The phrases "climate change" and the older, still serviceable "global warming," both indicate two different things: a scientific argument and a political controversy. Folks on each side of both frequently and often intentionally confuse the two.
The scientific argument concerns global changes in climate: how much, how fast, in what direction, and why? The political controversy is over what beliefs are to be considered orthodox and what actions are to be advocated. The greatest difficulty in the current political and intellectual climate is that, often, the same people who speak with the authority of science are simultaneously practicing political activism.
The Heartland Institute has been advocating free market solutions to environmental problems for almost thirty years. A few days ago, the Institute was the subject of an attack. From Meagan McArdle:
The climate blogs have been swept by quite a scoop in the past few days. An anonymous leaker identified only as "Heartland Insider" has dumped a cache of documents on climate blogs purporting to reveal the inner workings of the Heartland Institute, a vigorous promoter of skepticism about anthropogenic global warming…
According to Heartland, someone contacted them pretending to be a board member, and requested that the organization "resend" their annual meeting board package to an alternative email address. And apparently some gullible staffer actually complied.
What you think about fraudulently obtaining documents and then publishing them usually depends on whom you want to see embarrassed. In this case, the embarrassment seems to have fallen largely on Heartland's attacker. From the DOT Earth blog at the New York Times:
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing.
Gleick has admitted that he was responsible for the fraud that resulted in the release of the Heartland documents. That alone would, perhaps, leave his reputation in ruins. However, it gets worse for Dr. Gleick. Again from McArdle:
Much of the attention has centered around an explosive document titled "2012 Heartland Climate Strategy", which contains stuff like their plans for "dissuading [K-12 teachers] from teaching science".
As McArdle demonstrates in detail, the "Heartland Climate Strategy" document is almost certainly a forgery. It was not obtained from Heartland but produced by one of Heartland's enemies and slipped into the cache. Gleick claims to have received it from an anonymous source but, given his admission above, suspicion has to fall on him.
Fabricating documents in order to incriminate or blacken the reputation of an enemy is one of the most scurrilous of devices. It has a long history, dating back at least to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If the HCS document is indeed a fabrication, it hardly matters whether Gleick himself produced it. He was intentionally implicit in its dissemination.
Here we have the problem. I have written for several years now on the science and politics of climate change. I believe that global warming is real and I regard the view that human activity is a contributing factor as something that has to be taken seriously. Those beliefs depend, however, on some confidence in the scientific community. That confidence is deeply wounded by obvious examples of political corruption.
Peter Gleick is corrupt. He prostituted his scientific credentials in order to perpetrate an act of fraud. His act not only condemns himself but cast doubt on climate science in general. How many Peter Gleicks are out there?
The integrity of science demands a very strict moral code. Precisely if climate change is a grave threat, climate scientists must scrupulously confine themselves to what the science actually says and eschew all temptations to cook the books. Right now, it is hard to trust the climate science community.
Welcome to the twenty-first century, the age of enlightenment. We have Republican science and Democrat science; we have Christian science and Hindu science and Atheist science and Muslim science. We have real science and fake science, and the theory of relativity, which says that they can all be true, or all be false, or all be anything in between, depending on factors that no one can identify.
Even if the worst turns out true -- humans are destroying the planet -- how can we stop it without the cooperation of everyone in the world? Why should we Americans drive ourselves into an economic depression while the Chinese rape the earth with greater ferocity than we could ever do even if we dedicated ourselves to global suicide -- and laugh at us to boot?
Posted by: Stan Gibilisco | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:55 AM
The burn index for the north central chemical toilet will reach the extreme category today:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mso/fireweather/nfdrs.php?parameter=bi
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:59 AM
In order to take people's eyes off the Heartland Institute's climate fraud they have to accuse others of fraud. They know they have gullible echochamber that will magnify their subterfuge. This has the earmarks of typical rightwing fake victimhood.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Speaking of "shenanigans", here are some excerpts from a 2009 NY Times article posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html:
"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic."
"But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental."
Pot calling the kettle black KB?
Posted by: A.I. | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 09:32 AM
KQED: mega-fires pending. ip: eastern New Mexico under fire Wx warning.
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/02/19/wildfire-trends-you-aint-seen-nothin-yet/
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
A.I.: I am not sure who the pots and kettles are here, but I am sure it works both ways. If a credentialed critic of AGW were found to have stolen the East Anglia files, that would be a deep wound to his or her reputation.
However, the political weight is not quite the same both ways. Those who fly jumbo jets around the world to tell us all that we have to cut back on carbon emissions are constantly appealing to the authority of climate scientists. If the latter are found to be activists first and honest scientists second, that authority collapses.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Donald: others WERE guilty of fraud, if McArdle's judgment is correct. Your seething prejudice notwithstanding.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:35 PM
"The Arctic has become the frontline for observing the effects of anthropogenic climate change, from rising ocean temperatures to shrinking sea ice cover. These changes have greatly impacted the traditional practices of indigenous Arctic communities, which rely on sea ice for hunting and travel."
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/q-and-a-what-can-indigenous-peop.html
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 02:18 PM
I agree with KB's post here if I understand what he's saying correctly. Integrity is essential in this debate. Positively essential from those who wish to affect change in our energy practices. And further, they need to convince the world, not just the Republicans. It's time to be impeccable. It could be past time.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 04:45 PM
"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"
There are many reasons why the number of vegans has doubled in the US in less than 3 years. Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org
Posted by: JC | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 05:24 PM
The pot would be the climate change skeptics and deniers that have their undies in a bunch over alleged "fraud" in the kettle outing possibly forged documents from the Heartland Institute. They/you seem to be forgetting their/your total lack of outrage at the way information was obtained by HACKING emails in the episode I reference while gleefully distorting the contents of those emails in an effort to discredit the findings of climate scientists.
Posted by: A.I. | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 05:55 PM
This has been making the rounds in the twitterness:
http://www.conservationhawks.org/blog/files/8-questions.php
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 06:29 PM
cross-pollination: http://mtcowgirl.com/2012/02/18/desperate-denny/#comment-43190
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Now red state collapse comes home:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/buffer-to-be-cut-around-silver-city-to-prevent-wildfire/article_444e2c40-5ccb-11e1-b4d0-001871e3ce6c.html?mode=story
we are legion; expect us.
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:07 PM
There was global warming and cooling long before man appeared on the earth. Maybe man is helping the process along now, maybe not. But, for example, Gore living in huge mansions and flying private jets all over the place, while at the same time decrying carbon emissions, makes a joke of the whole argument he is trying to make. Carbon credits are a scam. As the poster above said, punishing Americans while China does nothing and actually increases carbon emissions and pollution is ridiculous, unless the whole aim is to destroy our economy. I just drove across the state today and observed the results of the glacial age in our state, and unless I'm mistaken, man wasn't alive then and there was evidently a bit of global cooling then!
Posted by: lynn | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:29 PM
You are very mistaken, lynn, in just about about half of what you have written. Half right is what you get from flipping coins, and indicates that your understanding of what you write is essentially random.
Humans were very much alive during glaciation. Carbon credits are a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gasses, and while carbon credits are a Republican idea, it is not a scam. Yes, global warming and cooling occurred on earth before humans. Greenhouse gasses played a part in those global changes, too. China has done far more than America to reduce greenhouse gasses, and currently produce far less greenhouse gas on a per capita basis.
KB apparently thinks the fraudulent pettyfoggers running the Heartland Institute ought to be able to perpetuate their anti-science scam without being exposed for the liars they are. I think Gleick and whoever leaked these documents are heros.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Donald,
The correct appellation for Gleick is "criminal" since he likely committed a crime in falsely obtaining these documents. And it appears as though the only document relevant to the climate issue was forged. John Hinderaker at Powerline has accused Gleick of being the author of the forged document and has dared Gleick to sue him if he is wrong. The ball is in Gleick's court. This is Ken's point. If Gleick has to resort to crimes and forgery to discredit Heartland, what does that say about the strength of his case?
Posted by: Jon S. | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:27 PM
No charges have been filed against Gleick, yet you say he "likely committed a crime...." This is what passes for rightwing justice these days. We still have the Constitution, so your fascist attempts at convicting Gleick before any charges are filed won't be allowed. But what have you to say bout the anti-science frauds being perpetrated by Heartland Institute, which Gleick's leaked document exposed? Even if we assume the worst of Gleick, his "crimes" are misdemeanors compared to the Heartland Institute's.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:59 PM
But it appears we have a forged document and this forged document exposes Heartland Institute?
Posted by: duggersd | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 07:28 AM
Gleick talked about fighting non-transparent agency's. That's the whole ball game.
When you have a very powerful industry that want's to sway people against the facts, it's relatively easy to do. Just trace the belief in global warming among Republicans.
Republicans are easier to train than dogs.
Posted by: Mark Anderson | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 09:08 AM
My last post was in response to you KB. Here's a little tidbit from Time that reenforces my point:
"The Heartland Institute seems to be mulling its legal options for now, though in the court of karma it may simply be getting its just due. Back in 2009, when a still unknown hacker stole and posted thousands of private e-mails from climate scientists in the controversy that became known as Climategate, Heartland didn't seem too worried about the provenance of the documents. "This is new and real evidence that [climate scientists] should examine and then comment on publicly," Heartland president Bast wrote after the e-mails surfaced in 2009. That the "new and real evidence" had been hacked didn't bother Heartland any more than the fact that many of the Heartland memos were obtained deceitfully has much bothered many climate activists even after Gleick's admission."
The rest of the article is here: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html
Posted by: A.I. | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Donald,
Do you think it likely that Jerry Sandusky has committed crimes against children? Do you oppose anyone publicly saying that? I am not the court. I am a private individual. I am not bound by the need for impartiality. Your "right-wing fascist" comment is pure jack assery.
The only evidence Heartland did anything "criminal" (oh, wait, Donald you fascist, are convicting them even before a trial?!) comes from what appears to be a forged document.
Let's be clear, as the president says. If, say, Steven Hayward or someone of that type known to be a skeptic about global warming had falsified his identity to obtain confidential documents from Sierra Club and then in addition, when those documents didn't provide the smoking gun he was looking for, proceeded to forge a document in order to make his political point, Donald would be screaming bloody murder. Donald thinks it is ok to commit fraud and forge documents...as long as it furthers his political interests. Crimes (perhaps) and unethical conduct (for sure) are acceptible if it advances the revolution. What high standards of justice. Justice means "reward your friends and punish your enemies."
Posted by: Jon S. | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Update: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/more-on-peter-gleick-and-the-heartland-files/?partner=rss&emc=rss%3f
Posted by: larry kurtz | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Let's look at what Gleick exposed. Some of Heartland Institute's funding sources and a slimy attempt to brainwash school children were finally made public. When real scientists write for publication they have to disclose funding sources and any conflicts of interest. But the deniers get to publish their forged and lying information as the truth and keep all conflicts of interest and funding secret. There is no "forged" information, unless it was forged by Heartland Institute. The document that Heartland says was forged was a draft document, but it was not forged.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 03:34 PM
I haven't seen any Proof of forgery yet. Does it exist? I don't mean opinions or suggestions or insistences, or even, "Everybody knows... Proof. Is there any proof?
Posted by: D.E. Bishop | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Hit "Post" too soon.
Declaring the information a forgery is a well-established way to attempt to discredit the info.
Forgery, or denial?
Posted by: D.E. Bishop | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 04:01 PM
The integrity of science demands not only a strict moral code, but a rigorous adherence to scientific method as well ...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/
Loose wire indeed.
Posted by: Stan Gibilisco | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Stan, was it a haywire?
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 04:49 PM
I replied to the many serious comments here in a subsequent post. I reply here to Donald. Telling lies is telling lies, whether they support your positions or mine. Would should want one's own side to be scrupulously honest, regardless of what the other side does. Gleick's behavior was scandalous. This is evident from his removal as chair of the AGU's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Telling us how much you hate Heartland and others who disagree with you doesn't help your case.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM
It's unfortunate that the whole discussion about climate has devolved to a mud-wrestling political debate.
In fact, it's too an important a topic to ignore. I do agree with the first poster that we can't ignore China or other developing countries (e.g. India, Brazil) who have thus far gotten a free pass to emit as they wish, but that does not mean that the U.S should be aligning ourselves with them either. If we take a serious stand in favor of action on greenhouse gas emissions we might find that we are no longer the world pariah. A great example of that is in regard to the present situation in Syria. All of a sudden the United States is on the same page as the Arab league and the overwhelming majority of the U.N. general assembly while China is on the same page as Russia, Iran and a handful of other socially unwelcome nations.
We should have the courage to lead. Not accede, not let the Chinese go their separate ways, but there is a political price to be paid for thumbing your nose at the rest of the world and it's nice that that price is increasingly being paid by China, and less frequently by the U.S.
Posted by: Eli | Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 06:05 PM