An open letter to Peter Gleick following his admission of dishonesty and potential crime.
Dear Dr Gleick,
Your recent actions have caused a lot of anguish to those affected, however, I find to my own surprise that I am somewhat grateful to you. You see, your actions have confirmed the depths to which climate activism will stoop in its clamour for ‘the cause’.
Furthermore your own stance on integrity and scientific ethics now looks plainly to all like hypocrisy. Of course this is not entirely news to climate skeptics who have been able to see through your actions for some time, but it is quietly satisfying to know that your own hand has exposed your true nature to a wider audience.
Indeed your so-called apology, and the continued insistence by your supporters that your actions were justifiable given the ‘moral high ground’ of the climate issue you serve, only diminishes your cause further. It seems absurd that a scientist of your supposed standing can become so partisan. Such behaviour is the very antithesis of what is expected from one who upholds scientific methods.
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.
When you point a finger, look down at your hand; there are three pointing back at you.
Events this week have indeed shown how well-funded climate science and activism are in contrast to the paltry sums identified in support of skepticism. Does it not seem ironic that after years of ‘the science is settled’ from Al Gore that you are now calling for debate? When you say that skeptics seek to prevent debate, and I can read their own words to the contrary, it does you no favours. Again your words and actions elsewhere betray you.
Many of us have travelled from belief to scepticism and found our journey hastened by the very devices employed by you and your supporters. Your whole demeanour strengthens my resolve to continue in this debate. At least I am true to my scientific roots that require an open mind on scientific theories; nothing I have seen in IPCC reports, publications or blogs convinces me that the evidence for CAGW is overwhelming.
So I will keep on trying to understand and debate new evidence that arises on both sides of the climate debate. It amazes me that you can see that somehow as ‘antiscience’. If you see that as undermining climate science, I can only say your hypotheses must be built on very shaky foundations and I must add a vote of thanks that you have revealed now by your actions the desperation of those losing the battle for hearts and minds.