Grist on Gleick: ‘Hero or Moron?’

To give you an idea of how the greens view Gleick, they slammed Andy Revkin for “judginess.”

Grist reports:

…Steve Zwick, the managing editor of Ecosystem Marketplace, called Gleick “a good man, frustrated by years of obfuscation and distortion” and said “he puts truth above self-interest.” At DeSmogBlog, which published the Heartland documents, Richard Littlemore called him a whistleblower (a term generally reserved for someone working within an organization who brings wrongdoing to light). Littlemore writes:

“Whistleblowers [like Gleick] deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large… Gleick took a significant personal risk — and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.”

And Scott Mandia, a climate scientist who co-founded the Climate Scientist Rapid Response Team, wrote that Gleick “is the hero and Heartland remains the villain.”

Many of the negative comments on Gleick’s actions sounded a note of disappointment. The argument here is that he’s screwed up by giving climate deniers a inch of moral ground to stand on.

Among these commenters, Andrew Revkin wins for sheer judginess. He wrote that this is

“an act that leaves [Gleick’s] reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing…Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. … That is his personal tragedy and shame.”

Judith Curry, a professor at Georgia institute of Technology, who’s been critical of the IPCC’s climate work and has engaged with deniers, wrote: “The end result of Gleick’s actions are to cede the high ground to Heartland”…

Naomi Klein compared the Heartland email incident to Heartland’s favorite hobbyhorse, Climategate: “Still waiting 4 whoever stole thousands of emails from climate scientists 2 show an ounce of Peter Gleick’s honesty.” Michael Noble, who directs an energy think tank, wrote that he “will watch ethical debate of 1 moral misstep vs. cottage industry of deception.” And science writer John Rennie pointed out that Gleick’s action will skew the moral clarity of the climate debate only if it’s allowed to. “Rational climate debate derailed by Gleick only if we decide to treat his misdeeds as more important than Heartland’s,” he wrote. [Emphasis added]

Read the entire report.

6 thoughts on “Grist on Gleick: ‘Hero or Moron?’”

  1. “The end result of Gleick’s actions are to cede the high ground to Heartland”…

    actually he put Heartland on top of the turnbuckle with a “legal” folding chair … soon to be slammed across his spinless back …

  2. You’re either with the Greens or you’re against them. I liked Bush’s version better. It was more target specific and limited in nature not to mention justified and doable. Schadenfreude fun watching them disintegrate in degrees of radicalism while grasping at the straw of consensus.

  3. It is not important what the greenies think, it is important what the general public thinks. Gleick is not a whistle-blower – he didn’t work at Heartland…yikes! He also fabricated a document…
    Climate Gate, on the other hand, was an inside job and the “stuff” was put on a Russian server. It also revealed data falsification. Looks like the AGW mob is slowly sinking into the La Brea Tar Pits.

  4. In response to Andrew Revkin: Gleick’s use of deception is nothing new for the AGW mob. They have been faking data from the get-go. Climate gate proved that. Just more of the same.
    The so-called scientists professing AGW need to read Feynman’s words on the scientific method – in case they didn’t learn about it in HS.

  5. This is a classic quote from climate alarmist Stanford Prof. Stephen Schneider it is all right to lie to promote your ideas. Could this thinking be behind Gleick’s actions

    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. 45-48.

Comments are closed.