I say no, AGW says yes.

Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good? | Environment | guardian.co.uk

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.
There you have it, lies and decpetion are condoned by this thug. So, we all now know now that AGW is proven to be full of lying scumbags. What are they going to do to get rid of them and bring the science back into this BS.

To boot, here is what Schneider said earlier.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...etroitNews.pdf

...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.
So do the dedicated alarmists concur with these two sentiments or do they agree with me that they are over the top and these people need relieving of their current positions. To suggest lying is better than the truth ?