter Gleick will be able to stop. Even though on some level he must realise his entire life campaign has been one long terrible mistake, Peter’s ego always seems to come first – “We told you so, over and over, but you wouldn’t listen.”.
Keep up the good work, Peter Gleick.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The premise(s) is(are) so banal. We’re doomed. But we can slow down the demise of civilization just well enough that you and I can live out our natural lives…
Pass the bong.
GoatGuy
Again – this demonstrates the lack of returns for the effort.
Seriously – after all this alarmist crap, all they’ve got is ‘Slow it down’. Near as I can tell, the most draconian policies don’t do much more than that – and not by very much.
Kinda implies the extent of our ‘effect’ in the first place.
He is incoherent. His idioms are not even about inaction but the result of action:
“You reap what you sow. ”
Like when you steal cheat and lie and get found and no one believes you any more and you lose you post telling others how to do “ethics”.
” The s**t has hit the fan.”
Like when you are so obvious in your faked documents and leave your writing style all over it and get called out, have to step down as director of the Pacific Institute , throw your printer in the dumpster and lie awake at night wondering when you may get a bang on the door about the wire fraud you committed.
“The ship has sailed.”
Like thinking it will all blow over and people once again start to believe you and take you seriously again. Well, no: “That ship has sailed.”
“… to the diverse and increasingly inexpensive and effective suite of renewable energy options ”
Increasingly inexpensive is a bit like ocean acidification. It does not mean the oceans are acidic or ever will be in the history of the planet. It just indicates a direction of change.
Look, I told you it would be hot this summer and I was right. Now send me more money.
~ Peter Gleick
Well, Accuweather is currently carrying an article in which the author says we’ve used up more resources than Earth can replace in one year, i.e., it will take a year and a half to replace what we’ve used.
Resources are not defined clearly, nor is the reasoning, if any, behind this statement, but it does make an effort to scare people into something-something-something.
It IS annoying. It IS baloney. But as long as these people postulate this nonsense, we must pay attention to it to make sure that we can properly refute it with facts and figures that are indisputable.
I just wish they’d stop using scare tactics, which are on the order of the boy who cried “WOLF!” when there was no world.
How long does it take the earth to replace a ton of iron that is mined?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Or a barrel of oil?
Hey ! CHEER UP !
Mark W : The ton of iron will always exist ! It doesn’t need to be
replaced ,unless you launch it into space like Elon’s car !!
If it RUSTS then you just reprocess it back into IRON again !
Matthew Thompson : Given that the barrel of oil is burnt
then the CO2 will be taken up by plants and in TIME and
with the right circumstances it will recycle back into OIL
or perhaps COAL……it’s just a delayed barrel of oil !
.
As the optimist said to the pessimist
“Cheer up ! Things could be worse!”
And the pessimist , unusually for him , thought “He’s right ! ”
So the pessimist cheered up…
..and sure enough…….. things got worse !
Good post, Trevor. You made me laugh. 🙂
Me too. Hilarious!
How many tons of magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (Fe2O3), goethite, limonite or siderite, bauxite, magnesium, manganese, cobalt, taconite, chalcopyrite. Minerals in the enriched zone include chalcocite, bornite, djurleite, malachite, azurite, chyrsocolla, cuprite, tenorite, native copper and brochantite, etc., etc., etc., have been pulled out of the earth by humans since the discovery of how to refine ores and turn them into worked metal, going back some 18,000 to 20,000 years, further back than the round towers at Tel Qar-a-Mel in southwest Syria?
How many tons of minerals are released through black smokers at the bottom of the seabed on an ongoing basis? What is the volume of metal compounds in volcanic ejecta and flows?
Iron is a sedimentary mineral. Sediment is found in water. It’s an ongoing renewal process that predates human existence. I have fossils embedded in iron ore accretions which were created 300 million years ago.
Or did you think this was a one-shot deal?
Crude oil and natural gas are the natural byproducts of thermophiles and chemophiles, AMONG other things.
The Earth is about 35% Iron/Nickel. There is a lot more for us yet before we need to mine iron asteroids….
It just gets recycled. Mining is a topping up activity.
Hey guys, I was just pointing out the stupidity of this particular “sustainability” meme.
Act now (with policy distortions and wealth reduction) and you will receive a free T-shirt.
But WAIT!
THERE’S MORE…
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/bassomatic/n8631
Mmmm That’s some great Bass
One question would be “How come those global warming inspired fires, etc. never happened in the dozen years preceing ours, when temps were very much the same”? Nobody believes that all of those weather events (hurricanes, etc) have anything to do with global warming. Why stronger hurricanes (not stronger, and fewer) but not stronger and more tornadoes? Gleick’s photo tells you all you need to know about the intelligence (or lack of) of this silly guy.
But it is absolutely not too late to slow the rate of climate change, to accelerate the transition away from coal, and then oil, and then natural gas to the diverse and increasingly inexpensive and effective suite of renewable energy options available to us. We can, and must, still act.
From WattsUpWithThat a few hours ago:
Folks, this is nothing like fixing the stratospheric ozone problem by developing other refrigerants to replace Freon. CO2 is produced by nearly all sources of energy. CO2 is a part of nature; Freon was a manmade chemical. While replacements for Freon were already developed by the time Freon was banned, we have no large-scale replacements for fossil fuels we can switch to in the near future.
This issue is at least as important as our recent global financial crisis – probably more so in the long run. It has been said that regulating carbon dioxide emissions will make the United States the cleanest Third World country on Earth. And whoever controls carbon dioxide emissions will control the world.
Finally, you can expect that the threat of the EPA regulating CO2 will cause many politicians and pundits to advocate congressional cap-and-trade legislation as a more palatable alternative. But the choice will be like deciding whether you want to die quickly or slowly. Either one will be lethal.
Dr. Roy Spencer, 2009
” increasingly inexpensive and effective suite of renewable energy”
Is this like ocean “acidification”. The oceans are basic and any change is actually making them a tiny bit less basic.
Likewise, renewable energy is very expensive, even before you factor in the cost of the necessary back up sources of energy. By decreasing the costs a little bit they can claim that they are becoming slightly less expensive. In other words more inexpensive.
“increasingly inexpensive and effective suite of renewable energy”
This is clearly a case of a misplaced prefix; it should have been
“increasingly expensive and ineffective suite of renewable energy”
It must be terrible being a climate change believer.
All gloom and doom and the end of the world.
I don’t know how they sleep at night with so much to worry about.
Its sceptics who are the optimists.
Dr. Gleick would do anything for the Cause. Indeed, he has done it.
I liked this telling part:
From the article: “Our favourite identity thief Peter Gleick, who stole documents from Heartland while serving as chairman of the AGU ethics committee,”
Bad behavior doesn’t seem to be punished anymore. All’s fair in love, war and CAGW, I guess.
“It’s too late to stop severe climate change –”…good, now shut up and go away
The climate alarmists are NOT winning this argument. Gleick’s confused statements and his tone are another indication that they are losing, and they know they are losing.
I imagine we will be seeing a lot of this kind of defeatist talk in the future from the alarmists.
We’re doomed, it’s inevitable, but DON’T GIVE UP!
Wow, that’s a head-on crash of two speeding memes if I’ve ever seen one. It figures that it comes from the mind of a man so muddled as is Peter Gleick’s.
You’re missing the hidden premise in his logic: As long as you don’t give up, we NGOs still get income from you poor benighted fools.
If any governments knew immediate disaster was to follow, civilians would be the last to know about it. Only a fool thinks extreme weather is not normal and average is the normal weather. Who would had thought that the local climate is a average of extremes. These extremes getting no worse than many decades during past history.
Yes, average weather is an anomaly.
“The average human being has one breast and one testicle.”
D J Hawkins : NOW you are a “GENDER BLENDER” !
“Gleick and his friends are discovering too late that fear does not motivate people to act.”
I don’t think this is the case. Fear does motivate people to act. The plain fact is that they are not frightened. The messages haven’t worked because they are plainly untrue – people can feel the temperature change 10 or so degrees every day (where I live), and so to suggest that a global change of a few tenths of a percent of a degree over 30 years is about to impact their lives is bound to fail – because it isn’t very frightening. So they switch to sea level change – but have a chat with Granny about coastal erosion, or super storms in the past, or the long hot summer of 1976 (which I remember), or the freezing winter of 1962 (which I don’t) – or look at a tide gauge (and how long it has been there, and the record heights) – again – really nothing to worry about – certainly nothing to fear.
Gleick and his friends are undone by minimal historical perspective, in a rational way by normal thinking adults. His writing is a measure of his disrespect for his audience – he thinks they’re idiots. But I think you are right about political arguments…
What terrifies rational people, in my opinion, is how such falsehoods and blatently illogical arguments can be put forward by supposedly rational people in what were once well respected journals, papers and news channels – so in that perspective, perhaps they are doing exactly what you say – delivering fear to their political opponent’s supporters.
Rational people should be wary of disengaging from the entire discussion.
A dramatic example is in the Great Lakes, where 5 or 6 years ago the “GREENIES” were screaming about the low lake levels, and how global warming, (climate change), would turn them into puddles. Right now Superior is near an all-time high. On Lake Michigan many of the break-walls have been closed to foot traffic because even small chop is washing over them. The good news is that boat owners, who needed ladders to climb up to their docks, now just need to reverse the direction.
Nature has its own ways of reversing trends, and most climate scientists, (sic), understand none of them
To invoke fear in people by your predictions of doom and gloom the main thing required is credibility. sadly, for Gleick, Mann, Gore, Lewandowsky, Cook and the rest of them that quality is what they lack as far as the general population goes. For the same reasons that baby mice huddle todegther I guess they all seem to find each other’s utterances all very comforting and reassuring in some sort of weird ‘moral’ sense, i.e. they are part of something as against being sad, lonely, not very grown up little wannabes.
‘To invoke fear in people by your predictions of doom and gloom the main thing required is credibility’
Exactly. Fear DOES work. But the effect of thirty-plus years of this BS has left people not worrying about it any more.
Right, and Gleick’s conundrum is that if it really was a problem, it wouldn’t be dipsticks like him who would be “solving” it. Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.
@Jay (which is also my middle name)
“…His writing is a measure of his disrespect for his audience – he thinks they’re idiots…”.
Exactly right Jay. I am no psychologist myself (and I suggest Gleick isn’t one either), but it is apparent to me that the way he is treating his reader is blatantly arrogant and egotistical….and that turns people off. He views himself as a morally superior “holy warrior” for “The Cause”. So anyone who isn’t riding the same bandwagon as himself is apparently ignorant, morally inferior and just plain wrong. In his mind, he is “saving the planet” (or at least trying). So how can anyone have a just reason to argue with him?
This is why it is probably a waste of time explaining to Gleick and the true believers the scientific issues and problems with the CAGW narrative. They are infallible and unquestionable because of “The Cause.” We should save our collective breath.
As long as the alarmists keep treating the rest of us the way Gleick does, they should not expect to make any progress acquiring additional support for their agenda. It is people like Gleick that keep the climate change issue at or near the bottom of people’s list of priorities.
Suppose their real goal all along was simply to game the system out of Billions and Billions of taxpayer dollars long enough to be able to say they made a lucrative career of it, and retired. My understanding is that up to about 5 years ago, our gov’t alone had spend in excess of $76 Billion on global warming research. Someone got some bennies out of that.
Wait…
we can’t stop the inevitable, but we can make the suffering last longer.
What?
It’s not “saving the earth”, it’s “saving the earth as a place that is compatible with my world view”. The “earth” couldn’t care less if the pesky humans disappeared.
“… indeed we see it around us.”
You see what you want to see. I’ve been around for 60+ years, and I don’t see any “severe climate change.” None.
How often do we hear this phrase“… indeed we see it around us.”? I’m 70 and don’t see any mostly because it is impossible to observe climate change with our sense of time. We can observe weather events and patterns to some extent but we cannot observe average temperatures or average rainfall or average wind speed. Especially over climate time scales of 30 years. When we get old enough to remember previous decades our memories are biased and certainly incomplete. I remember winters were colder and more severe and summers were hotter 40 years ago but I don’t have the ability to quantify those perceptions. They are just anecdotal memories.
These folks that say we can see climate change all around us are, at best, naive of what climate is and at worst intentionally misleading propagandists. With Gleick’s past performance I have to conclude he fits the latter group pretty well.
And who is this “we” he’s babbling about? We are not amused.
“we” is Gleick and the mice in his pockets.
Peter Gleick who has no credibility is still posting things. Incredible! Almost as bad as Michael Mann and if i was hiring scientist i would not hire anyone from UVA or Penn State just because of his corruption.
AS I said on another post, the time to decide who gets what grant money for the next FY is drawing near. We are likely to see more of the same in hopes that the money will flow their way.
The current spat of hysteria also has to do with the elections in a few months.
I just saw a NPR story this morning on Facebook spinning how the tax break was actually a tax increase because people are going to be unexpectedly paying in due to a mistake in withholding tables. Nevermind that the median income family will be paying $1,000 less in taxes this year, because someone made a mistake on the table they are calling it a middle class tax increase. I’ve lost track how many times the tax break has been spun as a tax increase, they are well past doubling down on stupid.
What climate change is he talking about.
He is very clear what he means:
“the brutal heat waves and rising seas; dying coral reefs and acidifying oceans; the destruction of the Arctic and melting of Antarctica; crop failures and supercharged hurricanes.”
Of course none of this has come to pass. He resembles a stock trader who is new to the game. They will hold on to a losing position in hopes of convincing themselves they wren’t wrong.
It seems to be a common trait among climate scientists. They are not much good at science, but they make even worse politicians. Real political life is harder and more complex than the internal politics of academia, which is probably what the leading figures in their movement are more used to.
Communicating “Climate Change” is tricky. You need just the right mixture of berating, wheedling, cajoling, guilting, frightening, alarming, with just the right amount of hope mixed in. It needs to simmer for a while, allowing all the climate “flavors” a chance to blossom. They still haven’t quite found the right recipe yet. But, kudos to them for trying. It just warms the cockles of the heart.
Don’t forget forged documents. That’s what ‘Mr. Ethics’ is famous for.
Amazing that he can still posture himself so piously.
Nobel cause corruption.
Self-described nobility, of course.
All nobility is self described. They aren’t elected and in spite of what they like the proles to believe, they certainly are not appointed by God.
Even with all the corruption, they still aren’t getting many Nobel prizes.
He never faced any legal or professional sanctions for his actions, so what would knock him from his pedestal of self regard? I am sure he felt some shame when his actions were first revealed, but when no troubles followed he put aside any mortification and again thinks he’s a paragon.
I find that ‘shame’ is usually the first thing these types jettison – it’s very freeing.
I rather think they have found the recipe. Elementary school teachers… lots and lots of leftist, Socialist, collectivist elementary school teachers. Teachers who can brainwash the poor little sods in green ideology, Socialism, Marxism (without calling any of these things by their actual names) before they’ve even read “Call of the Wild.” and long before they’ve seen a textbook on basic science or the scientific method.
If the temperatures are lower next year can we claim that severe climate change has been averted? Oh, yes, I forgot, variations in temperature year on year aren’t climate, they are weather.
Temperature variations are weather only when they go down. They are climate every time they go up. The warmunist version of “Heads, I win, tails you lose.”
I’ve said it a million times before: I’ll believe the predictions of doom and destruction when the people making those claims start living like they believe them. Until then, they can bite me.
BTW: Is summer. Is hot. Not the end of the world.
The man is a fruitcake.
Peter H. Gleick is absolutely right. The situation of Donald Trump can be terrible also, as has been denied the climate change, and since is not completely stupid, has him since become apparent that it was wrong. What are you gonna do now? Maybe a twitter entry would be the solution.
The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Google Translate
The wronger you are, the righter you get.
Nobody denies climate change. The climate has been changing all on it’s own for billions of years.
Very few people deny that CO2 is capable of warming the planet. The question is by how much. Most of us agree with the science, that CO2 is a bit player capable of warming the planet by at most a couple of degrees centigrade.
There are always a few fools who believe that the output of models trumps real world data. You are apparently one of them.
You are obviously a very smart and kind person. The only difference between us is that I would only take zero risk.
Pretty cowardly way to go through life. Better not go outside – its scary.
You said a mouthful, brother! A mouthful of just what, I have no clue.
(Response to Mihaly)
I agree with brother, but let’s not say too good english because I do not understand.
да товарищ, так верно!
Maybe I’m Russian, but then I would just pretend I can not speak English.
Bol to len vtip, môj priateľ
(Just a joke my friend)
I think you are in Bratislava, so probably not Russian? Well anyway, you’re sadly misinformed.
Let me help. Your original post would probably be corrected as follows:
Peter H. Gleick is absolutely right. Donald Trump’s situation is terrible also, as he has denied climate change, and since he is not completely stupid, it must have become apparent to him that he was wrong. What is he gonna do now? Maybe a tweet would be the solution.
Our friends at Google Translate render this into Slovak as follows:
Peter H. Gleick má úplnú pravdu. Situácia Donalda Trumpa je tiež strašná, pretože poprel zmenu klímy a keďže nie je úplne hlúpy, musel byť zrejmé, že sa mýlil. Čo bude teraz robiť? Možno by bolo riešením tweet.
What is inevitable is the annual 5-year extension on the amount of time we have to act.
And by “act” I mean, raise taxes, execute wealth transfers, and increase regulations.
Can someone (maybe Mr. Gleick can help me out here) explain the metric “rate of climate change”.
What is the current rate of (climate) change? I am assuming that it is considered a positive rather than a negative since it is said to be increasing; but those talking the loudest & most always seem to characterize it as a negative … I am so confused.
And what are the best variables to describe it to the average man on the street? I mean, if I ever get a handle on the whole concept and I want to explain it to my nephew, what terminology should I use?
(Wadhams/year?; Gleicks/second?: Glaci-er-cains/century?) … I’m so confused.
I don’t understand any of this. I probably made a good decision to play pool & poker & raise my daughter in my spare time, rather than spend any more of that time in pursuit of higher educational certifications. I would not have been able to keep up with the rate of “sciency-definition” change. (it seems to a positive rate as well)
Mr. Gleick, are you out there? I really need your help. Do I need only to accelerate the transition away from coal, to oil? Or do I need to continue accelerating onto natural gas?
And, by the way, can you give me a few examples of the best diverse, inexpensive and effective renewable energy options available? And what do you mean when you use the term “diverse”? I mean, if I really do have an inexpensive & efficient renewable, can I stop there, or do I need to keep moving to diversity even if it costs more. Do we want diversity for the sake of diversity, or is should it be thought of a tool to create a more stable/efficient end. I am so confused, is “diverse” a goal, or is it a requirement, and what is the purpose of being “diverse”?
As I write this I think I may be figuring it all out!!!.
Mr. Gleick, with all due respect, I think that it all comes down to the fact that you are just a small steaaamy turd….
Lefties change the meaning of words, and of ideas constantly. Losing an argument ? change the premise.
So don’t fret, don’t try to understand them. its a fruitless exvercise
While we’re at this, could someone point out when climate rate of change was ever zero for longer than the instantaneous change of sign (i.e. when cooling switched to warming, and vice versa)? Or, for that matter, when global temperature change (not rate of change) was ever zero (i.e. temperature was flat) for any, say, 100-year period? We are expected to believe that, absent human activity, global temperature would never change!
With all DUE respect indeed
“It’s too late to stop severe climate change – indeed we see it around us.”
You can’t describe that as anything but delusional or deliberately dishonest.
There is nothing about our current or last 30 years of weather outside the realms of normal possibilities.
Indeed natural disasters have been far more concentrated together and far more destructive and far more deadly in the pre-hysterical era.
Of course it is deliberately dishonest. And that’s why I must disagree with EW that on some level Gleick would realize that his life work has been a mistake. It has of course been a massive waste, and largely a failure (although he has succeeded in convincing an unfortunately large group of people of his lies), but his behavior in no way indicates an awareness of being wrong.
Gleick’s dishonesty goes far beyond mere identity theft, and the misinformation in his HuffPo piece. It also includes forgery. He forged and disseminated a document, full of fake incriminating devious plans, to smear Heartland:
https://www.sealevel.info/Peter_Gleick_DeSmogBlog_and_the_Fakegate_Scandal-Burton.html
The extraordinary level of his hypocrisy is still hard for me to believe. That case sure illuminates the depth of the corruption of the field of climate science, and the climate alarmism movement: the fact that, when Gleick committed fraud, identity theft, forgery & defamation to smear Heartland, he was the Climate Alarmism Movement’s top ethicist: the new Chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Scientific Ethics Task Force.
Even more revealing of the corruption of the climate alarmism movement is that when Gleick was caught it didn’t even really hurt his career.
Pacific Institute quickly reinstated him as their President (now “President Emeritus”).
The AGU let him “resign” for “personal, private reasons” as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, and did not revoke his AGU membership.
The NAS did not revoke his membership, either.
Scientific American whitewashed the affair, with an interview with Gavin Schmidt, who minimized the significance of the scandal, attacked Heartland, and didn’t even mention the forgery.
Gleick was subsequently rewarded by National Geographic’s (now defunct) ScienceBlog subsidiary, with a blog there. He was their resident “scientist, innovator, and communicator” on “global water, environment, climate” (and presumably identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery)
Michael Mann still loves him, and even calls him “one of the most respected scientists in the country”:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/937042789006761985 (or screenshot)
And HuffPo obviously still loves him, too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/
You can’t make this stuff up.
“(and presumably identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery) ”
I got a good laugh out of that one! Thanks. 🙂
The dishonesty on the alarmist side is alarming. More alarming is no price seems to be paid for being dishonest.
At least he had the good sense to drop the “5 years” or “10 years” from the failing predictions. But it is the exhortations and actions of strident global warmers that have driven me to switch voting allegiance in recent years. I cannot recall another political issue where not holding to the ‘correct’ view has led politicians and associated activists to be so rude and hectoring to potential voters.
Once I switched, I then began to pay more attention to other, increasing shrill, political incantations. It could be a very long time before I consider switching back. I suspect there may be many other ‘floating-voters’ who are lost this way.