Among the most imminent challenges facing mankind today, climate change occupies a very conspicuous position regarding public perception of scientific research. This question has fueled a war between adherents of beliefs that lie at different ends of the spectrum with regard to the perceived reality of the situation. Instead of relying on science to provide the answers to this question, the media has successfully diverted the focus onto opinions from a myriad of sources ranging from celebrities to television weathermen and politicians to independent think tanks with private donors and secret agendas. The situation is so appalling that, despite the existence of overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, the question of climate change is still being debated today, as is the question of anthropogenic, or man-made, contribution to global warming.
This brings us to the latest controversy in this intense, media-fueled debate in which Peter Gleick, renowned freshwater scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, fraudulently solicited internal documents from the Heartland Institute under an alias. The Heartland Institute is a private libertarian, conservative think tank that charged itself with the mission to disprove anthropogenic climate change. Amongst its donors are energy companies which generate power primarily from coal. Gleick later confessed to acquiring the documents under an assumed identity in a Huffington Post release, regretting the action as “a serious lapse of judgment and ethics.” He also conceded that he had to act this way out of frustration by the repeated attacks on reputed scientists by organizations such as the Heartland Institute and the enormous amounts of clout they wield and the secrecy that they dwell in.
The leaked documents outline a strategy to develop a global warming curriculum for K-12 classrooms to emphasize that “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain.” As of now, the Heartland Institute has denied the authenticity of this particular document, while agreeing that others were genuine. If proven to be authentic, this will only serve to prove suspicions that organizations such as the Heartland Institute have detailed plans to undermine the teaching of science in classrooms by including agenda that fits with their worldview, despite what scientific evidence would have us believe.
Gleick has received considerable criticism from the media and organizations such as the Heartland Institute for deceptively acquiring private internal documents. Whether the ends justify the means is something that can only be concluded once the veracity of all the documents is confirmed. If the documents are indeed genuine, Gleick’s actions would have uncovered a clandestine effort on the part of the Heartland Institute and other conservative donor groups to promote the denial of anthropogenic climate change based on no evidence whatsoever.
Another important facet of the issue is the fact Gleick had to lie to acquire the documents, and this has caused public faith in climate scientists to plunge to new lows. The interesting thing to observe here is that Gleick felt the urge to put all of his credibility and reputation on the line when he lied to acquire the Heartland documents, and then publicly confessed to doing so. This goes to show the amount of frustration scientists have to endure when they have to politically debate their work with non-scientists who simply enjoy political and monetary clout and have the backing of the mostly conservative media to help spew nonsense about scientific issues. While the peer review should technically be the final hurdle that scientists have to clear before their research receives credibility, incessant media-led attacks have forced them to defend their research by debating every single criticism that gets flung at them by anyone with a bias and an opinion. And scientists have gone that extra mile to make sure their research is not drowned out by all of the junk science that floats around in the mainstream media. Gleick simply went one step further and sought to expose the donors and motives behind the Heartland Institute.
Scientists, especially climatologists, have been on the defensive for too long. The desperation that led Gleick to employ deception as a way of exposing the nefarious schemes of one of the most vocal supporters of climate change denial should be a wake-up call for the rest of the scientific community to more aggressively defend their research. Failure to do so could result in the real danger that the students of today will be forced to accept faith and opinion-based science as facts, and that can only be an unwelcome prospect for the next generation of scientists and educators.
