Activist Says Heartland Climate Papers Obtained by Deceit
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/earth/activist-says-heartland-climate-papers-obtained-by-deceit.html?ref=earth
Dr. Peter H. Geick, a prominent activist, blogger, and
environmental researcher from CA, recently admitted to distributing illegally
obtained materials from the Heartland Institute. The Chicago-based institute is a libertarian
group that has questioned the reality of global warming, and Dr. Geick admitted
to posing as someone else to get materials that included fundraising strategy
documents intended only for the board and top executives. The founder and president of the Pacific
Instituted for Studies in Development, Environment and Security then proceeded
to distribute said documents to several well-known bloggers and activists who “support
the work of mainstream climate scientists and who have denounced the Heartland
Institute as a center of climate change denial.” Dr. Geick, a MacArthur “genius” grant
recipient, reflected that his “judgment was blinded by [his] frustration with the
ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated—to attack climate
science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency
of the organizations involved. Nevertheless,”
he concluded, he “deeply regrets [his] own actions in this case.”
While we are probably all familiar with the adage, ‘two
wrongs don’t make a right,’ this raises the question about resorting to
underhanded means to subvert the so-called ‘bad guy.’ We must also wonder if some activists feel as
if they have no other choice but to undermine the law in order to achieve any
sort of momentum. Certainly a society
cannot function if everyone were to break the law anytime they wanted to
advance their personal cause, but should we wonder if the system that drives
people to such lengths is not also at fault?
It is also curious to think about how global warming—something that
seems like it would be rooted in scientific data—is open to much debate, and to
consider what interest groups have to gain from either promoting or denying its
existence.
This is a very unfortunate scenario because it invites more skepticism surrounding the "scientific" debate on climate change. The debate is polluted by politics from both sides and it is very unclear where the truth lies within the issue. The public deserves to know the truth about scientific evidence and more transparency is necessary, otherwise I feel like the public is being deceived by the richest scientist with the top political agenda.
ReplyDeleteI think this relates to similar scenarios where locals have evidence of environmental degradation, contaminated water, and pollution (as seen in the video we watched in class about the trial), but the large corporations or governments are able to derail this evidence. The imposition of politics on science pollutes the scientific community and invites conflicting interests to shape the work of scientists. I wholeheartedly agree that the "system that drives people to such lengths" is also at fault. But I'm not sure how to solve the problem because scientists depend on funding from outside sources for their ongoing research, and often these donors have nonscientific agendas.
I understand Dr. Geick's frustration, but I think he is in the wrong here. Although I think in some situations, "the system" driving people to break the law is legitimate. For instance if your family is starving and you steal a piece of food to feed them, some would argue it is a basic human right to live and you need food and so taking that bread to feed your family is just. What this PhD did, in the long term, is so much worse than the effect of just a few climate change skeptics. Dr. Geick's basic human rights were not in violation, he was simply frustrated that someone else held a different opinion.
ReplyDeleteClimate change science should be able to speak for itself. Ignoring skeptics and continuing on doing good scientific research is the only course of action that will make a difference. Stealing and using deceit against climate change skeptics only adds flames to the fire, and gives skeptics another reason to think scientists are shady. There is plenty of funding for climate change science, look to the EPA and the NSF. Maybe I'm too close to the situation, but I feel like climate change skeptics are the outliers and giving them attention just makes the situation worse. I think scientists should focus on collecting convincing evidence of climate change's effects, and let the politics sort themselves out.