Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Noble Cause Corruption of Climate Professor Peter Gleick
johnosullivan

Climate activists apply a two-pronged damage limitation strategy after the FBI launches a probe of self-confessed global warming fraud conspirator, Dr. Peter Gleick.



Desperate mainstream media apologists of Professor Gleick’s misdeeds are hard at work papering over the cracks. Media enablers are portraying Gleick as a planet-saving hero while simultaneously mischaracterizing the real victims of the crime (the Heartland Institute) as a ‘well-funded climate denial machine.’ But all is not what it seems.



Anthony Cox succinctly exposes the immorality of the climate alarmist cult in his latest article, ‘Noble Cause Corruption: Global Warming?’ Cox eruditely dissects an attempt by one such apologist, Stephan Lewandowsky.



Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow and Winthrop Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia, seeks to justify the fraudulent procurement of confidential material from the Heartland Institute by Peter Gleick. But we find that Lewandowsky has form in whitewashing climate criminality in the UK’s pro-green The Guardian.

The Poisonous Propaganda that is Post-Normal Science

This moral malaise among senior scientists and science-focused media and education is concomitant with an insidious creep of post-normalism into our universities over a 50-year period. No less a figure than President Dwight D. Eisenhower forewarned of this impending cultural threat in 1961. Eisenhower foresaw the rise of corruption in the sciences (particularly the government-funded variant) that enables those in positions of power and prestige to maintain a stranglehold on funding and policy.



Cox conveys to readers that Lewandowsky spins a delusional mischaracterization of anyone who disagrees with the post-normal global warming narrative of ‘saving the planet.’ Lewandowsky sets the scene by regaling the ‘Mother Earth-saving’ achievements of Gleick:



Dr. Gleick is an internationally recognized water expert and was named a MacArthur Fellow in October 2003 for his work. In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a “visionary on the environment” by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 2006 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.”



Yet despite such credentials what Gleick did was lie, deceive, procure and publicly disseminate stolen private information; along with a fake document which he either created himself or knowingly used to injure those at the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank disagreeing with his viewpoint.

Pervasive Culture of Spin and Misanthropy

Cox puts into broader context how Gleick’s criminal mindset accords remarkably well with the corrupt methods of other ‘planet savers.’ We see a stark mismatch between the facts and the spin.



We should not be surprised about this line of ‘reasoning’ from Lewandowsky. The pro-AGW side has repeatedly indicated it is prepared to exaggerate, lie [see comment 246], break the law, oppose the democratic structure itself to ‘save the planet’ and be misanthropic. Lewandowsky and other pro-AGW advocates have indicated a willingness to censor and suppress ‘denier’ viewpoints; they have been prepared to hide their doubt about the ‘science’ supporting AGW in private while promoting the false idea that this ‘science’ is settled. The Climate-gate emails clearly show this,” says Cox.



Nailing the Three Big Lies of Climate Alarm


The Big Lies perpetrated by the Lewandowsky-Gleick set are that (a) the planet is dangerously warming (b) humans are primarily responsible (c) Hotbed of ‘denier propaganda’, the Heartland Institute is lavishly funded by ‘Big Oil.’


But all three points are readily discredited by the facts:

  1. Even NASA data confirms no warming since 1998 despite a considerable 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2;

  2. Leading analysts, 50 linked to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) disagree that humans can noticeably effect climate;

  3. Heartland Institute funding is microscopic compared to the huge sums doled out to the global warming industry (see Josh cartoon).


In Lewandowsky’s world those ‘well-funded’ and evil skeptics are akin to Nazis and his highly decorated ‘hero’ Peter Gleick performed a courageous raid on the planet’s ‘enemy.’


Alarmists will keep trying to make Heartland the story rather than Gleick. But Lewandowsky doesn’t tell his readers that Gleick pocketed $500,000 just for being a MacArthur Fellow – more a climate mercenary than a missionary some would say.


Lewandowsky, Gleick and the cabal of climate catastrophists are cavalier with the truth because they abide by the creed of post-normal science that Eisenhower warned us about.

Rise of a New Vanguard for Traditional Scientific Methods

What the free world is fast learning is that these post-normalists work hand in hand condoning and/or committing criminal acts to push through their political and social agenda by the vehicle of dishonest climate science.


What is also increasingly apparent is that the enablers of this worrying trend are ‘fifth columnists’ strategically placed in the upper echelons of select but sullied national science institutions and academies; a fact made increasingly apparent by certain high-profile protest resignations including one Nobel Prize winner.


As a reaction, freethinkers are busy creating an alternative - a science association extolling traditional methods.


It is the Gleicks and Lewandowskys who advance the post-normal ‘cause’ that Eisenhower warned us about; they are the real corrupters of freewill and free speech. And there is certainly nothing noble in their denial of truth.

****************************

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst & co-founder and coordinator of Principia Scientific International


"Even NASA data confirms no warming since 1998 despite a considerable 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2;"

Nonsense. GISS shows about .15C of warming during that period - a warming of about .011C/year. Your link did not show what it or you claimed. And there was no "30%" increase in atmospheric CO2 over that time frame. More like a 30ppmv increase (about 364ppmv to about 394ppmv), which comes to roughly an 8% increase in overall CO2. Why should I trust someone who can't do 5th grade math?

Rob,
You make a reasonable point. But only insofar as I should have been more precise and clarified that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010. That's according to the European Commission Joint Research Centre. Read more here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/21/kyoto-fail-co2-emissions-still-going-up/

Re: CO2 up 45 percent

Rob Murphy

2012-03-12 07:50 pm (UTC)

Yeah, but that takes the wind out of your original argument. For one thing, NASA data *did* show warming since 1998, as I pointed out. Two, CO2 concentrations went up almost 4 times less than you had erroneously claimed. You're batting zero.

Rob, that's delusional reasoning. My point stands firm - huge rise in CO2 levels alongside flatlining, then dropping temps since 2005 that are the coldest now in the last seventeen years. Game over for alarmists, based on their own rules. See here from 11-11-03:

"LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet."
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

"My point stands firm - huge rise in CO2 levels alongside flatlining"

1) An 8% CO2 increase isn't *huge*.
2) Temps didn't flatline. They went up about .15C. You said GISS showed no warming, but it clearly did. You said CO2 went up 40%, but oops, you failed 5th grade math and it was really 8%.

"then dropping temps since 2005 that are the coldest now in the last seventeen years"

Absolute nonsense. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (tied for warmest or second warmest), and 2011 were ALL warmer than any year before 1998. The top 12 warmest years have all occurred from '98 on. And do you not see the irony in posting a link to a study that says that you need a trend of at least 17 years in order to separate noise from signal, and *then* using one starting in 2005? Talk about delusional! Do you even read what you post?
From the article:

"Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,"

Yet, *you* think that cherry picking an even shorter period is better, and you post to a study that explicitly says you are wrong while doing it!

Slaying the sky dragon? Bwahahahaa! More like tilting at windmills.

"You said CO2 went up 40%"

That should be 30%, not 40%.

Rob,
You've totally missed the point. Apply Livermore's reasoning and see if you can determine any human signal of warming (let alone a 'catastrophic' warming) in the last 17 year's data. Flatlining noise is all you see. That's despite rapid rises in CO2. Where's the correlation of rising CO2 with rising temps? The facts prove your doomsaying theory busted. There's absolutely nothing at all unnatural about current temps.
Only fools are left cherry picking the short warming blip between 1975-98 and claiming dangerous man made warming.

Incredible..

You are viewing johnosullivan