Latest posts by James Taylor (see all)
- Modest Warming Brings Fewer Idaho Climate Extremes - January 13, 2020
- Climate Scientists Reduced to Hiding from Climate Thuggery in Germany - December 1, 2019
- How Climate Alarmists Killed Their Own UN Conference in Chile - December 1, 2019
Environmental activist Peter Gleick published a piece at The Huffington Post yesterday blasting The Heartland Institute for coming to Dr. Harrison Schmitt’s defense after University of New Mexico adjunct professor Mark Boslough accused Schmitt of lying about climate data. Gleick’s article is no more truthful than Boslough’s false accusation against Schmitt.
Boslough publicly accused Schmitt of lying about Arctic sea ice data in a paper Schmitt wrote and submitted to NASA in early 2009. At the time Schmitt wrote the paper, however, Arctic sea ice had indeed recovered to 1989 levels. This was factually accurate and current information at the time Schmitt wrote the paper. Only later did Arctic sea ice modestly retreat again.
Boslough claimed Schmitt lied about Arctic sea ice. Schmitt obviously did no such thing. We pointed that out by demonstrating that at the time Schmitt wrote and submitted his paper, his Arctic sea ice observations were both current and accurate.
Gleick now tries to assert that because Arctic sea ice moderately retreated again AFTER Schmitt wrote and submitted his paper that somehow Schmitt “cherry-picked” the data. This could be the case only if Schmitt were clairvoyant and could somehow foresee the future Arctic sea ice fluctuations. To my knowledge, neither Boslough nor Gleick have presented any evidence that Schmitt in April 2009 had clairvoyant foreknowledge of future Arctic ice fluctuations.
Gleick has deceitfully changed the terms of the discussion. Boslough accused Schmitt of lying. Schmitt was obviously telling the truth, and we pointed that out. Unwilling to acknowledge this truth, Gleick now wants to make “cherry-picking” the nature of his accusation.
Well, first Gleick should admit that Boslough’s charge was false. Second, Gleick should acknowledge that unless Schmitt was clairvoyant, the post-April 2009 data he presents is irrelevant to his “cherry-picking” charge. Third, we would be happy to have a discussion with Gleick about the rampant cherry-picking that alarmists frequently engage in, even when — unlike the accusation made against Schmitt — the assertion that the alarmists are cherry-picking is not dependent upon assuming they have paranormal clairvoyance.