Climate science has become official truth, like Pravda, and the real truth has become an inconvenience, something getting in the way of environmentalist dreams and internationalist ambition
The Truth, the Half Truth, and Little of the Truth
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The Gang Green, those seekers after environmental Truth, have gone on a blitz recently trying to justify, well, lying.
James Garvey, author of The Ethics of Climate Change has this to say on the subject:
“What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall—if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press ‚Äì then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too—maybe he’s undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out.”
This sentiment was echoed at Scientific American.
From the article by John Horgan, the George Washington of science reporting:
“That brings me to the latest scandal to emerge from the debate over global warming. Two weeks ago, an anonymous source distributed internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a conservative organization, to journalists and bloggers. As reported on this site on February 15, the documents revealed, among other facts, that the Heartland Institute, as part of a larger strategy for undermining support for global warming, was supporting prominent skeptics such as physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter.
Last week, Peter Gleick, a global-warming researcher and environmental activist, admitted on Huffington Post that he had been the source of the documents. Gleick confessed that he obtained the documents by approaching the Heartland Institute under a feigned identity.”
“Kant said that when judging the morality of an act, we must weigh the intentions of the actor. Was he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick’s lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous. Gleick, you might say, is a hero comparable to Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 stole and released documents that revealed that U.S. officials lied to justify the war in Vietnam.”
“I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.”
But, you may say, these are science writers and philosophers, not the scientists themselves. Well…
This from Tom Wigley and the 2009 batch of leaked CRU e-mails:
“Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
[Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]”
Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) mad from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.”
We could go on and on with this, but everyone gets the idea; apparently lying is now a part of the scientific method.
Science is supposed to be about the pursuit of Truth. Apparently, science is now a tool to twist Truth to serve a purpose.
With the Manhattan Project America won the race for the atomic bomb. Why? Germany certainly had her fair share of nuclear physicists, and there was no good reason for America to outpace the German intellectual class. America developed the bomb because American scientists were willing to look to the truth wherever they found it, while the Germans would not. German physicists were hampered by Nazi racial notions, and could not use “Jewish” science, so had to go the long way around. Without Einstein’s equations they found it difficult to work out the details of a nuclear device. Nazi Germany had placed science at the service of the State, and truth was an early casualty. Had they been willing to accept truth where they found it they may have detonated an atomic bomb over, say, London. It could have won the war for them. But they never did develop such a weapon, while the Americans did.
Climate science has become official truth, like Pravda, and the real truth has become an inconvenience, something getting in the way of environmentalist dreams and internationalist ambition.
But hey! Lying in the service of a good cause is fine!