"Schadenfreude is a cheap thrill: fun but ephemeral. Gleick's actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discusion on this issue will be much the poorer for this - both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished".
Was there any evidence that Gleick was feeling schadenfreude? Never mind. The more important point is that even prominent climate scientists and activists continue to act as if they are in denial of how serious the problem is...that can be the only explanation for Schmidt and Joe Romm, for instance, to criticize Peter Gleick. The headlines should be proclaiming the following, though only the Guardian so far that I've seen has even mentioned it:
Civilisation faces 'perfect storm of ecological and social problems'
Abuse of the environment has created an 'absolutely unprecedented' emergency,
say Blue Planet prizewinners
say Blue Planet prizewinners
Their report is a warning that the world is dangerously in overshoot. We have overpopulated, overexploited resources, and overpolluted the one earth we have to the point where it is going to take drastic action to pull back from the abyss of total collapse. Peter Gleick understands that we are in an unprecedented emergency - of which climate change is only one aspect - and he acted accordingly.
Anybody who doesn't realize that we are fouling our own nest just as fast as we can - is stupid. Not only are we headed for more ever-intensifying extreme weather catastrophes, including floods, droughts and famine - but the oceans are grotesquely overfished, polluted and acidifying; we have stripped the soils, destroying their productivity by overfertilization; and the air is so filthy from noxious fumes derived from combustion of fuel and industrial processes that trees (and people, and animals and insects) are dying all over the world.
The "experts" and pundits should stop whining about Gleick and wake the hell up.
A comment over at Col. Wamsley's post is perfectly illustrative of the point. The writer is a denier, and yet he pinpoints precisely how in fact he possesses a deeper understanding of reality than the vast majority of climate change activists and scientists.
He quotes a line from the Colonel's letter to Heartland, and then explains with crystal clarity exactly why there will never be the "dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization" that the Blue Planet recipients advise!
The kitchen table comic says it all:
He quotes a line from the Colonel's letter to Heartland, and then explains with crystal clarity exactly why there will never be the "dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization" that the Blue Planet recipients advise!
"You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you."
Why?
Because foreign developing nations are licking their chops at the thought of the US signing onto a global climate treaty because they’ll get enriched from the vast transfer of our wealth to their countries (via schemes like REDD, cap-and-trade, CDM, etc.), and our economy will then be controlled by natural resource management via the UN or some other global supra-national agency.
The end goal here is to lower the standard of living of the US and to force us (and other developed Western style nations) to use less natural resources so that the rest of the world can use those resources to build up their economies so that at some point in the future, all nations have roughly the same standard of living and per-capita GDP. Unfortunately, in this future scenario should it occur, the US isn’t going to have anywhere as near high as GDP as we do today because it would take the natural resources of over 5 Earth’s to provide everybody on the Earth today with the resources needed to have the same standard of living as we have in the US. Our future US economy will be one of very little resource use and hence, a very basic and simple lifestyle.Quite right too, a very basic and simple lifestyle, one which could still be worth living...except the author misses another little problem which is that, there aren't enough natural resources remaining on this Earth to support just the U.S., even in a very basic and simple lifestyle - never mind everyone else in the world at our current level of consumption - and pollution. The jig is up, already - and Mother Nature is coming at us with her pitchfork, mad as hell.
The kitchen table comic says it all:
I doubt anything short of physical violence will stop the lies from Heartland et al. I guess we all go down with the ship.
ReplyDeleteHa, I left a comment at the Atlantic story and this is the response I received, which is more than vaguely threatening if you ask me:
ReplyDeleteYou cant argue with this kind of stupid. The same kind of stupid as Glieck. No amount of common sense or reality will ever enter these freaks miniscule brains, EVER...
This is the logical conclusion when you hand out degree's like candy on Easter... This is the perfect example of Academic failure, can spew any amount of leftist nonsense and never once give any thought at all to what youre saying. Rote learning without any ability to *think*...
The time wasted using words to make these idiots understand what they are doing to freedom in the USA is quickly running out... At some point the words are going to stop and action will begin...
Those asshats at the Atlantic can't tell shit from shinola.
ReplyDeleteDid someone at the Atlantic get a hold of a peer reviewed study or climate model that disproves man made climate change? It seems relevant that they have none.
What actual science does Heartland (or the Atlantic) have to offer? When science is based on roundtable gatherings by corporate sycophants can't we just call it a circle jerk.
It's maddening that there is any outcry about the way Gleick got information from Heartland. Kind of funny considering the theft of thousands of emails from East Anglia.
I didn't realize the Atlantic was a denier hotbed, I just saw a link recommending the article there in comments at Dot Earth so I went to read it. Later I found out the author went on and on about scientific fraud during climategate and never complained about the theft. I thought the Atlantic was a reputable magazine but I guess not. Even the NYRB is controlled by Freeman Dyson. There is no place to go for timely information but the 'tubes.
ReplyDeleteYikes! Gail, that response to your comment points right to the fault line of potential civil war I see brewing in the country as the ship goes down. Scary indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe fail-proof indication of a denier: he/she doesn't even try to spell or punctuate.
ReplyDeleteGuess what? Mitch went back, erased his threats and replaced them with this (now, I"M a NAZI!)
ReplyDeleteYou cant argue with this kind of stupid. The same kind of stupid as Glieck. No amount of common sense or reality will ever enter these freaks miniscule brains, EVER...
This is the logical conclusion when you hand out degree's like candy on Easter... This is the perfect example of Academic failure, can spew any amount of leftist nonsense and never once give any thought at all to what youre saying. Rote learning without any ability to *think*...
The time wasted using words to make these idiots understand what they are doing to freedom in the USA is quickly running out... At some point the words are going to stop and action will begin...
When youre 20 ignorance is understandable. You havent seen it before so you think its new. When youre 40 you realize its all been done before and nothing is really new...
All you have to do is look at what the Liberals said in the 70s and you can easily see it is all alarmism all the time. Nothing any of the Population Bomb idiots said then ever came to pass. To Liberals results matter not, its all about who screams the loudest...
In 1933 almost the entire German population thought the science was settles too...
'Splat', love it. I propose as a candidate for humanity's epitaph.
ReplyDeleteYou go, Gail! :)
For the record, latest comments at Climate Progress [and note that JRomm ignores that whether he wants to consider Gleick as a journalist, he is also a citizen!]:
ReplyDeleteMe:
JR, in light of this article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/22-5
“What you wouldn’t gather from all these pants-on-fire condemnations is that there is a long and honorable tradition, from Nellie Bly feigning madness to expose mistreatment of the mentally ill to the Chicago Sun-Times’ Mirage Tavern corruption lab, of investigative journalists using false identities to gather information–when the public interest is clear, and there’s no other way to get the story.”
I hope you will reconsider your condemnation of Peter Gleick – and so should Gavin Schmidt and any others who have condemned him. It’s important because such dilemmas will arise in the future, and whistle-blowers need to have some confidence that they will be protected and admired, not vilified and rejected.
I think what distills the essence of the problem of judging Gleick’s actions is to consider that Gleick is BOTH a scientist, and a journalist. To make the assumption that his actions should be regarded – and disparaged – as those of a scientist who has lost integrity is simply a rather arrogant way of assuming the role of scientist erases and supersedes any other role. That could even include the role of parent, or citizen.
Clearly, Gleick was acting as a journalist in this instance, and so he should be judged on that basis.
Reply
Joe Romm says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:34 pm
I will not judge Gleick less harshly than he judged himself. If you call that condemnation, so be it. BUT he is not a journalist.
Reply
Robert says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:41 pm
I’m happy to judge him less harshly than he has judged himself. He’s too far in it to be objective, his judgment is compromised…
His little identity deception seems to me the moral equivalent of tricking a bank robber with “HEY LOOK, WHAT’S OVER THERE ?!?” in order to grab his gun. (Followed by Revkin’s headline: “Bank Teller Uses Deceit to Steal Customer’s Personal Possessions”)
Reply
Leif says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Please no offense Joe, just curious. Do you consider yourself a scientist or a journalist?
Love this analogy...
ReplyDeleteRobert - His little identity deception seems to me the moral equivalent of tricking a bank robber with “HEY LOOK, WHAT’S OVER THERE ?!?” in order to grab his gun. (Followed by Revkin’s headline: “Bank Teller Uses Deceit to Steal Customer’s Personal Possessions”)
That was good! DeSmogBlog is claiming the forged doc is actually genuine - it will be interesting to see how that evolves. Mike Roddy, 1st comment on Revkin's latest mewling almost but not quite apology for going over the top, was great:
ReplyDeletehttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/more-on-peter-gleick-and-the-heartland-files/
I had read Mike Roddy's comment yesterday and think he nailed it.
ReplyDelete