Hat etwas von einer klassischen griechischen Tragödie. Zitat Wikipedia: Das Schicksal oder die Götter bringen den Akteur in eine unauflösliche Situation, den für die griechische Tragödie typischen Konflikt, welcher den inneren und äußeren Zusammenbruch einer Person zur Folge hat. Hm, die Götter wird Gleick nicht verantwortlich machen können, der Rest passt aber ganz gut.
Oder doch eher Dostojewskis Schuld und Sühne?
Egal, jedenfalls hat A.Revkin sehr gute Worte gefunden: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
Now he has admitted that he anonymously distributed a heartland strategy document that allegedly proves the meddling of heartland in climate school education.
This looks similar to the making of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', faked by the Czarist Russian Secret Service, and still popular today.
In my view there is a tragic misunderstanding of the political process which makes these guys look so bad. They assume that the media and the education system are decisive drivers for [........ fill in your favourite -- let's say climate policy, environmental protection]. So they get hung up about every detail of climate science in the wrong belief that it is these details that will win pubic support. They already had public support, even in the US, even at a time when the press practised the much quoted "balanced reporting" (ironically, support went down after the press came out more on the alarmist side after 2005). It remains to be seen how long climate change enjoys such high levels of public support if blunders like this (and CRU) happen regularly.
Regarding the school curriculum and climate change in education Gleick (and others) haven taken the sceptical bait about "climate science is controversial" and "CO2 is not a pollutant".
It is of course beyond dispute that we see warming and that part of it is man made. But attacking the statement as such is silly, because there are many uncertainties and controversies in climate science.
Likewise, CO2 is not a pollutant as such. There is no short right answer to this. Note that the statement does not say "CO2 does not warm the atmosphere" but the reaction seems to be same. Why this stubbornness? Look at the politics of the US where Obama in his desperation has opted to regulate CO2 under an EPA provision which allowed him to take action. Not a wise move, but topped by scientists who claim that CO2 is a pollutant.
In their drive to discredit opponents, they have planted the meme of "anti-science", also on this blog. Again, this is not a good term to describe what is going on. "Anti-science" are positions that oppose rational explanations and embrace some kind of spiritual advice (ironically many people of this persuasion are very concerned about climate change). What we see with sceptical outlets is a stubborn fight for the details of scientific details, a trait they share with activist scientists such as Gleick. Sceptics cannot be described as "anti-science", perhaps "against the mainstream of climate science" or some such, but not anti-science. Again, misrepresenting evidence will not help their cause. But I guess they do not want to hear about this and prefer to dwell on the evil intentions of their detractors.
Please stick to the facts. In the document, that must not be named and linked ;-), you can read that Dr. Wojcick should develop modules, which should teach, that human influence on climate is controversial.
Yes, if you are right with "It is of course beyond dispute that we see warming and that part of it is man made. But attacking the statement as such is silly, because there are many uncertainties and controversies in climate science.", you could raise your eyebrows, too. For a genuine scientific position there's plenty of uncertainties to discuss, but this special item doesn't belong to.
Next point: If CO2 is a pollutant or not, is not a scientific question. Yes, of course it's a political question, because this assertion would allow EPA to take action.
Put together all pieces and you can see clearly, that Heartland works like a merchant of doubt and tries to politicize the teaching of science.
And if you take a look into the NIPCC report, you can adopt v. Storch's critic of Vahrenholt on this piece of BS.
Do you actually think, that Heartland has ever been engaged in a genuine good-faith effort to improve the quality of public understanding of climate science? And if not: Do you have a better word than "pseudoscience"?
Andreas it is a category error to judge the Heartland Institute in this way. It is a lobby organization whose influence is vastly overestimated by scientists like Gleick.
Here is a very good piece explaining the problems (and failures) of climate scientists from a similar perspective as mine (h/t Roger)
Hat etwas von einer klassischen griechischen Tragödie. Zitat Wikipedia: Das Schicksal oder die Götter bringen den Akteur in eine unauflösliche Situation, den für die griechische Tragödie typischen Konflikt, welcher den inneren und äußeren Zusammenbruch einer Person zur Folge hat.
ReplyDeleteHm, die Götter wird Gleick nicht verantwortlich machen können, der Rest passt aber ganz gut.
Oder doch eher Dostojewskis Schuld und Sühne?
Egal, jedenfalls hat A.Revkin sehr gute Worte gefunden: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
Andreas
OK, it was Gleick.
ReplyDeleteCan it be by pure coincidence that the faked Heartland strategy paper was on education issues?
Gleick was recently appointed to the board of the National Center for Science Education to help fight sceptical views expressed by school teachers:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/education-advocates-enter-the.html?ref=hp
Now he has admitted that he anonymously distributed a heartland strategy document that allegedly proves the meddling of heartland in climate school education.
This looks similar to the making of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', faked by the Czarist Russian Secret Service, and still popular today.
In my view there is a tragic misunderstanding of the political process which makes these guys look so bad. They assume that the media and the education system are decisive drivers for [........ fill in your favourite -- let's say climate policy, environmental protection]. So they get hung up about every detail of climate science in the wrong belief that it is these details that will win pubic support. They already had public support, even in the US, even at a time when the press practised the much quoted "balanced reporting" (ironically, support went down after the press came out more on the alarmist side after 2005). It remains to be seen how long climate change enjoys such high levels of public support if blunders like this (and CRU) happen regularly.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the school curriculum and climate change in education Gleick (and others) haven taken the sceptical bait about "climate science is controversial" and "CO2 is not a pollutant".
It is of course beyond dispute that we see warming and that part of it is man made. But attacking the statement as such is silly, because there are many uncertainties and controversies in climate science.
Likewise, CO2 is not a pollutant as such. There is no short right answer to this. Note that the statement does not say "CO2 does not warm the atmosphere" but the reaction seems to be same. Why this stubbornness? Look at the politics of the US where Obama in his desperation has opted to regulate CO2 under an EPA provision which allowed him to take action. Not a wise move, but topped by scientists who claim that CO2 is a pollutant.
In their drive to discredit opponents, they have planted the meme of "anti-science", also on this blog. Again, this is not a good term to describe what is going on. "Anti-science" are positions that oppose rational explanations and embrace some kind of spiritual advice (ironically many people of this persuasion are very concerned about climate change). What we see with sceptical outlets is a stubborn fight for the details of scientific details, a trait they share with activist scientists such as Gleick. Sceptics cannot be described as "anti-science", perhaps "against the mainstream of climate science" or some such, but not anti-science. Again, misrepresenting evidence will not help their cause.
But I guess they do not want to hear about this and prefer to dwell on the evil intentions of their detractors.
Reiner
ReplyDeletePlease stick to the facts. In the document, that must not be named and linked ;-), you can read that Dr. Wojcick should develop modules, which should teach, that human influence on climate is controversial.
Yes, if you are right with
"It is of course beyond dispute that we see warming and that part of it is man made. But attacking the statement as such is silly, because there are many uncertainties and controversies in climate science.", you could raise your eyebrows, too. For a genuine scientific position there's plenty of uncertainties to discuss, but this special item doesn't belong to.
Next point: If CO2 is a pollutant or not, is not a scientific question. Yes, of course it's a political question, because this assertion would allow EPA to take action.
Put together all pieces and you can see clearly, that Heartland works like a merchant of doubt and tries to politicize the teaching of science.
And if you take a look into the NIPCC report, you can adopt v. Storch's critic of Vahrenholt on this piece of BS.
Do you actually think, that Heartland has ever been engaged in a genuine good-faith effort to improve the quality of public understanding of climate science?
And if not: Do you have a better word than "pseudoscience"?
Andreas
Andreas
ReplyDeleteit is a category error to judge the Heartland Institute in this way. It is a lobby organization whose influence is vastly overestimated by scientists like Gleick.
Here is a very good piece explaining the problems (and failures) of climate scientists from a similar perspective as mine (h/t Roger)
@Reiner
ReplyDeleteGood video.
The last link does not work for me.
Georg
ReplyDeletetry again
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2010/03/chill_out.html
The Columbia Journalism Review has a discussion of legal and ethical aspects of Gleick's trickery.
ReplyDeleteI am posting here as the other thread seems to overflow.