George Rebane
Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security adopts a line of argument that has become peculiar to the adherents, promoters, and careerists of man-made global warming or AGW (anthropogenic global warming). He has written a report that portends the risks of given sea level rises, and at the same time denies the role of a prognosticator and calamatist when presented with the analysis of the data which contradicts his ‘conclusions’. How does he do this?
Well, it’s really easy you see. All you have to do is to claim that you caressed another person’s crystal ball (aka climate model) to yield the answers that you reported. And if these answers and their broader effects can be taken to task, then you duck behind the excuse that you were only the user of a crystal ball, the innards about which you were ignorant. Not only ignorant, but you were not responsible for how the device was cobbled together in the first place, and whether it really worked or not – you just had the ‘borry of it’ for a while.
But the answers you ginned up with the other guy’s crystal ball would cause the reader of your report to get more than a little worried about the future of the world. And, of course, that’s what you’re counting on. But if someone comes along and looks behind the curtain to point out that the crystal ball has a crack in it, you raise your hands in innocent surprise and say, ‘Well sonuvagun, that’s not really my concern. All I did was to use the damn thing to get some answers, and report that ****IF**** the crystal ball worked correctly, then these answers would be useful. But if you the reader are not smart enough to pick out the little ****IF**** that qualifies my conclusions, and if you don’t understand how such crystal balls (don’t) work, then that’s not my concern either.’
Dr. Gleick asks Russ Steele in this comment thread on NC MediaWatch to go argue with the crystal ball makers, and not criticize his published conclusions about the potential harm from the untenable future sea levels in his report. Now there’s a scientist taking responsibility for throwing some gasoline on the fire and then ducking the consequences.
The careful reader will also notice that in the same thread Dr. Gleick preferred to overlook my response to his error filled critique of my sea level data analysis showing that the levels were not rising during the last ten to fifteen years. On the contrary, a case can be made that sea levels have gone down during that interval. All in all, it’s a good example of how politics has trumped science, and the agenda of global wealth redistribution is going forward on schedule. [5apr09 update] Dr. Gleick responds in a scathing comment and advances our relationship to a first name basis. I offer my own corrective.
