Opinion: Rogue tactics undermine climate crusade
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Feb. 23, 2012, Sacramento Bee.
As big industries ramp up their campaign to discredit the science of global climate change, researchers who’ve helped document the threats posed by rising greenhouse gases have paid a steep price.
Some have had their emails stolen. Others have come under attack from industry-funded groups. Still others have been summoned to appear before hostile congressional committees.
Amid this organized campaign of intimidation and dishonesty, it is understandable that some might want to fight back with similar tactics.
Understandable, but not acceptable. If climate scientists and their advocates use deceit in the cause of truth, they will only set back their cause. Sadly, one already has.
Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank, has admitted using a false name to obtain internal documents from a pro-industry group in Chicago, the Heartland Institute. Gleick then fed the documents – which reveal individual donors to Heartland and the group’s plan to use public schools in a campaign to discredit climate science – to bloggers and Internet sites. Heartland has also accused Gleick of forging one of the Heartland documents, which Gleick has denied.
Gleick, recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “genius award” and a prolific blogger and writer (including op-eds on water issues for The Bee in 2009 and 2011), apologized three days ago on the Huffington Post for his actions.
“My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated – to attack climate science and scientists …” he wrote in his post.
Sorry, Mr. Gleick, but frustration isn’t justification for acts that are dishonest and potentially illegal. Moreover, by misrepresenting himself, Gleick has handed red meat to the attack dogs who so frustrate him. He has also taken himself out of an ongoing political debate that so badly needs strong, credible voices.
Intersting title.
Says it all.
The climate change zellots are on a crusade. Fight fire with fire!
Then of course there is the Inuendo of science without any facts. They get in the way of the zellots. Easier to say it’s science than to be science.
The cred of the climate change zellots and this news source continues to wither.
Joe, nothing says ‘scientific credibility’ as well as 4th grade spelling.
hmmmm.
Spelling Nazis bug me.
Some/many of the brightest people in history were bad spellers.
Teacher types are notorious for undermining the insightful by attacking their spelling.
Are you a teacher?
I always felt the adage ‘those who can do those who can’t teach’ was very accurate.
But they can spell.
How about the issue, any contribution on that or that over your head??
Joe,
Global climate change naysayers bug me.
Some/many otherwise intelligent conservative folks dispute the belief of 95%+ climatic scientists to fit their own political agenda.
These conservative folk undermine highly trained insightful experts by attacking the facts.
Are you one of these conservatives?
I like the adage, “Those with facts know, those without spin!”
But they can make a lot of noise.
How about facts, any contributions?
I wonder if these same big industries contribute to the aerosol spraying we see in our beautiful Tahoe skies? Problem is government will not admit to whatever it is they’re doing up there. Whether it be for weather modification or something more.
Big pic,
Put up the facts – you claim it is science – WHERE are the facts?
I agree there are theories – but where are facts? There are none.
I agree that we need to explore the issues and vet the theories but the climate change zealots, who use to be called global warming zealots but the facts got in the way, keep saying its fact.
It is not a fact, to say so is a lie.
An Ignorant Lie.
Liar’s bug me especially when they steal tax payers money for the green corporations.
Billions stolen based on lies.
An economy collapsing. Based on lies from zealots.
Joe,
I don’t care one whit how you do or don’t spell. What I care about is the you refuse to look at peer reviewed studies that document the facts that you so willingly discard because it doesn’t fit in with what you want to believe is true. It is my fervent hope that Heartland chooses to pursue charges against Gleick for one simple reason. Then the defense lawyers will be able to subpoena the Heartland docs that prove they have a determined and thought out process to put out fake science to keep them able to muddle the real science of climate change. How the Republican party became anti-science is amazing to me as it wasn’t the case wen I was younger. By the time you catch on, it may be too late.
Joe,
I don’t care one whit how you do or don’t spell. What I care about is the you refuse to look at peer reviewed studies that document the facts that you so willingly discard because it doesn’t fit in with what you want to believe is true. It is my fervent hope that Heartland chooses to pursue charges against Gleick for one simple reason. If charges are filed, the defense lawyers will be able to subpoena the Heartland docs that prove they have a determined and thought out process to put out fake science to keep them able to muddle the real science of climate change. How the Republican party became anti-science is amazing to me as it wasn’t the case wen I was younger. By the time you catch on, it may be too late.
Lisa,
FIRST OFF – I am not a Republican. I am a constitutional conservative. Never been a republican. Why did you bring that up?
As for the issue at hand, Are you aware that much of the computer modeling has been shown to be inaccurate? Just a few weeks ago NASA produced a report that is predicting global cooling, did you know that?
Also a report was released a few weeks back showing that the Himalayan mountains have not lost any of their glaciers over the past 10 years as the modeling had predicted.
I have a degree in science and I spent years producing technology commercialization conferences for big research institutions. Stanford, UC, SUNY, Virginia Tech and many others participated. I learned first hand how government funded research is corrupting scientific research.
These issues are theories that need to be vetted I agree but the ‘half aware’ zealots need to be called out and the greeny thieves need to go to prison.
There are very good solid arguments on BOTH sides of the question of Climate Change. It is easy to pick and choose whichever side one prefers. One of the big problems with identifying whether or not mankind has had a large effect on climate is that one gets very different results depending on the period of time one is discussing, or quoting records and science from. If one looks at the very long term, thousands of years, nothing much has changed, just another cycle in climate events. As one narrows the field of time view, one can make valid arguments for….or against…climate change due to mankind.
I have read many hundreds of pages of both good and bad science on climate change, and I have been unable to come up, for myself, a solid yes or no regarding the long term effects by mankind. My GUESS, is that we HAVE had an effect, but that much of it is offset by naturally occuring response to such, mostly in the upper atmosphere. On smaller scales, a LOT of laws, rules, and so on by various governments and agencies HAVE helped, such as the changes to vehicles to reduce smog….who would want to live in Los Angeles with its present number of cars, trucks, and buses, back before the smog laws? For those that want to go further, is it REALLY helpful to the atmosphere (assuming there IS a goodly effect) to mandate electric cars? What about the atmospheric effect causes to manufacture them; let alone how all the electricity will be produced. Certainly it is helpful to have coal plants with efficient scrubbers on their stacks. Is there a REAL measureable good for mankind to kill off 100 watt incandescent lamps, in favor of CFL types, which should be disposed of rather carefully, and have some niceties that are not so nice?
What is safer, over the long run, for the most people: Coal plants or nuclear plants? That question opens a Pandora’s box of the same sort of lousy reasoning, as in climate change arguments.
There is no end of these sorts of questions in modern life.
What bugs me the most about the entire controversy over climate change is the statements by so many supposed ‘scientists’, often with financial interests! (grants, businesses, stipends, teaching income, etc.)…of so-called facts (by all sides at times to be fair) that are interpreting things out of context; taking short views, and so on. In some instances, I have found really well-qualified scientists doing really solid work, that come to conclusions not based on their work, but their desires for the work.
Taking things out of context, short views, twisted views, self-centered and flat-out wrong statements, are hardly all that much in the minority these days.
To which we can add the viral effects of talk-radio, and the Internet, and not to mention the very partisan large newspapers.
The whole of all this is really not much different from the mouthings of many, if not most politicians and includes some social issues, ETC. (big ETC!) that we all love so much. It is all enough to make someone a devout curmudgeon and serious cynic. Of course, our TAXES would never being used to offset supposed climate changes… by various governments, nor touted by special interests…. for anything but the best interests of us common folk…riiiight?
First I never called you a Republican, but I did say and stand by the fact that by the time YOU catch on, it may be too late. You conveniently state the on sentence in the Himalaya study to prove your point, but conveniently forget to look st the rest of the results by the lead researcher. Why are you so willing to believe that scientist (who generally don’t make a lot of money unless they work in the oil and energy business) are prostituting them selves for money, but you won’t believe the oil companies and their researchers will do the same?
“However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia’s highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern. Funding for this research is drying up (forgive the pun) and as someone married to a scientist, I know for a fact that he and all his colleagues don’t give a hoot who pays for their science research, it is the science and provable data, not political results that are important to them.
“Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year,” said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.”
Sorry how that came out… the quotes by the scientist should be linked together… darn my laptop!
Lisa, I don’t know your age but there is a good chance I have been hearing the ‘sky is falling’ its going to be to late… bla bla bla… from the global warming crowd since before you were born.
You have no cred. Get back to facts.
From where I stand it is you that needs to “catch on”. You have been duped.
It’s been 4 going on 5 decades of the same dribble. It’s tiring and a reflection of how bad Americans are at critical thinking. A reflection of the mind numbing indoctrination you get at public schools.
Don’t know your age, but I was born when Eisenhower was President. I am both the daughter (PhD from MIT)and the wife of a scientist (PhD from Berkeley). Don’t claim to be one, but how many kids do you know that had a poster of the periodic elements up in their bedrooms in the ’50s and I was pulled out of bed to watch Sputnick go overhead as a child. The MOST IMPORTANT thing my parents wanted to teach me growing up WAS critical thinking and we had discussions where we had to defend our point of view on subjects nightly at the dinner table, often with visiting scientists. The bookshelf in our dining room was built specifically so that someone could reach behind them without getting out of their chair to grab one of many reference books (two encyclopedias, the Great Book, abridged Oxford English Dictionary etc.) It was a rare and special upbringing.
There was no “global warming crowd” when I was born.It is a reflection that new scientific data brings knew knowledge and new results. Most scientists in the 90s were not willing to say climate change was happening as there was not enough data. There now is. Virtually all scientists worldwide now agree that the data is overwhelming and that climate change is occurring and in fact is occurring in exactly the way the models predicted. Richard Muller, a darling of the skeptic crown reversed his stance on climate change after research paid for by the Koch Bros (bet they were livid!). He doesn’t feel it is happening as fast as other think, but has no doubt it is happening. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (hardly a govt group) has changed their stance. You may be tired of the fact that scientific knowledge changes, but change it does.
Lisa have you had any of your less then vital organs removed? As you well know by the time you find out they are cancerous it may be to late.
The dribble you spew please apply to yourself before demanding the rest of us acquiesce.
Earl feel free to explain what you mean? What dribble do you mean?
“Put up the facts – you claim it is science – WHERE are the facts?
I agree there are theories – but where are facts? There are none. ”
You have never posted links to any legitimate research. Where is your data?
There are facts, and data. Saying that there is not is a blatant lie.
It amazes me that you talk about how indoctrinated the other side is, and how it is a made up crusade….
Yet the scientific discussion is lacking.
Post some research. Every time people do, it is completely out of context, or rubbish. Like that solar irradiation and cloud nuclei preliminary research report…. actually backs strengthens AGW theory. But these ‘skeptics’ parade it around as if it challenges the theory. They didn’t read it, or are incapable of understanding it.
Being a skeptic is active. Many of these skeptics are not actively questioning anything. They say ‘no it isn’t’ and it ends there.
Post some research.
“You have no cred. Get back to facts. ”
Right back at you. Post some research for once.
Also explain to us the difference between weather and climate. That seems to be a big stumper for skeptics.
Robot,
It is the climate change zealots that are making the unsubstantiated claims. They are the ones that need to support their possition.
I know that climates change, it is intuitive.
Climates have always changed. The proof is everywhere.
NO one is arguing that.
I am not a skeptic of climate change. That would be idiotic. Of course they change.
Do you honestly believe that the people that are not making the claims are the ones that should support their position of not making claims? That sound very stupid to me.
Is that really your level of intellect?
Bongobot,
Here are 16 more disgruntled scientists who are more than willing to sign the bottom of their opinion piece… and who happen to disagree with you and your cadre of discredited “scientists”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
You won’t believe anyone who disagrees with you… but pick one, any one and you even get to pick your language of choice. There are thousands of studies that show climate change is happening worldwide. Just like the tobacco companies waged a (now documented) campaign to try to prove the effects of secondhand smoke weren’t a big deal, even when all evidence showed it did, until the Surgeon General finally came out with his paper. The Heartland Institute is spending millions to put out junk science to try to prove what the overwhelming evidence is proving. Just go to this site and pick any paper you want: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml#.T0wx9HqDmSo
I quote a great commenter on one article “99 doctors say you have cancer and need to be treated and one says… nope you are fine…which one are you going to believe”.
Lisa,
That is the thing, Science is fact based it isn’t something that is argued about or built on by how many people want to believe it.
People that think for themselves look at the fact that the evidence does not support Al Gore or you.
Most people agree that mans impact on climate needs to be studied. And most people I know agree that we should respect the earth and leave it in a good condition for future generations.
But the climate change “mans destroying everything” zealots like you are wrong and should be called out as wrong.
You have no cred.
You have no facts.
People like you and the bozo bot are rude and arrogant in your ignorance and more people should be, and I venture will be, telling you that.
I have no desire to be polite about it, I am tired of punk brains telling me that i don’t know what I am talking about.
It’s you that don’t know that you have been duped. Period.
Get a clue – others are reading this and hopefully are willing to start thinking for themselves instead of just buying into the lame stream bull.
Joe,
I didn’t catch anyone on this thread making any statements about if man is or is not to blame for global warming. Bottom line is it is happening no matter how much you scream how everybody but you are stupid. Your tactic of trying to scream louder than anyone else, and always trying to get in the last word doesn’t make what you say more believable than those with opposing opinions to yours. But if it makes you feel any better, get down with your bad self!
I am not telling anyone that they don’t know what they are talking about, but I will say they are not reading the research. I find it funny that you call me “rude and arrogant” and then go on to call me “duped” “not thinking for myself” and a “punk brain” and refer to “bozo bot”. Perhaps we have a different definition of the word “rude”. At least you admit I have a brain.
If you want to go to any credible peer reviewed journals (Science and Nature) as well as any climatologists you will see the that the evidence is clear. If you want to go to the Heartland Institute for your info and say that the other 98% of the world’s scientist are being duped, be my guest. The tobacco industry spent millions a few decades ago to put out knowingly fake research to say smoking or second hand smoke wasn’t dangerous and the Heartland Institute is doing the same. It is my hope that there will be a court case over the leak of Heartland emails, so that even more of them can be brought into court. I understand that the folks at Heartland and the oil companies, don’t care about you or me, but I am shocked they don’t care about their own grandchildren.
Joe, your knowledge of the scientific process is rudimentary at best. While evidence is a critical building block, the rigors of not disproving a hypothesis (modern science is based on the philosophy of Karl Popper, which disproves, science never proves as Popper pointed out one can never know all possible hypotheses) leads scientist to draw inferences (scientist infer they do not deduce) related to their study design. A key element of science is debate – so yes science is vigorously argued. That is basis of the peer-reviewed journal – The top tier journals (such as Science and Nature, and ecological journals I am most familiar with Journal of Ecology,Journal of Animal Ecology and so on, reject over 80% of the manuscripts submitted to them. Even those that are accepted usually go through extensive rewrites or in some cases the authors providing pages of justifications for their study, requiring the senior editor to either accept their explanation or reject it. It is not uncommon for their to be 1 to 1.5 yrs from date of submittable to publication – it is a long and tedious process based on debate.
The evidence that humans are a significant contributor to climate change is over whelming with evidence piling up in journals from various fields from Climate, Ecology, Chemistry, and so on every year. The only evidence to the contrary is coming out of groups funded by oil companies like the Heartland Institute. This is simply reconstituted tobacco research. Remember them and their argument of how the entire scientific field but them were being duped. How did that turn out – oh that’s right, they lied and how many people died before the truth came out about the industry sponsored research?
Scientific hypotheses and theories are in constant flux as new information comes in. You are probably unaware, that the original IPCC report concluded that the earth was warming and was unable to attribute this warming to human activity. But over the years as the evidence continued (and continues) to mount, the inferences of the IPCC reports shifted to one that human activity largely responsible for the observed changes. Science in action.
Climate change is real and the extensive human contribution is real, you cannot pick up a credible scientific journal and conclude anything else. So either the entire scientific community (over 90%) are engaged in one massive conspiracy and we have regularly meetings on how to dupe the public, or you are backing the wrong horse. So if you rely on the Heartland Institute and the small number of scientists (and the number is quite small) who beg to differ – go for it you will be in the growing minority.
Enjoy, Rick
HOLD IT: Kae they all sime or is it seem pissed. My sprlling and gramar sucks, but i keep trying !!!
Reinstate SPELL CHECK FOR WEENS OR WENS.
PLEASE !!!!!NO JOKE
OF COURSE THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING IT WARMS UP EVERY MORNING BUT THERE IS NO ONE WHO CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE TEMP. WILL BE TOMORROW MORNING WITH ANY ACCURACY
Excellent post Rick.
Anyone else find it ironic how the “skeptics” demand facts, yet never produce any of their own.
Link it up Joe.
I say “skeptic” because skepticism is asking questions and wanting answers. What you engage in is simple denial.
So skeptics…. post some research. This is a matter of science.
If the author of this opinion piece is aware of crimes being committed, he should report them! But he’ s playing a little misdirection in that it’s those who question man made caused Climate Change who are attacked as ignorant, uneducated or on the take from the oil companies.
Of course there are far more scientists who financially benefit, usually courtesy of the taxpayer, by supporting and not questioning the belief in man made caused Climate Change! But I’ll just ask this once again-If one is so sure of this problem, what is the plan to get the whole world behind a unified, enforceable program to deal with it?