AGW -- I Was Wrong

I was wrong about the global warming crowd. I thought they were sincerely mistaken, but it turns out they were insincerely mistaken about their beliefs in global warming. One of the primary global warming labs had it's computers hacked last week (or it was an inside job) and a crapload of private e-mails and data was released to the Internet for all to see and enjoy. Within a day much of it had been pored over, and indexed (somewhat), and the more obvious juiciest bits highlighted. I read through a bunch of it, and frankly, saw enough to know these guys were dishonest, with us and themselves, in addition to being insular elitist riff-raff.

See, they didn't lie about global warming so much as exaggerate at best ambiguous data to fit the "facts" they just knew had to be true. They massaged data not so much to hide things or to make things appear that weren't there, because deep in their group-thinking hearts they just knew the signal of man-made global warming was really there--it had to be. They just didn't know enough yet to be able to subtract off the natural cycles. And if they were honest and presented their graphs in a way that best reflected the data, why, that might lead lesser minds to doubt the reality of impending doom that they had been warning about. That might lead to discontinued support for their work, right when it was needed the most. That might lead to insufficient funds to fly to the next climate summit, for God's sake! Furthermore, they sought to stifle debate, but I will admit that is exactly the sort of things entrenched special interests do, so it is hardly unique to Gloom and Doom Inc.

I don't know yet if the "scientists behaving badly" who wrote the e-mails knew ahead of time they were running a scam. I'll cut them some slack and assume they really thought their self-serving behavior was serving the good of mankind as well. That is hardly a fault alien to many people in general.

It is often the case that people make bad choices. They lie about themselves, but they don't call it that; they don't even think of it as lying. Half-truths, selective disclosure, feigning sincerity or interest (you know, just being nice), acting out one set of emotions while feeling another, telling the truth so unconvincingly that it appears to be a joke. And even when pretty sure they actually are telling lies, it can be varnished over by insisting that they were protecting feelings, or it really wasn't so bad if you only knew everything, or really, someone else forced me to lie by their behavior. Shoot, with all that deceptive machinery at hand, only a fool ever needs to actually conjure up a straight, unvarnished lie.

This kind of ruse can be kept up for a long time; some spouses have done it to each other for decades with affairs, or business people with padded expense accounts, and Bernie Madoff really takes the cake, doesn't he? But ultimately, the truth will out. Credibility is then lost. "You cheated on me once, you will again." "You padded your expenses at your other company, so what's so special about this one that prevents you from doing it here?" "So you told me part of the story but not all of it? How do I know you're not still doing it?"

And that's the problem. Otherwise honest people who tell one huge lie and get caught, or 'fess up on their own, are honest people who made a mistake. Pseudo-honest people, who tell part of the truth most of the time, and only all of it when it doesn't matter, may be doing the same thing even when they are 'fessing up.

How can you tell? You can't answer that question.

But you can answer this one: Why should I associate with this person?