ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The World Needs Whistleblowers

Updated on February 14, 2017

Introduction

A recent news on climate change put the spot light on whistleblowers, how we need more of them to step up and save our world from the false information that are so prevalent.

- Feb. 2017



Background

The article I am referring to is the one in the Daily Mail about how global warming data has been manipulated by activist scientists at NOAA. See link to full story below.

I want you to think about the implications of this. If scientists at a National funded organization can distort the data to influnence politicians and public policies, what chances do we as average citizens have of getting at the truth?

This is true not only in the climate change debate but across the board on a slew of issues such as the IRS, the NSA spying program, the Wikileaks exposing emails of political pundits and the press... the list goes on and on.

The prevalence of "fake news" and "biased news" in an attempt to sway public opinion and influencing the outcome of elections is reaching a breaking point. The average person is either tuned out or untrusting when bombarded with all this drama.

How do we fix this on going and growing problem? It is up to you and me.

Temperature Data from NOAA

A few Examples from Recent Past

  • The NSA spying program was exposed by Edward Snowden, a low level IT personnel turned whistleblower.
  • Wikileaks hacked email of the DNC exposed the corruption between media personnel and political activists.
  • Climategate emails exposing the manipulation of raw climate temperature data to create the impression that man made global warming is real and dire.
  • The selling of the ACA act or Obamacare to the American public was exposed to be deceitful by one of the architect Jonathan Gruber. An unwilling whistleblower of sorts.

MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber on the ACA

Summary

It is up to the people who will have to step up and level the playing field. We can no longer depend on the free press and on our government officials and politicians and even the independent scientists to give us the "truth". It is you and me who are just doing our jobs going about our daily lives. If you see something unethical, speak up or send in the documentation to various groups. We need to be the watchdog over corruption and "fake news" and deception.

There is a very good reason that one of the key 10 Commandments is "thou shall not bear false witness..." It leads to the downfall of institutions and the bedrock of a civil society. There is no room for lies and deceit. The end does not justify the means.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Interesting perspective on the Karl brouhaha:

      https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/02/22/how-an...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, the UN per se does not see the money. The green fund is stand alone, and has elaborate safeguards on disbursements. Check it out online.

      As to the Breitbart story, it is full of what I will charitably call "gross inaccuracies." A salient example is the claim that all datasets showed no warming for 18 years. The reality is that, of 3 surface and 2 satellite datasets, only one--RSS--had such a profile. The other 4 showed increasing temps. (You may remember that we have discussed this before.) But the inaccuracies don't stop there.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, a follow up to this story -

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/21...

      What do you think about this?

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I guess that depends on whether you believe in the UN as a positive force or not. Do you really think they will use the funds wisely to help the third world nations deal with climate change? I don't. They have a terrible track record of corruption...

      Money is control. Any time an agency gets to dictate who pays and who gets money for whatever purpose, they are exercising control.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      How is helping poor countries to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation "trying to control world policies?" Since those countries are simultaneously those who've historically contributed least to the problem, and who are most vulnerable to the damage, to a great many folks this looks like simple justice. It's also a pragmatic necessity for any climate deal to get done--no developing country will accept a future in which they are condemned to continued poverty.

      "The problem with climate change science is that it has been politicized to the point no one believe it any more."

      The people who 'don't believe it' are those who allow themselves to be misled by the David Roses of the world--and if poll results are to be believed, their numbers are slowly but surely falling.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I will explain it to you. You can be critical of Paris Accord COP21 because it recommends transfer of $$ from established nations to developing nations to help with climate change...

      So that part of it is true, trying to control world policies...

      The toothless charge part is not by me but charges by climate change proponents such as Hansen that it is not enforced. The suggested targets of reduction are voluntary by the nations...such as China.

      The problem with climate change science is that it has been politicized to the point no one believe it any more.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "The Karl paper was political published in time for the Paris meeting... don't you agree?"

      No, I don't.

      "Where is the synergy and division of labor?"

      Weather affects everything... which means that climate affects everything, too. The DOD doesn't 'study' climate change as does NOAA; they study it from the perspective of how it affects their missions and operations. DOE works mostly on decarbonizing the economy--ie., mitigation. Et cetera. THERE is the 'division of labor.'

      "Some 42% of meterologist have doubts about human AGW? What do you make of that?"

      Don't know where you get the number; the latest survey of the AMS showed that 67% of members thought that climate change was at least 61% caused by human activity. Another 14% said it was caused about equally by human and natural factors. (And before you ask, 97% said climate *was* changing.)

      https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_...

      "...at what point will you as an individual be fed up with all this crap? And defend these unethical behavior...?"

      The unethical behavior I see is that of folks like David Rose, who misuse their positions to lie to the public, smear honest scientists, and lead us into a sense of complacency that will serve us very poorly over time.

      "...this has all been a planned strategy to control the world...?"

      Paranoid fantasy, in the service of corporate greed. I'm surprised at you, Jack. Just look at the actual terms of the Paris Accord--it totally maintains national control of actions, subject only to a 'name and shame' assessment every 5 years. You can't criticize Paris as "toothless", as you have done, and simultaneously attack it as a stalking horse for world domination by some shadowy, undefined cabal.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, one more point. I am wondering at what point will you as an individual be fed up with all this crap? And defend these unethical behavior...? Everyone has a breaking point. I am just curious what is yours? What will it take for you to realize this has all been a planned strategy to control the world...? What evidence will be sufficient? Or should we wait 25 years... I am prfectly fine with that, I just hope you are prepared.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I focus stories on these items because they are part of the whole agenda. The Karl paper was political published in time for the Paris meeting... don't you agree?

      Here is the other question for you. Why are so many government agencies studying climate change? You have NOAA, NASA, EPA, DOE, DOD, and Commerce... and many others?

      Where is the synergy and division of labor? Don't you see something inherently wrong when they all work in lock step? It is the very definition of group think. Some 42% of meterologist have doubts about human AGW? What do you make of that?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Again, Jack, the IPCC "proposes" nothing--they are a purely advisory body.

      But you are confusing me. If your concern is about mitigation, then why do you raise talking points that have more to do with trend--such as the Karl paper and crticisms thereof, which is focussed on trend during the decade plus up to 2012?

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I am not dismissing these changes. I fully realize there are changes in our environment and in the climate... I realize also that some of it is due to human activities... I just have a more measured approach to making drastic changes as proposed by IPCC... You refuse to consider the possibility that these proposals have consequences for many poor people who doesn't have the option of "elites" of buying 90K electric cars...

      They are scratching a living on the basics...and fossil fuel is a big part of that energy source that will bring them to modernization. I would be more sympathetic to this cause if these elites would reduce their own carbon foot print before preaching to the rest of us.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Climate scientists are not the ones using "extreme weather"--though there are activists who do so. Climate scientists, and most especially the IPCC, have been in general extremely careful and measured in the way they speak, being careful to say such things as "Individual weather events cannot be conclusively attributed to climate change, though the odds of certain events will shift under a changing climate regime."

      I've read Real Climate for years, and it is a model of "tell(ing) people what they know and what they don't know."

      You persist in dismissing the possibility of real danger pretty much out of hand. That doesn't mean that those brave enough to face such possibilities are "crying wolf."

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, the problem is for some climate scientists to use weather extremes to promote their agenda... You and I know they are un-related but the common man in the street does not. Why are scientist using fear tactics to get their message out? Why not just tell people what they know and what they don't know... so the average person can get an accurate picture of where we are with climate change.

      The lesson of the boy who cried wolf is lost on these people.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, do you see anything in the Times story indicating that *anyone* ever expected the drought to become eternal? I sure don't.

      As to David Rose, he is misrepresenting the situation in multiple ways, from the false allegation that data was manipulated to the frankly silly idea that Paris was signed on the strength of Karl et al. (And what would Congress do with the raw data if they got it? They have no idea what it means, how to handle it, or why. In short, no expertise.)

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc,

      A follow up article on NOAA -

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/...

      Now it makes sense to me why they refuse to allow Congress to get at their raw temperature data sets...

      This manipulation is not going to end well.

      What did they think will hapeen in the next 5-10 years?

      With every small lie, it will double and lead to a bigger lie just to cover up the previous lie, the snowball effect.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc,

      Here is one example of bad science -

      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate...

      Supported and propagandized by main street media...

      The good news is the drought in CA is over....

      It is a cycle played out every 20 years or so. Climate change had little to do with it. Look up the history of CA weather...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      And I've shown lots of cases where projections of change have materialized or seem to be in the process of doing so.

      What is desirable about the current climate is that we, and most crucially, nearly all our crops, are biologically adapted to it. If you are really concerned about quality of life and the economy, nothing is a greater danger to either than climate change.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Yes, but I have pointed out case after case where the dire predictions have not materialized. I also reminded people the vast changes in climate and weather of the last 100 years is the norm and not the exception.

      If you take the long view, of a few 100,000 years, who is to say what is the "best" average temperature for the earth? Trying to protect or preserve that number is just not realistic... A better approach which is what we as humans have done is with mitigation. We can develop ways to deal with climate change without killing our quality of life or limiting our growth.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thanks, Jack.

      It is true that I have put a lot of time and energy into educating myself on climate issues. But believe me, if I saw good evidence that there was no threat, I'd be very, very pleased to redirect more effort into music-making, which is what I really love to do.

      Unfortunately, the evidence runs in rather the opposite direction.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 7 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, Welcome back. I am not surprised by your reaction. You have too much invested in this... The thing is, science has a way of sorting it out. Time will tell if climate change is as serious as they claim...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 7 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Except that in neither Climategate nor this new brouhaha is there any evidence whatever to support the breathless allegations of data "tampering." Yes, I know, lots of folks have claimed otherwise. But claims are not evidence.

      If you don't trust the NOAA data, you should compare it to other data--NASA, BOM, JMA, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH. They don't show identical curves (nor should they), but they all tell the same tale.

      Yes, the planet continues to warm, just as predicted by Callander, Revelle, Bolin and many others, four and five decades ago.

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 7 months ago

      Sadly, the world has a long and ugly history destroying the lives of people who come forward to expose wrong doing.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 7 months ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Well said.

      The OSH Act and Qui Tam lawsuits are my most favorite ones. Qui Tam on the scientists who get money based on the horrible devastation to our planet is a must.