Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert

James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian:

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland's money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too – maybe he's undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out.

It's good to know that environmentalists feel this way about telling the truth. We have had similar insider views on truth-telling from, for example, the Open University's Joe Smith, who reported the decision to issue tactical lies over the nature of the global warming debate.

Hard also to avoid Stephen Schneider's famous quote:

...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

I guess Dr Garvey has cast his vote for effective rather than honest.

Update on Feb 27, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Here's Richard Betts' comment from the Guardian thread:

Mr Garvey

I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though - I am just telling you that for context).

I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should "fight dirty" does not help our reputation at all. "Fighting dirty" will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.

Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called "climate wars". People's reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.

Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.

Richard Betts (Prof)

Comments

[John Silver]

They are on a mission from Glog (Global government) so they can do anything they like.

[londo]

When I read this, only one quote came to mind:

aedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."—"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own

Once you have "the cause", it can justify just anything. Khmere Rouge, Nazism, you name it. Any fanatism. Any injustice. Any sacrifice. Because nothing will ever compare to "your cause".

[Foxgoose]

Here's an article from "Counterpunch" which starts off in the same vein as Garvey's but develops a much more mature set of arguments.

The author Chuck Spinney is a defence analyst - but he appears to be ten times the philosopher that Garvey is.

Worth a read:-

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/27/lying-for-the-cause/

[Mark Hladik]

As a Physicist (on the "other" side of the pond), I am appalled that ANYONE associated with Science would make such a statement. While scientists (in general) do not seek "Truth", they must BE truthful (to a fault, mind you) in the quest for knowledge.

Once you have surrendered your morals in favor of an outcome, you have ceased to pratice science. My income depends upon my being truthful in all of my endeavors. Any deception renders me a unreliable source.

As to the analogy with taking the keys of the intoxicated driver, the breakdown comes from the high level of confidence we can have (a priori) about the outcome of an intoxicated personage driving themselves home. Not only is this individual at risk, but other innocent individuals are also at risk. Climate science is barely into it's infancy, and the "projections" made by (e.g.) IPCC, UEA, U. Colorado Boulder, are mere "guesses", and not even educated ones, at that. These "guesses" are being strongly contradicted by real-world data, and a whole lot of it.

And, unlike places like East Anglia and Hadley, Heartland Institute is not supported by any government, and not subject to things like FOIA requests, which, we all know, UEA and Hadley (via Jones) went out of their way to circumvent, ignore, or otherwist thwart.

The criminals in this case are right under our noses; they know who they are, and we know who they are. I, for one, will welcome their eventual prosecution, to the fullest extent of the law.

May that day make all deliberate haste!!

Mark Hladik

[Rockyspoon]

It appears this James Garvey has committed ethical and professional suicide with a Gleick! (Oh, wait... maybe that's a Glock... yup... sorry, but it has the same impact.)

[Jonathan Jones]

Pharos, Richard's first comment is at 3:05pm if I recall correctly; there's also one at 8:48pm.

[Rockyspoon]

Interesting analogy by this James Garvey using the drunk driver. Problem is, Heartland wasn't drunk--It was Gleick that was drunk: drunk with power, with rage, and with envy. If anything, they should have taken Gleick's Internet keys away so he couldn't do so much damage to himself.

Where's Garvey when you need a designated driver? (Probably drunk also.)

[Robbins Mitchell]

Well that assertion that Heartland is getting in the way of building a public "consensus" is the money quote...because now we leave the realm of purely objective hard science and enter the world of situationaly subjective opinion cooking....wherein a way will usually always be found for and end to be justified "by any means necessary"

[Greg Cavanagh]

Can you imagine a world where every profession, nay, every person followed this basic tenant?

Lie to achieve the greater good (as you see it). What a stupid chaotic world we would have. And this from a philosopher?

[ThinkingScientist]

I toughed it out reading the Guardian comments until I got past Richard Betts' comment and then gave up. Well done to Richard Betts for taking a strong stand against this article.

What struck me most reading the comments was not the vitriol (from both sides) but how the warmists seemed to constantly refer to the Heartland Institute and deniers as anti-science. They appear to take a common view that disagreeing with a scientific consensus is somehow offensive and seditious. They seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with cAGW theory is doing so to "undermine" the science. It does not appear at all in their thought processes the possibility that the cAGW theory could be fundamentally flawed or wrong. I am a sceptic, but I am also a scientist. To be a scientist at all I have to accept that in the long run, although I believe the evidence suggests the climate sensitivity must be very low (in line with Lindzen's presentations) I could be wrong.

That is science. And if in the future I find out I am wrong, well I will have to change my mind.

[Daz @ Newcastle]

While I agree with the sentiments expressed here, and in the article as well, I find it very difficult to understand why you think this is such a huge reveal.

The first, and only important, proof of deception came about when there was the utter and total refusal to release the actual data underlying all of this nonsense.

You cannot have science if there is no scientific scrutiny.

[ThinkingScientist]

Regarding the "greater good" argument, I can only refer you all to the movie Hot Fuzz.

[Pharos]

Jonathan Jones

Thanks!

[eyesonu]

@ Mark Hladik Feb 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

=========

Very well said. Every word of it.

[Ben Pile]

James Garvey reveals that you can be thick in the head and yet still pass yourself off as an academic philosopher. This in turn reveals the truth that if you want to get your research and department funded, you just have to put 'climate change' in your application.

I have twice tried to explain to Garvey why his 'ethics of climate change' argument is weak. Details of the first attempt here. Following my review of his book (and his reply, and my reply to that) I bumped into him at an event where Nigel Lawson was presenting his argument in An Appeal to Reason, and introduced myself. "Hi James, I'm Ben Pile, I reviewed your book", I said. "I don't talk about science", he wimpered, and ran out of the door. So much for moral courage. So much for philosophy. So much for 'ethics'.

Perhaps the dominant theme in the debate is mediocrity. Mediocre politicians, mediocre journalists, mediocre academics, mediocre scientists... even activists play fast and loose with the principles of their own dogma, quickly forgetting the actual content of 'the science', and making it up on the hoof. Hey, as long as you believe what you say, you can say whatever you like. Mediocrity is just Too Big To Fail.

[Loyd Jenkins]

Sounds like the old "the ends justifies the means" excuse. How can you trust a scientist that would do this. Would he lie about something else?

[Joe]

Alan the Brit | Feb 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM:

How would this stand up in a court of law[...]

A bit like this, maybe?

"See, Your Honour, we know he done it but we couldn't prove it, so that planted evidence wasn't really a bad lie because we meant well"

[Jane Coles]

I'm with eyesonu.

Richard Betts: "We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets."

Although Richard Betts may not himself be a fraud, a left-wing activist, or a government puppet, he works in a field that employs plenty of them. And he must know that -- he spends significant time on the blogs where such things are amply documented. How then can he say that such accusations are "completely incorrect"?

[Gary Hladik]

From Kenny, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:12 PM : "Well how weak must the Alarmist's science actually be if a tiny, almost unheard of institute, running on decimal point percentages the income of the alarmist's side, can hold up "the entire world's information and action on tackling climate change, in spite of 97% of the world's scientists and almost every government signing up to the Durban, Cancun and Copenhagen conference agreements"?

That does not sound even remotely possible. It is like an ant holding up a very large military convoy."

Heartland Institute as the tank man of Tiananmen Square? I like it!

[Truthseeker]

These green activists are not just shooting themselves in the foot, they are doing it while the foot is in their mouth!

[chris b]

I've had extensive dealings with two philosophers. One with a Masters in Ethics, the other a Masters in Logic. Both ripped me off, and both think much more highly of themselves than others think of them.

It is my experience that philosophers see others being the annoyed at them as a badge of honor and spend a good part of their lives earning these badges.

It seems the main application of philosophy is to rationalize doing unto others what you wouldn't want done unto yourself.

The less I know of Mr. Garvey the better.

[Hilary Ostrov]

If the late, great, "science" communicator, (Saint) Stephen of Stamford were still amongst the living, I would say to him, "I hope you are satisfied with what you have wrought". You have seeded and enshrined the right to lie in the service of your "cause".

Your dictum - and the example you set for those who have beatified and now lionize you by practicing what you preached - has resulted in a generation of academics and intellectuals who are afflicted, perhaps terminally, by a highly contagious and blinding condition: Profoundly Dysfunctional Moral Compass Syndrome (PDMCS)

The symptoms of PDMCS have been observed across the pantheon of "climate science" luminaries (Pachauri, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al), acolytes (Gleick, Mandia, Romm et al), lesser lights (Oxburgh, Muir Russell, Acton, Davies, Garvey, Horgan et al) and journolites™ (Revkin, Hickman, Goldenberg, Black et al).

As Spinney has observed [http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/27/lying-for-the-cause/ h/t Leopard in the Basement]:

[In the case of] AGW theory, [...] those who disagree with the consensus view of the AGW fraternity are the enemies of a good and moral cause. And that mentality opens the door to a moral war between good and evil, where incontrovertible truth and authority are absolute, and therefore, the self-proclaimed goodness of the end always justifies the use of any means, including crimes like identity theft and lying. Taken to its extreme, this is the kind of thinking that led to the Inquisition and ultimately I.G. Farbin’s ovens.

That is the message of Gleick’s theft and Horgan’s [and Garvey's] equivocations. Together, they shine a spot light on the moral swamp that climate science has become.

There is only [one] way to drain this swamp: The advocates for AGW need to come clean.

[mydogsgotnonose]

The reason why this individual feels as he does is because he believes the IPCC science, which is based on four mistakes in basic physics, two of which have been known since at the latest 2004.

He is a pawn for those who set out to deceive when real data refused to comply with incorrect theory.

[Fred 2]

"....It could go the other way too – maybe he's undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out..."

So just when is he going to come to a conclusion? Today, it was all right to lie because it has hurt Heartland's reputation, but by next year we may find out it's helped their fund raising. So will it be wrong to lie next year? And what about 5 years from now? What a philosopher!

[Doug Cotton]

If the AGW conjecture is to be overturned the truth must be proven empirically and promulgated emphatically. I suggest it runs along these lines ...

The reason radiation from a cooler object slows down the radiated heat transfer to itself from a warmer body is not because there is a compensating transfer of thermal energy back to the warmer body, because such would violate the Second Law. Rather it is because a standing wave is established which is represented by all the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. This area represents the frequencies and intensities that are common to both the warm and cool objects.

The atmosphere (with over 50 gases and water vapour) does not radiate everything that a true blackbody would, but water vapour does help fill the area under that curve. So there is a standing wave, but its total power is not as much as a true blackbody. This is why some radiation escapes directly through the atmospheric window.

The standing wave has no thermal effect because none of its energy is ever converted to thermal energy. It just sends information back to the warmer body and a part of the warmer body's radiation goes into the standing wave. The energy radiated by the warmer body which is represented by the area between the curves does get converted to thermal energy because it cannot resonate and thus contribute to the standing wave. The calculations of course agree with accepted physics, but the mechanism is not a two-way transfer of heat, as many appear to have supposed.

But there is no build up of the effect of carbon dioxide due to multiple repetitions of the capturing and re-emitting process envisaged in the IPCC energy diagrams and models. Each carbon dioxide molecule can only play a single role in a very limited sub-section of the total standing wave. Its contribution per molecule would be no more than a molecule of water, and so its total overall effect is comparable with its relative proportion to WV and other emitters in the atmosphere - insignificant.

Furthermore, there must be a compensating effect for reduced radiation by way of additional evaporation, diffusion etc because the very stable temperatures not far underground will be reflected in the close thermal equilibrium at the surface / atmosphere interface.

[Robert of Texas]

Wow, this explains so much about the climate consensus. You can do or say anything (lawful or not) if its for the right cause.

I guess it just never occurs to them that they could be wrong, and that could end up hurting a lot of people for no reason other than a fantic (relgious?) belief in climate disruption.

[Mike H. in Spokane]

"If it weren’t for the shame of their posthumous carbon footprint, they’d probably be covering themselves with biofuel and setting light to themselves

Feb 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM | geoffchambers"

Couldn't we plant a tree for them? If that won't work I have approx. 2,000,000,000 of free carbon offsets that I can donate. It is for the cause, right?

[Skiphil]

The most succinct recent evisceration of the 'ethics' of people like Garvey and Gleick is Megan McArdle:

"After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else"

[niff1951]

Absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy

[Skiphil]

The President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) repudiates the relativist, situational, post-modern "ethics" of Gleick and Garvey:


http://www.agu.org/about/presidents_msg/
President's Message
We must remain committed to scientific integrity

27 February 2012

During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

[George Lawson]

This is typical of the whole stinking AGW cult. If you have a cast iron case, why would you need to lie about it to prove it? Wasn't it Hitler who said that one has to lie to justify ones aims?
I am now looking forward to seeing that James Garvey is exp[elled from all of the scientific bodies and associations to which he belongs on the basis that he is prepred to lie or condone lying to achieve his deluded and unproven science on AGW. If they don't, then it will just prove that they are all tarred with the same brush.

[Hilary Ostrov]

[Repost to avert the severe decree of the "anti-femitic" captcha->moderation bot ... single inactive link has been removed]

If the late, great, "science" communicator, (Saint) Stephen of Stamford were still amongst the living, I would say to him, "I hope you are satisfied with what you have wrought". You have seeded and enshrined the right to lie in the service of your "cause".

Your dictum - and the example you set for those who have beatified and now lionize you by practicing what you preached - has resulted in a generation of academics and intellectuals who are terminally afflicted by a highly contagious and blinding condition: Profoundly Dysfunctional Moral Compass Syndrome (PDMCS)

The symptoms of PDMCS have been observed across the pantheon of "climate science" luminaries (Pachauri, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al), acolytes (Gleick, Mandia, Romm et al), lesser lights (Oxburgh, Muir Russell, Acton, Davies, Garvey, Horgan et al) and journolites™ (Revkin, Hickman, Goldenberg, Black et al)

As Spinney has observed [h/t Leopard in the Basement Feb 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM]:

[In the case of] AGW theory, [...] those who disagree with the consensus view of the AGW fraternity are the enemies of a good and moral cause. And that mentality opens the door to a moral war between good and evil, where incontrovertible truth and authority are absolute, and therefore, the self-proclaimed goodness of the end always justifies the use of any means, including crimes like identity theft and lying. Taken to its extreme, this is the kind of thinking that led to the Inquisition and ultimately I.G. Farbin’s ovens.

That is the message of Gleick’s theft and Horgan’s [and Garvey's] equivocations. Together, they shine a spot light on the moral swamp that climate science has become.

There is only [one] way to drain this swamp: The advocates for AGW need to come clean.

[Shub]

Betts' suddenly has his third eye opened.

[johnbuk]

I'm sure we are all taking his words out of context - we're just too stupid to see the obviously real message he's putting forward - or it could be just the usual "Grauniad" misprints that changes the whole meaning of the article. Isn't it?

[Anthony Watts]

This statement from AGU's president is pretty much an "up yours" to the Guardian.

"His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives."

More here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/agu-president-on-gleicks-shocking-fall-from-grace-his-transgression-cannot-be-condoned-regardless-of-his-motives/

[ac1]

Climate Taqiya to help obtain Climate Jizya.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

A Lovell
In the end, the 'Big Lie' didn't do Goebbels much good. Pity about the horror it unleashed beforehand.

While you are correct, it was Adolf Hitler who invented the term. And the result as still the same -- very bad.

[John Warner]

This is just the \"end justifies the means\" argument. Long ago I adopted a practice of calling it a nonesense, stating it disguises a very simple truth that \"the means determine the ends\", nothing more. Despite all his studies in ethics and genius rating, Peter Gleick just learnt that simple truth the hard way.

[johanna]

Gosh, the Royal Institute of Philosophy (of which Garvey is Secretary) seems to have gone the way of the Royal Society. I live in hope that some members will bestir themselves after this third rate undergraduate rant, but would not bet my house on it.

Could I add my voice to those who support Richard Betts' right not to be badgered and hectored by either side of the CAGW debate? It is playground stuff - you either have to be in their gang or our gang, otherwise we will call you names. Richard Betts, like everyone else, does not have to join anyone's gang. He strikes me as an honest, reasonable and civilised chap who is prepared to engage with the issues, and that matters a lot more than whether we agree on every single thing. Schoolyard bullying tactics are repugnant no matter where they emanate from.

[George W. Marcom, M. D.]

Garvey's defense of Gleick was more clearly stated long ago, in Marxist Dialectic:

\\\"A lie is the Truth if it serves the needs of the Proletariat.\\\"

Note also his exercise in moral relativism: After opining that exposing the shills of Big Oil would be a Good Thing, he cautions that the Lie might provoke condemnation of goodhearted climatologists. His wrapup closer: \\\"It depends on how this plays out.\\\"

Hipocracy fits Garvey like his own skin.

[geoffchambers]

Garvey says:

Climate scientists should stand up against people who misrepresent climate science... Did Gleick go too far? I'm not sure he did, but I do wonder whether some climate scientists go anywhere near far enough.

We shall see whether other climate scientists go nearly far enough later today at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a

Mann will be answering questions live online from 4pm GMT on Tuesday - that is11am EST. The comment thread will be open from 3.45pm. Please leave your questions below.

[Spence_UK]

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus

Disagreeing is now evil because it gets in the way of consensus? Under those circumstances, does the word \"consensus\" have any meaning or utility whatsoever?

Sorry, silly question.

[DR]

Richard Betts' comment at 8.48 is also worth reading. Well said, Richard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/peter-gleick-heartland-institute-lie?commentpage=4#comment-14883185

Hi James

Thanks for responding. OK, I can see you are carefully framing your article as asking the question rather than actually telling people what to do. However, my reading was that you are implicitly encouraging people to think about doing the same kind of thing that Peter Gleick did - you do say that you're not sure that Peter went too far, and also that other climate scientists \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"don't go far enough\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This to me seems to be encouraging repeat behaviour - and the trouble it, that is merely inviting a further escalation of this kind of thing.

We do need to be very careful here. There is very, very real hatred here, and that is always unhealthy. We have seen someone make a very serious error of judgement, and if the fight and hatred continue to escalate then the risk of further and more serious errors of judgement will only increase.

You are right that climate scientists need to come out and engage with their critics, but not in the way that Peter Gleick has done here (using underhand methods to try to find something to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"expose\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - presumably motivated by the Climategate emails or something like that).

Using tit-for-tat tactics like name-calling (alarmists vs. denier) and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"exposing\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" funding sources or political affiliations (big oil vs. WWF) only encourages the other side to keep doing it back. The focus of the argument should be on the substance of the opponent's argument, not their perceived motivation.

The thing we need to do is discuss critics' concerns directly, head-on, and in a calm and objective way. Rather than just sitting around complaining about what someone has written on a blog or in a book, and perhaps talking about it on a completely different blog that won't be read by the other person, why not go straight to the original blog and address the comment directly? Nine times out of ten that's the most effective way to deal with inaccurate criticism before it gets repeated and spread around the internet. To be fair to Peter Gleick it seems that he has tried to do that, but it doesn't seem to have always worked out. Perhaps he needed more support from the rest of us in engaging, and in working out the right way to engage.

The bottom line is that is a very, very complex problem with a very wide range of complex and nuanced opinions involved, and it's certainly is not a simple case of one side having all the answers and the other being completely wrong. The only way to cut through this mess is to have a proper conversation, and not continue to build a culture of two warring tribes who are perpetually at each others' throats.

Cheers

Richard

(James Garvey responds at 10.13 pm)

[geoffchambers]

...Of course, given the Guardian’s attitude to truthfulness, the q-and-a session with Michael Mann later today will probably be made up on the spot by sub-editors

[bill@talktalk]

Yes the questions will be a hagiographers day out:

\"Mike, how does it feel to be so ground breakingly brilliant?\"

\"Mike, has saving the world affected you personally?\"

\"Mike, how come, after all the adulation you've received, you're still just a normal working scientist, doing his bit to save civilisation for the grandkiddies?\"

\"Mike, you took on Big Oil's denial machine & whipped its ass. Does that victory taste good?\"

[geoffchambers]

Garvey’s reply to Professor Betts mentioned by DR (Feb 28, 2012 at 7:51 AM) is well worth looking at. It’s at 10.#13PM at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/peter-gleick-heartland-institute-lie?commentpage=9#start-of-comments
He starts

Hello Richard,
Thanks for your reply. No need to be so reasonable. Sheesh.
I've got no desire at all to encourage people to do what Gleick did, and I have no idea whether or not he was right...

and ends

They call me James, and they call you Prof. Rightly so.
As you've probably noticed by having a look in these comments, your people need you.
Many thanks, James

The worm turns but it can’t stop creeping.

[mat]

Richard Betts comment is about the best and clearest appeal for rational debate I have seen for a long time !
Good man not sure it will open their ears much but we can but hope !

[Jack Hughes]

Richard Betts is pushing the \"we are a profession\" line.

I hope he follows through and expels people who hide data, lie, fake memos, etc.

[mydogsgotnonose]

Doug Cotton 10.43: absolutely right but because it goes opposite to what Arrhenius claimed, it strikes at the feet of the warmist religion.

The key issue is when will Betts and the other proponents of rationality in 'climate science' debate on how they can adapt? After examining the details of the heat transfer assumptions in 'climate science', every professional physicist and process engineer responds with a statement like yours

'Prevost Exchange Energy', the real name for what 'climate science' measures as 'back radiation', cannot do thermodynamic work. The positive feedback they get from the iteration process is imaginary. The cooling by polluted clouds which they believe hides this imaginary warming is also imaginary.

Develop this physics and the effect of additional CCN on clouds is to give much of the heating 'climate science' attribute to GHGs. Also, replace the imaginary 100% direct thermalisation of IR which was the other part of Arrhenius' false hypothesis and you get closer to the real 'climate science'; high negative feedback as proved experimentally by Lindzen and others.

[Shub]

Yeah Geoff, the reply has professional jealousy running through it. At least that's what I understand from the tone.

The point is, Gleick did no martyr's job - he was guessed as a probable source of the material by people *before* he revealed himself. He tried to reveal things about Heartland which were openly known. He has hired the town's most expensive lawyers. If things go to court, he will likely argue the exact opposite of what is being made of his actions in public, just like Simon Singh did.

Pre-Gleick's admission, the Guardian wrote articles on how evil Heartland was, and how scandalous the revelations were. After his admission, they write about the same affair about the saintliness of Gleick. These are just ways for them to keep the pot boiling and save face.