Warmist Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski presents today a story on Peter Gleick’s Fakegate scandal and on what it means. In a nutshell: climate science is far from settled and there is a bitter war waging between the skeptics and alarmists. Consensus does not exist!
Spiegel writes at the top of its report in bold print that the documents, which were intended to discredit the Heartland Institute:
…ended up disgracing the person revealing them.” Renowned climate scientist Peter Gleick using a fake name, succeeded in obtaining documents from a lobby group. He led a group on scientific ethics.”
Here Spiegel’s juxtaposition of Gleick’s seedy behaviour and his leadership of a group on ethics could not be more profound. Spiegel mentions that the bitter conflict between the skeptics and alarmists has been raging for 20 years (there never ever was a consensus).
Slowly one gets the feeling that the influential Spiegel is getting tired of the warmists obvious shenanigans and deception, and are not letting it go unnoticed, as much of the media are doing.
Even Spiegel seems to be going skeptic (at times). Get a load of this statement in the article (emphasis added):
The UN climate report, which is summarized every few years with the involvement of hundreds of scientists, comes to worrisome conclusions. However, the environment comprising air and earth is so complex that there are still huge gaps of knowledge – and they provide the fuel for fierce debate.”
So much for settled science. Bojanowski, a journalist who has written some of the warmist of articles in the past, doesn’t seem to believe in settled science anymore.
Spiegel explains how Gleick obtained the documents and how they were published by Desmogblog, and informs readers that “a simple apology will not suffice” and that Heartland is “demanding a complete clarification” from Gleick and that “legal consequences will follow”and that the integrity of many members and the reputation of the institute were damaged.
Spiegel goes into Gleick’s “downfall” – from being a leader of an ethics workgroup for the renowned American Geophysical Union (AGU) – to now reaping the outrage from Mark Fennel of the AAAS, and how Kevin Knobloch of the Union of Concerned Scientists has distanced himself from Gleick.
As the war between skeptics and alarmists intensifies in bitterness, Spiegel concludes with the following observation:
The recent affair fully confirms that the complexity of the climate topic is presenting challenges that are simply too much for the public debate to handle. Even intelligent scientists like Peter Gleick can lose their rationality.”
Indeed the science is complex and far from being settled. But we should remind Spiegel why intelligent scientists lose their rationality in the first place. It has something to do with the quality of their arguments and their failure to convince.