There’s a popular verb in headlines about climate researcher Peter Gleick’s admission that he used trickery to get damning documents out of the climate change–denialist group the Heartland Institute: “Activist Says He Lied to Obtain Climate Papers” (New York Times, 2/21/12); “Scientist Peter Gleick Admits He Lied to Get Climate Documents” (L.A. Times, 2/21/12); “Climate Researcher Says He Lied to Obtain Heartland Documents” (WashingtonPost.com, 2/21/12).
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. While it’s not possible to give Gleick ethical absolution without knowing more details of what he did, it’s clear that Heartland was not about to give up incriminating documents to anyone they thought would make them public—and there is hardly a story where the public interest is more obvious than in documenting efforts to block action to stop catastrophic global climate change.
However, as Aaron Swartz pointed out in Extra! (3–4/08), in recent years corporate media have largely abandoned the tactic of undercover reporting, largely in response to the Food Lion case, in which ABC was sued (ultimately unsuccessfully) for having its reporters get grocery store jobs without revealing that they planned to use their positions to gather evidence of unsafe food handling. Bizarrely, many journalistic observers seemed to find Food Lion’s position persuasive—an ethical stance that is great for corporate malefactors but terrible for the public interest, since it would virtually insure that reporters can never be eyewitness to workplace abuses that happen in employees-only areas.
Thus when Ken Silverstein (Harper’s, 7/07) pretended to represent a Central Asian dictatorship to document lobbying groups’ eagerness to work for human rights abusers, he got a chorus of scoldings from ethical arbiters like Howard Kurtz (Washington Post, 6/25/07): “No matter how good the story, lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects.” In this peculiar moral universe, pretending to work for a ruthless dictatorship is every bit as ethically questionable as actually volunteering to do so.
And that’s the standard that’s being applied to Gleick (Climate Central, 2/21/12): The New York Times‘ Andy Revkin (Dot Earth, 2/20/12) charged that “Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.” Wrote Bryan Walsh for Time.com (2/20/12): “No reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.” According to Houston Chronicle science editor Eric Berger (2/21/12), Gleick “has unquestionably ceded some of the high ground scientists held in the climate science debate. It will not be easily won back.”
Funny, you’d think that climate scientists held the high ground in the climate science debate because of, you know, science—the science that shows that we’re making catastrophic changes to the Earth’s atmosphere?
Holding that Gleick’s sins are much worse than Heartland’s—I predict you will see virtually nothing from now on in establishment outlets about the contents of the Heartland memos—is a bizarre moral proposition, equivalent to holding that a child should starve to death rather than a loaf of bread be stolen. (Do bear in mind a fact that seems entirely absent from the media discussion of global warming, which is that large numbers of people, many of them children, are already dying as a result of lack of action on climate change.) But the most maddening thing is that these same media outlets are entirely willing to accept misrepresentation and illegally gathered information as legitimate parts of journalism—when they are used to advance a right-wing agenda, including climate change denial.
As Exhibit A, look at James O’Keefe, who famously and proudly passed off his partner as a prostitute while secretly videotaping ACORN staffers. Who in the debate over O’Keefe’s work took the position that because the colleague was not actually a prostitute, the entire project was unethical and therefore all of his videotapes should be ignored? The actual objection to O’Keefe’s work (Extra!, 4/10) was that he deceived the public—misleadingly editing his footage to create false impressions, including the popular delusion that O’Keefe had gone into ACORN offices wearing an outlandish Superfly costume. Nevertheless, he got overwhelmingly positive coverage from right-wing and centrist news outlets alike, with the result that his mendacious reporting had the successful result of helping to bring ACORN down.
And on the issue of climate change itself, corporate news outlets devoted endless attention to the “Climategate” story (Extra!, 2/10), the selective release of scientists’ private emails, evidently obtained through hacking. This release was designed to create the appearance of scientific impropriety where none existed, as every inquiry into the controversy has determined (FAIR Blog, 4/19/10). In a journalistic failure that will likely surpass the selling of the Iraq invasion and the overlooking of the housing bubble in terms of human devastation, media allowed this malicious hoax to upend the climate change discussion (FAIR Blog, 2/2/10), turning the scientific consensus on global warming once again into an open question and effectively taking real action to reduce greenhouse gasses off the political table.
Climate Central‘s round-up of reactions to the Heartland/Gleick story cites Forbes.com‘s Warren Meyer (2/21/12)—identified not as a prominent global warming denier (he’s got a video called Catastrophe Denied, for Pete’s sake), but merely as one of “several commentators” making the point that people on both sides in the “climate debate” have caused it to become “unethical and dangerous.” Meyer is quoted, seemingly approvingly: “When we convince ourselves that those who disagree with us are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but are instead driven by evil intentions and nefarious sources of funding, then it becomes easier to convince oneself that the ends justify the means.”
Here’s what the Heartland documents actually show (Deep Climate, 2/14/12): The leadership of those who reject climate science are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but instead are driven by nefarious sources of funding. If you want to call that “evil,” when you’re talking about working to prevent action to avoid worldwide disaster, I think you’re on solid moral ground.
Edit: Placed Eric Berger at the right paper.
Doug Latimer
It’s ironic that Gleick chastises himself for “a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics” here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/21-2
But I think Scott Mandia, co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, has it right, as quoted in the piece:
“Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years. They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ‘teach the controversy’ where none exists.
“Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.” […]
That the corpress has it wrong, and willfully so, should surprise no one but the severely naive.
brian jensen
Good post – I wish more journalists would go undercover. Just pretending to need a paper written for me on Craigslist has given me about 10 Alumni/students from my school who have offered to write a paper for me, as well as a professor from the University of Phoenix.
There’s a lot of good data out there for those who don’t confine themselves to the mainstream’s corporate dominated sensibilities.
Also – Eric Berger is with the Houston Chronicle not the Houston Post. The Houston Post merged with it about 15 years ago.
Big Em
And yet isn’t it the conservatives who always scoff & rail at the ACLU when some drug user or even a wannabe-terrorist is entrapped into buying drugs or taking delivery of supposedly terrorist device? THEN it’s entirely OK for authorities to lead people on and even propose criminal acts in order to catch a purported drug user or terrorist…
I remain convinced that most of the right-wing politicians don’t seriously believe 1/4 of what they posture about in public, they just do it because it’s the ethical price of getting elected — kind of like grade schoolers reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, where they don’t really have any depth of understanding or belief, it’s an empty ritual but they do it because they’ll get in trouble otherwise.
BillB
Gawd- imagine the incredible pressure these bazoos are under to keep ignoring it. If our FCC had any balls they would be raising hell about the news squelch. Probably some of the same kind of regressive thinking that endorses war as a way to keep the economy strong.
Night-Gaunt
The Chicago based Koch created Heartland Institute is just another cut-out for the billionaires to continue their manipulation of perception on things they don’t like. Such as Climate Change an its direct connexion to fossil fuels an how we all live on this planet. I see nothing wrong with doing this but the meme is out there that such journalism is somehow “wrong” an so they are reluctant to use it to get at the truth which is to be protected. The First Amendment was never created to protect lies an help those involved in the lying. Though it might now as the crop of Machiavellis interpret the Constitution in their own peculiar ways. The acts of turning fiction into a believed truth is all part of it. What George Orwell was making a point on. Why the character even at the heart of the fiction machinery ended up believing things to be true all the same at the very end.
Peter Black
I did an investigation on a supposed list of “climate scientists” who did not endorse global warming or anthropogenic causes with my Environmental Science class as far back as 2004, I believe it was. This was another Heartland Institute project, put together by Dennis Avery I believe. Student volunteers emailed about 12 of the scientists taken randomly from the list of 100. Of the 8 we made contact with, EVERY ONE said their position had been misrepresented. Let me repeat, this was a bunch of high school students exposing the Heartland Institute sham over eight years ago. How strange to read this blog and find that the Heartland Institute still exists. What is wrong with our “investigative journalists” today that this would even be considered a big deal in 2012? Shameful.
Darren
You guys just won’t give up. It doesn’t matter that all the alarmists’ predictions turned out to be wrong, that the climate models don’t work, that they got caught conspiring to distort the debate, & that the only reason there still is a debate is the $4 billion a year gravy train the govt spends on “climate research”.
acomfort
Isn’t this, pretending to be someone your are not, a standard procedure for the FBI and the CIA. Isn’t this exactly what our nations spies do? I think so and the media, the political and the justice systems are OK with it. When they catch or entrap someone that is by the media’s standards, great news.
America: One Nation, Under Surveillance.
TimN
Thanks for that nice report, Peter.
Tressco
“New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun â┚¬” not humans”
Aug 26, 2011 â┚¬“ 11:37 PM ET
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC & other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays & the sun â┚¬” not human activities â┚¬” as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby & other members of his team to avoid â┚¬Ã…“the highly political arena of the climate change debate,â┚¬Ã‚ telling them â┚¬Ã…“to present the results clearly but not interpret themâ┚¬Ã‚ & to downplay the results by â┚¬Ã…“mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.â┚¬Ã‚”
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
(â┚¬Ã‚¦)
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– The Club of Rome Report â┚¬“ “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome”
jk
@tresco. Please read http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm
In short, quoting from above
” Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it “says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate.” “
Bill
I find it curious that dishonesty “in a good cause” is condemned by those in the media who hardly ever question dishonesty in a political campaign in the cause of winning an election.
Richard Lee Dechert
The Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics says this in part: “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.” The Heartland Institute information that Mr. Gleick surreptitiously gathered and posted on the Internet apparently could not be fully yielded by traditional open methods, it is clearly vital to the public, and he has belatedly explained his methods. Although he’s not a professional journalist, this in my judgment is the code that should be used to evaluate his behavior.
As for the Institute’s behavior, it has a sad history of disseminating misinformation on human-induced global warming and its adverse effects, and of supporting actions in the White House, Congress, state governments and other bodies to undermine measures that would reduce global warming and adapt to its effects. In November 2011 the International Energy Agency correctly warned that we only have about five years to sharply reduce global warming and prevent irreversible catastrophic effects. Thanks in part to the Institute and other fossil-fuel funded global warming deniers, those ecocidal effects will not be prevented. That is tantamount to criminal behavior.
“Darren” and “Tressco” above are effectively aiding and abetting it. What are their full real names and whom do they represent? I’m representing myself as the author of self-funded and recently published “Global Warming, Climate Chaos and Human Conflict” (Versions 1 and 2). At age 79 with terminal cancer, I’ve dedicated it to my only grandchild who with billions of other children will have to cope with the decades of global warming that have already been locked into to our planet’s climate system by over 150 years of fossil-fueled industry and agriculture. What an outrageous legacy we’re leaving for our heirs!
Ron Leighton
In this moral world, pretending to be a hired killer to arrest a murderer would be wrong. I’d bet Kurtz, for instance, would never say that.
michael e
Nice to see a few people on these blogs who did not swallow Al Gores”science is closed” heavy handedness on the Global warming debate.It is now obvious that some of the science just plain sucked.It is also obvious that the left had serious interest in floating this balloon and the right in shooting it down.Always a good indicator of faulty science when the government gets involved for political gain.Back to the drawing board people……the science is wide open.
Chuck Doswell
“michael e” comments that “… the science is wide open.” It’s obvious from this comment that he believed in the misstatement that the science is “closed” – no science is EVER completely closed. If you believe so, then you simply don’t understand how science works. But it’s true that the vast majority of climate scientists have accepted the notion that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a hypothesis has been supported strongly by the available evidence. Although skepticism is never disallowed in science, the deniers mostly have been unable to develop convincing scientific arguments for their position and so are quite underrepresented in the refereed scientific literaturem, which is where scientific debate is supposed to occur. The small number of scientist-skeptics in the AGW debate (a tiny minority!) claim this as a vast conspiracy, which is simply preposterous, and have chosen to use other means to promulgate their misinformation.
The hypocrisy of the deniers has been made abundantly evident with this reaction to Gleick’s publishing of the Heartland documents, showing a clear, well-financed misinformation campaign against AGW. Yet, it was not so long ago that the ILLEGAL hacking to obtain emails from the climate researchers at East Anglia University was conveniently dismissed by the deniers as irrelevant compared to the “shocking” revelations within those emails. The deniers have, of course, denied the validity of the subsequent investigations by several agencies that unanimously have exonerated those scientists of any serious breaches of ethical behavior.
If we can brush aside the issue of the ILLEGAL means by which information was obtained in the University of East Anglia case, in the rush to force the accused to answer to the charges resulting from that information, then we should brush aside with equal vigor the mildly unethical means by which information was obtained in the Heartland Institute case. The Heartland Institute needs to be forced to submit to several independent agency investigations and be forced to answer to any charges arising from these revelations!
Richard Lee Dechert
“michael e” above or whoever you are, that’s an irresponsible, irrational reply to my and other’s concerns about the Heartland Institute and its grossly dysfunctional behavior. At this point in the 21st century the only rational, responsible “debate” on human-induced global warming is how we can best understand it, reverse it and adapt to its increasingly lethal impacts. For example, coral reefs that support over a billion humans and thousands of other species are beginning to irreversibly bleach and die from ocean warming and acidification. The ancient permafrost in regions of the Arctic Circle is melting and releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere; as a global warming gas it is over 20 times more potent than CO2. And the mountain snow packs that provide most of the fresh water to the heavily populated region where my grandchild lives are melting and will virtually disappear in a few decades. So what will you constructively do for my grandchild and billions of other children whose lives will likely be lessened by global warmingâ┚¬”Âespecially the ones in the poorest nations of our planet?
Chris Winter
Micheal E writes: “Always a good indicator of faulty science when the government gets involved for political gain.”
Ah — you refer to the George W. Bush administration, of course.
michael e
Well Chris I am referring To him -as well as those on the left.
Richard….I dont argue that we should study mans impact on our environment.We used to call it pollution.And of course lessen it where ever possible. But the Obama administrations early moves to co-opt the science that would of given government effective control of industry through the insane carbon credit and control laws literally set the science back.It set up a corrupt standard where we have seen the top dogs in this admitting they fudged their data.Now the left ignores that and plows ahead.Is it wrong to say back to the drawing board.Now your question as to what to do about it.Well we can not change the clouds or the sun.We can only do better ourselves.Can we ask the Chinese to join us?The Indian People?Will they cut their industry by half even if our data is irrefutable?This past week Obama proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament with us cutting out nuclear arsenal to 300.So now what….we will also unilaterally dismantle, or retool our economy?What a change Obamas time would bring us if he has his way.Americas sunset.
Chuck…..Nice try at shushing aside Anglia.You forgot al Gore and his fictions.When polled -do you know how many of the “scientists”who align themselves with this theory are getting government money to do their studies.About 87%.The scientists who have other ideas about cause and effect and are NOT on the gov dole about the same………88%.Im not saying all the science is padded by grants.But the money trail does seem to be leading to the conclusion that it has a strong effect on it.Lord Monckton has spoken to Congress twice and been refused once by the DEMS because in their words he was “too dangerous”to the cause.Only thing left to do was attack him personally and as always with the left plow on with the agenda.This has always been about shouting down deniers and plowing on.Van Jones Obamas green czar claims to of started all this(in his book) with the clear aim of gaining government control over industry.He stated Obamas culpability in this.Read his designs as a community activist as to how this would play out.We are there.It is right out of his playbook baby.Look someday you will understand that the rights halting the lefts jumping headlong into this was the good call.The science will get better.Till then the sky wont fall.The worlds climate will change and grow warmer or colder with or without us.I love the newest theory.We are actually moving into an ice age …but global warming is balancing the scales.
gloriana casey
Dear michael e.;
You can deny science all you want, but perhaps you should go outside and see what’s happening.
Wells are drying up, water sources are shrinking, bees are dying, species are disappearing, cancer rates are up for men, women and children, glaciers are melting, polar bears are drowning and starving, sea animals are getting the diseases of land animals, severe weather changes all over the planet, from hurrricanes, and drought, to winter ice plus melting and imploding land releasing methane in Siberia.
You can deny climate changes all you want, but you can’t deny Nature. She’s taking, well actually, she’s screaming…are you deaf?
Richard Lee Dechert
“michael e.” your rambling, incoherent and factually absurd rhetoric exemplifies the pathological denial of reality that’s plaguing the American body politic. The U.S.â┚¬”Âby far the largest per-capita emitter of ecocidal greenhouse gasesâ┚¬”Âis the only nation among 192 U.N. nations in which such denial is rampant; and the GOPâ┚¬”Âsupported by the so-called Tea Partyâ┚¬”Âis the only major political party on our planet that has adopted a policy of denying the reality of human-induced global warming and undermining efforts to effectively reverse and adapt to it. Is that why you won’t reveal your real name? And if you have children and grandchildren, how can you justify your behavior to them, my child and grandchild, and the rest of our children?
Richard Lee Dechert
Correction. In my above comment I meant to say: “The U.S.â┚¬”Âby far the largest per-capita emitter of ecocidal greenhouse gases among the major industrial nations. . . .”
tishado
Considering that ever year we keep coming out with results that are worse than scientific models predicted, we had better get serious with global warming. Journalistic ethics are to be taken seriously, but it is hard to take mainstream complaints too seriously when they continue to listen to Andrew Breitbart and his ilk as though they were on the up and up.
Chuck Doswell
Michael … I wasn’t trying to “shush aside” anything regarding the East Anglia “revelations” (that ultimately proved to be a tempest in a teapot). I was saying that the same demands for investigation of those revelations by the deniers should be applied to the Heartland Institute revelations. It’s obscenely hypocritical to whine about Peter Gleick’s ethical lapse, when the ILLEGAL methods used on behalf of the climate deniers were brushed aside. What part of a logical comparison didn’t you understand? As for Al Gore, I have no time to respond to what a politician might say. I pay attention to the scientists, not the politicians and the media. It seems you need to do so, as well.
Your patronizing tone regarding my understanding of climate science is particularly ironic. You clearly have no idea how atmospheric science works if you’ve bought into the notion that the AGW hypothesis is some sort of cabal by climate scientists to become wealthy. If you must have a money trail to follow, consider tracking the money flowing into the Heartland Institute and the purposes for which the money is being used. The idea that climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy to make false claims in order to get government money is so preposterous, only someone completely ignorant of the process could ever believe it.
I find it sad that we’re even having this “debate” – the well-financed stalling tactics exemplified by the Heartland Institute revelations are hurting our ability to make use of the information being provided to us by the efforts of hundreds of dedicated climate scientists. This is indeed a marker for the denial of reality mentioned by Richard Lee Dechert – this denial campaign is being driven by political (not scientific) interests. The extreme right-wing conservative movement is successfully waging an anti-science campaign for political gain, and the Heartland Institute documents prove that beyond any serious doubt.
joan
Considering the number of climate change deniers in the comments, one might suspect API has their pants-on-fire avatars out in full force.
Matt
What exactly did Peter Gleick uncover in these documents? I know FAIR is trying to point out the hypocrisy of the corpress, and the story as written does a good job pointing this out. Still I’m curious to learn what Gleick discovered. Maybe I missed it.?
Rob
Matt said… “Still I’m curious to learn what Gleick discovered.”
You should follow the DeepClimate link included in the body of the blog.
Neal J. King
Probably Gleick would have done better to boldly state his method of obtaining the documents at the original time of release, instead of hiding out for a week. Then he could have made the case for necessity by himself upfront, instead of looking for justification later.
If you have to grasp a nettle, grasp it firmly.
Steven Sullivan
Heartland conducts no scientific research of its own; it merely hires mouthpieces like Pat Michaels to concoct and convey a distorted and disingenuous version of the science to Congress. What the uncontested documents from Gleick’s work show is that Heartland is committed to sowing doubt about mainstream climate science at the highest and lowest levels, not only through endless ‘think tank’ pieces that can be quoted by the George Wills and Rick Santorums and Newt Gingrichs (who like much of the GOP, was ‘for’ Anthropogenic Global Warming before he was against it), but through promoting curriculum materials that pretend to offer ‘balance’ to schoolchildren. It’s the same thing the Discovery Institute and its ilk does for evolution. The creationists do have one advantage — it’s hard to build a amusement park around AGW denial (needs more dinosaurs).
michael e
The whole “science” that was steam rolling along on global warming took a healthy kick in the balls and Im feeling your pain at trying to get your steamroller up and running again.But you elitism is showing.Your -Im the smartest guy in the room temperament indicates that anyone who does not buy into it must be science deniers or motivated by corruption.You really are not capable of seeing that people are not buying into you view point,without minimizing those people.Typical really.Dems always state what they believe…try to put up what they consider evidence, then freak out when people don’t buy into it.
Patrick Lockerby
Check out what Heartland Institute is saying about Peter Gleick, then check out how many of them jumped on the emails bandwagon.
The dictionaries need to be re-written:
hypocrite: anyone listed here –
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2011/11/22/heartland-institute-reacts-climategate-2-emails
Darren
The Earth has been warming & cooling for millions of years, but this time it’s all caused by Man? Where’s your hard evidence?
There is evidence of changes in the Sun’s output changing our climate. From NASA:
Glaciers, Old Masters, and Galileo: The Puzzle of the Chilly 17th Century
“After Galileo’s popularization of the telescope in 1609, he and several other early astronomers soon observed and studied dark spots on the Sun. These “sunspots” cycled over a period of about 11 years, as they do today (Figure 2), but after 1645, prominent sunspots almost totally vanished. They reappeared around 1715, and the sunspot cycle has been present ever since. The decades with almost no sunspots is now called the Maunder Minimum. Modern measurements have confirmed the early assumption that the number of sunspots is related to the total brightness of the Sun.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
ligne
shorter Darren: fires have been happening naturally for millenia. ergo arson is impossible.
michael e
Darren stop talking sense .No other assumptions other than man made climate change will be accepted on this sight.Actually lets narrow that down to American man made!It has been theorized that one sunspot can change the earths weather more than all of mans contributions since our arrival on this planet.Oh well Im in Minnesota right now and i am wishing for a little Global warming.The other night was like 13 degrees.
Michael A. Hole
Everybody knows global warming isn’t happening because it was cold in Minnesota last night…….and Al Gore is fat.
john
“It has been theorized that one sunspot can change the earths weather more than all of mans contributions since our arrival on this planet.”
____________________________________________________
Yes. And it has been theorized and tested, repeatedly, that human-made greenhouse gas emissions affect the planet’s climate.
michael e
John and michael I will say it again.We the people are not buying it(your science of consensus ).But It is ok right that not everyone is running along lockstep yelling the sky is falling, and please lord Obama save us all right?
And it was friggin cold in Minn and you can bet your booty no global warming symposiums will be held here.They will probably be in Needles Arizona in july.
And yes Al Gore is heavy i suppose(have not seen him in quite some time)Doesn’t he have his assault charges coming up soon on the court docket(that crazy Clinton Gore ticket)?And didn’t he just move into that 5 million dollar home 15 feet from the surf that he said would be at this point under water due to global warming?The first green billionaire……HA
john
@michael e: I don’t care if “we the people” aren’t buying it. The populace’s thoughts about what is scientific fact and what ain’t should not trump what the scientific community says. Alert me when the majority of climate scientists change their minds about it.
Common sense once told everybody that the sun revolved around the earth. It took a scientist to point out the problem with it.
michael e
John what we the people are not buying is that this science is closed.That is absolutely incorrect.The models have not be proven, only theorized.And there are other theories out there.Although there is a consensus(not science)among scientists that man may be having some effect on the worlds weather,it is a huge leap to say there is any “consensus”about what to do about it even if there be any truth to it.So the time for the left to get their grubby little hands on the engines of this economy has not yet arrived.You will not be using this postulate any time soon.Remember the game SORRY.Well im ringing the bell and yelling SORRY!!!!
Richard Lee Dechert
Per a 2/28/12 report published in the Guardian UK, “Tom Harris, a featured expert at the Heartland Institute . . . taught a course at . . . Ottawa’s Carleton University . . . that contained more than 140 false, biased and misleading claims about climate science, an expert audit has found. . . . Heartland’s core mission is to discredit climate change, and it is currently moving into the education realm. It plans to spend $100,000 on a project countering established teaching of climate change to American school children. . . .” See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/28/heartland-associate-climate-scepticism-ottawa-university. Another “featured expert at the Heartland Institute” is so-called Lord Moncton who has been ordered by the British House of Lords not to use that title, is not a scientist and has been discredited by a number of investigations, including those cited in Skeptical Science at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php. Note also the 173 “Global Warming & Climate Change Myths,” many of which have been misused by Harris and Moncton along with “michael e.,” “Darren” and “Tressco” above. Is that why they’ve declined to reveal their real names?
Whatever their names or titles are, in light of the ecocidal damage human-induced global warming is doing to our planet and its speciesâ┚¬”Âincluding the nearly extinct northwestern Moose in “michael e.’s” Minnesotaâ┚¬”Âtheir pathological behavior is indeed tantamount to criminal behavior.
john
@michael e: I’ll grant you that the science can never be closed. But I don’t understand what you mean by “the models have not been proven, only theorized.”
First off, numerous climate studies using computer climate models have all shown climate change due to human-sourced greenhouse gases. These studies are remarkably consistent with one another and they track and/or predict observed climate data relatively well. They ain’t perfect and the deniers like to point that out: “You can’t believe this guy’s work because the climate model he used was off when you compare its predictions to recorded climate data.” This gets a lot of play in the public mind, but it shouldn’t be enough to dismiss all the studies– they stand up to peer-review quite well.
Second, it’s incredibly disingenuous and illogical to point out that climate models are only theorized while simultaneously touting sunspot theories that are even less-understood. Same thing goes for ice age wobble hypotheses and several of the other canards the deniers like to trot out. “Don’t believe that humans are causing climate change because the climate has been changing for millenia due to, or not due to, some other natural phenomena that is barely understood. Never mind that human-sourced greenhouse gases and their effects have been well-researched for at least 30 years now– ignore all that data and analysis over there in favor of this theory of mine that is even less analyzed and has almost no data because nobody understands it enough to even come up with a coherent hypothesis.” For the life of me, I can’t see why anybody buys that.
I don’t have the answers for what to do about climate change. Neither do many climate scientists. Some do have proposed solutions, but others are simply reporting what they find in their work– leave the solutions to the applied scientists and politicians. I don’t advocate any radical change to the economy in response to climate change. Some do, but I don’t. Like it or not, the economic, societal, and other impacts of any proposal oughta be considered. We could stop all greenhouse emissions tomorrow if we wanted, but the devastation wouldn’t be worth it. But just because you don’t want the devastating solution doesn’t mean you get to disbelieve the underlying science. There are lots of valid reasons to not mandate seatbelt use, despite the mountains of evidence that prove that seatbelts increase safety: infringement on personal freedom; don’t want to divert police resources to enforcement, etc. However, it is NOT a valid reason to simply say that the mountains of evidence on seatbelt use and safety don’t say what they purport to say.
Golden Gopher
January was the 4th consecutive month with significantly above normal temperatures across Minnesota, making the October (2011) through January (2012) period one of the warmest in state history.
On February 1 the City of Minneapolis hosted a meeting to discuss climate change and human health impacts at the Minneapolis Central Library.
Richard Lee Dechert
My apology to Mr. Monckton for misspelling his name in my latest Reply.
TimN
Not surprisingly, the good old USA (“We’re number one!”) is the only country in the civilized world where global warming (like evolution) is “doubted” by the “mainstream.” We have, here, an entire battalion of ignorant dupes (see the posters/trolls above) who rain their fantastic nonsense and laughable bullshit down on good-natured folks who actually think that things like science and rationality matter. They don’t. It’s like trying to explain the concept of, say, something simple, like arithmetic. Do you think you can explain to a wall, or an old shoe, or a cat, or a piece of shale, the concept of “2+2 = 4?” You can’t. So the same for the Rightists.
When the old order finally croaks here, and the trolls and their apparatchiks finally get to put “liberals” and other nogoodniks in prison (no charges, no trial, no lawyer), I look forward to their excuses as to why all order must be violated. Like science, the law and democracy are just so much bunk.
michael e
Well ok John you buy the science.And it is a free country after all.I have no problem with that.Tim does have a problem with those who don’t buy into it.Click your finger along global warming hoax and there are endless articles and proofs.The left has taken the tact that any one( especially scientists) or voices against their template must be personally attacked to discredit them.Lord Monckton is just another on a long list.Well Im afraid for now I see it this way.Government needs to create fear so they can ride to the rescue and save us all.I think this is one of those times.They payed a card and its ripples will be felt for a long time.Their grab for power has been thwarted though.
Co2 even in high levels and warming is now being discussed by some scientists as a win win win for earth.This is what I mean by stating that this science is in it’s infancy.And no models contrary to what you stated have proven anything but a gradual warming since the last ice age.We now live in a time where we are to believe men who can predict climate change in the next 10-20 years but not 2 weeks from now are to be believed.last year was brutally cold in the east.This year very warm.The tornadoes and storms predicted 5 years ago have been stubborn in appearing where and when promised.Short term is not exact and their is less proof long term is.Im at least glad you agree that hands should not be put on the economy.Not in the seventies when the next ice age was forecast,and not now when the same group is saying the opposite.Of course I agree scientific study must go forward on all fronts with nothing left unchecked.And yes that means wether the cards land on one side or the other.
john
@michael e: Lord Monckton is not a scientist. He’s not a lord, either.
I see you’re trotting out the “climate models aren’t perfect” canard, too.
P. Ness
“We now live in a time where we are to believe men who can predict climate change in the next 10-20 years but not 2 weeks from now are to be believed”
I see someone is confusing weather with climate, again.
woodword burnstein
nasa.gov 1/30/2012
A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity — not changes in solar activity — are the primary force driving global warming.
The study offers an updated calculation of the Earth’s energy imbalance, the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth’s surface and the amount returned to space as heat. The researchers’ calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, led the research. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics published the study last December.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
michael e
Good article especially at the end W and B.It leads to one of the growing theories that man made particle distribution will eventually lead to a global cooling after the warming due to cloud formations.
P.s ness weather is the lifeblood of climate.One gives immediate results to hypothesis, one gives you years to be right…or wrong.You would not want to bet your government financed stipend on what you predict for next week would you?
John Lord M is NOT a lord.In fact no-one is.I use the title because he does,and to be civil.Just as in print I would use King and queen.In deference to others.Him..them…whomever.I live in a country that scoffs at such rot.Sir Paul McCartney…Pa lease.John would puke.As far as him being a scientist does that matter?Obama is not and certainly he would use it to control one sixth of our economy through carbon taxation.Monckton ihas been twice asked to testify before Congress as an expert on the available information as he has collated it.Again it is a free country and you are free to disregard his testimony due to his not holding a degree in the subject matter(if only we could do that with Obama on so many issues)Can you imagine if in our country everyone with strong opinions were told to stand down unless they held a degree on the subject matter?There goes the free press huh?And…….. the Congress is free to keep calling him I suppose to see what is lost in the overly political debate.
michael e
Oh and WB………increased sunspots has led to cooling periods as well as warming periods in earths history.The science is also in its infancy.The article seems to say it is always linked.Not so.I would hope the next government in charge not propose any cyclical changes in the output of economy to match the cyclical patterns of sun spot activity.
Richard Lee Dechert
It seems clear to me that “michael e.’s” denial of human-induced global warming and its ecocidal impacts on our planet is so delusional and paranoidal that he’s unable to rationally discuss it or support government efforts to control it. And he’s unable to accept the fact that Mr. Monckton has been officially and publicly ordered by the British Parliament to cease and desist in using the title “Lord” or claiming he’s a member of the House of Lords, and that several investigations have shown he repeatedly uses fraudulent information to deny the warming and its impacts. Sadly, “michael e.” is modeling his pathological behavior. Even more sadly, the fossil-fuel funded Heartland Institute employs “Lord Christopher Monckton” as a “Heartland Expert.”
michael e
No Rich I simply understand Liberal mentality.Show me anyone who has ever hurt their template and I will show you someone they personally attack.Fraudulent info?Don’t make me laugh.Some of the top global warming people have freely admitted to “cooking the books”.How about IT’S lead spokesmen Al Gore.Shown to be a fraud on so many levels ,if not guilty of assault..Clinton…. was damn near ordered to cease and desist using the term president- for lying to congress,and the American people.Does that discredit all he said or has done?As far as the heartland institute calling him an expert ,well i can’t say much about them.I do know the freely elected Congress of the united States has called him as such 3x.Once blocked by the left who called him a “very dangerous man to their legislative goals.”As far as a denier of human induced global warming?That is going a bit far.I don’t think the way up to now the left has positioned/used, and even influenced the scientific debate with an agenda in mind -is the way things should be done.Thanks to the stellar work done by those who saw the hoax being perpetrated we are able to go back to the scientific drawing board.It left us able to lessen”government efforts to control”anything ….till we are far more sure of the data.
john
michael e wrote: Some of the top global warming people have freely admitted to “cooking the books”.
_________________________________________________
That’s not what happened. None of the scientists who you say cooked the books did anything intellectually dishonest or did anything that undermined the reasonable certainty in the scientific conclusions they reached. As a self-professed man of science, you should know that. Throwing around charges like cooking the books is awfully imprecise and biased. You like to accuse the climate science community of being too sloppy and biased– but it’s apparently OK when you do it.
Lord Monckton is a lot of things, but he is not a scientist. You said he was. You were wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
woodword burnstein
a warming skeptic who is funded in part by the koch brothers revisited the data from ipcc and others and said it was correct….
Last summer, when called before a congressional panel that has been skeptical of climate research, Richard Muller acknowledged that his team was finding no smoking gun to indict climate scientists.
At the time, Muller told the House Science Committee that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent …. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”
woodword burnstein
here’s just one of dozens of examples of how monckton “cooks the books”
[this one is from misleading testimony he gave before the u.s. congress..]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/is_arctic_sea_ice_just_fine.html
Doug Latimer
Looks like my comment from a month back has gone missing.
I believe this is the gist of it:
What’s unethical about using subterfuge to expose criminal behavior? And what else would you call lying and manipulation regarding a matter of life and death?