New Scientist wants indoctrination, not balance, in climate education

Joke publication (from Jo Nova)

New Scientist (or “Non-scientist” as it should be more accurately called) continues to smear any attempt at balance in climate education with misrepresentations, straw men and half-truths. Citing the Heartland documents, it recycles the same, tired old arguments that we have heard a thousand times before:

Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don’t know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”. This is to create controversy where none exists.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere.

We all acknowledge that humans are warming the atmosphere. The question, and where the doubt lies, is in the magnitude of that warming, in particular relative to natural climate cycles. Why are supposedly intelligent publications incapable of understanding this obvious difference? If that warming is one degree, then this isn’t a problem. As we keep repeating, the catastrophic projections come from multiple positive feedbacks in climate models.

In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth’s warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

Ah yes, science by head count, and the politicised statements of a political organisation, the IPCC.

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate. (source)

Smears, smears and more smears. And hints at a scientific conspiracy and selective use of evidence were both clearly exposed in the Climategate emails, but that doesn’t seem to concern the editorial writers today.

Why do they bother? Only total indoctrination will satisfy the headbangers at Non Scientist.

Quote of the Day: Megan McArdle

Quote of the Day

Wonderful quote from The Atlantic on Gleick:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.  I would probably have thrown that memo away.  I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what?  That Heartland exists?  That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible? 

Exactly. Global warming alarmists (and the Left in general) can’t handle dissent, so they try to suppress it at all costs.

Tweet of the Day (and ACM's reply)

Hypocrisy and double standards are wonderful things, employed to their fullest by the environmental left:

Climate fail

Heartland: Gleick roundup

Josh on Gleick (click to enlarge)

Naturally, the blogs are full of the Gleick admission that it was he who solicited and then distributed confidential Heartland documents. Here is some recommended reading:

Judith Curry

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate.  Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels.  There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.

On the one hand, Climategate involved a large number of people that were involved in the IPCC.  Apart from the FOI avoidance that was arguably criminal, everyone seems to have been ‘cleared’ by the various investigations.  On the other hand, Gleick is only one person, but his actions are far more serious, particularly if they involve fabrication of a document.

WUWT on the National Centre for Science Education:

As part of NCSE’s expansion to defend the teaching of climate science, Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

“Gleick obtained and disseminated these documents without the knowledge of anyone here,” NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, “and we do not condone his doing so.” But, she added, “they show that NCSE was right to broaden its scope to include the teaching of climate science. There really are coordinated attempts to undermine the teaching of climate science, and NCSE is needed to help to thwart them.”

WUWT on Gleick’s removal from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics:

Commenter FP writes:

Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page.

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

James Delingpole:

So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake. His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he’s the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he’s a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on “integrity” in science. (H/T Roddy Campbell, Jabba The Cat)

Funny, that, eh? Before we examine a little more closely what he’s done, let’s just read a bit more about his Institute’s passionate commitment to integrity, shall we?

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

Ah. That kind of integrity. Protecting good, honest climate scientists against all the lies and misinformation and black propaganda ranged against them by the evil, Koch-Bros-funded Climate Denial industry: would that be the sort of thing you meant, Peter?

All in all a huge embarrassment for “The Cause”.

Heartland: more on Gleick

Career ending lapse of judgment

After today’s revelation that Peter Gleick had admitted to soliciting the confidential Heartland documents and distributing them to the bloggers, it occurred to me that suspicion had already fallen on Gleick in several blog posts and comments, including at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog here, and Lucia’s Blackboard here.

But, crucially, such suspicion fell on him not as the recipient and distributor of the confidential documents, but as the alleged forger of the “Climate Strategy” document that MeDog’sGob and the other headbangers got so steamed up about.

Particularly on Lucia’s blog, there was detailed textual analysis in the comments of the strategy document and comparisons made with Gleick’s style, including use of parentheses, and the unlikely use of the term “anti-climate” – strikingly similar to “anti-science”:

Steven Mosher (Comment #89946
February 16th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

I have some speculation on the writer of the document.

1. West coast time zone.
2. trashes Curry and revkin, known adversaries
3. Uses a very strange word (anti-climate) in the document and in his tweets
4. uses parenthesis in a very odd way when he doesn’t know how to punctuate sentences. in the document and in his letter to Pielke.
5. glorifies himself in the document.
6. prior history of making phony statements

Its not proof of course, just a speculation, kinda like Mann speculating that Steve mcIntyre had something to do with the leak. which nobody objected to.

So the blogs suspect Gleick of being the forger, and he outs himself as the receiver. I think this story has a lot further to run…

UPDATE: And if this doesn’t make you sick to the stomach, check out MeDog’sGob for a stout defence of Gleick’s actions as a brave “whistleblower”:

So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied.

Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause. (source)

Disgusting, but only to be expected from a smear site like that.

BREAKING: Warmist Peter Gleick "solicited Heartland documents under someone else's name"

Career ending lapse of judgment

UPDATE: Statement from Heartland here (WUWT). Climate Depot’s roundup here.

Warmist Peter Gleick has admitted to soliciting Heartland documents under another’s name and then forwarding them to journalists:

In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

There must also therefore be suspicion that he created the forged document as well…

Read the full statement here..


Heartland: Letters of demand sent to Greg Laden and DeSmogBlog

Legal action possible?

Gotta love Greg Laden’s comment on this:

“I just got this email. I have no way of telling if it is authentic.

Greg hasn’t spotted the irony there clearly! I guess he’ll realise it’s authentic when the FedEx copy arrives…

Notice also that Greg’s post URL uses the term “anti-science” – one of the regular smears used by warmists against “deniers”. So again, what realist, in their right mind, would use the term “anti-climate” about themselves?

Anyway, here’s the text of the email to Greg Laden (a similar one sent to DeSmogBlog according to Jo Nova):

February 18, 2012

By e-mail to:[email redacted]
By Federal Express to:

Mr. Greg T. Laden
Greg Laden’s Blog
[address redacted]

Re: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

Dear Mr. Laden:

On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.

Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.

It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

1. The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

2. As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

3. Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours,

Maureen Martin
General Counsel (source)

%d bloggers like this: