Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists

“Scientist Peter Gleick apologises for ‘serious lapse in judgment and ethics’, but supporters say Heartland remains the villain.”

The Guardian reports:

For some campaigners, such as Naomi Klein, Gleick was an unalloyed hero, who should be sent some “Twitter love”, she wrote on Tuesday.

“Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years,” wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. “They also subvert the education of our schoolchildren by trying to ‘teach the controversy’ where none exists.”

Mandia went on: “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.

Others acknowledged Gleick’s wrongdoing, but said it should be viewed in the context of the work of Heartland and other entities devoted to spreading disinformation about science.

“What Peter Gleick did was unethical. He acknowledges that from a point of view of professional ethics there is no defending those actions,” said Dale Jamieson, an expert on ethics who heads the environmental studies programme at New York University. “But relative to what has been going on on the climate denial side this is a fairly small breach of ethics.”

He also rejected the suggestion that Gleick’s wrongdoing could hurt the cause of climate change, or undermine the credibility of scientists.

“Whatever moral high ground there is in science comes from doing science,” he said. “The failing that Peter Gleick engaged in is not a scientific failing. It is just a personal failure“… [Emphasis added]

Read the entire report.

4 thoughts on “Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists”

  1. This remark by the late Stephen Schneider and CAGW hero may have inspired Peter Gleick. I has other advocates of CAGW.

    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
    and make little mention of any doubts we might have.This “double ethical bind”
    which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of
    us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being
    honest. I hope that means being both.” Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45

  2. Clip’s worth a look folks.

    Warmist: So, what Dr. Peter said we know are lies, but we believe that the lies might be necessary, so we will repeat the lies as if they are true (and we really, really hope that they are true lies). And Peter is a hero for putting those necessary lies out there. Hooray for Peter!

    I believe that about sums it up.

  3. There must be quite a lot of AGW moderates getting uneasy about the side they’re on. They can only persuade themselves that their side is rational and honourable while nothing much controversial happens. Now things are in crisis and the true natures of the radical members are showing themselves clearly. A bit like finding out a nice safe animal rescue charity is actually the ALF.

    It made me think of this clip.

  4. “But relative to what has been going on on the climate denial side this is a fairly small breach of ethics.”

    A little “relative” comparison: ClimateGate redacted EMails vs GleickGate unredacted fraudmemo; comparison of IPCC models vs measured satellite temperatures; the trick of “hide the decline” vs historical records of the Little Ice Age; missing Hot Spot; etc… These really ought to be sufficient to instruct people which “side” is relying on fraudulent behavior and propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.