Cue the "abyss staring back" and "ends justify the means" soul-searching on the case of
HuffPo's Peter Gleick admitting to less than forthright methods to obtaining the right's game plan on pushing climate change denial in schools.
At
the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail
describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's
climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders
and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about
climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original
document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with
Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential
impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information
in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my
own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received
additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone
else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed
many of the facts in the original document, including especially their
2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the
documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on
climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland
Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the
documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations
of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the
original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the
substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing
so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and
risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly
disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My
judgment was blinded by my 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 I deeply regret my own
actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those
affected.
Of course,
pearls a-clutch'd at the Gray Lady, Andrew Revkin:
One
way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause
after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his
credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain
information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate
fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure
devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).
The broader
tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with
Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the
“rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately
needed.
Let's keep in mind that the far
broader
tragedy is that the lack of "rational public debate" with the climate
change denial side existed for years before Gleick, with a massive,
multi-billion dollar effort to convince the world that setting the place
on fire is fine and that science itself is suspect. As bad as Gleick's
admitted actions are, he'll face the consequences for it. He's owned
up to what he's done and is now presumably ready to deal with the
results of his actions.
That's far more than I can say for the
folks who are trying to push ignorance and cynicism as "critical
thinking in the classroom." Sadly, the result of this will be the right
yelling PETER GLEICK ARGUMENT OVER WE WIN as victory shorthand at every
climatologist, published paper, data compilation, graph, chart,
scientific conference, public testimony and collected journal showing of
the slow demise of our environment, so in that respect Revkin is at
least somewhat correct.
The effort to paint Gleick's misconduct as
ultimately damning the entire preponderance of evidence in favor of
man-made climate change will be overwhelming in the days and months
ahead. What Gleick did does not "call into question the validity of the
science" no matter how badly the deniers want to think it magically
does, any more than the "Climategate" emails did last year. Resistance
to such an effort has to begin here and now. Journalists who should
know better however will probably not be able to resist the temptation.
What Gleick did was wrong,
but it doesn't make the deniers right.