Nei, nei, nei. Scientific American har ingen samvittighetskvaler. De har neppe noen samvittighet i det hele tatt. Dette er full fart framover.
Her er noen sitater:
Allerede fra starten av er premisset gitt: Svindelen skal forklares, etter prinsippet "fake, but true". Det er lov å lyve.
"When, if ever, is lying justified?"
Så krydrer man det hele ved å forsvare svindelen basert på innholdet i det forfalskede dokumentet:
"That brings me to the latest scandal to emerge from the debate over global warming. Two weeks ago, an anonymous source distributed internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a conservative organization, to journalists and bloggers. As reported on this site on February 15, the documents revealed, among other facts, that the Heartland Institute, as part of a larger strategy for undermining support for global warming, was supporting prominent skeptics such as physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter."
Videre er det synd på svindleren og hans kolleger, og det hele er en tragedie for den offentlige debatten som ikke fant sted. At Heartland hadde invitert Gleick til offentlig debatt, tilbudt å betale hans utgifter, hvorpå Gleick avslo tilbudet har jo ingenting med saken å gjøre ...
“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.”
Svindleren Gleick angret ved å gjenta beskyldningene i det forfalskede dokumentet, samt å underslå at mangelen på transparens i mye større grad rammer AGW-siden, hvor beløpene er flere størrelsesordner større enn for Heartland:
Gleick himself sounded contrite. He put it this way: “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts–often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated–to attack climate science and scientistsand prevent this debate , and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. "
Til slutt banker man inn premisset som var gitt fra starten av. Løgnen var moralsk, det er synd på forbryteren, og offeret for forbrytelsen er den egentlige skurken:
Was he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick’s lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous. Gleick, you might say, is a hero comparable to Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 stole and released documents that revealed that U.S. officials lied to justify the war in Vietnam.
Ingen bør være i tvil om Scientific Americans forsvar av Gleick i klassisk apologist-stil. Nei dette er alarmisme og bunker-mentalitet av verste sort, og slett ikke noe eksempel på at MSM har kommet på andre tanker!
