WashPost editor: Gleick ‘odious’

Yet skeptics still get slammed as childish scoundrels.

About Peter Gleick, Washington Post deputy opinion page editor Stephen Stromberg writes:

Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents…

It’s very tempting for scientists and their allies to employ to tactics of their over-aggressive critics.

Even if manipulative tactics and messaging were a more effective way to advance the fight against global warming, the inherent dishonesty of such a campaign should be odious to anyone who claims to prize substantive evidence over political positioning, particularly as one advocates imposing costs across human society…

Taking the high road is not easy or fun. But Gleick and the rest of us who favor decarbonizing the world economy have to be, and should want to be, the adults in the debate…

Read the entire commentary.

11 thoughts on “WashPost editor: Gleick ‘odious’”

  1. Something that both the “odious” Gleick’s enablers at the Post and throughout AGWdom, as well as non-cult realists seem to be ignoring is the really interesting legal issue: Did Gleick commit a crime?

    “Wire Fraud
    18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]..”

    “There are three elements to mail and wire fraud:
    1.Intent;
    2.A “scheme or artifice to defraud” or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
    3.A mail or wire communication.[5]

    To be fraudulent, a misrepresentation must be material.[6]”

    From the details made public so far, sure sounds like Dr Gleick’s little scam had all three elements.

    Now is the time to support proper legal remedies, criminal and civil. These scoundrels think they’ve been playing a funny little game. Time for the big boys to step in.

  2. The “alleged” adults in the room have to admit that their theory is a fraud, apologize to the REAL SCIENTISTS and beg them to allow these frauds back in the building.

  3. Where advocates say they want to “Decarbonize the world” that’s a kind of confused shorthand for sourcing energy from non-fossil fuel sources, although they apparently have no clue how to actually achieve that – it’s just “necessary”.

  4. Steve, when you say “decarbonizing the world”, are you talking about dirty soot, or are you talking about CO2? If it’s soot you want to get rid of, none of us so-called “deniers” would argue with you. In fact, you have our support. But if you are talking about CO2, the colorless, odorless trace gas without which there would be no life on this planet, we “deniers” will most strenuously fight you. No one denies that the climate changes. It has for billions of years. But to believe man-kind, with his tiny addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (CO2 output from active volcanoes, rotting vegetation and other natural phenomena far surpasses man’s contribution), with absolutely no empirical proof, only computer models, to support your belief, is beyond comprehension. And to try to destroy the economy of the industrial world, and deny poorer nations the benefits of a higher standard of living, based on those models, is immoral, if not criminal.

  5. “Taking the high road is not easy or fun.”

    Unless one is outside of the herd. I would suggest trying it sometime Mr Stromberg.

  6. “Climate scientists must be better than their opponents…”

    Umm, their opponents ARE climate scientists! This is not a religion, where opposition makes one an atheist.

  7. “Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank.”

    Let me translate. “Obnoxious” means effective.

    “Anti-climate science” means “anti- anti-capitalists masquerading as
    scientists.”

  8. Mr Stephen Stromberg, you say…..”should want to be, the adults in the debate”.

    Do you think it’s adult like to use the phrase word “denier”? Hey, we have a “no tolerance bullying rule” in my school.

    You write as if you have some degree of intelligence – then you throw out any value I can accredit you with. intelligence wise…with name calling. Surely, you want to rise above childlike – to “adult” status?

    I doubt you can even state what it is you think I “deny”, can you?
    But I can state what IPCC “denies” / limits…natural climatic cycles.

    You state: “favoring decarbonizing the world economy” – Kids want to know..how dumb are adults that use such terminology? Can you name a non-carbon reliable energy source – or a non-carbon product? Without energy – or produced products – you have… NO economy.

    The phrase is as useless as, “carbon neutrality”.
    As we say in the school yard – “You’ve been schooled”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.