Home » Climate change, Global Warming » Camille Paglia on Climategate before it was Climategate

Camille Paglia on Climategate before it was Climategate

Some UD readers seem upset that I quote Sarah Palin on Climategate. Just so the wine-and-cheese elite feel as welcome here as the unwashed masses, here’s Camille Paglia on Climategate before it was Climategate (commenting to someone named Hanson):

Hanson: I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth’s history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!

Camille Paglia: Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.

Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

21 Responses to Camille Paglia on Climategate before it was Climategate

  1. Here is question to puzzle: How can one believe in an old earth and still accept that global warming is caused by man?

  2. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change.

    It’s not just fancy-pants and speculative, it’s outright academic fraud. The programs contain hard-coded, manually introduced arrays of coefficients that artificially suppress temps from the past and artificially exaggerate more recent temps.

    The computer code is far more indicting of outright, deliberate fraud than the e-mails.

  3. Interesting. William Dembski first posts about Sarah Palin who says that there is global warming, it’s just not due to human action, but there is still a conspiracy. The conspiracy is to hide that there really isn’t global warming, so why Palin says there is global warming is murky. The conspiracy sounds a lot like the wedge strategy of the Discovery Institute, which was clearly hidden and clearly against the paradigms of science as it seeks to “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

    Now William Dembski posts this new post about an author that seems to imply that there is no global warming, just fluctuations.

    So which is it, ID community: There is global warming, it’s just not anthroprogenic, or there is no global warming, or some other nuanced view?

  4. olin: I doubt the ID community has a single view about global warming and humanity’s role in it. What many of us in that community have a problem with is the abuse of science to further political ends, which we find exemplified both among proponents of Darwinism and among proponents of AGW.

  5. “What many of us in that community have a problem with is the abuse of science to further political ends, which we find exemplified both among proponents of Darwinism and among proponents of AGW”.

    Indeed, Paglia is right about one thing––this is the earmark of groupthink, as Irving Janis articulates it in his book with that title. Refusal of dissent is the single greatest attribute of this condition; both issues are rife with it.

    Which proviso might olin #3 state to assure the readers here that he/she hasn’t fallen into this fallacy him/herself or is the comment merely an accusatory conjecture?

  6. What is the evidence that the East Anglia scientists did anything to “further political ends?” Even if we accept the premise that the scientists hid or knowingly manipulated data, it is a leap to say that they were doing so for political reasons.

  7. What is the evidence that the East Anglia scientists did anything to “further political ends?”

    They say what the politicians want them to say and the politicians give them money. Global Warming Scam Netted Big Bucks

  8. Definitely worth reading:

    Climategate reveals ‘the most influential tree in the world’ by Christopher Booker.

  9. olin:

    “Even if we accept the premise that the scientists hid or knowingly manipulated data, it is a leap to say that they were doing so for political reasons.”

    By not taking this leap, what might one conclude here?

  10. #10

    “Even if we accept the premise that the scientists hid or knowingly manipulated data, it is a leap to say that they were doing so for political reasons.”

    By not taking this leap, what might one conclude here?

    If I may jump in (having a spare moment). One might conclude they did it for reasons unknown which might include:

    * Professional jealousy
    * Embarrassment at having lost the data
    * Conviction they are right about the facts but insufficient data to prove it
    * Pressure to publish dramatic results

    I hasten to add I am not convinced that anyone hid anything!

  11. Dr. Dembski wrote @ #4:

    I doubt the ID community has a single view about global warming and humanity’s role in it. What many of us in that community have a problem with is the abuse of science to further political ends, which we find exemplified both among proponents of Darwinism and among proponents of AGW.

    [emphasis added]

    Does this mean that ID has abandoned one of the twenty year goals as outlined in the Wedge Document?

    To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

    [emphasis added]

    -DU-

  12. “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”

    I would hope so. Since bad science has permeated each of these areas with its false implications, why not have the objective of interdicting the bad science that has this effect. If one is logical about this and replaces bad science with good science then one would expect this as a consequence. It would be one of the expected results or ridding the world of bad science.

  13. utidjian: ID is a decentralized movement. Discovery, the Wedge Document’s author, has a lot of visibility and was organized originally as a public policy think-tank. But many of us in the ID community are principally concerned with developing its scientific program. A big problem I have with AGW is that many of its scientific advocates are letting politics shape the content of their science. I would challenge you to point out how anything like this is happening with, say, the work of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org).

  14. Dr. Dembski:

    I would challenge you to point out how anything like this is happening with, say, the work of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org).

    Given its mathematical nature, there isn’t much room in the EIL for bias in gathering or interpreting data — not that you or Dr. Marks would be guilty of such anyway. If somebody were to apply EIL concepts to real-world phenomena, it’s in the modeling of those phenomena that fudging could occur.

    BTW, congratulations on the publishing of the paper from the October conference. I applaud your forthrightness in footnote 12. I have a question regarding the section in which that footnote is found (IV.B): You seem to be defining the term intrinsic target as an outcome to which a given process is biased, eg Conway’s evolutionary endpoints. Am I reading this correctly?

    Since every non-uniform distribution is biased to some subset of the sample space, it would seem that every non-uniform distribution has an intrinsic target and positive active information. And since this paper makes it clear that intelligence is the source of active information, it would appear that every non-uniform distribution has an intelligent source. Is that the position of the EIL?

  15. Speaking of the EIL, it looks like there is a server problem that is preventing folks from accessing the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (joei.org).

  16. “A big problem I have with AGW is that many of its scientific advocates are letting politics shape the content of their science.” Assertion, yet again. Where the evidence?

  17. #11

    Alright, I would agree that your possible motives might have some merit, but that you hasten to add you are not convinced that anyone hid anything is baffling. So all of these revealed Emails and their content is fabrication? Who is taking the leap here?

    Personally, there needs to be a thorough investigation from an unbiased party, if there is such a thing. If such a thing took place it is no less scandalous for not being politically motivated as you might suggest.

    The establishment outed Hwang Woo-suk for his fraudulence. It will be interesting to see what happens in this case. Stem cells are just as politically charged.

  18. Regarding the faux outrage over the FOI requests, from New Scientist we also have the claim that per the letter of the law, things were followed to a T in regards to the abusive requests (50 in one week) for information.


    What about apparent attempts to avoid freedom of information requests?



    In some emails, Jones – who has stepped down pending a review of what went on – discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK’s freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it this does not look good, whether any researchers broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.


    In other cases, however, it is clear that researchers could not comply with freedom of information requests because they did not have the right to release all the data in question. There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.


    What’s more, individual researchers have little to gain from giving away data and software they have spent years working on. Scientific careers depend on how many papers you publish. If you keep data to yourself, no one else can publish papers based on it before you do.


    This does not mean researchers should be allowed to hold onto their data. It is undoubtedly in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of the measurements upon which climate scientists are basing their conclusions. In fact, much of it is already freely available. But the pressures climate researchers are under does help to explain why many are so reluctant to make all data public.

  19. SWT,

    There was no reason to carpet bomb the issue. Your point was made when you referred to the destruction of primary data as a “minor blip”

  20. Need to understand just what is at stake here for the ID community:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35229

Leave a Reply