|Dr. Peter Gleick|
There's a huge scandal in the works in Dr. Peter Gleick's fraud in the Heartland Institute email theft. From John Hinderacher at Powerline:
GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS RESORT TO HOAX
We are remiss in not having written about the Peter Gleick scandal. Gleick is a founder of the liberal Pacific Institute and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert on water resources, not climate; like many left-wingers in irrelevant fields of study, he has irrationally strong feelings about global warming. So, as Gleick has now admitted, he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses–that is, by lying–and published them in hopes of discrediting the Institute...
Of course the headline "Global Warming Alarmists Resort to Hoax" is as shocking as "New York Giants Play Football". This is what these guys do. Gleick admits that he lied to a staffer at the Institute in order to obtain the emails, which is a serious breach of ethics (a crime, I believe) especially troubling for a leading scientist. Although some of the (innocent) emails appear to be genuine, one of the documents-- a "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" appears to an amateurish forgery, probably forged by Gleick himself.
... I think it is obvious that Peter Gleick fabricated this document–the only one he posted that makes the Heartland Institute look bad–because the real ones he stole from Heartland didn’t serve his partisan purpose. Or, if he didn’t make it up himself, he got it from an ally who fabricated it. No knowledgeable person could mistake Gleick’s hoax for a legitimate top-secret Heartland memo...
It's important to realize that Gleick is in the highest tier of scientists. He was (until a couple of days ago) the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Integrity (!) and was slated to serve on the board of the National Center for Science Education (he has since withdrawn). He is President of the Pacific Institute (an environmental advocacy organization) and has been a recipient of a McArthur "genius" grant. Judging by the amateurish forgery of the "Strategy Memo", the Nobel Prize in Literature will continue to elude him.
Please read the Powerline post above, and follow its links. The evidence that the "Strategy Memo" is a forgery is compelling. It's a fascinating story. It brings home quite nicely that inevitable impression an honest person must draw from observation of the global warming movement:
The global warming movement is a crime syndicate, run by actual criminals, with a large cadre of opportunistic amoral scientists, politicians and far left ideologues who have hopped on the train, hoping to cash in on the fraud.
Agreed. The heartland Institute can't be discredited. It's already been well and truly discredited already.
It has a record of accepting funds from commercial interests and putting out misleading propaganda.
Have you already forgotten that they accepted money from cigarette companies in order to deny the health risks of secondhand cigarette smoke? Do you think that their reputation wasn't already irreparably damaged? Or do you also think that secondhand cigarette smoke is safe?
Why is lying to a partisan think tank worse than someone stealing emails from the CRU?
The science of AGW is settled. It's happening. We know the physics of greenhouse gases in detail.
If you doubt it, then you need to show why the physics is wrong, as I challenged you in the previous thread, and in many previous ones too. So far, you haven't accepted the challenge, instead persisting in your snide carping.
Have you ever cracked open a book discussing the science of climate? I doubt it. You seem to be spending most of your spare time delving into the bullshit of hylemorphic dualism.
"The global warming movement is a crime syndicate, run by actual criminals, with a large cadre of opportunistic amoral scientists, politicians and far left ideologues who have hopped on the train, hoping to cash in on the fraud. "
The sentiment you express in these lines is one that most of the population are beginning to voice about ALL branches of science. This unfortunate tarring is the result of decades of such petty, open, and shameless betrayals by the priesthood of matter. Broken promises, shell games, lies, and worse: Environmental and social decay.
Now they want us to trust them to save the day?
Even if they could, nobody will buy that line.
The 'boy who cried wolf' comes to mind.
Stealing emails (or the post) from any form of agency, institute, or individual is considered a crime. Well, it is here - and I am pretty sure it is in the U.S.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
"Why is lying to a partisan think tank worse than someone stealing emails from the CRU?"
Lying to a think tank is lying. Theft of email is theft. Different.
"The science of AGW is settled. It's happening. We know the physics of greenhouse gases in detail."
Settled? Sure seems far from it to me!
Climate change/shift is an agreed upon factor (since the 50's), but as for man's role in it - that is still highly contentious.
"You seem to be spending most of your spare time delving into the bullshit of hylemorphic dualism."
You associate the 'Father of Science' with 'bullshit'?
'The Philosopher' too?
That explains a lot.
Crus: The sentiment you express in these lines is one that most of the population are beginning to voice about ALL branches of science.Delete
That might backfire, Crus. Do that at your own risk.
I am talking about general sentiment. I used the words 'This unfortunate tarring' for a reason.
I fear the precious little baby may be thrown out with the gigalitres of fouled bath water.
Besides, the risk is not mine alone or implicitly. It is a social risk, and I am not a scientist.
Yes. It is bullshit. They just sucked it out of their thumbs. Have you ever cracked open a book on the science of climate too?
Here are some reading suggestions for you:
A closer look at the numbers
The Climate Conspiracy
Hope that helps opening your mind...
"Breaking Global Warming Taboos"Delete
Despite their many failure and my personal views on progressivism and positivism, I could not agree with you less.
Science is not 'bullshit', and it is not 'pulled out' of anyone's thumb. Nor is philosophy, the parent discipline of all the sciences.
"Have you ever cracked open a book on the science of climate too?"
I love to read.
I have read many books on many subjects, and some of them included a very scientific (notated) approach to climate in relation to history and geological events. I have read books on earth changes.
But an entire book on the subject of MAN MADE climate change, no - I have not read one. Just excerpts, synops, and white papers.
I have, on the other hand, seen the effects of this shift in the circle first hand. Not just on the circle itself, mind you, but our equipment and the people who live there.
Perhaps you should do the same if this is such an important issue to you? The Canadian Arctic is relatively accessible and safe; and simply being there, even on a holiday, is a life experience parallel to none.
I am not saying it would change your mind (which seems quite set), but you would at least have the experience to back up the ideas....and you would have an amazing set of holiday snaps to wow your friends with.
You're still quoting 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia' as your reference, which is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. It still considers only the processes that put CO2 into the atmosphere, and doesn't consider the processes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
If you can't appreciate the concept of carbon cycles and fluxes, then you're an idiot. Humans are dumping 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, resulting in the CO2 level increasing 2-3 ppmv per year. That's a fact. We know because the new CO2 has the isotope signature of that of the fossil fuel.
Your favorite website includes a quote by Wallace Broecker making it sound as though he's a climate change skeptic. He isn't. He referred to burning fossil fuels at the rate we are burning them as being like prodding a very large dangerous beast with a stick. He also is a pessimist, thinking we won't stop soon enough to avoid disaster. Fools like you are making it certain.
The book you quote is written by an MD. A medical practitioner. An ignorant person such as MIchael, who hasn't made the effort to study the science.
I still stand by my statement that the science and philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas were bullshit. They just thought (made up) their science and philosophy. They didn't have any empirical evidence. When was the last time that anyone sent a probe to Mars using the physics of Aristotle? Newton's physics is necessary for that.
You still need to look more into the science of climate change. Thinking that humans aren't capable of altering the Earth's climate is naive. We are increasing the CO2 level by 2-3 ppmv to around 390 ppmv by dumping 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year. Hardly a puny effort, and something that's resulting in an unprecedented increase in CO2 levels, both in size and rate.
You need to answer why increasing greenhouse gases won't causing warming.
Also, even in traditional Inuit society, the loss of sea ice is still a big negative. Traditional use of sleds and teams of huskies become less practicable as the ice becomes too thin to safely use.
"I still stand by my statement that the science and philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas were bullshit."Delete
As no doubt a future positivist will say of your own generation's.
" When was the last time that anyone sent a probe to Mars using the physics of Aristotle?"
Assuming they worked with constants and cause and effect, they ALL did.
"Newton's physics is necessary for that."
Newton the Atheist? Newton who did not school in Aristotle?
"Thinking that humans aren't capable of altering the Earth's climate is naive."
GLOBAL climate, Bach. Don't forget the G in AGW. we are talking about a GLOBAL biosphere, no? Regional climate is obviously altered by human activity. Anyone who has ever lived in a city is aware of that.
"You need to answer why increasing greenhouse gases won't causing warming."
Warming? GLOBAL warming.
And you need to answer WHAT organ of inquiry is RESPONSIBLE for that BOOM in those pollutants. Did the philosophers do it? Maybe artists? The Clergy?
No. I don't think so.
"Also, even in traditional Inuit society, the loss of sea ice is still a big negative. Traditional use of sleds and teams of huskies become less practicable as the ice becomes too thin to safely use."
Bach, go and see it.
It would take me an essays worth of words to explain what is wrong with this segment. I have lived with both Inuit and Innu peoples while deployed. In fact, I helped arrange their very first Arctic militia up along the NWS. They are not the noble savages as portrayed in the MSM.
BOOZE and 'modernity' are the biggest problems they face.
When the Russian mob hacks scientific institutions and steals e-mails on behalf of the Russian oil oligarchs they are portrayed by conservatives as brave citizen journalists or whistleblowers. When a scientist lies to get information on an industry front group that’s trying to undermine science education he’s a criminal. The double standard is breathtaking.ReplyDelete
the e-mails were all true (even if at the beginning scientists tried to dismiss them as false).Delete
The most important 'Heartland document' a hoax.
Do you see the difference?
Calling it a hoax doesn't make it one. Analysis of the text shows commonality with Heartland authors, not with Gleick.Delete
But, go ahead, little sheep. Baa along with the other sheep who happily do the bidding of your corporate masters.
You must be referring to the scientists who collect their cheques from them, no?
Or maybe, as so many Americans seem to do, you are blaming 'the other guys' for this situation. The question is who is the 'other guy'? The 'progressives' who howl for 'advancement' with no restraint (and got us here), or the 'conservatives' who pander to those established industries?
You may want to bleat into the mirror for a while, Anon.
I doubt there has ever been an ideology as hostile to the notion of a utopian future as is Christianity. Any and all efforts to make the world sustainable and livable for future generations are fought tooth and nail by Christian conservatives. A future Armageddon is a necessary element of their theology, and Egnor and his ilk are doing everything they can to bring it about. Pure evil.ReplyDelete
"I doubt there has ever been an ideology as hostile to the notion of a utopian future as is Christianity."Delete
Please explain how your nihilism DOES support a Utopia, Dr. Krank-Witless.
"Any and all efforts to make the world sustainable and livable for future generations are fought tooth and nail by Christian conservatives."
Eh? I am a Christian and what you folks call a 'conservative' (centralist here) and I usually vote FOR environmental issues. So do most of the folks I know. The biggest 'protest' vote from within our ranks in YEARS was for a 'green' party.
Besides, what generations? The ones you condone ABORTING before birth?
"A future Armageddon is a necessary element of their theology, and Egnor and his ilk are doing everything they can to bring it about."
Typically sophomoric nonsense from the master of the demi-educated.
What an objective statement!
Well said, crusadeREX!Delete
all we have seen the 'utopian future' materialized in USSR, Korea, China, Cuba, half of the Europe...Delete
Here we have another example of sham outrage. Conservatives are acting indignant just like a basketball player falling to the floor to draw the foul. They're doing EXACTLY what Michael was critizing Liberals for doing in an earlier post.ReplyDelete
And while Conservatives posture like the playground bully who has just been humiliated, the globe grows warmer.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting a ranch near Saguaro National Park. For those who don't know it, this is a unique, beautiful, alien landscape of strange green cactus, blue skies and red volcanic rock.
Near us was a striking geologic feature called Twin Peaks, two mountains thrust up by volcanic activity, covered in saguaro, and standing sharp against the horizon. This is the view from the ranch, where along with us was a conference of folks from the Liberty Fund, whose lunchtime conversation consisted of railing against how "Enviro-theists" trying to ruin our country.
Why am I describing this beautiful setting and these hyper-conservative anti-environmentalists?
Because ironically, one of the two "Twin Peaks" no longer exists - it has been strip-mined to the ground to extract limestone to feed a nearby concrete plant. In spite of many attempts by "enviro-theists", this one-of-a-kind, spectacular natural feature is half way to oblivion. The view from the local mountain peaks is now dominated by the strip mine, the concrete plant, and the 2-mile conveyor belt connecting the two.
The Liberty Fund people paid good money to stay at this ranch because of the natural beauty, criticized the people trying to protect it, and looked out at a scar left by their own ideology.
I wonder if they are as immune to irony as Michael is.
all conservatives and ignorants?Delete
Rickk, do you have a better scientific curriculum than those scientists?
Tell us and post it.
Domics, 95%+ of climate scientists agree human activity is changing the climate. If the testimony of scientists actually matters to you Domics, on what basis do you reject what they're saying?
I bet that to Galileo someone said something as: 95%+ of your fellow scientists do not agree with you.
Once again I have to disagree with you. There are 7 billion people on this planet. From your perspective in Canada - with all that land and only ~25 million people, you have some elbow room and some natural resources. Please list the number of countries that will have the resources to be self-sustaining in 50 years.
If not for selective breeding of plants, and later genetic manipulation of plants, we'd already be unable to produce enough food to feed the Earth's population on the current arable land. If not for the Haber-Bosch process, we'd have insufficient fertilizer to grow those plants.
Science has allowed us to live longer, science has given us food and tools and luxuries to raises the global standard of living. But look around - in which countries are children more likely to be better off than their parents?
We have limited land, limited fresh water (though science is trying for another "miracle" here with nano membrane desalinization) and limited energy packed into fossil fuels. Taking 100 million years of stored carboniferous carbon and throwing it all back into the ecosystem in a period of 200-300 years will have consequences. You can't possibly think otherwise.
And in the midst of all this, we have people fighting tooth and nail every scientific advancement that allows people to not have children. We have religious people, from Mormons to Muslims to Catholics pressing their followers to generate every possible baby.
When you look at the big picture, I'm not sure which is more of a threat to the long term viability of the human race - a fundamentalist Muslim mullah with nuclear weapons, or a conservative Catholic priest with a congregation.
PS engaging comment. Nice to debate/chat with someone who is ADULT in their approach, even if we disagree.Delete
I think you would be surprised at how much I agree with what you have said. My comments are/were directed towards the AGW debate.
Resources and their management are another matter entirely. Try to remember you are talking to a soldier who has seen action in regions contesting said resources and who is more recently charged with protecting THIS country's (as noted) bountiful resources.
As I have previously stated, I am very 'green' when it comes to conservation. I am very much pro animal rights (raising those of the animals, not lowering mankind), as in the good shepherd. These ideas jive very well with my Christianity.
Most of us are up here, regardless of our political stripes or whether we live in a city or a rural setting. One of our biggest environmental movements (for wetlands) is supported by HUNTERS! It has been increasingly so all my adult life.
We know we are blessed with a wealth of water and resources, and we tend towards conserving them. I have heard it said the climate is partially what has made us so: Conservationists AND Conservative.
That said I will address where I think we break ranks.
You list examples of developments that allowed for the global population to BOOM. Then you suggest 'science' can now get us out of this mess by doing what? Apparently by preventing our offspring from being born.
This is a Faustian bargain, and the people can smell the brimstone. Live longer, but without children.
That is my point.
All these wonderful ideas, medicine, and gadgets that come as the result of hundreds of years of research and real, tangible goals are jeopardized by the scientific community's total HUBRIS of their positivism. People can see the 'me' in there, and most folks are just not THAT selfish.
Think about it, RickK: The 'scientists' designed the conveyor belt that stripped the mountains in your other post.
They created the demand for the concrete by promoting unsustainable urbanization in the name of 'progress'.
They are seen as tools of the elite. I hear it ALL the time from friends, cadets, officers, and academic colleagues of years gone by. There is a great public suspicion on the MOTIVES behind the 'science' concerned.
Even a scientist or two I have known express the same concerns. Peak oil? Science. Pollutants like chemical toxins, emissions, and nuclear waste? Science!
Think of Oppenheimer weeping out the Vedas 'We have become death, the destroyer of worlds.
What's that old expression about sticking your neck out?
You further mention this stuff about Mormons, Muslims, and Catholics. I cannot speak for Islam or the LDS, but I can say that the teachings of the Church of Rome are of ABSTINENCE until marriage - that is no sex OR babies.
Once married they are supposed to have children. This is just common sense and was the basis of all Christian doctrine on marriage until relatively recently.
"When you look at the big picture, I'm not sure which is more of a threat to the long term viability of the human race - a fundamentalist Muslim mullah with nuclear weapons, or a conservative Catholic priest with a congregation."
I would say anyone with a nuclear device is far more dangerous than any baby, RCC or not. No comparison. A nuclear device has a single potential. A child (or even embryo) has almost infinite potential.
To encapsulate the meaning of my comment, I would say that in this debate of AGW the public is VERY sceptical of a science community who's inherit arrogance is obviously responsible for the mess they claim we are in, and who BLAME the current situation on traditional ways of life (and even more arrogantly on previous unenlightened 'science'. They have seen the God of science bleed and increasingly they blame it for the modern ills we face.
Is that fair? Not really. At least not entirely. It is just the way it is.
Solution? Adaptation - NOT eugenics.
Interesting. So you acually find fault with science for lengthening our lifespan, curing diseases, getting more food out of less land, etc. In other words, our technology, presumably starting with agriculture (when the population boom began) is to blame for AGW and other ills of an over-taxed planet.
You're quite correct. If we were still hunter/gatherers, then localized food shortages, disease, infection, etc. would keep our population small relative to the global environment, and we wouldn't have these problems.
So here is where we differ. My vision of the ideal future is one where an educated population lives longer lives of greater leisure with the benefits of technology, assuming we can do something to discourage overpopulation.
Your vision of the ideal future is one where a small human population eeks out a subsistance living.
Well, at the rate we're going, I think yours is ultimately more likely than mine.
Oh, and please don't twist my post into a "bomb versus baby" comparison. When a couple, married or not, says "we don't wish to have children, but we still wish to have sex", I think it is evil for some global bureaucracy headed by "celibate" old men to harangue the couple into feeling guilty about that perfectly reasonable decision. I think there are long-term serious consequences to preaching "have all the children you can - God will provide".
I think both you and Michael, and the women in your life, have made EXACTLY that decision, have used technology to enforce that decision, and I believe you are perfectly reasonable for doing so.
Call me crazy.
" In other words, our technology, presumably starting with agriculture (when the population boom began) is to blame for AGW and other ills of an over-taxed planet."Delete
No and yes. No, I do not buy into AGW. I am simply pointing out a logical loop in your reasoning (assuming you accept AGW).
Yes, I am suggesting that these advances could have contributed to the over taxing. Especially when it comes to plastics and chemical production.
So, if you are going to go the whole population bomb route, you have to acknowledge the cause: 'Progress'...or as some call it 'Science'. The answer, we are told, is MORE of the same authored by the SAME type of folks that brought us here. A loop...or perhaps 'loopy'.
"Your vision of the ideal future is one where a small human population eeks out a subsistance living"
No. My future is just not ideal. I do not believe in an earthly utopia. Never has been, never will be. We reach and we fall. We rise and decline. Human civilization is clearly cyclical.
BUT just for fun, if I had to design one it would be one of FREE peoples who are spread out in smaller cities and towns. I would see 'science' find ways to telecommute and travel more by train and plane and industry apply that tech.
I would see LESS gross consumerism and more local dependency on agriculture (local grown). I would see a return to organic farming techniques in viable areas. I would see livestock only raised in humane conditions and with a reasonable output- not so much that it lives and dies just to rot on a shelf and lower costs for gluttons.
I would see MORE charity, and more breaks for charity. I would see abstinence reward programs in place for young people.
But these are all dreams. What I really see is war. Total war.
"Well, at the rate we're going, I think yours is ultimately more likely than mine."
That is the reality, I agree. But, again, that is not my ideal. It is simply a matter of fact.
"Oh, and please don't twist my post into a "bomb versus baby" comparison. "
I had no intention of doing so. The comparison was yours, I simply posited my take on it. Your words are your own, mine are my own. I think it quite reasonable to react to such a comparison in the way I did. Children are not the equivalent of a nuclear device. Maybe I mistook your reasoning?
On the celibacy, my Bishops and Priests are not beholden to that council or reform. Our Reverend Father (of my Church) is married with two children. I think this allows for a greater insight into the lives of his parishioners - which is his job.
This is 3rd century stuff revised and reinforced in the 11th century and is probably my single biggest beef with Rome.
So, while I have great respect for the Roman clergy and their devotion to that ruling, I feel this particular is misplaced, unfair and erroneous. Rome would do well to allow her 'public affairs branch' (practising priesthood) to marry, imo. An oath of CHASTITY seems far more appropriate to me.
"I think both you and Michael, and the women in your life, have made EXACTLY that decision, have used technology to enforce that decision, and I believe you are perfectly reasonable for doing so."
Which decision? I have two kids, and maybe in for a third (I pray). But I would not bet on a fourth (getting too old). Technology? I cannot speak for Mike, but sure sometimes we have especially when younger and 'friskier'.
But truly it has mostly it has been about technique (timing).
I honestly wish, at this point, that we had made some more babies. There is no earthly love like I feel for my sons. More? Yes please!
"Call me crazy."
No. Your the least insane of the materialist I chat with.
Maybe eccentric, or even angry (healthy)... but you do not come off as crazy. Take that from a certifiable lunatic (according to my men).
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete