Open Letter to Peter Gleick

Dear Peter: I hope you have received words of support and encouragement from those who know you well. The stress of these days must be enormous. I am sure that your recent ‘lapse of judgement’ as you have called it is but an anomaly in an otherwise distinguished career. We are all human and have suffered the consequences when our passions get the best of us. Your recent actions with respect to the Heartland Institute (HI) as I am sure you now realize were guided by your emotions and not the careful reason that you so diligently employed to obtain your many degrees. Our political views, when passionately held, can sometimes lead us down an incorrect path. We want to be right and are so convinced of the veracity of our position that we stop listening to contrary evidence. One way we can justify our rejection of new data or research  is to persuade ourselves that it is automatically invalidated by the identity of those who funded the research. Your actions against HI seem to suggest that you have fallen victim to this false reasoning. Even if you uncover the most heinous donor possible behind HI that would have nothing to do with the validity of their research.


Ask not who made the claim but ask if it is the truth, said Aquinas.


In the matter of HI we might want to add:


Ask not who funded the claim but ask if it is the truth.


If there was only one question on a logic exam and it asked whether arguing from the funder to the validity of a claim was a valid argument and you answered in the affirmative you would flunk the test would you not?


The funder does not determine the truth. It is the conformity of the conclusions with reality that strengthens or weakens the case being made. Reality is the final arbiter in science. If a theory explains what we find in reality then the theory is enhanced; if it does not then the premises upon which the theory is based must be re-examined, modified or abandoned. In scientific debate it is the truth that is important not the identity of the financier of the research. 


I do not like the EPA but just because it funds your research does not invalidate that research any more than it validates it. Reality will determine the truth value of your work. 


Your attempt to uncover the donors to the HI and make them public would not strengthen the case for CAGW. It would have nothing to do with it. So what if A,B,C, and D are donors to HI? What does that have to do with the validity of CAGW? CAGW is a contentious theory and IMHO there is more evidence against it then there is for it. Skeptical sites are holding up the mirror in the hopes that warmist alarmists will one day open their eyes and allow the cognitive dissonance of contrary data to mix with the selective nature of their confirmation bias for the interplay of both are necessary in the mind if the truth is to be found. 


In science, the consensus or the conventional wisdom is not always correct. We need look no further than the story behind the 2011 Nobel prize in Chemistry for an example of that. In that case Daniel was the 'denier' to the consensus makers. In reality, the consensus was in denial about the truth that Daniel had uncovered in 1982. Life is strange.



It is to be hoped that the truth will win out in the matter of CAGW and that the chicanery that has been engaged in by yourself as well as the principals implicated in the Climategate I and II emails will cease. FOIA has given the Climategate scientists ample opportunity to fess up to their sins and if they do not perhaps the next set of emails released may finally spur the authorities to investigate possible criminal actions implied by their own admissions. 

Is this not a reasonable approach to the issues? Ignoring the comments section, is it not true that your actions have done more for the anti-CAGW crowd than for your side? You come across as an econut while you make the HI approach appear reasonable.


Miranda Devine, Daily Telegraph, February 22:
Heartland makes an impact, not because of money, but because of the power of its ideas, the logic of its arguments and the intellects of the experts it attracts.

May I leave you with one point to ponder in the days ahead?

A scientist seeks the truth, wherever that may lead. A believer already knows the truth, and cannot be swayed no matter how compelling the evidence. –
Author Unknown


Enjoy your LOA.