Why Do Climate Scientists Lie, Cheat and Steal? Because They Can
Gleickgate: I do hope you've been enjoying it as much as Mollie and I have been. As I'm sure you'll be aware, Gleickgate - or Fakegate as it used to be known till the identity of the chief perp Peter Gleick was revealed - was the attempt by the climate alarmist "community" to engineer their own version of Climategate. Instead it blew up in their faces when it was revealed that the most damning document they had unearthed had in fact been faked.
What interests me most about the story is not the story itself (loser guy makes loser attempt to stitch up Heartland Institute: FAILS) as the way the liberal-left media has tried to spin it. In the Guardian, for example, the ineffable George Monbiot used it as an opportunity to demand that evil, right-wing, probably Koch- and Big-Oil-funded climate denier James Delingpole now reveal the sources of his enormous wealth. And instead of distancing themselves from the embarrassing, heavily compromised, and integrity-free Gleick, the usual greenie suspects have instead rallied round him and either hailed him as a hero or at the very least excused his appalling behavior on the grounds that Evil Climate Deniers are much worse.
Here, for example, is the Union of Concerned Scientists. (Don't be misled by the title: they're an environmental science - i.e. anti-real-science - advocacy group).
Dr. Gleick is among many climate scientists who have been targeted by ideological groups that are eager to attack the messengers of scientific findings. And he is a strong advocate for the important role science plays in society. It’s unfortunate that the bitter, personal attacks on his colleagues and their work contributed to what he called a lapse of his own personal judgment and ethics.
And here - you really couldn't make it up: but then, you don't need to - is the Daily Kos.
Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis. He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.
This is bizarre. Beyond bizarre. Can you imagine what would have happened if the roles had been reversed, if it emerged, say, that one of the Climategate emails had been faked by skeptics to make the warmists look even more scuzzy and corrupt and utterly reprehensible than are already (tricky, I would agree)? It would have dominated the MSM for the whole of this year and would probably have run well into next year too.
For a proper sense of perspective I recommend this article by Megan McArdle in the Atlantic:
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say "Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!" and not, "Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things." After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else.
Willis Eschenbach makes a similar point with characteristic wit, verve and gusto at Watts Up With That?
Folks are fed up with climate scientists who lie, cheat, and steal to attack their scientific opponents, and who then walk away without the slightest action being taken by other scientists. As long as there are no repercussions from the scientific community for the kind of things Dr. Gleick has done, mainstream climate scientists will continue to do them. Indeed, Dr. Gleick’s own actions were no doubt greatly encouraged by the fact that you noble scientists were so full of bul … of scientific integrity that you all let the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators walk away scot-free, without even asking them the important questions, much less getting answers to those major issues.
It's on occasions like this, I must confess, that I wish God had made me a liberal. If I were a liberal I wouldn't need to base my arguments on facts or logic or any of that tedious, effort-demanding stuff. I could lie and cheat and besmirch and demean and appeal to authority as much as I pleased, secure in the knowledge that a) all my bad behavior would be justified by the purity and nobility of my ends and b) all my ideological soulmates would leap to my defense.Can someone remind me, please, what the advantage of being a conservative is? Other than being always right, I mean....