Just What Does "Debate" Mean To The Warmies?

To justify his acts in fraudulently obtaining the Heartland Institute documents (for background, see here), warmie scientist Peter Gleick issued a mea culpa, stating in relevant part:

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.

Oh really?

It turns out that on January 13, the Heartland Institute formally invited Peter Glieck to appear at their annual dinner to engage in . . .wait for it . . . a rational public debate over global warming. The offer came with all expenses paid plus a $5,000 donation to the charity of Glieck's choice. Glieck ultimately refused the invitation shortly before his act of fraud (well, fraud at least, and most likely forgery in addition). Climate Audit has all the details. If this doesn't spike the hypocrisy meter, nothing will.

And indeed, note that Glieck is accusing the innocent Heartland of doing what Glieck has actually done. Shameless bastard.

But Glieck is not alone in this. He is parroting the warmie line about the need for "rational public debate." The problem is that you don't get that from the warmies. What you get is evasion and dirty tricks on a grand scale in order to delegitimize contrary thought without having to debate. That was the whole gist of Climategate 1 and Climategate 2. What Glieck did was just take that refusal to the next slightly higher level of anti-science and hypocrisy.

Tweet