The most slimy essay ever from the Guardian and Columbia University

Opinion by Anthony Watts

There has never been a time at WUWT that I’ve used the word “slimy” in a headline. This is a special case. I thought of about a half dozen words I could have used and finally decided on this one. I chose it because of precedence in a similar situation where Steve McIntyre wrote his rebuttal to a similar piece of amateur journalism entitled Slimed by Bagpuss the Cat Reporter.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University

Last week, the Guardian invited me to participate in their new online story forum. They were seeking the input from climate sceptics on issues they were writing about. They especially wanted my input. I said I’d consider it, but was a bit hesitant given the Guardian’s reporting history. But, after some discussion with one of the reporters, it seemed like a genuine attempt at outreach. I suggested that if they really wanted to make a gesture that would make people take notice, they should consider banning the use of the word “denier” from climate discourse in their newspaper. Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century. I surely don’t. But we do question the measured magnitude, the cause, and the scientific methods.

Now, any progress that has been made in outreach by the Guardian has been dashed by the most despicably stupid newspaper article I’ve ever seen about climate skeptics. The Guardian for some reason thought it would be a good idea to print it while at the same time trying to reach across the aisle to climate skeptics for ideas. Needless to say, they’ve horribly botched that gesture with the printing of this article.

Here’s the headline and link to the Guardian article:

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

It’s full of the kind of angry, baseless, stereotypical innuendo I’d expect Joe Romm to write. Instead, the writer is Jeffrey D Sachs. who is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, home to NASA GISS.

And it’s not just the Guardian. Apparently this article has been shopped around. It made it into The National in Abu Dhabi which you can read here. Apparently the article from Columbia’s Sachs was distributed by an outfit called The Project Syndicate.

A check of their website show the author list, some of the stories they are pushing to media, and they seem to be rather vague about where their money comes from. In their contact and support page all they offer is a PO box for their HQ in Prague:

Project Syndicate PO Box 130 120 00 Prague 2 Czech Republic

So much for transparency.

Back to the article. After reading it, one can see that Sachs is simply repeating the same sort of drivel we get from trolls every day on climate science discussions. Baseless accusations of being involved with deep pockets, connections to tobacco, denial of links to cancer, and other assorted decades old slimy talking points that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand: scientific integrity in climate science.

It is clear that professor Sachs didn’t do any original research for this article, he simply repeated these same slimy talking points we see being pushed by internet trolls and NGO’s like Greenpeace. He provided no basis for the claims, only the innuendo. It’s a pathetic job of journalism. It’s doubly pathetic that the Guardian allowed this to be printed at a time when they were reaching out to skeptics.

It seems incomprehensible to Sachs and others like him that people like myself, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id,  Joe D’Aleo, John Coleman, and others who write about climate science issues might have original thoughts and do original research of our own. It seems impossible to him that an “army of Davids”, such as the readers and contributors to CA and WUWT, could shake the money bloated foundations of climate science today with daily blog posts, FOI requests, and commentary. No it had to be big money funding these skeptics somewhere.

Newsflash: It’s worse than you thought. It’s a growing revolution of like minded people worldwide that want to see the climate science done right and without the huge monied interests it has fallen prey to.. Tobacco, big oil, and other assorted contrived boogeymen haven’t anything to do with skeptics that question CRU, GISS, NOAA, etc.on these pages and the pages of other blogs.

Oh sure they’ll say “but you went to the Heartland convention, and they took money from Exxon once, they defended smokers rights,  that makes you complicit.” Bull. I’ve made my objections loudly known to Heartland on these issues, but the fact is that no other organizations stepped up to help skeptics with a conference to exchange information. While people like Sachs were denouncing “deniers”, and Al Gore was leading multimillion dollar media campaigns  saying we were “flat earthers” and “moon landing deniers”, no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions, or to even help regular people like you and me who were asking them. Had any such scientific organization had the courage, you can bet that skeptics would have flocked there. Instead these organizations all got on the consensus bandwagon.

The claims made that skeptics are connected to tobacco companies is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous in my case.

So here’s my challenge to Professor Sachs. Give me ten minutes in a room with you. That’s all I need. I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child, I’ll tell you about my efforts to get my parents to stop smoking , and then, I’ll tell you how I watched both of my parents die of tobacco related disease. I’ll tell you what I think of tobacco products and companies. I’ll tell you to your face. I promise you it won’t be pretty, I promise you that you’ll feel my pain caused by tobacco.

Finally, I’ll tell you what I think of you for writing this crap you market as journalism without asking leading skeptics any questions, but instead relying on this slimy innuendo that’s been repeated for years.

Professor Sachs, contact me by leaving a comment if you have personal integrity enough to hear it.

Contact Us

Mailing Address

The Earth Institute, Columbia University
405 Low Library, MC 4335
535 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10027

Inquiries

Please direct your inquiry to the appropriate department, as listed below:

General Inquiries

Judy Jamal
jjamal@ei.columbia.edu
phone: (212) 854-3830   fax: (212) 854-0274

Scientific Information or Expertise

The Earth Institute Directory is a comprehensive database of Earth Institute personnel, that is cross-referenced with databases of research projects, publications and expertise. By visiting the “Search by Subject” section of the directory, you can search for experts in a wide variety of scientific specializations.

Earth Institute Media Contact

Journalists may call these contacts for information. Other inquiries, please see separate entries below.

Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu
phone: (212) 854-9729 fax: (212) 854-6309

Kyu-Young Lee klee@ei.columbia.edu
phone: (212) 851-0798 fax: (212) 854-6309

Kim Martineau kmartineau@ei.columbia.edu
phone: (845) 365-8708 mobile: (518) 221-6890

Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs

Media requests for Professor Sachs should be directed to Kyu-Young Lee at klee@ei.columbia.edu.

About these ads
This entry was posted in media, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

529 Responses to The most slimy essay ever from the Guardian and Columbia University

  1. Andrew30 says:

    Scientific American can cancel him or we can cancel them.

    Without a global warming crisis what would Scientific American be left with?
    Scientific America stopped reporting on science and moved into technology and advocacy a long time ago.

  2. Uisge Beatha says:

    The more alarmists prefer ad hominem attacks instead of scientific evidence, I will be more skeptical about AGW/ACC.

  3. Ricardo says:

    I must admit that I read the Guardian article and thought; wow, this guy really doesn’t get it.

    We have had similarly based rantings coming across in the Aussie newspapers over the last week.

    I tend to view it as the last refuge for the alarmists.

    Personally, I am sorry to hear about your circumstances. All I can say is keep fighting the good fight. With the leadership that you, and your peers, have shown; we will win, albeit that I fear the personal attacks will only get more vehement towards the bitter end as that is what terrorists do.

    These eco-terrorists are no different.

    Stay sane and to misquote “Nil carborundum illigitimi” (don’t let the bastards grind you down!)

  4. Peter Whale says:

    Hey, as the ground under their feet warps and slides they will be more and more desperate. Just keep hitting them with the truth and facts about their lies and data manipulation. The scientists are now beginning to be heard, the majority of those who did not go for the warmist scam will grow with the change of public knowledge on climate. The ability for these climate data manipulators to hide their misdemeanour’s is over. Now there is real science taking place replication will be essential for any future climate scenarios to be accepted by the public, no longer will lies and made up data be foisted on us.

    WELL DONE THE TIPPING POINT HAS ARRIVED.

  5. Roger Carr says:

    Worries you far more than it does me, Anthony. I believe the general public has truly had a gutful of this kind of shrill screeching, and that Jeffrey Sachs’ is preaching only to the true believers — the rational amongst us (which I feel is the majority) will dismiss his empty rhetoric as too extreme to be taken seriously.

    Effectively, I believe this professor damages his own cause. I am only surprised he did not write IT ALL IN UPPER CASE…

  6. Veronica (England) says:

    Well done Anthony. I read the Sachs piece and left a comment. If he really meant what he said he should name names, but I guess he would fall foul of the UK’s stringent libel laws if he did, because he has no evidence.

    People like him can’t deal with the fact that honest people are looking for scientific answers, and don’t need a political agenda.

    And as I write this, the snow is falling thick and fast once more outside my window in southern England. There’s been more snow over a more protracted time this winter than in any winter I remember and I am 46 years old.

    I am very anti-tobacco too BTW, having seen my non-smoking grandmother die of lung cancer because she lived with my pipe-smoking grandfather. There are so many REAL things to be afraid of in the world without Sachs and friends having to make up new horror stories.

  7. Paul Dennis says:

    Antony, as a named scientist who suffered smear by innuendo 2 weeks ago in the both the Guardian and the Independent on Sunday I can understand your anger and despair. The debate being promulgated by many colleagues is immature and not worthy of the senior scientific posts they occupy.

    Rarely does the debate rise above ad-hominem attacks, smearing by allusion to big oil and tobacco money, the repeating of discredited memes and recycling of facts that may well be true but by logical inference don’t mean the world is warming at an alarming rate.

    Two weeks ago Roger Harabin made a public call for scientists who are actively publishing in the climate change and palaeoclimate literature to contact him with a view to taking the debate forward. I thought very carefully about doing so but in the end felt that the attempt to provide a forum for a mature and open debate on the science was a worthy effort and responded. I received a one liner which said “interested but very busy” (my paraphrase). I have received nothing else in the past 2 weeks.

    This is from a journalist who had just made a very public announcement that he wanted to open the debate and bring it to a new level. The lack of response is deafening and one can only conclude that there are groups of people who do not want to shift the debate onto science. They are more comfortable slinging mud.

    The truth is that the advent of the internet is having a cathartic effect on the closed unions of science that have their main foundations in universities and government research institutions. Publications in the peer reviewed literature are now available to everyone and we are discovering that there are very many scientists and lay people who have something very valid to bring to the debate. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Climate science stimulates the public. Here we have a fantastic opportunity to engage in debate, enthuse, to act as role models, to demonstrate the scientific method and above all not to hide our disagreements beneath shallow, vituperative, lazy and inconsequential ad-hominem attacks. Those that resort to such tactics have already lost the argument.

    Finally, I will be posting more at my blog very soon. It has been a crazy, hectic week!

  8. Phillip Bratby says:

    The article appeals to the true Guardianistsas as it confirms their dogma. The most popular comments on the Guarniad article however, consider this to be a ‘slimey’ article.

  9. Espen says:

    I wonder how this guy got a university position when he seems incapable of anything but cut & paste from old Greenpeace leaflets. I can very well understand your anger, Anthony, but this is “so last century” that the professor is really only damaging himself by writing such nonsense.

    I followed the link to the “Project syndicate”, though, and was surprised to find this quite good commentary by Bjørn Lomborg:
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg57/English

  10. Andy Scrase says:

    This article made it into todays NZ Dominion Post in the NZ Herald. Wellington NZ is a very government-centric place, and many might buy into this BS.

    I am happy to say that I put $20 into Steve McIntyre’s tip jar, and I do work indirectly via my bedroom for the oil industry, by creating what I believe to be well crafted software. I also, like Anthony and many here, live a very sustainable lifestyle, unlike Gore, Pachuri et al.

    Comments in reply to the article : B0ll0cks, as we say in the UK

  11. The ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:

    You have to remember that this is typical of the Guardian. Journalism is not what it used to be, and the Guardian was NEVER a good newspaper. It’s recent standard has been terribly poor, and like all newspapers it’s becoming just another rag for promoting groundless eco nonsense and celebrity clap-trap. Resist the temptation to get into any bed with the Guardian. After all, Moonbat is one of its columnists – and that says more about this newspaper than I or anyone else ever could. Truly pathetic.

  12. Chris Thorne says:

    Sachs was part of the cadre of ivory-tower Western academic economists who in the 1990s advised the government of Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that what they really needed was a big dose of economic “shock therapy”. In other words, immediately imposing market economics upon a socialist nation in which none of the necessary preconditions of stable free-market capitalism were in effect.

    What resulted from that was colossal economic disruption, wrenching unemployment and inflation, the theft of 90% of the national wealth by brutal criminal oligarchs to whom assassination was an ordinary tool of business, and the horrific impoverishment of tens of millions of ordinary Russians, especially older pensioners.

    I’m amazed that this man is still able to show his face in public, after having had his professional advice shown to be so catastrophically inept.

  13. pwl says:

    As a frequent comment poster here at WUWT and the author of http://www.PathsToKnowledge.net I can say with integrity and honest that I’ve made ZERO money, as in $0.00 in any currency, for ANY of my writings on the topic of climate science, the alleged AGW hypothesis, or any other related topic. Heck, paths to knowledge dot net doesn’t even have internet ads on it! In fact I’ll go one further, times have been tight and I do need work, so if anyone has a programming contract I sure could use one just about now. I write solely because it offends me how alleged scientists such as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, et. al., etc… and political stooges such as Blood & Gore, Pauchari, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki roll in the money making all sorts of dooms day soothsaying projections out of thin air using bad and worse than bad, as in fraudulent, science. The false claims of idiots Jeffrey D Sachs are bordering on criminal fraud since they have zero basis in fact as far as I’m concerned.

    Integrity of science is paramount. Period.

  14. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Anthony

    In every newspaper I read where there are articles on climate change, whether pro or anti CAGW, the overwhelming opinion of the public response is sceptical of CAGW and these show contempt for the proponents. The public is not fooled and eventually the truth will become apparent – even to the likes of Obama and Brown both of whom seem to be bereft of any depth of thinking or common sense.

    Your blog is a beacon of light.

    Regards
    Doug

  15. Anthony,

    Sachs is from Oak Park Michigan. So was Robert Ettinger. Cyrogenics; Climate science. Same thing. There I proved my case. can I get a nickle?

  16. Capn Jack says:

    Mr Watts with all due respect,

    In Australia, we dont argue we point at the scoreboard. It’s the only thing that matters, talk is cheap, success is reward.

    Some mark themselves on the enemies they put behind them, others mark themselves on the wins that matter.

    Personally I suggest you take it as a back handed compliment, you had nothing and now Sachs has nothing except bitching about unfair treatment.

    What one newspaper, in a world full of content. Check your clicks sir. THe negotation over sicence will not solved with a debate in psuedo science with a pseudo scientist, an economist who would not know a standard normal curve it it jumped up and ripped his throat out.

    Rebut him here and move on.

    Don’t get in the gutter. If he was an econometricist of standing all would know.

  17. Paul Dennis,

    You should drop Dr. Curry a note at Georgia tech. There are others who are interested in finding something good in all of this, improving science, and moving forward.

  18. Stacey says:

    Comment is free if you agree.
    The Guardian was once a great newspaper brought low by this type of gutter journalism and junket science.
    The attempts to associate reasonable people to extremist ideas because they won’t sign up to their unfounded alarmism is a disgrace.
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

  19. Andrew W says:

    While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ‘scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.

  20. Oscar Bajner says:

    Birds of a feather flack together : AL GORE, JEFFREY SACHS ADDRESS WAY FORWARD ON CLIMATE CHANGE http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1221299571.html

    Sachs is not much good at economics either.

    (And yes, “flack” is not a typo :-) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack?jss=0

  21. UK Sceptic says:

    You are talking about the Guardian, employer of Monbiot, a die-hard, unreconstituted arch-warmist. What did you really expect?

    Worth a try though…

  22. J.Hansford says:

    Anthony… These kinds of articles are written for the Greenie advocates in their ranks, order to gee them up. To instill within them a sense of victimization and to turn skeptics into monsters….. It is classic propaganda 101 for dehumanizing the enemy.

    This is and was their familiar ground…. however, I think they are becoming concerned that most people are not listening to them… All they are doing at the moment is mollifying their hard core supporters. Which is not a counter attack or productive, but instead, merely a holding action in a rout.

    If this was a battle….. We, the skeptics, are in a prime position to overwhelm them as their action abates with no ground retaken….. We will destroy their position completely in our next thrust….. We will grind their hypothesis to dust under the facts of our observations:-)

  23. Smokey says:

    I agree with the perception that the Guardian’s pimply-faced writers are still living at home, masturbating in their mom’s basements while writing their screeds ["They will pay. They. Will. PAY!... Unghh..."]. They should get out into the real world more often.

  24. Kdkd says:

    I likes the Guardian article. Along with the recent “Whatevergate” article over at realclimate I thought they summarised the current state of play rather well. I reckon that Alan needs to be completely transparent that WUWT and associated activities surrounding climate change activism receives.

  25. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Sachs also advises the UN Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon. Drivel spreads.

  26. Ian E says:

    Anyone know who makes Horlicks?

    Surely the time must be right to buy shares – how else are these, presumably intelligent (and hence deliberately lying and manipulative of the truth), types like Sachs to ever get to sleep?

  27. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Anthony

    And another thing. CAGW has missed the boat as a scam. The Wall Street and the City of London scam beat them to it. They have together wrecked the economies of the Anglo-sphere as well as that of Europe. All these economies are literally stuffed. There isn’t any money to pay for the nonsense of Carbon credits.

    Doug

  28. Tom says:

    We have libel laws in this country for a reason. I haven’t read the article (possibly mistaking this forum for Slashdot :) but if the slights are nearly as misplaced as it sounds, you could and should bring suit against him.

  29. phlogiston says:

    Perhaps take some legal advice – are there grounds for a libel case? I’m not sure they do “class actions” in the UK, so he probably thinks he’s safe.

  30. UK Sceptic says:

    Andrew W -” While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.”

    It is a claim that bears considerable substance. If lucrative grants were not involved in promoting AGW how would you explain the behaviour of CRU’s Phil Jones? Did his drive to warp climate data arise from a sense of twisted intellectual masochism? Do I need to mention what has been going on with the IPCC scandals? How many government grants to disprove AGW have been made? AGW equates to money. The “science” underpinning the “consensus” is nonsensical so how come billions have been thrown in its direction?

  31. James F. Evans says:

    The response from Sachs is that of a wounded animal or a human who has had his world-view grievously, or fatally falsified.

    It is the lashing out in desperation of one who’s faith is threatened.

    A discussion of facts and evidence is no good to people of this mind-set.

    They know it only ends with the ruin of their ideas.

    So a fulisade of invective and ad hominems is all they have left, which translates:

    Pay no attention to these people, the facts, and evidence.

    This is not the posture of someone truly committed to the empirical scientific method.

    It’s a fulisade of rhetoric designed to intimidate rather
    than inform.

    Sadly, it is not the first time this tactic has been employed and it won’t be the last.

    But it is the tactic of die-hards faced with the grim prospect of intellectual oblivion.

  32. Andrew W says:

    While we’re all individuals, there is without doubt many prominent lobbyists who have had an association with the coal industry in arguing against coals burnings link to acid rain or with the tobacco industry arguing against tobaccos link to lung cancer who now argue against AGW. Sachs was probably not referring specifically to you Anthony.

  33. Daniel H says:

    Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation:

    http://whois.net/whois/project-syndicate.org
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Syndicate

    Jeffrey Sachs is a close personal friend of Soros and they’ve spoken together at numerous public events. Search for “Soros and Jeffrey Sachs” on youtube.

  34. Mauibrad says:

    YEAH! YOU TELL ‘EM TONY! [snip]

  35. UK Sceptic says:

    PS I caught up with the latest KUSI TV show last night courtesy of Richard North over at EU Referendum.

    Class!

  36. TinyCo2 says:

    Thank you for expressing your personal pain. From my own experiences I share your bone deep, honest and angry reactions to the tobacco insults. Ironically Al Gore’s own chequered past with the stuff is a more significant connection to tobacco than most sceptics.

    However, I’m sorry to correct you but the Guardian article is going to be stunningly surpassed in sliminess by this series from ABC’s Clive Hamilton. I’m so offended by the first article, I can’t post because I run the risk of being almost as abusive as he paints sceptics.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

    Tomorrow we find out who’s behind the cyber-bullying campaign. Grrrrr.

    Why can’t the warming community understand that the level of reaction they get is a reflection of the huge number of people who disagree with them. The intensity is a measure of how angry we’re getting.

    When global warmers decided that we were all going to have to restructure our lives, why did they never consider that the rest of us might want some rock solid proof? And get very vocal when we didn’t get it. Why do they think that a few insults will change our minds?

    What little organisation that can be seen in the sceptic community is based on something warmers probably don’t recognise – earned trust. Sceptics very quickly come to know which sceptic sites to trust and which to merely tolerate. I don’t think I need to tell you which heading your site falls under :-)

  37. Michael In Sydney says:

    It’s all good.

    Desperation has set in, relax and enjoy the spectacle.

    Cheers

    Michael

  38. Christoph says:

    Director Jeffrey Sachs looks quite the swashbuckling figure in his dark suit and reddish tie with his hair jauntily parted thus so.

    Too bad he didn’t have the courage to do a bit of honest research before writing his recycled and baseless attack article. I wonder if he will have the courage to leave a comment on this blog about Anthony Watts’ and his parents’ experiences with tobacco?

    I wonder what he’d think of my experiences with that horribly evil drug, my parents’ usage of it, the breathing difficulties as a child, and other things I could relate. I’m a “climate denier” (ridiculous term: Climate exists and it even gets warmer — and cooler — and there are myriad causes for this, of which I am not all-knowing, but at the same time have a clue) so I suppose I must suppress all my personal experiences and encourage people to use the drug which kills more people than any other drug in the world, including alcohol.

    Because I’m evil… uh, I mean Professor Sachs comes across as a intellectually lazy and vacuous moron.

  39. Another Ian says:

    Re J.Hansford (01:14:21) : and Anthony

    I’ve found that in times like this one should think of the obvious response, and then usually do about the opposite.

    This adds varitey and is not an expected response.

  40. lucklucky says:

    “Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century.”

    You don’t know and nobody knows. There is enough missing data to not support that assertion.

  41. E.M.Smith says:

    At one time, I was rather strident in my advocacy that tobacco be banned. The reason was pretty simple. My Dad, who smoked from age 17 when he joined the army for WWII, died of tobacco induced lung cancer. My mother followed a few years later, also from cancer. She did not smoke, but lived in a home full of it, and I’m one of the many kids who had a smoking father and non-smoking mother and ended up highly allergic to tobacco.

    To say I despised tobacco would be to vastly understate the “issue” I have with it. After “exposure” I must do a full shower and eye wash scrub down or the next day I will have bright red eyes and skin rashes. Oh, and I won’t breath very well.

    With that said, I’ve since decided that if I’m for personal responsibility and liberty, it can’t be a selective thing. Like “freedom of speech”, you must advocate freedom of speech for the speech you find most reprehensible. Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech for views with which they agree… (A very rough paraphrase of Noam Chomsky). So if I would be free to eat a Whopper or ride a motorcycle or even just skip a vaccine that I think is a bit dodgy, I must also allow that others might want a short stimulated life over a longer more sedate one.

    So I’ve reached a point where I must state that I think it is any individual’s right to smoke to death, should they wish to do so (though NOT in the presence of any kids that might not want to involuntarily suffer from it as I did for years…)

    But the notion that someone like me is connected to tobacco companies in any way at all is so incredibly LUNATIC as to be worthy of the phrase “Bald Faced Lie”.

    Oh, and I’m still looking for that paycheck from Big Oil (or anyone for that matter…). The “gravy train” is all on the AGW side, with billions. I’m doing my work on recycled 20 year old PC’s (though one is now only 10 years old and I’ve been offered a Mac G3 that I’m really looking forward to having.)

    So here I am in “beggars making mulligan stew” land being accused of rich funding from powerful oil companies! Just nuts. (BTW, oil companies have been members of AGW promoting agencies and have spent lots of money on CO2 “sequestration”. They want and NEED CO2 sequestration to maximize profits. It is one of the best “strippers” for old oil wells. So just check out where they are spending their money. It is on the AGW side…)

    So yeah, “Slimed” is just about right.

    Lets see. On “their side” we have Soros with Billions plus more Billions from NSF and other government agencies (not to mention folks blogging while at work at government jobs…). On my side I’ve got an old x486 box from the garage that was upgraded to a 400 mHz AMD chip and the recent addition of a $75 recycled PC from Weird Stuff recyclers ( Pentium III with 250 MB memory and Windows Pro 2000) in a self funded operation and running free software. All done in my living room in my ‘spare time’.

    Yeah, that’s sure a level playing field /sarcoff>

  42. Erik in Cairo says:

    Chris Thorne (00:55:08) : “Sachs was part of the cadre of ivory-tower Western academic economists who in the 1990s advised the government of Russia [...]”

    I think that he was more than that. He was the central figure both in Poland and Russia. I was a grad student in Poland at the time Sachs’ ‘shock therapy’ scheme was implemented. I will admit that — at least, at the time — I thought that it was the right thing to do. Even in retrospect, it’s hard to imagine a better way to fix the systemic problems which existed at that time in Eastern Europe.

    On the other hand, there is no question that the details of the plan could have been managed much better. For example, my landlord, who, the year before, had spent hours haggling over my rent (which ended up less than a hundred dollars per month), was able to steal a manufacturing plant that must be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, today.

    What I am saying is that Sachs is a well-respected authority when it comes to the practical implementation of macroeconomic system-wide transformations. From this article, it sounds like he’s a bit like Noam Chomsky, i.e. an unquestioned international expert in his field, but a bit of of a dilettante in other fields.

  43. Richard says:

    The Guardian newspaper is basically bankrupt, financially, and kept afloat in its Green journalism by AutoTrader, a second hand car magazine. So, Monbiot works for AutoTrader!

  44. D. King says:

    What a sad little man.

    Here comes “Big Coal” to get you.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf

  45. Another Ian says:

    Andrew30 (00:23:42) :

    Don’t be too hard on Sci. Am.

    Find a copy of Gale. N.H. and Stos-Gale, Z. (1981) Lead and silver in the ancient Aegean Sci. Amer. June 1981 pp142-152

    and have a look at the photo on page 143 – and that shows the best cleavage I’ve ever seen in a scientific article.

  46. Franks says:

    On the day this article was printed, here in the Home Counties around London and East Anglia we are currently having a blast of global warming, it is snowing this morning and currently 2 – 3″ deep at the moment. As with Copenhagen I think that the Earth Goddess Gaia is just playing one of her little jokes.

    Seriously though, I wonder if the main point of the article is just to generate interest for a a new book. After a general introduction he slips in a paragraph about a forthcoming book “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.

    Many of the readers will fervently agree with his views in the article so this book of course will be of interest to them.

  47. Beth Cooper says:

    Anthony, I am reminded of an observation by Lewis Carroll:

    ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,’

    But lo! The science is not settled …

    ‘One ,two! One two!And through and through
    The vorpal blade went snicker snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back.’
    Keep on galumphing, Anthony, you’re getting results!

  48. Vincent says:

    Anthony,

    If you contact the Guardian, maybe you can get a right to reply. All newspapers publish provocative opinions, separate from their own editorials. In this case, they have definately crossed the line. A well thought out reply, especially one from somebody like yourself, who can show how ludicrous and offensive such assertions are, would quickly disabuse any readers of any such ideas.

    If they don’t allow you to publish a reply, then they will be damning themselves.

  49. Dan says:

    That article reads like an attempt to placate a readership composed of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who believe that man=bad.

  50. wayne says:

    Anthony,

    The public are not dumb, they know very well what is going on and the vast majority are kind and your integrity is what draws them.
    ————————————————————–
    Thanks again for WUWT.

    Send your friends. Enlighten. An excess of knowledge will never harm an open mind.

  51. Andy Scrase says:

    @ Paul Dennis (00:37:09) :

    Thank you Paul. We appreciate your honesty and scientific integrity as someone coming from the CRU.

    We thank you for your openness and hope to build a more open and transparent scientific process to help us all understand the real problems our planet faces, independent of political agendas.

    Regards
    Andy Scrase

  52. Interestingly I note from the list of sponsors for Project Syndicate’s “From Kyoto to Copenhagen” conference last year included:

    *shock*
    Shell and
    Dong Energy

    – As well as various “green” companies – an obvious conflict of interest judging by Sach’s standards.

    See this link:

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/conference/

    The one person at work who is a moon landing denier is the strongest vocal supporter of CAGW in our organisation. This proves nothing of course (except that we hired an idiot) but it shows how childish Sach’s article is and how lacking in academic rigour. IMO this sort of article only turns people off. It insults over 50% of the population which only hardens resolve. I doubt it turns any skeptics into CAGW believers and I would think the tone would raise alarm bells amongst many fence sitters.

  53. Brent Hargreaves says:

    I just posted this on teh Guarniad website:

    When I began weighing the aruments of the two bitterly opposed sides in this Great Debate, I was determined to (a) dig for the source data behind the various hypotheses and attempt to confirm/refute the claims and (b) observe the psychology of the two sides as revealed by dispassionate presentation of evidence or by shrill appeals to emotion.

    After long thought I conclude that:
    (i) From the available data, sea level rises, variations in icecap area and temperature fluctuations in recent decades are each within the range of known historical variation.
    (ii) The sceptics’ arguments are increasingly dependent on data, and the warmists’ arguments increasingly dependent on personal attacks.
    (iii) The two datasets I most trust are the CO2 PPM readings from Mauna Loa and the temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, both real-time rather than historical.
    (iv) The two camps are agreeing on the validity of current data, and so the accuracy of IPCC temperature forecasts is there for all to observe.
    (v) Divergence between IPCC forecasts and actual data is large, and has been growing. If actual temperatures rise fast in the next few years, the IPCC case may still survive. If the divergence continues to rise, the IPCC’s credibility will be destroyed and it will need to be disbanded.

    Unlike in politics and religion, scepticism in science is healthy. This Guardian article reads like the words of a politician or theologian; if its author has any qualifications in science he should be stripped of them. If he has none, he has no business occupying the position of Director of the Earth Institute.

    (PS: for non-British readers, the “Guarniad” spelling is a British in-joke, referring to its reputation for errorrs/erorrs, oh, dammit, mistakes!)

  54. David Mayhew says:

    According to my understanding, Jeffrey D. Sachs lacks sufficient background to understand the scientific issues. This disqualifies him as an authority. Obviously, what was written and the way it was written is beyond the pale, even for the Guardian. Like some other respondents, I take this personal public attack on you as a sign of desperation, preceding the imminent implosion of the “case”.
    The media playing field has changed, the Internet/blogsphere is more important than the Guardian. With the correct attention on your part to the facts of the issues and the evidence, someone like Sachs becomes irrelevant.

  55. Jean Parisot says:

    The fact that Sachs even had to write this push piece is cause for celebration. The Alarmists had planned to be popping corks right about now as the COP15 treaty was getting US Senate ratification and Obama was signing the Cap’n Trade laws.

    They did not plan to be watching their shibboleths fall and the science get so “unsettled”.

  56. Baa Humbug says:

    I have evidence that Jeffery Sachs takes money from Mexican druglords. Do you know where my evidence is? It’s in the exact same place as his evidence that people like Watts takes tobacco money. So when Sachs retrieves his evidence, he can get mine too.

    I also have evidence for a multitude of unsavoury things that Sachs does, but I’m afraid I’ll get snipped, needless to say these acts would leave Clinton Woods and Gary Glitter red faced. That evidence is also at the same location.
    Go get that evidence Sachs and good luck. (moron)

  57. gadfly says:

    “I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child, I’ll tell you about my efforts to get my parents to stop smoking , and then, I’ll tell you how I watched both of my parents die of tobacco related disease. I’ll tell you what I think of tobacco products and companies. I’ll tell you to your face. I promise you it won’t be pretty, I promise you that you’ll feel my pain caused by tobacco.”

    With all due respect, sir . . . and as an ex-smoker who once had a two and one-half pack-a-day habit, let me suggest that you look at the myth of second-hand smoke with the same skepticism that you display for things AGW.

    You may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but there is no empirical evidence that it kills or causes disease. In all the world, there is no death certificate that reads “second-hand smoke.”

  58. Columbia eh? Every time I hear about someone from that place (Obama, Ayers, etc) I wonder why we don’t just deport the lot of them.

  59. stuhugfj says:

    I have been an avid reader of your blog since the very early days Antony and it has kept me sane. Many, many thanks.

    I recently read a quote from Mohandas Ghandi – ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’

    I feel that the stupidity we are seeing at the moment demonstrates that we are definitely at stage 3 of his maxim…

  60. David, UK says:

    AGW is about as authentic as that hairpiece on Jeffrey D. Sachs’ head.

  61. geronimo says:

    AndrewW:”While we’re all individuals, there is without doubt many prominent lobbyists who have had an association with the coal industry in arguing against coals burnings link to acid rain or with the tobacco industry arguing against tobaccos link to lung cancer who now argue against AGW. Sachs was probably not referring specifically to you Anthony.”

    There probably are Andrew, except they’d be a fine old age by now. The coal contraversy took place in the fifies and was well and truly won by the end of that decade. The tobacco issues started in the sixties and were over before the end of that decade.

    In fact what Sachs, was trying to do, and it is a constant meme with the non-scientific CAGW proponents, like the use of the work “denier” meant clearly to associate those who oppose CAGW theory with holocaust deniers, was to label all sceptics as the nutters that opposed the fact that coal caused acid rain (easy to prove, SO2 mixes with H2O) and the tobacco lobby. When passions are aroused, to the extent that they are among alarmist, debated is replaced by hatred. Route 101 for hatred is to first demonise, then dehumanise your opponents. Their subsequent executions are then easy for the populace to swallow.

    I commented on the post to the effect that I thought it was unworthy of the Guardian to publish an article that could easily be seen as an encitement to violence. The Guardian has the best comments section on the net, but it’s editorial policy has moved a million miles from their founders “Facts are sacred” policy.

    He won’t contact you Anthony, it’s a classic scenario in propoganda, tell your lie then move on and refuse to debate it. Where’ve I seen that before?

  62. Baa Humbug says:

    By the way, others must also have noticed a sudden common theme running amongst the alarmists. From the Aussie Climate Change Minister to this Sachs fool and others all mentioning tobacco all of a sudden along with CC it’s worse than we thought.
    Might they have been tele-conferencing or some other way co-ordinating this recent rise in attacks on skeptics?

    I’d be interested in a summary of the recent comments by these alarmists and their common theme. But ofcourse if I were to mention the conspiracy word…….

  63. old construction worker says:

    Daniel H (01:23:13) :
    ‘Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation.
    Jeffrey Sachs is a close personal friend of Soros and they’ve spoken together at numerous public events. Search for “Soros and Jeffrey Sachs” on youtube.’

    Big Al, Soro, and the UN must have their CO2 Cap and Trade or less.
    (and they know they are losing that battle)

  64. Alexander says:

    Anthony,
    Your repugnance for Sachs slimy diatribe is shared by many, me included. A short time ago, I occasionally wrote a short response to the sillier Guardian warmist articles, but was usually removed by a moderator for unacceptable comments – depsite never using coarse language or Old English, as many of the warmist responders to Guardian articles do, or using ad hominem statements.
    I check these articles most days but can no longer see the point of attempting to reason with idiots suffering from religious mania.
    As to tobacco, I was bought up in a teetotal and non-smoking household; consequently, when I entered the world of work, I began smoking and drinking, thoroughly enjoying both to excess for many years. However, I have been a non-smoker for a number of years, drink alcohol very moderately so I guess wisdom does eventually come to most of us.
    As to the likes of Prof Sachs, a short spell on the staff of a university many years ago dispelled my somewhat idealistic notions of university academics or scientists operating on a purer ethical plane than the average man in the street.
    I read Sachs’ article in the Guardian and was disgusted that a newspaper that uses the slogan ‘Comment is free but truth is sacred’ should print such contentless venom.

  65. Peter Plail says:

    Even more depressing is the quality of comment on the Guardians – the unthinking, uncritical cheering from the sidelines and the continued repetition of the “d” word.

    Some months back I had a lengthy exchange with a rabid AGW supporter on his blog – at the end of the discussion he said that despite the logic and facts of my position, nothing would change his mind. Now if that isn’t denialism I don’t know what is.

  66. Roger Carr says:

    Perhaps leave nicotine out of this?
    I have smoked for over half a century and intend to continue to do so — at the same time I am glass a year drinker of alcohol and despise it for the harm it does to humanity.
    So, please don’t show me yours and I’ll not show you mine?
    ( E.M.Smith (01:33:37) is herewith endorsed.)

  67. Alan the Brit says:

    Ricardo, Nil carborundum illigitimi? Should that not have “sub” at the end? That would lend the “”down” part of your quote, & a very nice quote it is too!! Experts in Latin will comment further I dare say.

    I am amazed that someone of such junior years has been employed in such an eminent position, as it seemed to me these were the rantings of a youthfull revolutionary anti-free-market Marxist Socialist, by his very words! He has the look of “I’m all right Jack, but you will have to pay” smugness about his demeanour.

    I think smoking is a pretty horrible thing, yet I used to smoke the occasional cigarrette/cigar & pipe before keeping fit put it to the sword. I think people who wish to smoke should do so, they have rights too, but as John Brignall has shown at Number Watch, the second-hand smoking lobby had powerful backers & were not averse to distorting (& then some) the “science” for their own objectives! Yet again we see people who believe that lying is ok for their cause, the truth can go hang as long as we win in the end!

    Keep up the good work Mr Watts et al, we need you all!

  68. HotRod says:

    I was so furious about this article, coupled with the absurd Michael Mann interview (swift-boating), and Josh Garman (Guardian Feb 15th 2010), that i wrote an article for a UK mag who are publishing a Climategate/temperature piece of mine this week (I’ll link when it’s up), but I fear my anger shone through and the editor didn’t reply.

    I listed climateaudit, wattsupwiththat, The Air Vent, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova, pielkes Sr and Jr, Chiefio, among others and wondered how well-marshalled and well-funded they were.

  69. Alexander says:

    Sorry to go on at length, but I should have included in my previous post that no-one I know in the UK and no-one I correspond with in New Zealand or Australia believes the CAGW story, but acknowledge that the climate appears to warmed and cooled around some sort of mean temperature that has allowed the natural world as we know it to evolve.
    As a retired educator, I am very concerned about the sheer amount of warmist propaganda that has been written into school curricula across the Western world, which is a whole other story!

  70. Cold Englishman says:

    I have said this before on your blog Anthony.

    Ad hominem attacks are a sign that you are winning – it is all they have.

    And I also repeat “Do not associate with or do interviews with anyone from the BBC”. I watched “Country File” last night with John Craven chatting to kids in school with their nice new windmill. I came away with the impression that the school windmill, about 25 feet high with 3 foot span, was able to provide all the school’s energy, and with the left overs they would provide plenty for the village too. The way he was feeding questions to the kids was shameless.

    After watching more greeneie nonsence about artisans making coffins from willow wands, thus bringing work back to the countryside – really I’m not making this up…………

    Just imagine what they could do with an interview with you.

  71. Philhippos says:

    As of now the total of responses on the Grauniad site is almost 1000 and an eyeball scan suggests overwhelmingly opposed to Sachs so it might get through.
    Remember that the paper is totally dependent on public sector advertising for its survival and is the house journal for mental masturbators.

  72. Bill Tuttle says:

    Giving credence to an economist’s thoughts on climate is like giving credence to an editorial cartoonist’s thoughts on quantum mechanics.

    “Slimed” *was* the right word.

  73. Drew says:

    Well said Anthony.

    Autonomous Mind wrote a rather enlightened piece on the same article here:

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/when-it-comes-to-climate-science-economists-are-still-dismal/

  74. Tom P says:

    UK Sceptic (01:21:37) :

    “If lucrative grants were not involved in promoting AGW how would you explain the behaviour of CRU’s Phil Jones? Did his drive to warp climate data arise from a sense of twisted intellectual masochism?”

    Roy Spencer has just posted an analysis of satellite data that is in very good agreement with HadCRUT:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/

    His conclusions:

    “I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.”

    Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?

  75. PaulsNZ says:

    Yes the Phony report only proves to even the most average reader that the ones that clutch to the IPCC line are aligned with the proposals at Cop15, When the third world decreed that they viewed the “Agreement as suicide and a incineration of their countries” most people would have taken the sincerity expressed as sign that all is not as it appears on global Warming!.. I have heard that a-lot of green peace activists where happy until they where not wanted as the leaders arrived in Cop15!. Once they where caught up in some extreme poilic violence They realized that it was all a big show!.

  76. David Middleton says:

    Jeffrey Sachs’ monthly Enviromarxism column was THE reason we cancelled our subscription to Scientific American a few years ago.

    One column in particular infuriated me… He essentially demanded that the Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page be muzzled. Sachs’ little hissy fit went over very well at Real Climate Dot Org.

    Sachs is not a scientist. The Columbia Earth Institute is not a science program. It another one of those pseudoscience touchy-feely interdisciplinary programs in which liberal arts majors are indoctrinated in enviromarxist policies and taught to use scientific-sounding sound bytes. It’s almost as bad as John Holdren’s Energy and Resources Group at Berkeley.

    Columbia’s LDEO is one of the premiere geosciences schools in the world… Yet Columbia also sponsors two of the worst purveyors of junk science: Sachs’ group and GISS.

  77. FergalR says:

    The Guardian just don’t get it. Their latest offering, entitled “Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name?”, is from a psychologist. “His interests include the psychology of communicating climate change”?!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics

    Will every area of scientific enquiry bring itself into disrepute defending the indefensible?

  78. wayne says:

    wayne (01:51:50) : mods, could you rule between my paragraphs. The last one concerned WUWT, not Anthony.

  79. Green Sand says:

    I would like to thank Jeffrey D. Sachs – Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Guardian for publishing the article which has given my sceptical resolve a great boost.

    I am in your debt Jeffrey. Please keep up the good work. Sticks and stones ……

  80. I saw the Guardian article.

    What I did notice was the consistent comments like:

    Again with the ‘deniers’. When are the proponants of AGW going to realise that insulting people you disagree with is never going to make them ‘warm’ to your arguement.

    This piece is made up almost in it’s entirety of ad hominum attacks, appeals to authority and insults

    At the time I saw the article I think it was 30%-50% of that kind of comment, effectively saying: “please stop this rubbish”.

    And pretty much every Guardian article I have seen for the last six months has had a strong – often majority – comment kickback against the nastiness.

    It’s sad. I used to think of The Guardian</i< as a great newspaper. But they've given it away for "the cause".

    Understanding complex scientific arguments – like climate – is usually a challenge.

    If you want to make sure no one buys into your arguments just insult them first. Guaranteed result! Well done, The Guardian!

  81. softestpawn says:

    I wouldn’t worry about it – it reads like a conspiracy theorists rant because it is one, and it will just put people off believing him on anything else. Similarly the chief scientist on that BBC Newsnight ‘demonstration of the science’ who hinted at the special resources and dark operations required to get the CRU emails…

  82. Louis Hissink says:

    Folks,

    The people we are dealing with had their origins last century with the Fabian Society, and in order to understand them now, you need to understand their history – http://www.keynesatharvard.org.

    This is the start of a rather nasty “Empire Strikes Back” battle after the IPCC suffered serious damage (a little like the destruction of the first death star in Starwars) with the various “Gates” etc.

    These people are the ebola virus equivalent of humanity, they are dangerous and will stop at nothing to win this one. They have the resources of the state behind them, and that should make you very very fearful.

    Do not play their game of faulting the science – it’s the tool they using for something far more sinister as Willie Soon and Lord Monckton of Brencley discovered.

  83. Daniel H says:

    We need an update to the glossary section of WUWT. This is the second or third reference I’ve seen to CAGW and I have no idea what it means except for the AGW part (assuming CAGW is a more qualified type of AGW). According to Google it could mean one of the following things:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
    Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming
    Citizens Against Government Waste
    Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington

    There are probably others. I just gleaned those from the first page of my Google search results. So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

  84. Louis Hissink says:

    Richard (01:36:38) :
    The Guardian newspaper is basically bankrupt, financially, and kept afloat in its Green journalism by AutoTrader, a second hand car magazine. So, Monbiot works for AutoTrader!

    Good grief, so are it’s “comradely” sisters in Australia, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, to name two of the greener shades of journalism here.

  85. Jan Wedekind says:

    “Recycled critics”

    AGW sceptics also have been found to side with critics of DDT-ban, acid rain theory, swine flu vaccination, earth being the centre of the universe, … go figure.

    Regarding the ozone hole. Wasn’t it supposed to continue to widen until 2030?

  86. Manfred says:

    it is interesing to note how vigorously enablers like North, Sachs and possibly Boulton now step forward and take the driver seats, which have become vacant after so many activist scientist foot soldiers have been discredited.

    they surely try to rescue their agendas by any ugly means, however their mission is risky and they know.

  87. AWatcher says:

    If there is any consolation: These articles appeal to the core AGW/greenie constituency, but actually undermine support for AGW from the general public – even including some Guardian readers.

    You might want to consider complaining to the Press Complaints Comission (pcc.org.uk ) which is the UK newspapers self-regulation body. They will may say it is an opinion column, and therefore not hold it to as high standards as news columns, but it could be worth a try. (see the report about the ruling on the article on Stephen Gateley on the pcc site, where there were thousands of complaints about an article that was considered offensive)

  88. WestWright says:

    Mr. Anthony Watts, thank you for all you have done in the effort to find truth in CC…you deserve a real Nobel Prize! Your Honor has been slimed by not only the Guardian & the too Sachs but a huge Bureaucratic Beast, i.e., USDOE, NASA, Obama, Gordon Brown, Kevin Rudd, UN IPCC and all the shadow entities of the mighty George Soros via his Project Syndicate with it’s membership of 440 leading newspapers in 150 countries….please don’t let them get away with the defamation of your character, FIGHT BACK, the British anbt-defamation laws work for the Saudis, they should work for you. We supporters have your back and we will support your efforts. The Battle for Science has been joined….thanks to Brave men such as you, we will not be denied the truth!

  89. Robinson says:

    This is nothing new. Whenever I post my opinions on AGW elsewhere, there’s usually some twonk who pipes up with an association fallacy:

    Source A makes claim P.
    Group B also make claim P.
    Therefore, source A is a member of group B.

    I’m usually told I must be a creationist; tabacco causing cancer denial is second on the list. The fact that I think tabacco does cause cancer and that I’ve got a library full of Richard Dawkins material is irrelevant! But anyway, if this is the extent of the warmists PR fightback, I don’t think we’ve really got a whole lot to worry about.

  90. Philip Thomas says:

    The guy has a slimy man wig as well.

  91. Paul says:

    WUWT should not in anyway associate itself with an organisation that censors as the norm skeptical views on climate change.

    Indeed I would go further I suggest a BlackRoll should be setup on WUWT to highlight those blogs that regularily censor views on climate change.

  92. AusieDan says:

    Anthony – do NOT let this man get under your skin.
    Keep your cool.
    Continue with your program of factual information.
    We are behind you.
    (he’s obviously rattled or in cloud cookoo land).

  93. Mari Warcwm says:

    Never trust The Guardian. Ghastly people. They have no interest in the truth and they are not on the side of ordinary taxpayers. They are happy for the state to waste billions on non existent problems without asking any questions. My sister in law reads it. I can’t stand her.

    I have just been watching the KUSI programmes. Great! And there was Anthony Watts, a face at last putting in an excellent performance. Good men with the welfare of ordinary people at heart attacking corruption. Unlike The Guardian.

    Let’s hope that every state in the US sues against these warming taxes. Now wouldn’t that be a great show.

  94. xyzlatin says:

    Anthony,
    I’m a retired PhD in Psychology, specializing in Human Behavior.
    I am a skeptic, but try to stand back and observe the behavior of both camps, after all this is what I do best. But first, I am so sorry of your personal losses due to tobacco.
    Here are some observations.
    Prior to November 17, the skeptics were winning the debate slowly with the use of science with not too many personal attacks on the AGW camp. Since November, the skeptics had a great moral boost with the revelation that the science was indeed corrupt and that resulted in an increase in the taunts directed at the alarmists.

    When the scam got started the perpetrators never envisaged the internet and the communications between bloggers would be a threat. In fact it, the internet, is comparable to a termites nest. Collective intelligence, a few alone is nothing, but several million create an intelligence that can “do” and “create”.

    A corrupt collection of people with the same aim will destroy themselves from within. Remember, there is no honor among thieves. There will be more and more scientists break ranks and betray their colleagues. Imagine what the rest of the “Team” are thinking now that Phil Jones did that “guarded” interview with the BBC.

    In my view, it would be prudent to make a few well calculated steps into the future to completely dismantle this scam, and it won’t be easy. These steps, as I see it, are:-

    Let the lawyers take up the fight directly to the perpetrators. They too like the smell of money and will battle hard and long given the right ammunition.

    The bloggers with the special expertise, like you Anthony, and Steve McIntyre and all the others with the special skills, keep doing what they do best in dismantling the shonky science.

    The other bloggers can then get too again and feed all the other snippets if information back to the blog sites for the experts to work on.

    Keep personal attacks to a minimum and say very little. Let the scammers destroy themselves. It must happen.

    BTW. I admire your work Anthony !

  95. Mari Warcwm says:

    I agree with AWatcher, but I wouldn’t bother complaining, Anthony. You have much more important things to do with your time. On to the next triumph dear.

  96. Stephan says:

    I don’t know what you people are worried about. The comments section seems to be 99% against Sachs. More silly articles like Sachs simply make it worse for them let them go on doing it! A classic is Monbiot again one of the skeptics best friends LOL

  97. Jeffrey Sachs’ piece is prima facie evidence of the corruption, misinformation and propaganda coming from the alarmists. We can see it as propaganda, of course, but the Guardianistas are supposed not to. Change a few words and it could well have been written under the Third Reich. One has come to expect this sort of thing from Monbiot & co. in the Guardian stable. But, hey, this guy is not a scientist – he is an economist. The fact that he says “What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts” shows that he hasn’t a clue about what’s been going on.

    Sachs is in bed with Pachauri and the IPCC. Pachauri is Chairman of the Earth Institute’s ‘International Research Institute for Climate and Society’, and Sachs is on the board of that as well. They have to talk this garbage to keep the money rolling in.

    Sachs also wrote the foreword to Gavin Schmidt’s piece of blatant propaganda, see here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/04/gavin-schmidts-new-climate-picture-book/

    Sachs described the book as “a tour de force of public education”

    Sachs also wrote the foreword to the paper (reviewed by Gavin Schmidt) ‘The Psychology of Climate Change Communication’, which says

    “When communicators craft their climate change messages, they should remember
    that framing requires the careful selection of words that will resonate with the audience’s orientations”

    “When talking about climate change, communicators should frame their messages to
    match what they think the audience may already relate to and worry about in terms of national security. For instance, when speaking to people in the military, communicators could highlight the connections between climate change and potential conflicts over natural resources, especially by so-called “failed states,”
    a term often used to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. When speaking with a group of parents, communicators might want to describe what the world could be like when their children are adults—when issues like water wars, food shortages, and sheltering environmental refugees may become realities for people in the US.”

    “The most effective communication targets both processing systems of the human brain. Communicators should make use of the following experiential tools in addition to the more common analytical ones when creating presentations on climate change:
    • Vivid imagery, in the form of film footage, metaphors, personal accounts, real-world analogies, and concrete comparisons;
    • Messages designed to create, recall, and highlight relevant personal experience and to elicit an emotional response.”

    So, it’s all par for the course for the alarmists.

  98. UK Sceptic says:

    Tom P – from what I understand of the satellite data used by Phil Jones it was highly selective. Pretty much like the surface temperature data was. I am of the opinion that at the root of every great lie there is a grain of truth to give the lie substance.

  99. R.S.Brown says:

    There’s a certain satisfaction in seeing those who proclaim
    to be your opposition reduced to thrashing with strawmen in
    the mud.

    The anarchist in me enjoys it when any defender of
    consensus and conformity has to shout shrill insults
    to make a statement that gets any attention at all.

    The modern individual tends to shy away from opinion
    leaders who appear to have become openly irrational.

    J.D. Sachs has gone one toke over the line. Then again,
    playing in mud can be good therapy for irrational thought
    and bring on a cathartic experience.

    Anthony, continue providing the stimulus so the dogs of
    AGW can salivate and whimper.

  100. Caleb says:

    I became skeptical four years ago, and when I first ventured to express my skepticism I got “slimed” head to toe by a family member who I not only respected but loved. It occurred in public, so I was extremely embarrassed by the whole episode. However it was a good lesson in “standing up for your beliefs.”

    As the years have passed I’ve come to realize that some Alarmists use “Global Warming” as a platform for deeper beliefs. They have watched lovely farmland surrounding cities be turned into sprawling sub-developments that are as bad for a human’s need for community as they are for the eco-system. They intuitively feel such development can’t be right, and I tend to agree with them. However they didn’t take their thinking deeper, and instead simply leapt aboard the bandwagon of “Global Warming” because it “sounded right.”

    Now that bandwagon is losing wheels, has fallen into a river, and is rafting over a Niagara. I have some pity for the folk aboard it. However the pity is, they never had pity for me four years ago.

    As we throw out the bath-water of “Global Warming,” we need to take care not to throw out the baby, which is concern for our environment, both in terms of our natural environment and our social environment.

  101. ken cole says:

    Anthony, Please do not worry about the Guardian and Sachs article. The way the weather has behaved in the Northern Hemisphere ths winter we will all be worrying about Global Freezing before too long.
    I am old enough to remember the late Sixties and Seventies when the general concensus among the scientific fraternity was that the world was heading to another Ice Age. Perhaps they got their calculations right!

  102. Scipio says:

    When debate degenerates to ‘ad hominem attacks’ you’ve won your argument. This is the last resort of the desperate who have run out of worthy ideas.

  103. Lindsay H says:

    theres nothing worse than being damned with faint praise.
    the Guardian knows damn well that the article is a political diatribe. The fact that they publish it in the face of mounting criticism of the whole Climate Science IPCC Industrial complex with powerfull interests in keeping the Government money flowing, simply tells us that the Guardian is being true to its ideological lines as a mouthpiece for the Labor Government and the Left/Greens.
    Never the less they will be monitoring the comments, as will the ABC with their similar puff piece and the comments clearly show a huge shift in attitudes and values towards the sceptical end compared to say a year ago.
    Dont be surprised if you see a subtle shift in the agenda from the Left /Green newspapers as they try to keep abreast with public opinion to stay relevant.
    The politicians are getting increasingly nervous with elections looming.

  104. UK Sceptic says:

    PS Tom P – Phil Jones himself has gone on public record as admitting there has been no significant warming since 1998. It sort of makes a nonsense of all the warm biased figures that have merged from CRU over the last decade or so.

  105. Hoi Polloi says:

    High time the “Big Money” allegation was reversed. As with all campaigns receiving the sort of political backing that the “climate change” lobby is receiving, one must ask that age old question “cui bono” and back comes the answer two industries in particular. First is the nuclear industry, which explains just why the European Union are the world’s greatest AGW headbangers, for which two countries dominate the European Union and which two countries have the largest nuclear industries – France and Germany in both cases.

    Then in the case of the UK, one should ask why, to the great anger and disgust of so many of its supporters, does the Leadership of the Conservative Party so enthusiastically embrace the AGW campaign and once again back comes that old “Deep Throat” answer – “follow the money”. Then the picture becomes altogether clearer, for the tight knit group of David Cameron and friends who currently control the Party are very, very close to the City of London and get the bulk of their funding from the City and the City stands to hugely benefit from the “climate change” scam in two ways. Firstly, the City will make mega amounts amounts of money from the raising of the hundreds of billions that are going to be required to fund the construction of nuclear and clean coal installations and secondly the City of London is the location for 75% of all the world’s carbon trading desks and 80% of all carbon trading is carried out in the City.

    Like I said, just ask that old old question “cui bono” and things make a great deal more sense.

  106. Steve Keohane says:

    Tom P (02:33:34):Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?
    14 whole years of correlation, I’m sure it confirms your faith.

  107. John Hooper says:

    All I can say is “I told you so.” I said if you want to take the moral higher ground, you have to make sacrifices.

    But if you get into bed with dogs soon enough you’ll wake up with fleas.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

    http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

    In PR circles the enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend.

  108. RockyRoad says:

    Of all the nefarious schemes perpetrated by the Warmers and their ilk, the one most egregious is the methodical adjustment factors exposed in the prior post Fudged Fevers of the Frozen North.

    We need to dig up as many of those and hit them over the head with it over and over again.

    It is a concept even the most inexperienced layperson can understand–they fudged the numbers down then they fudged them up, and without any substantive reasons. It is easy to see where most “global warming” came from (I call it the “honing of the hockey stick”)

    Let people like Sachs become the bottom feeders (“Sucks”?) of climate slimes. In fact, let’s start calling a spade a spade: Such folks are indeed “climate slimes”.

    I believe the term is fitting.

  109. Jimbo says:

    All this talk of tobacco industry methods is crap indeed. Hey Anthony, I bet you are even greener than Sachs.

    No whenever I’m told by Warmers about oil funding or tobacco I copy and past the following:

    CUR Funding:
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    ————

    In 2005, Pachauri helped set up set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

    “He is an internationally recognized figure in energy and sustainable development, having served on numerous boards and committees including Director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;…
    Source: http://www.glorioil.com/advisors.htm

    “Our chemical lab in Houston is state of the art, custom built for purpose with one goal in mind – to supply the US oil industry with world class biotechnology to increase oil recovery from mature fields.”
    Source: http://www.glorioil.com/technology.htm

    “Our research facility in India focuses primarily on long term R&D projects such as heavy oil degradation, methane biogeneration from coal beds, and other initiatives.”
    Source: http://www.glorioil.com/company.htm

    ———-

    CRU seeks big oil and big business cash
    Source:
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt

  110. Steve Keohane says:

    Sorry, meant 24 years, same insignificance.

  111. harleyrider1978 says:

    smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

    http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization_.html

    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

  112. Neil Craig says:

    Actually despite the Guardian’s typical ignorance acid rain has turned out to be a groundless scare. British acid rain is good for Norway’s trees, says a Norwegian scientific study http://web.archive.org/web/20040630202225/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml
    In the normal manner of eco-scares the media give the fact that they were untrue not 1.000th as much coverage as the false hype.

    In a similar way the paper’s George Moonbat attacked Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle on the grounds that Durkin had, unlike him, opposed the breast implants scare, either not knowing or not caring that this scare had also been proven false.

    In fact it is virtually impossible to find any eco-scare (or indeed Guardian campaign) which has not subsequently turned out to be wholly or largely untrue.

  113. Jimbo says:

    Correction: “No whenever ” should be “Now,/b> whenever “

  114. berniel says:

    May I join the chorus and say all credit to you Anthony, as we are your witnesses and as is every post on this blog.

    As I read these guys there flashes before my eyes the religious controversies of the distant past. They have great empire built upon a dogma, and they are threatened, and now they have no answers. Think of all that you and CA have laid out in the public gaze…and what can he do…address them? No. He attacks his critics as agents of the devil.

    That is what he is saying: Tobacco, Big Oil etc are agents of the devil. We are traitors of humanity, selling not only ourselves but all humanity to the devilish fiery destruction.

    If this defence does not work (and soon it wont) History tells us that the next step can only be violence. And they cant win with that and so they wont use it. And so, as many have said above, this article is a good sign, a sign of desperation, a sign that this pathetic atribution as agents of the devil is all that they have left.

    Its a sign that you are doing something right – so, I encourage you not to be baited by them with their namecalling and keep pushing the science!

  115. perturbed says:

    @ Stacey (01:02:40) : At first I was about to correct you and say “Surely you meant JUNK Science.” Then I remembered Copenhagen and thought “No, she’s right.”

    @ Mr Sachs: This is not the way to win friends. Well done, sir – you’ve just shot your cause in the foot. Again.

  116. Martin Ackroyd says:

    It’s a religion and its fervent adherents, who were less than polite to those they liked to term “deniers” even before Climategate, can be expected to become more and more strident and nasty as belief in the AGW religion diminishes. This example is only the start of what we can expect.

    I think it has coma as a surprise to the Guardian’s editors – and no doubt they are still coming to terms with it – to find that comments against the AGW religion in response to article’s like Sachs’s are:

    – articulate and expressed firmly but in moderate language
    – numerous, indicating that a good percentage of Guardian readers are not AGW believers
    – receiving a larger proportion of “recommend” clicks than AGW commens.

    For example, the comment I posted (below) had received 316 “recommend” clicks when I last looked.

    “Nil carborundum” , Mr Watts – someone who knows Latin will translate.

    Martin A
    ____________________________________________________________
    My comment posted on Sachs article….

    The IPCC and its prophets are discredited.

    “Climate change science”, as we have seen from the Climatgate emails – read them if you are doubtful – is based on analysis that is tweaked to produce the desired results and data that has been “value added” in ways that emphasise the desired results.

    If your experiments (or your analyses) are not repeatable by others, what you are doing is not science. Richard Feynman, the greatest 20th C scientist, after Einstein, gave a talk on what he called “Cargo Cult Science”. There, you do everything that real scientists do except to apply scrupulous honesty in searching out your own errors.

    Jones, Mann and co were aware their work was on dodgy ground – hence their refusal to release their data to enable others to attempt to duplicate their work.

    If you attempt to prevent others from finding your errors, as “The Team” did, then what you are doing is worse than not being real science – it is anti-science.

    What they were doing was generating propaganda for a cause. The cause they had come to believe in was the AGW Religion – not scientific truth.

  117. Well, As for the background on the Project Syndicate – it was established by The Soros Foundation. here annual report : http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/soros_AR_1999/j_otherinitiatives_99.pdf#search=%22%22Project%20Syndicate%22%22

  118. John Wright says:

    Let them do their worst, Anthony.

  119. cedarhill says:

    When dealing with the science of the left don’t forget they bring their political science playbook with them. Step on of this particular play is the smear by association with a defined “evil’ group then direct smear by linking specific persons to the group. The fact that the article was shopped around is get to step two where it is reported in two or more publications. Then it goes main stream media viral with the introduction of “as reported in”. All aimed at discrediting the messenger then the message.

    It’s a damaging blow whenever it’s played. For example, if someone declares you molested a child the charge will be widespread. Regardless of outcome, you will be forever noted in the media as “involved in a child molestation controversy”. It’s like someone telling you that you must prove to them you’re not a racist.

    It does show the political left-wing support group(s) are still in business. The debate, if there ever was one, is now moving to the mud-slinging Alinsky phase. As soon as Obama finishes nationalizing health care he may decide to take on the skptics. If so, the debate will become worse than you can imagine.

  120. Hovig says:

    In his article Jeffrey Sach’s writes;

    “The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.”

    I note that at the top of his article’s web page, there is a link to a news story titled; “Climate scientists retract sea level paper”.

    I’m reminded of the proverb; “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

  121. Raredog says:

    I did respond TinyCo2 (01:26:24), regarding Clive Hamilton’s piece, “Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial”, at ABC Unleashed.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

    I suspect there are a few nutters out there angry enough to be intimidating in their emails but Clive’s argument would be on more solid ground if he were to give us a rough percentage of how many emails are as intimidating as those he is quoting: is it near 100 per cent; 50 %; 1%?

    Also Clive, you cannot just assume that these intimidating responses are part of an orchestrated campaign without supplying evidence. I have no way of knowing but I think that the response of a number of people, who perhaps are fed up of feeling they are being lied to by the authorities (and the ABC) is sufficient for some of them to respond angrily in an intimidating fashion. You can only abuse people’s trust for so long. And before any climate alarmists get on my case bear in mind that those people seeking straight answers to straight questions not only wished to be taken seriously but also not be abused because they resist being obsequious to a supposed authority that is increasingly proving to be disingenuous.

    Clive, in 2008 you were quoted as saying, with regard to the notion of anthropogenic climate change, “Well, quite frankly, if you’re not terrified, you’re not listening to what the climate scientists are saying”, after which you added, “I think we’re beyond feeling hopeful, and the only way to get people to take the necessary action is to scare the pants off them.”

    This line of thinking comes directly from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research located at the University of East Anglia, home of the CRU email leaks. Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre, quoted in “The Guardian” newspaper neatly sums up this line of thinking by saying that, “self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists and politicians must trade truth for influence.”

    Paul Kelly, editor-at-large of “The Australian” newspaper said in the March 21, 2007 edition that the climate “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.”

    Readers can draw their own conclusions; my conclusion is that Clive Hamilton, as a professor of Public Ethics, is manipulative and selective in his arguments. If the climate debate is about policy solutions then how about bringing people on board through an open and honest debate rather than through abuse and deceit. After all it is us, we the people, who will be paying for these policies.

  122. Dawn Watson says:

    er what’s on this about climate wars? Its only a bloody war on the internet – outside its looking pretty freaky – Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.

    even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?

    A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ‘stealth taxes’ (I know this as my own father harps on about it having being brainwashed by the daily express (he didn’t do any science at school).

    As a country we have some serious energy decisions to make, and embarking on a low carbon future would mean we are more resilient and less dependent on volatile foreign energy sources.

    Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….

    Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo – just think on that a little would you?

  123. BB says:

    While I understand your anger, it might be wise to bear in mind that no organization is monolithic. The goal of the paper is to sell pulp or hits, so most editors don’t have a great deal of integrity anymore… its business.

    That doesn’t neccessarily mean that an individual within the Guardian isn’t interested in being an honest broker though. Castigating potential allies because of their associations seems shortsighted. If you’d said that the author of the article in question was the guy that wrote to you, then that’d be a different story altogether.

  124. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Mr Watts

    As one of your regular readers and contributors: here’s my take on tobacco.

    I worked, from aged 21 to 32, broadly, in Cancer Research. I was funded by the two major UK charities, Cancer Research Campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which merged to become Cancer Research UK. The last Director General (aka head honcho scientist) of that organisation made his single biggest campaign on the subject of smoking. And it sure as heck wasn’t promoting cigarettes to children in school…….

    Here’s my take on oil. Rightly or wrongly, I took the position that the Iraq war was about oil, specifically UK and US interests exploiting Iraqi oil. Those who monitor the online media may just possibly detect that I made some fairly strong statements about that, which were not necessarily complimentary to oil interests……..

    Another position I hold on oil. It’s the fuel of today and this century. It may not be the fuel of the next one, but right now, our world is run by it. And I for one wish to exist in heated houses, not a tent. Because I’m not a Berber in North Africa or an Arabian from Medina, I’m a Brit at 50+N degrees latitude…….whose last two winters were colder, not warmer, than the ones before………

    Another position I hold on oil. Their funding of other energy sources is considerable. They are interested in wind power, biofuels, tidal energy and solar. Ultimately, they are energy generation companies. They are not brutally anti-‘green’, they are in the business of making money.

    The final position I hold. The IPCC has an agenda. It funds research. So it prejudges the outcome of that research.

    And the funds in the state sector for global warming far outstrips that of oil interests.

    I’d like the Guardian to address THAT little nugget more than anything else.

  125. P Gosselin says:

    The more they name-call, whine, complain and moan, the more it means we are getting the upper hand.

  126. Thomas says:

    If there was one thing that was clear in the climategate files, it was that Phil Jones was receiving millions of euros in funding from Big Government like the EU. That’s undeniable fact, yet somehow it is moral to receive money from big government politicians who mostly have an authoritarian agenda, and will use the CAGW scare to their benefit.

  127. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

    It would appear the global warming propagandists are in fact part of the anti-smoking lobby too!

    This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging

  128. Oslo says:

    The Project Syndicate, distributing this article, is a George Soros pet project, pushing the internationalist agenda.

    Internationalists view global warming as a tool for furthering global integration through the transfer of power from nation states to international institutions.

    The “Global strategists” of the Project Syndicate are the following people: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Haass, Sergei Karaganov, and Kenichi Ohmae.

    The three first names are affiliated with the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, the latter is author of books such as “A borderless world” and “Next Global Stage: The: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World”.

  129. wayne says:

    Skeptics are way down the totem pole. First Sachs has gone after Bush, then mainly Obama, then the developed countries, then…
    http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_0dc4fd4f-58b5-5192-94de-23f83bad0961.html

    Well let’s see, Professor Jeffrey Sachs

    And you have doubts these guys are going after your family’s food and water besides your energy, think again!

    Source: Des Moines Register, Colombia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, 2009 Borlaug Dialogue


    Sachs said agriculture is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, and he also linked the industry to depletion of water supplies and fisheries and poor dietary habits.

    Seems Sachs is speaking much of carbon credit trading of late. Search and read his other articles, speeches.

    Isn’t Columbia just a hop, skip and jump from Wall Street too, besides NASA’s GISS? Now where is the connection? Who is doing what to whom I wonder?

  130. roger samson says:

    Sachs is a trained economist. I always love it when people have an arrogance so high that they feel they can speak loudly on issues when their knowledge is limited. Sachs also recommended free chemical fertilizer to african farmers as a development strategy. He has no knowledge of the best stratgies for soil fertility management on the fragile soils of Africa. As an agricultural scientist with experience working In Africa I can say his fertilizer advice is harmful to development. Similarly he has limited understanding of the climate change issue.

  131. Carbon Dioxide says:

    Tony Benn (on an entitely unrelated subject -google him) is famous for stating that “…an empire in decline is at it’s most dangerous.”

    He was refering to the British Empre, but in the same way, I also see AGW as an empire in decline.

  132. CodeTech says:

    I skimmed through the comments on that article… and was left with a feeling of awe.

    If it was MY pet theory, I sure wouldn’t want most of those guys as my vocal supporters.

    Oh well… if ignorance is bliss, they seem very happy. Seems to me they should be more upset about the horrid consequences about to befall the planet, but no, they waste their time scoring “points” against anonymous people they disagree with.

    By the way, the Ghandi quote is printed in the AGW alarmists guide to manipulating the rubes, they think it applies to them. (hint: it was a guidebook in the FOIA files)

  133. Gareth says:

    All that hot air from Jeffrey Sachs he doesn’t manage to address the actual science and the perfectly valid questions that have been asked of it for years but now the volume has been turned up to eleven so everyone can hear them.

    Well, except those with their fingers in their ears and their hands in our pockets.(Quite a trick, that.)

  134. ManDeLaMancha says:

    Sachs’ essay epitomizes the intellectual inbreeding and academic corruption that thoroughly permeates America’s Ivy League institutions today. Too few of the faculty of the most prestigious institutions have minds of their own; they are instead panderers to intellectual fashion and political correctness. It’s telling that the legitimate critics are disproportinately from outside of academe, and even more disportionately from outside of institutions like Columbia. Dr. Sachs, your superficial analyis would earn an F in any decent undergraduate course.

  135. Leigh says:

    I support you whole heartedly Anthony. I am a climate change skeptic, with family who have suffered the effects of smoking. So I am an ardent anti smoker and to make this link is trawling the gutter. Another tactic they have tried is to paint themselves as victims of cyber bullying and define the debate along political lines. See here.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

    CAGW proponents are coming under greater scrutiny lately, and to resort to this kind of response rather than present evidence, just reinforces my skepticism. I wonder how many people support CAGW simply because it aligns with their politics, rahter than looking for the evidence?

  136. AWatcher says:

    Slightly, OT: Take a look at this article about climategate.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climategate

    Look at the bottom – you get “Related SourceWatch articles” – include “Philip Morris”

    So look over the body, and the only appearance of Morris (actually this time spelled “Phillip Morris” with two Ls) is that American Freedom of Information, including a Shelby Amendment, in 1993 that was allegedly drafted by somebody who once did consultancy for Philip Morris.

    There is no actual connection between Philip Morris to the University of East Anglia. Or to Phil Jones. Or to Climategate. Or even to any fact, debate, research or issue relating to climate change. Or anything in the body of the article. But they consider it Philip Morris one of the most relevant links. It’s bizarre.

  137. Joe says:

    IPCC has a credibility problem. In order to survive longer, they have to change the swinging public perception.
    To protect their organization, they have to attack and disable the opposition.
    It doesn’t matter what the content is as long as it takes the focus away from the IPCC organization itself.
    Notice the content is focused away from the issue? Try to attack where the public is most gullible.

    IPCC deniers are also baby killers.

    Get my point?

  138. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    He’s a troll. You addressed his lack of professionalism very well, Anthony. History will look back upon Sachs as an intolerant, unscholarly man who made his voice most well known to all the adorers of politically correct totalitarianism who read the Guardian and who ended up eating his own words like so many before him and to come.

  139. UK Sceptic says:

    Dawn Watson, If you would like to know how effective the low carbon energy alternative is, especially during a cold snap, lobby Glasgow council to allow the city’s energy to flow directly from Whitelee Wind Farm rather than from the high percentage fossil fuel based energy supplied by the national grid. If you succeed in persuading them I’ll warrant we’ll be able to hear the resulting bitching all over the UK.

    Yes, we need a secure energy supply but new energy sources do not just pop out of a hat fully formed. Solar panels and windmills are not the answer. At best they provide a minor supplementary input. The only current real alternative to oil and gas is nuclear but due to laziness on the behalf of several governments we are about to see that source dwindle very shortly.

  140. Mac says:

    A critique of Jeffrey Sachs’s very expensive vanity project Millennium Villages

    http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2007/08/25/criticisms-of-the-millennium-villages-some-thoughts/

    Key quote: “I don’t, bluntly, think Sachs has been entirely honest in this.”

    It would seem that Jeffrey Sachs is not a man who can take criticism.

  141. Stacey says:

    @BB

    Why do you think that it goes without saying that a business because it sells products or services has to have no integrity?

    Anyway because of the Guardians love of everything which is so called green then it should be renamed The Guardener?

  142. Jeff B. says:

    Just a coward who’s got to do his part protecting Gavin and Jim.

  143. Corey says:

    Here is the Soros connection:

    S O R O S F O U N D A T I O N S N E T W O R K R E P O R T (2005)
    http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20060724/a_complete.pdf

    NGO PARTNERS
    Another form of partnership is also of enormous
    importance to the Soros foundations: the relationships
    with grantees that have developed into
    alliances in pursuing crucial parts of the open
    society agenda.
    These partners include, but are not limited to:

    Project Syndicate for providing diverse commentaries
    to over 240 newspapers worldwide;

  144. Sean Peake says:

    Anthony, Project Syndicate is a Soros-backed org. Time to put that guy out of business.

  145. harleyrider1978 says:

    Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levelsStudy claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

  146. Joe says:

    ken cole (03:30:06)

    The Ice Age hipe in the 70’s was due to cooling and science just trying to use the time frames between Ice Ages to calculate when this one is to occur.

    All of science missed the boat in actually exploring into the cause and effect to an Ice Age.
    Why does Mars not have water and we do?
    What protects our water from evaporating away?

    SALT

    Has the next Ice Age started? Yes!
    The salt in our oceans have changed dramatically on both being saltier in some areas and much less in others to increase evaporation and cloud cover.

  147. dfbaskwill says:

    You go Anthony. Ditto. Take them down. I’ll be right with you.

  148. R. de Haan says:

    Anthony, I have a great respect and admiration for your relentless efforts to build bridges, produce the correct science and promote dialogue.

    But there won’t be any honest discussion.
    As we concluded many times this is not about science but politics.
    Dirty politics!

    All that really helps is to continue our path and present the best of the science and inform those open to the truth.

    We will really get them when we trigger a political shift which puts us in a position to cut the funding of the institutions promoting the scare, stop the Government propaganda machine, role back the rulings and clean house.

    That’s the only way to go.

  149. JonesII says:

    That Jeffrey D. Sachs is the one who, with his leftist and populist economics, has broken down many countries that followed his apocalyptic advices.
    This clearly shows that there is quite a well articulated liberal “staff”, in international institutions or near them, ready to advice in “convenient” policies, from fake climate change to suicidal economics.

  150. RockyRoad says:

    Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :

    Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….
    —————–
    Reply:
    Absolutely astounding.

    First, gutting the current system won’t help make the transition. It should be market driven, not policy driven based on “creative science” as I view AGW. When market forces argue for the transition to something else for what you call “fuel poverty”, it should be done in the most logical, efficient procedure possible and in the correct direction. There are many promising technologies on the horizon right now that should be given the chance to mature before making a solid decision. (And no, we’re not just suddenly going to run out of nuclear fuel, coal, oil or gas.)

    While your ultimate aim may be noble from your perspective, the economic hardships faced in getting there may be insurmountable.

    Let me offer you some perspective as a mining engineer–one who has worked on projects w/ capital outlay of up to $1.5 Billion.

    First of all, you must consider whether the technology you’re embracing (wind, solar, no nuclear, no carbon) even makes sense.

    Then, if the capital doesn’t exist to make the transition, it won’t happen; it SHOULDN’T happen.

    Do you want to think about that for a moment? Just where is all this money going to come from to jump from a system that’s working efficiently right now (and no, I don’t believe CO2 is anywhere near the main driver in “climate change”–if that is the reason for your position then you need to re-think it) to a system that entails untenable, unreliable components as a solution? Are you willing to just do without electricity when the winds don’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?

    Would you personally finance such an approach? No you wouldn’t, and that’s why it’s is taking hair-brained governments to do the pushing. Well, group think on something like this by politicians is laughable. LAUGHABLE!
    So dear mad’am, please take your fanciful attitude someplace else and get logical and real. What you’re dreaming up is all fine and dandy if you got a degree in Art History or Socialism, but it doesn’t work very well in the real world.

    What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make.

    There is a far better way.

  151. RockyRoad says:

    Scipio (03:30:26) :

    When debate degenerates to ‘ad hominem attacks’ you’ve won your argument. This is the last resort of the desperate who have run out of worthy ideas.
    ———–
    Reply:
    Bingo! Well said.

  152. Don’t worry Anthony, Sachs is a hairdo. He’s just another dismal scientist (economist) whose failures in his own field (transforming economies of former communist east European states) have seen him migrate to join the climate change bandwagon.

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/when-it-comes-to-climate-science-economists-are-still-dismal/

    When people like Sachs resort to such vacuous nonsense, you know they have lost the argument. But for them the science is still sound, right? Their revenue stream depends on that being so.

  153. Jason says:

    Wow, that article sounded like a desperate last ditch effort to convince a growing skeptical world. Talk about cirling the wagons!

  154. JonesII says:

    Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too
    How fool you are Jeffy!, you are so transparent buddy!, you have just told us, that, instead, YOU and YOUR PEERS, did all that, invented all those tales, from cancer smoking to einstein´s relativity and its multidimensional unexisting and child scaring phantoms!

  155. Wade says:

    Have you ever cornered a scared animal? These are the most dangerous animals. When an animal is cornered, it cannot run. The flight-or-fight instinct takes over and the animal fights because flight is impossible. A cornered animal is the most dangerous animal.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Except such attack to increase because that is all they have left. These so-called scientists and professors don’t have facts, but they they have juvenile name-calling. They are cornered by the facts, so their only option left is to fight. Their only options are admit defeat and give up the money and power or attack the people exposing them; but we know that ain’t going to happen. People do bad things for money.

  156. Pete H says:

    During the Stalingrad campaign there was an Xmas broadcast from the front line saying…”We are Winning” That was a fake as well!

    The Guardian is only good for wrapping up fish and chips Anthony! Never mind mate, what does not hurt you makes you stronger.

  157. Baa Humbug says:

    Re: Dawn Watson (Feb 22 03:58),

    A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ’stealth taxes

    Just think a little on this Dawn…….It wasn’t a government mandate that got us off the horses back and on to motor vehicles, it was private enterprise and demand and supply.
    And how about thinking about the precedent that would be set if lies, false science and vested interests were allowed to hold sway. What would/could be next?
    And how about a little thought about the ends justifying the means? A fine way to run global politics.
    How about thinking about the millions dying TODAY, NOW in poor countries, and them being told of imagined problems 50 years hence? Why don’t you convince them that they should worry about AGW or peak oil instead of their kids STARVING TODAY.
    Spare me the indignant rants.

  158. A long time back I worked with a fellow whose stock response was “Don’t confuse me with facts—my mind is made up”.

    Geoff A

  159. Steve Goddard says:

    Without all of that horrible oil and gas, Professor Sachs would be starving and freezing to death in the dark. Talk about a clueless, ungrateful malcontent..

  160. Claude Harvey says:

    Excellent “rant” Andrew! I love a really good rant and yours is right out there among the best. Every now and then it does the soul good to get it out of your system, doesn’t it? Those who’ve sold their souls to the AGW funding ghouls can never know such cathartic relief. They rant, but something remains stuck inside that can never be disgorged.

  161. Greylar says:

    I like being called a denier and wear the moniker proudly. As people here have pointed out, if we are deniers then the other side must be believers. And since the term believers assumes a trust in something by faith, it clearly shows the AGW religion for what it is.

    G

  162. hunter says:

    This is the latest concerted effort by the AGW promotion community to silence skeptics.
    By the way, it is now a plot by us, according to some AGW promoter I listened to on NPR yesterday, that global warming was turned into ‘climate change’.
    And just to prove that AGW promoters are not marketing driven, this same person, during the same interview, told the softball reporter that the new name for global warming is ‘climate crisis’.

  163. kim says:

    I pity Naomi Oreskes for her paranoia.
    ======================

  164. hunter says:

    Dawn,
    Do you think that replacing fuels with windmills and solar cells?
    Do you think that imposing a $trillion cure for a non-existent problem is a good thing?
    And do you realize that Vancouver exists in no small part because it was a place to access the far north yet had light winters?

  165. TonyB says:

    Dawn said;

    “even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?”

    If you read this blog a little more closely you will see that our host is a enthusiastic user of electric vehicles and shares an interest in renewable energy with many of his readers. I have written an article on wave energy myself.

    Why is the weather In Glasgow freaky? Perhaps you would also tell me when Vancouver records began?

    Tonyb

  166. I put the following response to Sachs’ rhetoric:

    Mr Sachs and his readers may be interested to know that, in addition to annual funding from both British and American tax payers, the CRU at UEA have received considerable funds from the following vested interests:

    British Petroleum – Oil, LNG
    Broom?s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre – Food to Ethanol
    The United States Department of Energy – Nuclear
    UK Nirex Ltd. – Nuclear
    Sultanate of Oman – LNG
    Shell Oil, ?Oil – LNG
    Tate and Lyle – Food to Ethanol
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate – Nuclear
    KFA Germany – Nuclear
    World Wildlife Fund – Political Advocates
    Greenpeace International – Political Advocates

    IPPC AR 4 (2007) has admitted serious errors on the following claims:

    Sea-level rises: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

    Himalayan Glacier retreating rates – Non-science based claim, known by IPCC President to be erroneous and forced (by sceptics) to retract.

    Arctic sea-ice melting: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Droughts in Africa will lead to sever food shortages – Non-science based claim, since retracted by IPCC.

    Increase in levels of Hurrican severity: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/may_june_july.jpg

    Polar Bears are not in decline or endangered. Brazilian rainforests have been denuded because of logging (now to produce bio-fuels!). Antarctic sea and land ice are expanding. etc, etc, etc

  167. Lady in Red says:

    I understand why Anthony is upset.

    At the same time, this is sooooooooooo bad! It is hard to believe a grown-up wrote it. It is mush. Nothing more.

    If more people affiliated with the University read it, he may not be long to remain….?

    The other possibility is that “carbon trading interests…?” held a “gun” to his head: write something; defend the science, or this will be the end of funding dollars for the institute….. So, reluctantly, he did.

    I don’t know… I do know the piece is very bad. Seventh grade stuff.
    ………Lady in Red

  168. Richard Wakefield says:

    Anthony, they can’t help themselves. All True Believers of a faith must demonize the opponents. Us atheists have been this for a long time.

  169. A Lovell says:

    For a realistic look at passive smoking see ‘dave hitt/facts.

  170. P.S. Suggest that all proud sceptics send sensible, science-based counter-arguments to Sachs. HAPPY HUNTING!!

  171. Hoi Polloi says:

    “well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all. ”

    Well, your auntie doesn’t know it, but Vancouver has in fact the mildest climate of any Winter Games host city. Vancouver has an average temperature of 4.8 degrees Celsius. Vancouver has an average snowfall of just 48 centimetres and, as most Vancouverites know, it is rare for even that small amount to stay on the ground for more than a couple of days.

    So all this is not due to Global Warming, but merely a political choice of choosing a snow arm area to hold the Winter Olympics.

    “However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo”
    Pure out of marketing reasons Oil Companies currently do have a lot of vested interests in AGW and don’t forget the Carbon Credit Exchange market (where Al Bore and Pachauri have big vested interests).

  172. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Anthony,

    When a pinheaded coward like Sachs writes such drivel, it really shows that he is gutless, clueless but most of all afraid.

    Afraid his carefully constructed lip-lock on the public teat will be terminated and his get rich & famous by flogging fear & hysteria scheme will blow up in his face.

    Sachs is just another cheap eco-grifter riding the great AGW ponzi scam to an easy career and a fat bank account.

    Getting rich through misrepresentation is a morally reprehensible act . . . . put Sach’s name on the list for the trials to follow.

  173. Herman L says:

    no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions

    Do you have a list of “the tough questions?” And are they all purely scientific questions? Post them here!

  174. Bernie says:

    Anthony:
    The Guardian has closed off comments – total was 1037. I have not read them all – it seemed very slow – but judging from the reactions to and recommendations of the comments Sachs’s piece was seen for exactly what it was – a PR hit piece. I suspect that someone, somewhere is putting two and two together and realizing that more and more people are simply not buying the type of ad hominem arguments that Sachs tried to put forward.
    I think the ultimate irony is to have somebody with close ties to Soros pontificate about others who actually have no connections to nefarious behind hte scenes actors and interests. Prof. Sachs should be ashamed of himself.

  175. maz2 says:

    Socialism & AGW: clones. Pyramid schemes. Extortion rackets.

    “But sometimes the information is not available or it’s faked.”
    …-

    “True lies

    Markets work by assimilating and pricing information. But sometimes the information is not available or it’s faked. The Greek debt crisis has focused renewed attention on the accounting procedures used by other European countries to measure their compliance with Eurozone guidelines now that the information shortcomings have been revealed. Investors, having lost confidence in the official numbers provided by Athens are demanding better figures. The Wall Street Journal says new doubts about “sophisticated” reporting practices used in the past are being expressed not just for Portugal but even for core countries like France and Germany. One particularly controversial practice is the use of currency swaps on the advice of, among others, Goldman Sachs.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/02/22/true-lies/

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013415.html#comments

  176. EdB says:

    “Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests”

    The CAGW meme is causing the USA to ignore its own vast coal reserves. The USA needs to build coal plants, not windmills and solar, or even nuclear, as it gives the lowest cost stable power and acts to lift the American economy. The money for solar and windmills goes straight to China. How daft is that! Coal is 100% made in America!

    The belief that the CAGW meme will somehow lead to better energy policy is bogus. It leads to the downfall of the USA.(Obama, take heed!)

  177. Tom P says:

    UK Sceptic (03:22:43) :

    “…from what I understand of the satellite data used by Phil Jones it was highly selective.”

    Roy Spencer is analysing his own data and finding very good agreement with the CRU temperatures. The period analysed is from 1986 and shows a significant warming trend:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ISH-vs-CRUTem3NH-1986-thru-20091.jpg

  178. drjohn says:

    The Guardian has closed the comment section and has removed a good number of comments. It’s not likely they were complimentary.

    Sachs is astonishingly superficial.

  179. Bill Marsh says:

    I’m not sure that ‘slimy’ captures the articles essence. I would expect something like this from Michael Moore, not a ‘scientist’. I note that Naomi Oreskes’s new book is touted. After the exposure of her warped ‘Global Warming’ research I find it hard to believe she could actually find a publisher.

    I note that comments are closed and the moderator deleted a number of comments that are there.

  180. Pamela Gray says:

    Well paint me a religious Nazi tobaccy fanatic. Not. I too am currently reeling under the thumb of tobacco smoke and will be spending much time in grief soon enough. Tobacco isn’t even on the “last things” list I would support. Flat earther? Again, not. And the holocaust-flavored term is designed to bully, plain and simple. All of those one-liners aren’t even worthy of printed toilet paper. But Smokey, it doesn’t help to be quoting from Pachy’s book.

  181. TMotion says:

    I work for NOAA on the side of fisheries and ocean research and preservation. I am not a scientist but I do have the sense that things have gotten out of hand. I see these “talking points” in use daily. I see the “non-science minded” jumping on this train of misinformation. These same people are making policies in our governments. This climate change paranoia has recently created a new division in NOAA called NOAA’s climate service. Where do you think the money will come from to fund this? This planet will run low on seafood and clean water in a matter of decades. Much sooner than any effects that anthropogenic climate change will have, however minute it is. These climate change scare tactics are redirecting our financial interests and priorities to the point where we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If you like clean water and seafood, be concerned. WUWT, thanks for speaking out and providing the truth.

  182. wayne says:

    TinyCo2 (01:26:24) :

    Here’s a quote by ABC’s Clive Hamilton earlier:

    Prof Hamilton said scientists now have a duty to inform the public about the risks of climate change so action is taken and people are ready to adapt their lifestyles.

    “There is a view we should not scare people because it makes them go down their burrows and close the door but I think the situation is so serious that although people are afraid they are not fearful enough given the science,” he said. “Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.”

    And what, now he’s calling all skeptics terrorists? Yeah, real honest guy, trained in subversion [sarc].

  183. Roger Knights says:

    (PS: for non-British readers, the “Guarniad” spelling is a British in-joke, referring to its reputation for errorrs/erorrs, oh, dammit, mistakes!)

    But, creditably, it was their own in-house ombudsman who regularly publicized every typo brought to his attention, including “Guarniad” in order to “encourage” the publication’s copy editors to be more careful.

    E.M.Smith
    At one time, I was rather strident in my advocacy that tobacco be banned. … [But] I’ve reached a point where I must state that I think it is any individual’s right to smoke to death, should they wish to do so

    There’s a wonderful win/win solution available in the new “electronic cigarette.” It vaporizes a nicotine solution, contained in a replaceable cartridge, eliminating cancer-causing tars and the risks of second-hand smoke. (Of course, as safety-Nazis cavil, there’s the danger of overdosing (the same could be said of water) and of addiction, although that’s a moot point for current smokers.)

    Whether it’s 99% safer than tobacco, or only 90% safer, is something we can settle later. For now, the product’s existence provides assurance that tobacco prohibition would not be an intolerable imposition on current addicts and would not be flouted by the populace the way alcohol prohibition was.

    Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette#Nicotine_solution

    Health agency bureaucrats don’t like the idea that the products haven’t been peer reviewed or sought official approval prior to marketing. And they instinctively frown on any advertising that implies health benefits — but that’s primarily because they have an abstinence-based mind-set, and they think that infringes on their “turf.”

    The bottom line is that official endorsement of these products, even in the absence of tobacco prohibition, would beneficially impact the nation’s health far more than a continuation of their current mostly futile attempts at tobacco discouragement. Only tiny declines in smoking and snuffing are likely henceforth in the absence of an alternative delivery device.

  184. geo says:

    The real trend, alas, is for some intelligent people on either side of important debates to refuse to believe that another intelligent person could come to a different conclusion on the issue at hand. It is so clear to them, that the obvious conclusion to come to is that other intelligent fellow must not “really” not see it –they must have some other agenda causing them to “deny the obvious”.

  185. Harold Ambler says:

    “Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity.” — Jeffrey Sachs

    I’ll say this, it does make me wonder.

  186. Doug S says:

    Jeffrey Sachs seems to be a very confused individual – or – he is in a position to make money from the AGW scam. Perhaps a combination of the two?

  187. emmaliza says:

    Thank you for your bravery. Senator Inhofe has suffered abuse for years from the radical environmentalists, but he hasn’t stopped his quest for the truth about CO2. Please don’t let them get you down. I live in the US’s ‘outback’, ie, Texas, where a small city just yesterday ran an article about the fraud; the truth is seeping through.

    To anyone familiar with Mao Zedong’s tactics of mind control, this agenda of radical environmentalists/carbon crooks is identical to what happened to the Chinese. The warmists are playing from Mao’s handbook, but they’re verbally abusing anyone who disagrees; and despite James Hansen’s statements, so far they haven’t beaten anyone to death. (‘Wild Swans’ should be read by every parent as it is the chilling memoirs of three generations of a Chinese family living through the nightmare of Mao’s reign, effective because of brainwashing.)

  188. Arthur Glass says:

    “Nil carborundum illigitimi”

    This much quoted nonsense phrase, usually attributed to an American general (whose name I have mislaid), is not real Latin; it doesn’t even rise to the level of dog Latin.

  189. JackStraw says:

    As many have already pointed out, and as I have been saying for months, the AGW scam is a highly organized product of the far left. Soros is clearly the puppet master and he uses cutouts like Fenton and Project Syndicate which are all funded by his OSI to give the impression of a large grassroots movement concerned only with the betterment of mankind when it is really just another way for him to amass money and power.

    Lenin coined the term “useful idiots” to describe westerners who sympathized with communism and were used to demonstrate how popular far left idiology was with the masses. There is nothing new under the sun, pun intended.

  190. GG says:

    In a few years time, this fraud will probably be in same jail cell with other climate crooks like Hansen, Mann et al

    It`s time to start calling these people what they are – criminals.

    Lets stop trying to convince these lying crooks that their criminal fraud is based on is “unsound science”. They`re laughing at us because they know it`s all a con, and they’re doing what all good con men do.

    Let start calling for criminal trials. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly

    And most importantly – call for an amnesty for the first few that come clean now.

  191. WillR says:

    Has anyone else noticed that some of the “slime” articles are being written by authors who would never normally work this beat? I am thinking of the current thread at Climate Audit and a previous “slime” article by the “Bagpuss the Cat” author.

    Jeet Heer who wrote the current article has written the current article, other articles for the G&M is clearly more comfortable with other venues.

    Is this a developing trend — where authors with mostly a political bent describe the state of Climate Science?

  192. Alan D McIntire says:

    Sachs is one of the reasons I quit subscribing to “Scientific American” years ago. He relies on liberal propaganda rather than
    reasoned arguments in his editorials

  193. MrPete says:

    My wife is allergic to tobacco. We don’t allow tobacco smoke anywhere near us.

    They think we’d accept their support for our volunteered time helping CA measure Bristlecones and WUWT photograph weather stations?

    These people have no ethics.

  194. JonesII says:

    RockyRoad (05:00:18)
    What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make
    As it has already broken Spain, a destroyed by windmills economy.

  195. Just The Facts says:

    I dissected one paragraph of Sachs’ drivel for fun:

    “The fact is that the critics — who are few in number”:
    From a BBC poll “only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”. ”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm
    From an Oct ‘09 Pew poll, “found 57 percent of Americans felt there was evidence that the earth was warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. But only 36 percent attributed this to human activities, compared with 47 percent last year.”
    http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE5B32I520091204
    The US’s number likely bests the UK’s 26% at present, thus approximately 3/4 of the US and British citizens are “critics” and Jeffery Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.

    “but aggressive in their attacks”
    FOI requests are neither “aggressive” nor “attacks”.

    ” — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years.”
    Umm, I was 8 years old 25 years ago.

    “During their long campaign”
    I was always skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative, but only got involved when Obama got elected, cap & trade became a potential reality and the financial and social impacts of this erroneous scientific consensus hit home.

    “they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements”
    I dare you to say that in a room with Jim Hansen, Richard Lindzen, Michael Mann, John Christy, Gavin Schmidt, Timothy Ball, etc.

    “in order to stop action on climate change”
    The action on climate change never stops. We are on a 4.5 billion year old continuously evolving planet, its climate will continue to change regardless of what we do.

    “with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.”
    What bill? We don’t go off to fancy conferences in Copenhagen in our private jets, we work from home in our spare time making our little contribution to undoing the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.

    Jeffrey Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.

  196. red432 says:

    Andrew W (01:03:26) :
    “””
    While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.
    “””

    It may not even be conscious but when choosing between coming
    to conclusions that will allow you to keep your job versus concluding
    something that might lead to a future in used car salesmanship,
    you’ll be surprised how creative people can become. I’ve seen it
    many times. In many cases it manifests in the simple form of
    keeping one’s mouth shut.

    Many climate scientists seem to have missed their
    true calling in marketing. It may not be as lucrative, but no
    one really expects verifiable accuracy from claims for
    non-perscription skin care products…

  197. Jeremy says:

    Wow – I used to admire Sachs – a long time ago. What happened? Did fame go to his head or is it his friendship with Bono of U2? This is ridiculous.

  198. Mark says:

    First of all, I find it interesting that an economist is running Columbia’s Earth Institute. (Same with Pachauri and the IPCC)

    Second, I just finished reading Sach’s book called “The End of Poverty” and I have to say, some of the main poverty reduction themes in his book are right out of the 1976 book titled “RIO: Reshaping the International Order – A Guide to the Club of Rome.”
    It’s almost as if Sachs is recycling the NIEO (New International Economic Order) that the UN was pushing in the ’70’s.

  199. hunter says:

    Mr. Watts,
    I see the paper as more of a last gasp from an AGW promoter.
    The readers, in the comments section, clearly are not buying what Sachs is selling.
    I would go forward with the interview- be accessible, but tape your conversations and save the original, and make the transcript available if there is any hint of parsing or plugging by the journalist.
    The great thing about skeptics is we simply tell the truth. As long as skeptics do that, skeptics will win, ultimately.
    I see Mr. Sachs’ piece as a shriek of pain about the dissolution of his faith. He is losing something he held dear, and is blaming those who he wrongly thinks are taking it form him, instead of those who falsely gave him his faith.

  200. Chrisz says:

    What a pity, Anthony, that you actually seem to be buying into the “second-hand smoke” BS (which, exactly like AGW, is nothing but an excuse for erosion of individual liberty based on fraudulent statistics, viz. the late John Daly’s excellent work on the subject). Sorry to hear that your health was weak in your youth, but your blaming SHS is pretty silly because that “effect” – much like human-caused AGW – simply does not exist outside alarmists’ and regulation maniacs’ phrasebooks. You should rather accept that your natural genetic disposition likely makes your respiratory system your weak spot – much as other individuals over-react to other substances like salt or wheat starch, without these substances being “toxic” per se.
    PS: I’m a non-smoker, have been all my life, nor do I have any connection – professional or otherwise – with the tobacco, oil, nuclear or pharma industries.

    REPLY: You didn’t grow up in it. -A

  201. Hank Henry says:

    Andrew W
    “While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.”

    Try a little experiment. Go to a blanked google and type in “climate change grants” you should have an indication of how much grant activity is going on in this area even before you hit the search button. I see:
    climate change grants for africa
    climate change grants australia
    climate change grants uk
    nasa climate change grant
    vermont climate change grant
    vermont community climate change grants
    community climate change grant
    epa climate change grants
    retooling for climate change grant

    Next, just to zero in, type in “climate change research grants.” I get 19 million hits. If a grant somehow involves or targets “climate change” it presupposes the conclusion we’re trying to debate in here. It’s a pretty simple thing to test. There really is a lot of grant money targeted to the climate change thesis.

  202. Håkan B says:

    Bill Tuttle (02:28:33)
    To be fair there are actually economists who’ve kept there common sense, Bjorn Lomborg is just one.

  203. David Middleton says:

    The Warmist logical repertoire consists of two logical fallacies…

    1) Argument ad hominem.
    2) Appeal to authority.

    Two facts…

    1) CO2 is opaque to certain IR frequencies.
    2) The Earth is ~1.5C warmer now than it was 400 years ago.

    One probable fact…

    1) The Earth is 0.7C warmer now than it was in 1880.

    And one 50-50 proposition…

    1) The late 1990’s to early 2000’s might be slightly warmer than the 1930’s to early 1940’s.

    All other facts are simply discarded or attributed to natural variations.

    From these logical fallacies, facts and possibilities they conclude…

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    And that unless draconian measures are taken to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions, a global catastrophe is imminent.

    And… Anyone who disagrees with them is a tool of the fossil fuels industry a tobacco denier, a climate change denier or a climate science denier who should be stood up before some version of a Nuremberg war crimes trial.

    On top of all that… They have the nerve to call us the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, Moon landing deniers, Creationists, Flat Earthers, etc.

    They are the ones who claim that both unusually cold and warm weather, both droughts and floods, both glacial retreat and thickening and even earthquakes and volcanoes are all proof that their hypothesis is right. Last I checked, any hypothesis supported by any and all combinations of observations is unfalsifiable… And therefore unscientific. If either side is behaving like Creation Science advocates, it’s the Warmists.

  204. John Carter says:

    Re the use of “denier”, there has been a petition set up in the UK to stop the Prime Minister using that term.
    I doubt that it will achieve that objective, but signing is a good way to register your disgust at the use of such an insult.

    For UK residents only @ http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/

    Over 1600 signed so far.

  205. JonesII says:

    The goal of all these “post modern” URBAN MYTHS, mentioned by “Jeffrey” (his unconscious betrayed him), is POWER, but a rather crazy and illogical for any sane reason. Why in the world a group of people, a self chosen “elite”, like the Club of Rome or whatever foolish nany conspiracy bank owners club, could wish to rule the whole world?. Are they inmortals?. This kind of madness, history shows, usually attracts other extreme kind of madness, so I wonder if there is a kind masochistic behaviour which is driving them.

  206. View from the Solent says:

    Dated today. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/methane-levels-may-see-runaway-rise-scientists-warn-1906484.html

    “During the first half of 2009, globally averaged atmospheric CH4 was [approximately] 7ppb greater than it was in 2008, suggesting that the increase will continue in 2009.”

    Odd. My calendar is running fast.

  207. Henry chance says:

    I am very fond of big oil. Very fond. In fact the whiners and warmists also luve big oil. This winter would have killed most northern population had it not been for big oil. The Petrol fibres in your parka, The chaninsaw to cut firewood, the truch to haul groceries, The spandex fibres in the BVD’s that always get knotted up.
    They day they really are against big oil is the day then revert to walking only transportation. From my travels the only mechanical form of transportation that has no oil behind it is a hand carved log canoe. If they use a metal axe head, they used petrol created product.

  208. bradley13 says:

    Prof. Sachs doesn’t write articles for fun. His Earth Institute “leads large-scale efforts to promote the mitigation of human-induced climate change”. If there is no “human-induced climate change”, then there is no need to fund the Earth Institute. I wonder whose contribution he secured by writing this article?

  209. david elder says:

    Anthony, for what it is worth, you have my support over this disgraceful piece by Sachs. Its whole tone is that of a McCarthy-style rant. It is not going to influence my opinion of the wisdom or otherwise of AGW theory, or of the standing of your fine blog, in the slightest.

    My sympathy also at your losses of loved ones to tobacco-related diseases. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, and was implacably opposed to the tobacco industry even before I lost an aunt to smoking-related cancer.

    I strongly recommend that Sachs reads Hofstadter’s classic The Paranoid Style In American Politics, 1964. Though aiming mostly at the extreme right here, Hofstadter acknowledged that such intellectual pathology could take hold at either end of the spectrum. Sachs has provided embarrassingly vivid proof of that.

  210. Leslie says:

    From “The Earth Institute, Columbia University” website:

    “Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, the internationally agreed goals to reduce extreme poverty, disease, and hunger by the year 2015. Sachs is also President and Co-Founder of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization aimed at ending extreme global poverty.”

    He also authored a book called “End of Poverty” what boldly shows off “Foreword by Bono” on the cover.

    I expect no less of an attack than what he gave in that article.

  211. Those interested in a bit more info on Al Gore’s very real connections to the tobacco industry may wish to take a peek at a blog post I did a few weeks back:

    Al Gore’s Tobacco Hypocrisy

    All the best!

  212. bill allen says:

    sachs@columbia.edu

    This is Sachs email address. I just sent him my thoughts on his knowledge of science. My I suggest that everyone do the same.

  213. Richard M says:

    The second stage of grief is anger. It appears Sachs is experiencing both denial (the first stage) and anger at this point. Not unusual for a person whose religion is evaporating before his eyes.

    We saw a lot of denial in the last 3 months. Now we are starting to see more and more anger. The process is proceeding as expected. While Sach’s remarks can never be condoned, it is just another sign that skeptics are winning the debate.

  214. Bill Marsh says:

    Another thought occurs. Does this article set a record for the use of logical fallacies? I think he nailed every single one that I know of, along with some really nice non sequiturs.

  215. R. Gates says:

    There are certainly far more true scientists who are NOT paid henchmen for the oil & coal interests who are skeptical about AGW, then there ever were who were skeptical about cigarettes and cancer, and so the analogy is crude and “slimy” in the broadest sense. However, there are a few scientists and other political hacks, (and we all know who they are) who are nothing but apologists for fossil fuel interests, and in that narrow sense, the analogy is appropriate.

  216. Roger Knights says:

    Greylar (05:32:06) :

    I like being called a denier and wear the moniker proudly. As people here have pointed out, if we are deniers then the other side must be believers.

    Or “Insisters.”

  217. Bengt Abelsson says:

    Hello!

    In Sweden, some politician made a note in his script:

    Arguments weak, raise the voice.

    Keep up the good work.

    Bengt A

  218. TonyB says:

    Dawn Watson said

    “Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.”

    The first part is simply not true-November was merely 1 degree warmer than average in Glasgow-caused by a long stretch of warm southerly winds. Vancouver is the warmest city ever to hold the Winter Olympics and seems to have been chosen for reasons other than its suitability to hold a Winter Olympics. They had the warmest January since records began-in 1937. That is hardly extensive and records commence right at the end of a period similar in warmth to today-the 1920’s and 1930’s.

    tonyb

  219. Cathy says:

    This was cathartic.

    Really. Deeply moving on several levels.

    Give them bloody hell, Anthony.

    For all our sakes.

    And, thank you.

  220. John from CA says:

    You chose the right word – it was “slimy” and an indication why Sachs is in the business school and not in Science.

  221. zt says:

    Dapper Jeffrey is a Pauchauri IRI acolyte:
    http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2479

    It couldn’t possibly be the case that Jeffrey is a slimy hypocrite – could it?

  222. Sonicfrog says:

    Of course you’re a Flat Earther, moon landing denier, and tobacco loving sycophant.

    It’s True!

    Sachs got it off the internet, so it must be true!!!

  223. 3x2 says:

    Anthony,
    (and others) I don’t know what you expected from the Guardian. From day one it has been a key mouthpiece for the Climateers [as distinguished from actual Scientists - most of whom I consider genuine]. Their goal was and is to promote fear and make money. They see the scam crumbling and desperation sets in. Can’t have a Carbon shell game if nobody will play. All that investment, all those dreams – cry me a river. Sachs is exactly what he appears to be – desperate.

    [early para]

    The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?

    So, in his world we are paid (unspecified amounts) by dark, malevolent (but as yet unspecified) forces to spread (unspecified) “disinformation” but he worries that the “billions” (hundreds of, if not more) currently available to the climateers will dry up if the public ever get wise. Now run those numbers by me again Jeffrey.

    [xgates] Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.

    Now why do I keep reading this statement in various guises lately? The details (you know – actual temperatures) don’t matter – only the (as yet unidentified) “overwhelming scientific evidence”.

    Religion for some, endless source of billions in taxpayer cash for the rest. Money and Religion – a Hornets nest in any combination – no wonder they are getting desperate.

    Paul Dennis (00:37:09) : Good post. If it’s any consolation, I hear the “Indy” will probably be one of the first to close its doors. Again cry me a river.

  224. David Middleton says:

    Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :

    er what’s on this about climate wars? Its only a bloody war on the internet – outside its looking pretty freaky – Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.

    even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?

    Fossil fuel reserves are not dwindling. Global proven oil reserves have more than doubled over the last 30 years. Current natural gas and coal reserves are in even more robust condition.

    Proved Oil Reserves Minus Annual Production 1980-2004

    A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ’stealth taxes’ (I know this as my own father harps on about it having being brainwashed by the daily express (he didn’t do any science at school).

    It saddens me that so many people are so ignorant of the reality of energy issues and the rationale for using military force in places like Iraq.

    Low carbon energy sources, apart from nuclear power, are far more expensive per megawatt hour than fossil fuels…

    MWh vs. $$

    Iraq’s maximum daily oil production prior to the Iran-Iraq war was ~3.5 million BOPD… A literal “drop in the bucket.”

    Iraq Oil Production

    3.5 million BOPD is roughly equivalent to OPEC’s daily excess production capacity over the last 20 years…

    OPEC Spare Capacity

    As a country we have some serious energy decisions to make, and embarking on a low carbon future would mean we are more resilient and less dependent on volatile foreign energy sources.

    Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….

    Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo – just think on that a little would you?

    Anyone who takes home a paycheck, who pays an electric bill or drives a motor vehicle has a vested interest in this subject. The $$$ or £££ at stake are astronomical.

    People like Jeffrey Sachs and the UN are trying to terrorize the Western capitalist democracies into accepting a form of global Envriomarxism, in which those nations with “ability” foot the bill for those nations with “need” to ameliorate and environmental problem that does not exist.

  225. john says:

    Anthony;

    I don’t think this article has had the desired effect. I have been thinking about donating but never get around to it. This one put me over the edge. Hope it helps.

    John

  226. TJA says:

    O/T but A blogger for Discover Magazine is asking for suggestions for questions to ask Michael Mann in an interview.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/22/announcing-my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-climatologist-michael-mann-ask-your-questions-now/

  227. AGW Denier says:

    While the list of ingredients in tobacco smoke is long, there are many highly toxic substances that truly don’t belong there, such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, fungicides & pesticides. In the US, if the tobacco industry had been brought under FDA rules decades ago and treated as a food product, these substances would have been banned long ago. I know of no studies that have looked at the improvement in safety that removal of the compounds would have entailed. Many people are already exposed to many of the substances rated as “poisons” from other sources (such as acetone, ammonia, ethanol) (http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/chemicals.htm), so their toxicity level in tobacco is questionable .
    Even with the new FDA oversight it is still unclear if they will get into this depth of regulation (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm171683.htm).

    I am not a smoker but I fully support their right to smoke and do not think that they should be “punished” with ever higher taxes on smoking products. Mostly the attitude is just to try and stop usage of the product with ever greater harshness.

  228. John Galt says:

    Doug in Dunedin (00:55:40) :

    Anthony

    In every newspaper I read where there are articles on climate change, whether pro or anti CAGW, the overwhelming opinion of the public response is sceptical of CAGW and these show contempt for the proponents. The public is not fooled and eventually the truth will become apparent – even to the likes of Obama and Brown both of whom seem to be bereft of any depth of thinking or common sense.

    Your blog is a beacon of light.

    Regards
    Doug

    It’s always nice to feel you have a majority support of popular opinion, but the American public is woefully ignorant of science and economics.

  229. nonein2008 says:

    Directly from the book and guides, don’t address/debate the facts, attack the persons. Unfortunately, you will see more and more of this approach. Anthony, thank you for hanging in their to bring discussion to the science

  230. latitude says:

    It’s only an op-ed by a scared little man. They should be encouraged to write more of them.
    The more the general public sees this, the less they believe.

  231. Tom Black says:

    Big Oil coerced the CRU into sending all those damaging e-mails.

    Big Oil forced the IPCC to lie about the Himalayan glaciers, (and all the rest)

    Big Oil twisted Pachauri arm to talk about voodoo science and rubbing asbestos all over your face.

    Big Oil manipulated the IPCC to publish non peer reviewed documents against their will

    Big Oil tricked Michael Mann into leaving out the MWP.

    Big Oil convinced NOAA and NASA to manipulate and exaggerate the true level and rate of “global warming

    Big Oil….list goes on and on..

    And finally….. Big Oil will send me a cheque for $10 for contributing this dissenting view.

    Wow , Big Oil has been busy, no wonder the oil prices have dropped over the past two years, they aren’t spending enough time on their business.

    Then the AGW alarmist’s will try and win me over with disparaging remarks

  232. Another Thomas says:

    The guardian article was an example of gutter journalism but it didn’t come as a surprise. The IPCC and the AGW are crumbling but the sceptics camps also has their weaknesses. The links of some to the oil and tobaco industries will naturally be used to paint a target on all sceptics to guide the mudslingers and it works, mud sticks. I’m sceptical about the intentions of some (not all) who are linked to the tobaco and oil industry too. There is no point in complaining about this problem every time it is latched onto by the media whilst doing nothing to address the issue.

  233. Chris says:

    Anthony, Much as I admire your blog and the tremendous work you and your contributors have made to the ongoing collapse of the AGW fraud, I think you debase your argument by using the word, slimy. By using this word you descend to the level of the sort of ad hominen postings common in the Guardian climate blogs. Please, reasoned debate only.

  234. johnnythelowery says:

    Anthony: Good. Let them nail their colours to the mast as we saw it off at the bottom. They can only win by keeping out the science. They might be playing for time for a summer, El Nino inspired, heat wave to go “see!” I feel your frustration but i also believe it’s related to your view that the skeptical view should have more ‘traction’ that it does. You’ll still be having the same fights 20 years from now as all the good skeptics retire from their positions. AGW have tried to buy time by saying the solar minimum is going to arrest AGW for now but, give it 13 years or so, AGW will be back with a vengeance and that we have a window of opportunity to fix the planet. See the time frame? See what you are up against? Just relax my good man. Day at a time and all that. With deep respect. ….Johnnny

  235. freethinker says:

    When do I finally see some money from big-oil for constantly telling everbody and his friend about the climate science scandal? Nope, still poor.

    P L E A S E, keep going Anthony.

  236. harrywr2 says:

    Andrew W (01:03:26) :

    “While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.”

    Since when do governments give money to scientists to study non-problems?
    What is NASA doing studying the weather? Oh I remember, the Ozone hole was going to kill us all, so NASA put up a satellite to measure it.

  237. johnnythelowery says:

    … you need a staff though. And if you need funding…put up a widget that people can donate funds to WUWT. If you have this burden of what you’ve taken on only on your shoulders, it’s too much. it’s too stressful and too much work. Dig in for the very, very long haul.

  238. RockyRoad says:

    And this about another of our favorite “Climate Slimers”:

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/

    :)

  239. paul says:

    Bernie (05:50:38) :

    Anthony:
    The Guardian has closed off comments – total was 1037. I have not read them all – it seemed very slow – but judging from the reactions to and recommendations of the comments Sachs’s piece was seen for exactly what it was – a PR hit piece.

    I am sure those 1037 commenting were also paid by big oil and big tobacco.

    I hate seeing conspiracy theories in any debate, thats why I like WUTW so much. Theie use is evidence of bakruptcy of reason and argument. This also applies to the skeptic side, although after the e-mail scandal it is not entirely baseless.

  240. 1DandyTroll says:

    You acknowledge that their sense of logic is entertaining, and their ever so updated sense of political argument in the broadband internet era even more so.

    It’s no wonder that they whine about the sceptic being a dino’old man stuck in the sixties still, when the agw-fanatic “itself” are the one that are stuck back in the day.

    That the hilarious childish attempt for defense arguments with such utter drivel has a GISS/NASA endorsement comes, no more, as a surprise.

  241. 3x2 says:

    RockyRoad (05:00:18) :

    Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :

    (…)

    What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make.

    Dawn, have you ever seen a riot? Cold, hungry people don’t care about carbon free utopia they want food and fuel. Rapidly destroying your infrastructure without any real plan or alternative is a gamble with very real consequences should it go wrong.

  242. Methow Ken says:

    For the last few weeks I foolishly thought the Guardian might actually have started to dip its toe into a vague semblance of objective journalism.
    Back to reading the Telegraph, when I want a U.K. perspective on the news.

    If as a previous comment pointed out George Soros & Co. are funding
    Project Syndicate, that pretty much tells tells the story.

    WRT the content of this particular piece by Sachs, another word in addition to ”slimy” also comes to mind: Despicable.

    OTOH: The level and extent of shrill, unsupported innuendo and recycled ad hominem attacks employed by Sachs in this article is IMO a good indicator of how desperate the hard-core AGW fanatics have become; as the whole AGW scam continues to self-destruct around them.

    Kudos to WUWT for continuing to provide a beacon of scientific objectivity in a sea of agenda-driven political correctness. And remember:
    Success is the best revenge (note WUWT hit counter now over 36.7 million).

    Keep up the good work. . . .

  243. Imran says:

    Anthony – I completely sympathise with your emotions. Reading Sach’s article makes the blood boil as almost every single sentence is either a falsehood of a twisted perversion of truth. But the best thing to do is to ignore it.

    The only solace I can draw is that such articles are indicative of a movement which is in its death throes – there is no where left to go but for all out character assassination on those who are winning. The next stop for them is that parking lot in Arizona.

  244. wws says:

    “Since when do governments give money to scientists to study non-problems?”

    Every day, Harry, every day. That’s the whole point.

    It’s gotten so bad that all of the *real* problems at all levels are being ignored so we can throw money away at the non-problems.

  245. RockyRoad says:

    EdB (05:52:10) :

    “Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests”
    —————
    Reply:
    The vested interest that a lot of oil and coal (and even gas and nuclear) companies is to provide you energy at the lowest price with the most efficient infrastructure.

    Where they have serious shortcomings is generally when a government regulatory commission (PUC) fail to apply market principles to their charges, That should be a warning to anybody that’s contemplating letting such groups guide a transformation to an inefficient, unreliable cabal of wind and solar “solutions”. Neither their investment money nor their jobs are on the line; that’s why letting somebody else run your wallet is such a bad idea.

  246. Frankly says:

    Anthony, You might want to read Jeffrey Sachs’ socialist diatribe published monthly in “Scientific American”. In the March issue he pursues the same points regarding “vested interests”. In addition he goes after politicians from oil and coal producing states and “The Wall Street Journal”. SOS.

  247. Bruckner8 says:

    Welcome to the Big Leagues, Anthony. From here, it will only “get worse than we thought.”

  248. R. de Haan says:

    Feb 21, 2010
    Climate Debate in San Diego Union Tribune

    Pro: Climate change is real; there is no debate
    By Walter C. Oechel

    This article is published at icecap.us and I wonder why?

  249. Myron Mesecke says:

    I’m a skeptic. I guess Sachs would claim I’ve got connections with big oil because my father operated first a Phillips 66 and then a Texaco service station. I too saw what tobacco can do to health. My father was a chain smoker and died at 57. He was also an alcoholic which didn’t help. My Mom smoked too. She got lung cancer and was able to fight it. Thought she had the cancer licked when it came back in her brain. She died at 68.
    People who resort to personal attacks on others that disagree with them are the smallest, weakest humans on Earth. Unfortunately they often have big mouths.

  250. Peter Miller says:

    It’s not a big deal.

    No serious minded individual reads the Guardian – it has always been the choice of losers and lefties.

    The paper only survives because of its Wednesday edition’s advertising revenue, this usually contains more than 100 pages of non-jobs in the government sector.

    If your target market is losers and lefties, that’s who you write for. That’s why you get so many of this type of article in the Guardian.

  251. P Wilson says:

    I’ve read through the article in the Guardian. There are no explanations, no scientific expositions using data, but just the usual mentality of 2+2=5, and therefore anyone who doesn’t believe 2+2=5 are dangerous heretics that want to bring the world to doom. Those who don’t believe in the ideology have no desire to bring the world to doom, but simply don’t believe that 2+2=5

    Because the dogmatists cannot develop any arguments based on a hard look at data they have to be galling and spurious as tactics about those who know better (Tobacco and the climate have nothing whatsoever to do with each other).

    Such subjective methods as these – forcefulness, propaganda and humiliation are not the way scientists develop arguments. There is a close relationship between fraud and the desire to scorn those who don’t accept it.

  252. NickB. says:

    Tom P,
    Dr. Spencer’s article is also on this site as a guest post. While there is general agreement with the CRU trend, you should also keep in mind that this analysis was only done for the last 24 years and for the Northern Hemisphere only.

    It has nothing to do with Dr. Jones’ other questionable behavior outlined in the CRU e-mails (namely possibly illegal avoidance of FOIA, gaming of the peer review process, graph-smithing the proxy graphs, among other things).

    One other thing to note in regards to Dr. Roy and CRU… Dr. Roy’s analysis was done with raw data and gave a very similar resultant trend for the Northern Hemisphere… maybe this was already public knowledge, but that seems to indicate that for CRU there was no UHI correction whatsoever applied (all other things being equal of course, and assuming that there was population and urban center growth in the last 24 years).

    Dr. Spencer’s results are interesting, but please do not read more into it than is there.

  253. Steve Goddard says:

    The Guardian is getting a lot of Internet revenue through publishing widely read pieces (of ****) like this.

  254. Henry Pool says:

    Generally speaking, I don’t really care much about what people think (of me) as long as I know that the science is right. That is what I would say here on this post as well.The CO2 scare is a scam. I dare any scientist to prove to me in an experiment that the 70 odd ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the atmosphere since 1960 are relevant and indeed a cause for global warming.
    I also think we should start warning the world that global cooling is on its way and in terms of the activity noted on the sun, a period of more clouds is now coming or on its way (Svensmark’s theory).
    Obviously more cloud cover leads to more precipitation and subsequent (global) cooling.
    I think therefore it not so strange to observe that as a result we have:
    1) more snow (everywhere in the NH during winter)
    2) more rain (now Madeira) also here in South Africa (except for the southern parts)
    3) which eventually may lead to a rise in river levels in the areas where we have this excessive precipitation

    Hence we should issue a stern warning to all news agencies and authorities especially in Europe and USA to check all the river levees !!!

  255. TanGeng says:

    Ahhh Jefferey Sachs. He’s one of those believing in utopian end world hunger by providing a dollar a day to the third world. What he doesn’t get is that the problem in the third world country isn’t a matter of money or material but rather governance. Third world governments are really corrupt, waste their country’s wealth, and don’t care about their own people. If their own government doesn’t look out for its people how exactly would several billion dollars in aid to those country help?

    Seeing as he’s a know-nothing in his own field of expertise, I don’t see how he think to comment on climate science.

    Actually this is nice. It’s all empty name calling.

  256. TanGeng says:

    Oh as an aside, what the hell do you expect from the Grauniad.

  257. Ted Lowe says:

    Anthony

    Thanks for your post and your humanity. Never forget that Jeff Sachs has built his career in the loving arms of (1) the UN and (2) the global financial syndicate. Global warming presents a huge source of profit for (1) elite 3rd worlders (also VERY rich even by 1st world standards) and (2) the global financial syndicate. So, we need not look to him for any form of credibility what-so-ever!

    Second, have you considered that this piece may have been ghost written with Prof. Sachs affixing his name to give the piece credibility? Certainly that it is a shop job from this outfit in Prague fits the bill.

    As you know too well, there is BIG money behind the alarm of global warming, much of it focused on the financial sector. So, these sort of attacks will continue so long as these interests feel that it is profitable to engage in this game.

    If you are correct about the science, and I think you are, Hansen’s alarmist 1988 predictions will increasing look foolish and people will peel away from the movement in search of profit elsewhere. As already seems to be happening, given the news of late.

  258. Pogo says:

    I note that Prof Sachs is an economist. A UK-based blog, “Dizzy Thinks” had the following to say about economists:-

    “Economics is a pseudo-science based on inherent prejudicial bedrock assumptions, or more cynically, and accurately put, the leading economists of the world don’t really know their arses from their elbows but they’ll have a good fight with each other about which part of their body they should sit on.”

    Nicely sums up why you’ve just been “savaged by a dead sheep” (c) Dennis Healey.

  259. JonesII says:

    Mark (06:28:54) : You got it Mark!, read my post above: JonesII (06:44:28) :

  260. minnesinger says:

    A little OT, but the Grauniad was never the same after it moved to London and stopped being the Manchester Guardian sometime in the Sixties. The French have an apt (but rather rude) expression, which describes the current rag to a T: “ils pètent plus haut que leurs culs.” (Apologies to any native French-speakers here!)

  261. Peter B says:

    Jeffrey Sachs’s first rise to celebrity status came in the 1980s when, as a young professor in Harvard, almost by chance he was invited by the Bolivian government to help tackle their hyperinflation of some 20,000 a year. I followed at the time. His solution was simple: since the government could not collect its ordinary taxes and so had to print money to pay for its expenses, it should concentrate its efforts on collecting the tax on fuel (over which the government had control) and simply drastically cut the budget and/or raise the fuel tax until revenues and expenses were balanced. This simple idea did bring down the inflation to around 10% a year very quickly, at the cost of a regressive tax. It could be argued that the result (bringing hyperinflation under control) did justify the method and negative side effects. The problem is that that pretty simple solution, which only needs political will to be implemented, made Sachs into a “whiz kid” and “miracle worker”. And as often happens in such cases, they then think they possess superior intelligence and wisdom about pretty much everything. A sort of messiah complex. Something similar to Paul Krugman, who, from a rather good and low-profile commentator on specific economic issues became a sort of freak with his “treason against the planet” statements.

  262. zt says:

    Regarding the Guardian’s readership: I believe, the paper is now officially targeted at local council diversity outreach officers, and those of that profession who are looking for new positions, in particular.

  263. Dawn Watson says:

    What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make. #

    Dawn, have you ever seen a riot? Cold, hungry people don’t care about carbon free utopia they want food and fuel. Rapidly destroying your infrastructure without any real plan or alternative is a gamble with very real consequences should it go wrong.

    REALLY?!!!

    If you refurbish houses to passiv house standard – fuel povery could be eradicated – costs estimated at £40bn /year for 40 years in the Uk. Yes, pretty expensive but we dish out £27bn /year on fuel payments anyway. And compared to the bank bailouts? Therefore eradicating the need for heating for 90% of the time. People certainly wouldn’t be going cold. And then we needn’t be going to war – killing people in the name of oil – just to heat our homes.

    Or do you lot advocate wars to secure future fossil reserves? Yes oil is running out -otherwise the Albertan oil sands wouldn’t be getting expoited – these have a very low energy returned on energy invetsted (EROEI). Gas, conventional oil sources, renewables (large scale wind etc) have large ones.

    Is it really a gamble to future proof our homes from energy price hikes in the future?? the comment I loved best from you was:

    The vested interest that a lot of oil and coal (and even gas and nuclear) companies is to provide you energy at the lowest price with the most efficient infrastructure.

    I frankly don’t believe you – and neither would 99.9% of society. Oil and gas companies (as well as other corporations) are there to make profit for shareholders. They are not a charity case!! This comment was actually laughable….

  264. R. de Haan says:

    Moscow under an all time record pack of snow!
    Last record 1966 broken!
    http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/6107003/__Moskou_onder_recordpak_sneeuw__.html?cid=rss

  265. Smokey says:

    The [tax exempt] Guardian news group has its fingers in a lot of pies: click

    There is a good list of companies in that link whose competitors should be patronized instead.

  266. Martin Ackroyd says:

    John Carter (06:44:10) : “the use of “denier”, there has been a petition set up in the UK (snip)

    For UK residents only @ http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/

    In fact it’s for UK *citizens* only – whether or not currently resident in UK.

  267. Steve Oregon says:

    Don’t worry, be happy.

    Sachs is among a broad spectrum of people in government, academia and NGOs who have completely abandoned integrity under the guise of THE greater cause.
    Their approach has long expanded beyond the climate debate. In fact it grew out of other issues and arenas as activism adopted the fanatic’s methods.
    However the enormity of the AGW cause called for the new extremes of the fanatic’s methods we have witnessed.
    Sachs and other recent displays are a culmination of that process going very rotten to the core.

    It seems these ethically bankrupt activists have been thinking they need only ramp up their attacks to preserve their lofty establishment selves and squash the dissent.
    Having run that play too many times in the last few months, while the movement collapses, the ultimate cause of AGW has turned to panic and the last ditch efforts of a surrounded fugitive.

    With barely more to do but put the cuffs on the movement these final swings of resistance are nothing but the futile struggles of captured criminals.

    I urge others to join me in applauding Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id, Joe D’Aleo, John Coleman, and many others [Willis] who write about climate science issues, for their successful pursuit.

  268. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    ” zt (08:17:19) :

    Regarding the Guardian’s readership: I believe, the paper is now officially targeted at local council diversity outreach officers, and those of that profession who are looking for new positions, in particular.”

    Well, that’s a step up from George Monbiot’s close friendship to George the Jihadist Supporter Galloway. They both founded the Respect Party – currently Europe’s only Marxist-Islamist coalition.

    It’s also a step up from the Guardian’s support for Stalinism back when George Bernard Shaw wrote for the newspaper.

  269. Frank K. says:

    Ah yes, big oil is BAD…until you need to jet off to the beaches of Bali for another Climate Conference!

    http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/un-eco-commissars-on-bali-again/

    I say we fuel their planes with peanut oil and see how that works out for them…

  270. supercritical says:

    I read the Guardian article before coming over here, and was utterly amazed to discover that Sachs is actually a “Professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, home to NASA GISS”.

    That makes him an AGW professional, utterly dependent on continued AGW fund-flows not only for his livelihood but also on his personal raison-d’etre.

    So maybe we are seeing a man acutely scared by the prospect of an impending collapse of his world, and ‘lashing out’. Ironic really but somehow just, to see someone who has been involved in putting fear into others, having it rebound personally, with interest.

    Well done Anthony! I think you could claim that wig as a trophy.

  271. Allen C says:

    Galileo was a sceptic. I am proud to call myself a sceptic too!

    It isn’t about the numbers. It is about the facts.

  272. Dawn Watson says:

    Dear Rocky Road,

    I have a background in Geology specialising in resources geology and I’ve worked in the construction industry for a number of years. My organisation will be building the next wave of new nuclear power stations.

    What I object to in your comment was your assumptions of me to why I hold my opinions? So no, not some arty farty social scientist after all.

    Why do I have to take my opinion’s somewhere else? Is this a fascist site where you can only have one view? I notice that there was critisism of some of the other sites – Climate skeptic for example to not get into a debate… are you also guilty of this?

  273. vigilantfish says:

    gadfly (01:59:13) :

    “I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child, I’ll tell you about my efforts to get my parents to stop smoking , and then, I’ll tell you how I watched both of my parents die of tobacco related disease. I’ll tell you what I think of tobacco products and companies. I’ll tell you to your face. I promise you it won’t be pretty, I promise you that you’ll feel my pain caused by tobacco.”

    With all due respect, sir . . . and as an ex-smoker who once had a two and one-half pack-a-day habit, let me suggest that you look at the myth of second-hand smoke with the same skepticism that you display for things AGW.

    You may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but there is no empirical evidence that it kills or causes disease. In all the world, there is no death certificate that reads “second-hand smoke.”

    —————-

    Anthony and Gadfly:

    I understand and have shared most of Anthony’s pain. I too had a smoking parent, and I and my nearest brother both suffered numerous severe ear infections as children. I averaged 3-4 serious infections requiring antibiotic treatments per year, and have vivid memories of sitting up all night one night, bleeding from one ear, in which the eardrum had perforated due to the severity of the infection. The pain was worse than childbirth: I should know – I’ve had 4 children. In the end I required tubes in my eardrums, as did my brother, and fortunately for me, this ended my hearing loss, although my brother was not so lucky. My school grades jumped remarkably, from a C to an A average.

    Naturally, given my experiences, I was prepared for numerous ear-infections in my own children. To date, with the oldest one nearly 24 and the youngest 12, my sons have had nary a single ear infection.

    It was only last year, when I speculated before my environmental history class that there was probably some link with my mother’s smoking, that I looked up the possible link. I am 100% convinced that my mother’s habit was to blame. I am very sorry that you suffered permanent and needless hearing loss from your parents’ addiction, Anthony. IMHO, smoking should be outlawed, now that we know all the ills that come from it. I guess you can count me in as a firm CAGW skeptic who also not only has no positive links with the tobacco industry (I’m only a victim of it) but would be exhilarated if it were to be sued into oblivion. BTW – my mother died of emphysema, and my father suffered from severe asthma.

  274. Rob from BC says:

    Desperate measures by desperate people………

  275. I’m surprised Soros can’t buy a more competent flak than Sachs to try to save his “green” investment strategy.Sachs ad hominem smears and insults demonstate only the intellectual bankruptcy of his position and the low quality of Coumbia University academic standards.

  276. George E. Smith says:

    Well Anthony, you said it yourself, when you first told us they wanted to hear from you.

    But I am just another in what looks like a long list who have been turned off by Sachs and his ramblings in Scientific American.

    He is one reason, why my Scientific American Subscription will lapse forever when it runs out next January; after at least 40 years of reading what used to be a science magazine.

    I made the mistake of going to the California Academy of Sciences museum in GGSF park on Saturday.

    They have a big straight down the IPCC propaganda line display on global warming and climate change and all about CO2. Their curve of Mauna Loa CO2 going back way before 1958 overlaps almost exactly on their curve of global temperature, which I believe was GISS. Only problem is their was no annual cycling in the CO2 so it clearly was homogenized data, rather than actual observations.

    I don’t believe the word water vapor exists anywhere in the entire display; in fact water is only mentioned as the repository of most of the world’s “heat”

    It’s a total scare the kiddies presentation; along with a hook board with punched cards, so the visiting school teachers with their classes, can all write their suggestions for how to stop climate change.

    I filled one out and told them they could stop a large fraction of climate change; by simply updating their display to reflect the latest known science.

    That place has only been in existence for a few years, and since they built it, there really hasn’t been any global warming according to Phil Jones.

    My wife, who is a liberal school teacher, was even more disgusted with the whole place than I was; and i didn’t have to say one word to her about it.

    It’s really a Hollywood/Disneyland architectural curiosity; rather than a science museum. The expert scientific Astronomy instruction in the Morrison Planetarium, was given by that famous astronomer, Whoopie Goldberg !

    They claim it is scientifically accurate; well it is more like that idiotic stream of consciousness claptrap that was at the end of the movie 2001, or maybe it was 2010; with the baby and old geezer zooming around the universe in his bed.

  277. Bill Junga says:

    Hmmm, Doesn’t that other economist Paul Krugman say about the same thing regarding “deniers” and “climate change”. Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics but does Sachs?I wonder who comes up with this stuff first.

    I wonder if he has any interests in “Carbon Trading”.Have to check to money trail, you know.
    I wonder what happens to carbon trading if AGW goes by the wayside?

    Perhaps we can get Mr Sachs to take an exam on science to actually determine what he knows about “things” scientific.

  278. Spen says:

    The Guardian has had the reputation for pursuing lost causes for years. Take heart. Their circulation is in free fall and the paper is losing millions of pounds so hopefully it won’t be around for much longer.

  279. Here is my comment at the Project-Syndicate.org site. (It was originally 349 words, but the site has a 200 word limit):

    As an oncologist and scientist, I find it patently offensive for Mr. Sachs to smear those who raise legitimate questions about man-made CO2’s influence on climate with comparisons to those who denied the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. This is not a scientific, or even a rational argument.

    Important errors are found in the data used to support the existence of a significant climate effect from anthropogenic CO2, and the modeled consequences. Lapses in professional integrity by those in climate science have been discovered. New observations are continually proving false the projections of models. Mr. Sachs addresses none of this head-on, preferring to argue ad hominem. That Mr. Sachs repeats the discredited “extreme storms” shibboleth is laughable.

    As someone who cares about the natural environment, I am far more concerned that the fraudulent campaign against CO2 is detracting from legitimate pollution concerns, like groundwater chemicals, airborne sulfates & polyaromatic hydrocarbons. There are many good reasons to use fossil fuels wisely, cleanly, and efficiently, but CO2 is not among them. Continued drumbeating will only undermine legitimate environmental science.

    Mr. Sachs has written a sleazy polemic in place of a reasoned argument. He should know better.

  280. TonyB says:

    Dawn said

    “If you refurbish houses to passiv house standard – fuel povery could be eradicated – costs estimated at £40bn /year for 40 years in the Uk. Yes, pretty expensive but we dish out £27bn /year on fuel payments anyway.”

    You have done it again and made extravagant claims that can’t be substantiated. The UK spends around £2.7 Billion per year on Fuel payments not £27 Billion. Where do you propose to find the £38 billion a year difference needed to insulate house to ‘passive’ house standards-which incidentally are based on rather warmer ambient temperatures than we actually get.

    I’m all in favour of better insulation-I saw this run of cold winters coming two years ago and upgraded our 1970’s house accordingly. I’m also all in favour of micro generation, but at present it is just not financially practical.

    Instead of Greenpeace trying to bring our economy to its knees by sabotaging Bridgnorth Power Station don’t you think it would be a good idea for them to do something more positive? For example they could get into micro renewables sales direct to consumers and thereby cut out the extremely expensive middle man-renewables are being sold like Double glazing at present in the UK which makes it impracticable to all but the richest or most gullible.

    Tonyb

  281. Jeremy says:

    This is totally OT, but I felt that this thread could use some OT-ness.

    I recently started looking for a new vehicle in California. In visiting dealerships you see all sorts of stickers on the windows of the vehicles. Usually it’s a list of options, the performance, the gas mileage, etc…

    Then I saw this:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/50716889@N00/4378825841/

    …and I doubled-over laughing.

    I wonder who scores these vehicles for Global Warming?

  282. geronimo says:

    Dawn:”Or do you lot advocate wars to secure future fossil reserves?” You lot? I for one have insulated my home to the limits possible, and have bought energy efficient cars and I doubt any scepic would advocate wasting energy.

    But the “solutions” to global warming will cause fuel poverty. Imagine we’d had a cap ‘n trade regime in place this winter and the energy companies had to buy carbon credits to get the extra energy to deliver to our homes. We would have to pay for that and bang goes fuel poverty eradication.

    For sure we need to move away from fossil fuels, but it will take decades in the meantime we have to use them, there is no alternative and the very notion that with the world’s population expanding exponentially, and that the developing world leaping forward into the 21st century, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of reducing CO2 emissions. Which is probably just as well because CO2 can’t be related to rises in temperature but sure as hell can to healthy plant life. We’ll need all the food we can get.

  283. TonyB says:

    Dawn said

    “The vested interest that a lot of oil and coal (and even gas and nuclear) companies is to provide you energy at the lowest price with the most efficient infrastructure.”

    Perhaps you can tell me where you believe our future energy sources will be derived from? I’m all for renewables (as will be most of the people on this blog)but they are at least twenty years away from providing any more than a fraction of our base load energy needs. Please tell me what you suggest we do for power over the next two or three decades minimum?

    Tony

  284. Bryan says:

    This article is a sign of desperation.
    When a topic which is clearly a non political matter of fact gets muddied by smears and innuendos it demeans the perpetrator.
    We must not be detracted by such irrational provocation.
    Its this kind of approach that made me get off the fence and become much more of a sceptic.
    Keep a clear head and stick to the science is the best reply.

  285. crosspatch says:

    “I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child”

    Wow, same here. Luckily with me it was only one ear but man, I can remember being closed up in a car in the winter with both parents smoking in the front seat and all the windows shut tight. I ended up with constant ear infections and lost a good deal of the hearing in one ear because of it.

    Luckily my mother quit decades ago, my dad passed away of causes unrelated to smoking.

  286. crosspatch says:

    But having said the above, the study done that points to heart disease, etc, due to very diluted second-hand smoke like one might get in passing has been shown to be a scam. It is a bad study. Yeah, locked up in a very tight space like a car with a couple of people smoking is like a gas chamber. Someone passing by you in the street with a cigarette isn’t going to do much damage to anyone but themselves. And not it has gone to extreme with “third hand” smoke which is just silly.

  287. Steve Keohane says:

    Thank you Anthony. How disappointing is their lack of integrity.

  288. 3x2 says:

    Dawn Watson (08:17:40) :

    If you refurbish houses to passiv house standard – fuel povery could be eradicated

    There is that word again – Could.

    The fuel price hike is already well under way here, now, at this moment in time. May I suggest that what you believe “could” happen should have been done before the astronomical fuel price increases and one of the worst Winters in memory. Thinking of those in “fuel poverty” after the event is typical of utopian thinking. Oop’s

    Perhaps once the weather has broken and the “excess winter deaths” numbers are in we can re-visit the subject.

  289. TonyB says:

    Dawn

    I realise the comment I highlighted in my 8 47 52 came from another commentator to which you were replying as it being ‘laughable’. Sorry, I made it sound as if it were yours; Look forward to your comments on;

    * Glasgow non record temperatures
    * The very short Vancouver records
    * Your retraction on fuel payment costs
    * Where you believe our future energy can come from
    * Whether Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth can do something more constructive than sabotaging power stations by, for example, offering domestic renewables.

    Tonyb

  290. Anand says:

    Mr Dave Watson:

    Your ‘low carbon, energy efficiency, oil addiction’ screed is nonsense. At several levels. “Let’s buy solar panels. So that we don’t invade countries with oil”. If there was ever a reason not to go to war…!

    Are you aware of the crushing economic burden the world would have to bear – the economic violence that would be inflicted upon the working-class, tax-paying, non-war mongering citizens of the developed and the developing world, to realize your ecologic power-fantasies?

    Power, wealth and time accumulates in the hands of Europe and the United Kingdom, not its citizens mind you, and we have to live with the eruption of its ‘will to power’ via this imagination-challenged, eyesore on the intellectual landscape – the monstrosity of boredom called global warming.

    It is, as it was ever thus – the march of doom under cover of darkness, the ‘resonance’ of the message, chiefly due to its metronome-like monotony if anything else and the ever-upward creeping global temperature anomaly that settles the science and pokes the eye.

  291. pyromancer76 says:

    Anthony, I like your version of reasoned anger. You have greatly advanced the “AGW- head-rolling” project with your detailed research and clear reasoning. Lets see…

    1. The Guardian. Further exposed as a desperate rag. You willingly offer to cooperate; they premediatively slash-and-burn. Their readers don’t think much of them. Your amazing international following is helping them close their failing business.

    2. Joel Sachs has now been exposed, not only to Guardian readers but to your “amazing international readership” for the wanna-be fascist global dictator that he is. How many countries and lives has he wrecked? How many fellow-travelers has he enriched beyond their wildest imaginations. Director of the Columbia Earth Institute, indeed. One might think that someone with valid earth-science credentials might head that org. But, no, it is located in:

    3. Columbia University, that heinous left-wing pseudo-academic institution (are all faculty members there wanna-be global fascist dictators? ), not only employs Sachs, but houses NASA GISS. Oh, aren’t they the ones who change temperature records of the past at will, eliminate historical raw data, drop thermometers at the drop of a hat, eliminate those at high altitudes so only comfy warm ones will register, and hide the recent decline – all in the service of saving the world from human-caused global warming? I think those tactics smell like a “wanna-be global fascist project”.

    4. George Soros, hmmm. Doesn’t his name keep popping up all over the place wherever these wanna-be global fascists dictators emerge. Now many more influential readers are exposed to the details of Project Syndicate – and, thanks to your commenters, lots of further research citations are available. (Wasn’t Soros an influential financial backer of the Obama win?).

    Anthony you are a blogger with no equal. I hope you understand your special talents. Thanks for making our world freer and more available to the search for truths

  292. 007 says:

    Mr. Sachs says ‘the message is clear’.

    But Phil Jones says:

    Q. When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
    A. It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

    Who should we believe????

  293. George Lawson says:

    Such a ridiculous diatribe from the head of The Earth Institute puts that body in total contempt with all right minded people. Sachs realises that he is fighting a lost cause but he would rather stoop to untruthful and totally irrelavent slanging rather than trying to win the argument on a scientific level, which he obviously finds great difficulty in doing. I for one will never again believe a word that this so called institute puts out. I hope his employers soon realise what a terrible mistake he has made in writng such a contemptuous article and give him the boot which he truly deserves. When are these people going to accept the growing mountain of proof that their science is blighted and make their apology to the world for attempting to lead us all into an economic catastrophy?

  294. Graham UK says:

    “Pachauri has been under tremendous attack over the goof-up in the IPCC report, but the Indian government is supporting him. Let me tell you one thing, people did not spare even Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad and Mahatma Gandhi when they were spreading the message of goodwill and harmony, but later they realised the importance of their work,” Abdullah said at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS). He being the Minister of New and Renewable Energy for India.

    When the AGW crowd throw an insult or give a compliment, it contains such outrageous hyperbole, you get some sense of what propels their bandwagon – hysteria and rage evidencing a pathological commitment that worries me as much as their fake science.

  295. Tom in Texas says:

    Have only read a few dozen comments so far, so this has probably been mentioned:

    The comments are closed (and unviewable) at the Guardian article.

  296. David Middleton says:

    Dawn Watson (08:17:40) :

    [...]

    I frankly don’t believe you – and neither would 99.9% of society. Oil and gas companies (as well as other corporations) are there to make profit for shareholders. They are not a charity case!! This comment was actually laughable….

    The only way that oil and gas companies (and coal and nuclear companies) can return a profit to the shareholders is through delivering their product to the consumer in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible.

    If the multitude of “green energy” products could be delivered to the consumer in a efficient, cost-effective manner… Oil, gas, coal and nuclear would be the “alternative energy” sources.

    Companies that set out to deliver a product at higher than market prices go bankrupt. Only gov’t agencies or gov’t sponsored businesses can deliver products at higher than market prices without going broke.

    If the gov’t taxes cheap and plentiful energy in order to make alternative energy sources competitive in the marketplace, they are just making energy more expensive and less plentiful. This destroys wealth.

  297. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    *sigh* The closer that we “skeptics” get to the truth, the louder the priests of the new religion howl.

    Don’t expect the warmist crowd to go away, quietly, into the night…they have MUCH too much emotional investment in this stuff! We are living through a historic time, with huge stakes. I don’t think that any revelation would be sufficient to shake that crowd, such is the nature of religion.

    Thank you, Anthony and everyone, we have a long way to go!

  298. Hi Anthony – Your site has provided me the ability to form an informed opinion regarding a number of critical issues related to the AGW debate. I thank you for that and hope the people of the world all continue to question the data, methods, and theories developed in the recent past. I hope the scientific community rallies to the challenge of re-assessing and re-issuing or modifying the work which has lead to the recent claims that the warming in undeniably anthropomorphic. Every day new information and studies are released and the global information record seems to refute the IPCC claims. Stay tuned!

  299. Lon Hocker says:

    Anthony, you are a scientist, extremely successful and widely admired. Sachs is watching his world crumble around him.

    He deserves your pity, not your anger.

  300. Dawn Watson says:

    32 people died in Brazil due to extremely hot weather last week:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35338116/ns/weather/

    Freak weather events around the world on the increase – eg from Oz: http://www.greencrossaustralia.org/our-work/extreme-weather-heroes/insurers-believe-extreme-weather-events-are-on-the-rise.aspx

    x

  301. Green Sand says:

    Re: Dawn Watson (Feb 22 08:32),

    “My organisation will be building the next wave of new nuclear power stations.”

    Good to hear it Dawn, just please get your organisation to get on with it PDQ!

    Overcrowded UK cities will not be good places to be if the lights start going out.

  302. JamesG says:

    Dawn

    I like your passion! Do you have a link for those numbers re passive housing? Sounds interesting! While i agree with you about the cost of oil-patch wars (there’s a serious amount of conservative denial about that which makes it pointless arguing), it is coal and gas that mainly produce electricity and the most effective way to heat a home with little outlay is so far via a wood, coal or gas boiler. I looked into air pumps but the price per kilowatt for electricity is what makes or breaks the idea. eg in the UK you pay 12p per kW for electricity versus 4p per kw for gas so you are effectively running in order to stand still. In France it makes more sense but they are nuclear already. In any event it comes back to how do we get the grid electricity?

    BTW, If you want to argue with a conservative then take Michael Moore’s advice and just tell them how they can save money because the credo, right or wrong, seems to be that it is the continual striving to make everything work cheaper and quicker that makes all other things possible. Like it or not, the free market usually does that best, though not always (often the most popular item being the most mediocre).

    The odd thing is that I’ve tried the same argument as you on blogs like dot earth or similar, ie if we keep the argument based on a decent energy plan then there is a lot of common ground, but it’s usually the aging eco-hippies who like to keep the fight going. I’ve reached the conclusion that it is the fight itself that is important and CO2/energy is just a smokescreen. This is what confirmed it:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2010/01/the_problem_with_hidden_agendas.html

    ie it seems cheap, green energy, even if achievable is not actually the goal. The goal is to stop our consumerist, growth-obsessed society. I have some sympathy with that but not much as I reckon it’ll do far more harm than good.

    Incidentally there is a shortage of cheap oil but absolutely no shortage whatsoever of expensive oil. That’s the bit that the peak-oilers like to ignore.

  303. JonesII says:

    supercritical (08:30:33) :
    So maybe we are seeing a man acutely scared by the prospect of an impending collapse of his world
    His world, my dear supercritical, won’t collapse, it is well backed by the bank elite.

  304. vigilantfish says:

    TMotion (05:59:47) :

    I work for NOAA on the side of fisheries and ocean research and preservation….. This climate change paranoia has recently created a new division in NOAA called NOAA’s climate service. Where do you think the money will come from to fund this? This planet will run low on seafood and clean water in a matter of decades. Much sooner than any effects that anthropogenic climate change will have, however minute it is. These climate change scare tactics are redirecting our financial interests and priorities to the point where we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If you like clean water and seafood, be concerned. WUWT, thanks for speaking out and providing the truth.

    ——————-

    Right on! If only fish had a higher priority with politicians, environmentalists and lawmakers! Ditto water pollution. Here we are fiddling to the imaginary fires of AGW while some of the world’s most valuable sources of protein are being hunted to the point of commercial exhaustion, and on top of that, some fish stocks face further challenges from various pollutants. Yet the latter are problems that could be resolved. The former is a political chimaera.

  305. kwik says:

    Gloves are off.

    In Norway, Every man in private sector is now carrying 6-7 government bureaucrats (how to spell that dreadfull word) on their shoulders. Its a TRAVESTY.

    Now they want more taxes, to employ even more paper pushing sosio-students……

    They are stealing the most precious thing I have; Time.
    Because I must use TIME, 8-9 months a year, to pay these morons. AAAARRRGGGGH!

  306. Chris says:

    Where’s the Gandhi quote? You know, first they ignore you, second they ridicule you, etc. Finally, you win.

  307. Pragmatic says:

    In the great American film “Citizen Kane,” Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper magnate on the order of William R. Hearst, angrily answers an editor’s query about “the people.”

    “The people will think… What I TELL them to think!” shouts Kane. And in a later scene when his young wife Susan walks out of the looming castle he has built to himself and his crumbling empire, he viciously tears apart her bedroom.

    Jeffrey Sachs is deeply, perhaps destructively passionate about his socio-political agenda. We have heard him threaten harm against those he dislikes. This attack is a sad, pathetic attempt to harm those who have abandoned his castle.

    In the end, the warmists have meant well. They have sought to warn civilization that excessive consumption and expansion without long term planning is destructive. They are concerned with saving lives of the most impoverished, and disenfranchised. But so are many people. There is no one way to accomplish these goals. And crisis invention is not one. Now that the baton of knowledge is passing on to a new, younger, broader base of aspirants, there is residual anger.

    Mr. Sachs’ opinion and writing is of little meaning today. His castle at Columbia like the shell of Kane’s Zanadu, stands empty, and hollow. But there are plenty of students around who will eventually study the harsh fact that its destruction was paved with good intentions. A valuable lesson.

    “The king is dead. Long live the king.” Ionesco

  308. 3x2 says:

    Dawn Watson (08:17:40) :

    The vested interest that a lot of oil and coal (and even gas and nuclear) companies is to provide you energy at the lowest price with the most efficient infrastructure.

    I frankly don’t believe you – and neither would 99.9% of society. Oil and gas companies (as well as other corporations) are there to make profit for shareholders. They are not a charity case!! This comment was actually laughable….

    Let’s just dispel a couple of myths concerning “Oil and gas companies (as well as other corporations)”. Take a look here and tell me what you see.

    (world bank)The overall carbon market continued to grow in 2008, reaching a total value transacted of about US$126 billion (€86 billion) at the end of the year, double its 2007 value. Approximately US$92 billion (€63 billion) of this overall value is accounted for by transactions of allowances and
    derivatives under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) for compliance, risk management, arbitrage, raising cash and profit-taking purposes.

    Big Oil/money/…whatever is funding what now?

  309. Tenuc says:

    Well done Anthony, the effort you and the team have put in over the years is really paying off and helping dispose of the CAGW hypothesis and all the attendant leeches.

    When heavy hitters like Pachauri and Sachs are rattled enough to write such ill considered rubbish you know the warmist movement is on the run. Every day that passes it seems, another plank falls of the SS CAGW and, providing the sceptics keep up the pressure. the world will come back to it’s senses!

    The Grauniad is a bastion of liberal socialist greens, so no surprise that they tried to ‘slime’ you. So turn the other cheek, Anthony, then kick ‘em in the balls!

  310. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    It seems that receiving dosh from EXXON is bad, so stand up those among you who did, come on, own up, we want to know who you are! But being on the payroll of insurance companies such as Catlin, who want to make a killing from climate change related business, is obviously no problem.

  311. ben corde says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much what the Guardian publishes. This so called spreadsheet is only a small part of the MSM and has less and less credibility with each passing year.

  312. JackStraw says:

    >>Dawn Watson (09:08:30) :
    >>32 people died in Brazil due to extremely hot weather last week:

    Oh, so now weather is climate? Please leave the goal posts alone, all this moving them about is making me dizzy.

    Dawn, have you ever heard of ENSO? There’s nothing magical or man made about what is going on in Brazil and it was in fact expected and predicted.

    >>El Nino, the phenomenon in which unusually hot Pacific Ocean waters disrupt weather patterns, was blamed for the heatwave by preventing the formation of clouds.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100210/wl_afp/brazilweatherheatwave_20100210212011

  313. b_C says:

    For every one of these scurrilous types of attacks, somewhere in the scientific universe another “consensus” is derided, debunked or retracted.

    “Good trade.”
    — Dances with Wolves

  314. Another Brit says:

    Dear Guardian,

    With reference to to your recent invitation to participate in an online story forum about GW, I would in turn refer you to the recent article by Jeffrey D. Sachs titled “Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain.” I am astonished that you would publish such an abusive and ill-founded article, whilst at the same time attempting to build bridges across the spectrum of views. Such name-calling and blatant distortion of both the facts and the truth have no place in an open and honest debate.

    I am at a loss to understand why an obviously learned man should stoop so low in a debate, and similarly at a loss to understand why you should publish such distortions.

    It is therefore with much regret that I must decline your invitation, as patently you have no interest in an open and honest discussion regarding the facts as we know them and the science as it is understood.

    Sincerely……..

  315. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    This is a good essay about the evolving collapse of the green movement, pegging Al Gore’s failures to lead the pack. I find the arguments made by the author compelling and largely accurate.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/

  316. JamesG says:

    Dawn
    While it may be your perception that freak events are on the increase it does depend on a long term statistical analysis. So far the numbers say that just as much freak weather happened in history. You have to remember that nowadays information is a lot more immediately available than it used to be. So while there is a flood in Funchal that killed a few people, it is absolutely nothing compared to past floods that could wipe out entire villages; but of course most people haven’t heard about those.

    One reason more people live in harm’s way nowadays (apart from there being more of us) is because we have become blasé about natures fury. For example Vesuvius is overdue for a pliny event but does it make people move? Does it make any sense living in wooden shacks in a hurricane or tornado zone? Shouldn’t houses in a flood plain be on concrete stilts just out of common sense?

  317. 3x2 says:

    kwik (09:21:06) :

    Gloves are off.

    In Norway, Every man in private sector is now carrying 6-7 government bureaucrats (how to spell that dreadfull word) on their shoulders. Its a TRAVESTY.

    Now they want more taxes, to employ even more paper pushing sosio-students……

    They are stealing the most precious thing I have; Time.
    Because I must use TIME, 8-9 months a year, to pay these morons. AAAARRRGGGGH!

    It’s a permanent growth industry. Slowdown? Invent some more regulation and lots of lovely paperwork – what slowdown?

    They will never run out of creative new ways to spend other peoples money.

  318. Herman L says:

    I’m not going to delve into the fight between Anthony Watts and Jeffrey Sachs. I’m not interested in it. What I am interested in is the following statement Anthony put in this post:

    no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions, or to even help regular people like you and me who were asking them. Had any such scientific organization had the courage, you can bet that skeptics would have flocked there. Instead these organizations all got on the consensus bandwagon.

    Anthony, if you want to turn a believer in AGW like me into a skeptic: here’s your chance. What are those “tough questions?” Can I get a list? When I visit a site like skepticalscience.com and see a long list of what I might imagine those questions are. However, they are all answered very thoroughly to demonstrated to “regular people” that, indeed, the “consensus bandwagon” is correct. Maybe you are right and the answers at skepticalscience.com are wrong — but I haven’t seen your list or your scientific writings explaining why the “consensus bandwagon” replies (like the answers skeptical science provide) are wrong. It’s an iterative process and I don’t see the first step on your side of the debate.

    There’s a reason that the organizations are on the consensus bandwagon: the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the information as correct and they have no evidence to move in the other direction. You may not agree with that, but there it it. The’ve gone well beyond the first step and produce detailed scientific reports on a regular basis (e.g., IPCC assessment reports) that are well organized and approachable by many regular people.

    So, please, get it started. Put your list together and post it here. Keep it purely at the scientific level. If you or anyone throws politics or conspiracy theories into it, then it just becomes another waste of time. The science can stand or fall on its own merits. I promise I will read it with an open mind.

    REPLY: Its already done for me, have a look at this list: 75 reasons to be sceptical about “global warming”

    But this biggest question of the day is: If the science was so solid, so settled, why did CRU and IPCC need to hide data from public view and ignore clear warnings made by reviewers over the 2035 glacier date and other now uncovered debacles? If the science was so solid, why couldn’t raw data be inspected or IPCC corrected for factual errors?

    Answer that. – Anthony

  319. John F. Hultquist says:

    I read his piece in SA. He and they are both clueless.
    I’ve written to SA to ask that they pay more attention to the science and less to the AGW agenda and have gotten no response and certainly none shows in the magazine.
    ———————————-
    Anthony: When I was little my mother would send me to the nearby gas station for Raleigh cigarettes – 26¢/pack. We watched as she died of lung cancer. Sign me up for you face-to-face with Sachs. John

  320. Jim Clarke says:

    Be angry if you must, then laugh it off. Is this all they got? Is the science so weak that Sach’s has to resort to such an article, or is he just inept?

    I always give arguments like this the ‘Sixth Grade Science Fair Challenge’. If submitted to such a science fair, what grade would be assigned to Mr. Sach’s work? I would have to give it a ‘0’.

    I think it is ironic that there are only two places where an argument like Sach’s will resonate: among the least educated and the social elites. The rest of the world can see right through this garbage.

  321. James Sexton says:

    OT, but, Anthony, you sure are getting a lot of ink lately…………http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/

  322. RockyRoad says:

    Dawn Watson (08:32:36) :

    Dear Rocky Road,

    I have a background in Geology specialising in resources geology and I’ve worked in the construction industry for a number of years. My organisation will be building the next wave of new nuclear power stations.

    What I object to in your comment was your assumptions of me to why I hold my opinions? So no, not some arty farty social scientist after all.

    Why do I have to take my opinion’s somewhere else? Is this a fascist site where you can only have one view? I notice that there was critisism of some of the other sites – Climate skeptic for example to not get into a debate… are you also guilty of this”
    ————–
    Reply:
    Does your “background” consist of a degree? And just who is this organization you work for, Dawn? And have you built anything yet? And if so, what? Or is everything you do at this point “visualization”?

  323. Peter B says:

    “Dawn Watson (09:08:30)

    32 people died in Brazil due to extremely hot weather last week:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35338116/ns/weather/

    Freak weather events around the world on the increase”

    As someone who has personal experience of southeastern Brazil, going back a few decades, Dawn, I can assure you that the moment that 39C in February becomes “extremely hot weather” in Rio or Santos, that’s when it’s the time to talk of “global cooling”.

    I’m not being insensitive to the death of those 32 people, but to claim that those temperature levels are uncommon in summer in that region is simply to display one’s ignorance.

  324. Both my parents died of smoking-related illness. I hear you, man.

    But let’s be more practical. Where can I get me some of this Big Oil money?

  325. Paddy says:

    Al Gore and several other mainstream scientists are some of Soros’ ventriloquist dummies. But then, so is Obama.

  326. JonesII says:

    TMotion (05:59:47)
    This planet will run low on seafood and clean water in a matter of decades
    It will NEVER happend that. That’s prophet Gore’s stupid preaching.
    It happened 12,000 years ago, as cuneiform tablets tell, when a guy called Ut-na-pishtim told about the universal flood in Sumeria…12,000 years ago, in the past Aquarian age!!.(Then it was when they decided to depict Aquarius as a young beautiful lady pouring down a jug full of water. LOL
    Do you know out of which is water made?
    The GWR church was recently preaching about the amazon basin would turn into a desert when, suddenly, it became flooding right NOW, not in your fancy dreams but in crude reality.

  327. crosspatch says:

    What this whole thing points out to me is that facts will never get in the way of an agenda.

  328. Back2Bat says:

    Anthony,

    I am sorry about your hearing loss. I had hell too as a child with ear infections and multiple ear drum patches (both paper and vein grafts). I sympathize.

    My panacea for just about every chronic ill I have is long term, water only fasting. Sometime, in the future, after your current campaign, you might look into it. One day, after I garner enough will power with weight training, I hope to do another one myself.

    Best wishes.

  329. Tom Jones says:

    Anthony, you were just sucked in by the Guardian. AGW types everywhere are screaming as their beautiful dream is losing momentum, and Sachs and the Guardian are no different. In the absence of scientific evidence, they are reduced to name calling. Ignore them and do what you were doing.

  330. zt says:

    Pachauri criticizing Sach’s travel emissions (I kid you not):

    http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sop2006/transcripts/tr_pachauri.html

    “Rajendra Pachauri: Let me at the very outset thank Jeffrey Sachs for giving me this privilege. It’s also a great pleasure for me to speak on a subject which is a little different from climate change, as often I am required to speak on climate change and I travel around all over the place, and I start by apologizing for the airline emissions that I may have induced as a result. But I have no reason to feel apologetic this time because there’s Jeff Sachs over here, he travels far more than I do, so my crimes bail into insignificance on that account.”

    Mustn’t forget to include the mutual acolyte images…

    http://www.fortuneforum.org/images/renu_and_pucharuari_2.jpg
    http://www.fortuneforum.org/graphics/Renu%20and%20jeffery%20sachs.jpg

  331. J.Peden says:

    Back to the article. After reading it, one can see that Sachs is simply repeating the same sort of drivel we get from trolls every day on climate science discussions.

    The amazing thing is that this sort of argument is actually the best that the AGW proponents have. And it almost always involves an avoidance or denial of reality, which explains why the “arguments” are almost always wrong in some way or other, and often even the exact opposite of what is going on in the real world.

  332. Doug in Dunedin says:

    xyzlatin (03:13:20) :
    ‘Anthony,
    I’m a retired PhD in Psychology, specializing in Human Behavior.
    I am a skeptic, but try to stand back and observe the behavior of both camps, after all this is what I do best. ‘
    When the scam got started the perpetrators never envisaged the internet and the communications between bloggers would be a threat.
    In my view, it would be prudent to make a few well calculated steps into the future to completely dismantle this scam, and it won’t be easy. These steps, as I see it, are:-
    Let the lawyers take up the fight directly to the perpetrators. They too like the smell of money and will battle hard and long given the right ammunition.
    The bloggers with the special expertise, like you Anthony, and Steve McIntyre and all the others with the special skills, keep doing what they do best in dismantling the shonky science.’

    xyzlatin I like this ! I think you have got this sorted and Anthony it sounds like a plan to me.

    Cheers
    Doug

  333. gt says:

    Totally unacceptable. It’s one thing to anonymously troll on blogs about your pro-AGW view. It’s another to write a such sleazy hit piece on a national newspaper with your name and professional position. I have seen people hanged for making statements way less inflammatory than this. If NASA still has any integrity, they should fire this guy. Of course, I am not holding my breath.

  334. Copner says:

    @JamesG

    > ie if we keep the argument based on a decent energy plan then there is a lot of common ground, but it’s usually the aging eco-hippies who like to keep the fight going. I’ve reached the conclusion that it is the fight itself that is important and CO2/energy is just a smokescreen

    Back in 1989, when I was still a student. I remember having a discussion with some greenies/lefties (some of whom have subsequently became quite prominent in greenie-leftie campaigning fields). I considered myself to be one of them at the time (although even then i did disagree about lots of things, my views haven’t changed that much).

    Anyway, this was the time that Fleischmann and Pons were in the news with their claims of cold fusion, and for a brief time (days), it seemed we were on the verge of a real break-through – cheap and clean energy that could be produced with relatively unsophisticated equipment.

    I thought this was a great thing. Cheap and clean energy! Imagine what it could do for the world’s poor! Imagine what it could do about the pollution problems we face!

    However the greenies/lefties universally felt a source of cheap and clean energy was not just a bad thing – but just about the worst thing that could happen.

    Because, we (we as in humanity), would surely abuse it

    Because, if energy sources were not polluting, there would be little pressure to cut back on their use, to economise.

    Because if energy sources were cheap, there would be little incentive to encourage “sustainable” (by which they really meant non-industrial) means of energy production in 3rd world countries.

  335. AJStrata says:

    Anthony,

    Sorry to say, but this slime is the result of Green Money. I applaud you and all others (I hope to be counted in that list) who have challenged the sloppy science of AGW through personal devotion to science done right – no money! My little old money pit of a blog has never even covered its operating costs, yet I still find the time to put together analyses and pose hard questions that deserve to be answered.

    The fact is the cult of AGW is not science based. It could be, and I for one would stand behind any reasonable proof of AGW, if I ever found one. But the hard fact is the more we dive into the theory the worse the math and science is we discover. There is NO error/uncertainty budget – which means there is no real confidence levels (which is not provided by statistical confidence in one calculation). There are completely erroneous and unfounded claims based on estimates derived from questionable and unproven ‘adjustments’. The raw data shows no significant warming beyond the natural fluctuations.

    And it is not the skeptics responsibility to prove otherwise. My assessment of the AGW mind think from the CRU emails is we have been led astray by a bunch of inexperienced ‘scientists’ who have no clue how to apply math to real world issues. Those of us who do, and have done so for years, are right to question the approach. And it is the responsibility of the theory supporters to prove their case, not denigrate and silence those challenges.

  336. NickB. says:

    JamesG (09:16:49)

    Have you ever wondered what the definition for “excessive consumption” means? I have seen this term bantered about with the green-types for years but they never seem to talk about when, I guess, acceptable consumption becomes “excessive”

    For good old Al Gore, four 30″ monitors on at the same time in one office is, I guess, acceptable… while in California the Greens are working to essentially ban plasma TVs (cheapest, but least efficient type of flat screen TVs) and effectively limit the size of LCD TVs

    I wish I could afford a giant LED-backlit flat panel or, LOL, hybrid Escalade to cart the kids around in… I just can’t afford to be that “sustainable”

  337. Erik says:

    @JamesG (09:16:49) :
    ————————————————–
    “it seems cheap, green energy, even if achievable is not actually the goal. The goal is to stop our consumerist, growth-obsessed society”
    ————————————————–

    Justin Rowlatt, BBC, Transcript from radio programme:

    “John Sauven Greenpeace director
    SAUVEN: Well we’ve made our position on nuclear
    power quite clear. We will do all in our power to
    oppose nuclear power”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt

    The Green Agenda
    http://www.green-agenda.com/index.html

    Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration:

  338. Tom P (05:55:53) :
    “Roy Spencer is analysing his own data and finding very good agreement with the CRU temperatures. The period analysed is from 1986 and shows a significant warming trend:”

    Tom, As you say, there is good agreement, in terms of the shape of the graphs – but not in magnitude. Roy Spencer explains that his figures are magnified by a factor of 1.36, giving a temperature anomaly increase of 0.67 degC for the ISH stations. He also says that both sets are contaminated by UHI effect, which could almost double the overall rise in the global temperature anomaly.

    I trust ANTHONY will add his comments on this important development in due course.

    Regards, Bob

  339. PaulH says:

    It’s difficult to decide whether Prof. Sachs actually believes what he’s saying, or if it’s just a mechanical/reflex response to play the same old tobacco/big oil/wealthy boogie-man cards again and again.

    I think the best thing is to let Prof. Sachs and his cronies keep talking. People are looking for concrete evidence, not the nonsense they jokers keep pumping out.

    Paul

    P.S. I watched as lung cancer from smoking took my father’s life. Believe me, you DO NOT want that to happen to anyone.

  340. RockyRoad says:

    Herman L (09:41:17) :

    I’m not going to delve into the fight between Anthony Watts and Jeffrey Sachs. I’m not interested in it. What I am interested in is the following statement Anthony put in this post:

    no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions, or to even help regular people like you and me who were asking them. Had any such scientific organization had the courage, you can bet that skeptics would have flocked there. Instead these organizations all got on the consensus bandwagon.
    ————-
    Reply:
    I can help you out there, Herman.
    Simply go back through all the posts on this site, starting with the one entitled “Fudged Fevers in the Frozen North”. On that one, if you can honestly answer the question why those fudge factors look like an inverted skewed pyramid centered on 1970, then you will have taken a big first step. A very big first step.

  341. Robert says:

    “It’s full of the kind of angry, baseless, stereotypical innuendo . . .”

    Physician, heal thyself.

    I thought it was a pretty tame article, myself. Certainly correct on the facts. A nice corrective to the hysterical nonsense that’s been coming out of the UK press lately.

    REPLY:Since you brought it up Robert, as a health care professional, will you now proceed to diagnose me? What arrogance, what lack of empathy you have. I certainly hope your beside manner is better than your blog manners.

    Shall I talk about your links to drug company funding? -A

  342. Kay says:

    @ Dawn Watson (09:08:30) : 32 people died in Brazil due to extremely hot weather last week: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35338116/ns/weather/
    Freak weather events around the world on the increase – eg from Oz: http://www.greencrossaustralia.org/our-work/extreme-weather-heroes/insurers-believe-extreme-weather-events-are-on-the-rise.aspx

    Dawn, do you think you would ever have heard about that if it weren’t for the internet and 24 hour news television?

    It only seems like there’s an increase because we have instant information at our fingertips. 20 years ago, stories like these would never have seen the light of day globally–they would be local news, yes, but outside of that, no one would know.

  343. RockyRoad says:

    “John Sauven Greenpeace director
    SAUVEN: Well we’ve made our position on nuclear
    power quite clear. We will do all in our power to
    oppose nuclear power”
    ———————
    Too bad he’s so behind the times. LENR can take any nuclear waste and render it harmless. Amazing stuff. Or is he just against the human race (which would be amazingly hypocritical, but for many that’s not something they’re able to grasp).

  344. sorepaw says:

    Mr. Watts,

    I wouldn’t take anything in the Jeffrey Sachs piece personally.

    The guy long since quit being a real economist. He’s turned into a tinhorn politician whose driving purpose is keeping his place in the Establishment.

    His Guardian piece, whether Sachs wrote it or had it written for him, is proof of desperation more than anything else.

    This bit of history may have been covered on this site before I became a regular reader—if so, maybe someone can direct me to it—but how did the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (named after a rocketry pioneer) ever get involved in global climate stuff? Surely that wasn’t part of its original mission…

    Maybe it’s time for a bill to be introduced into Congress defunding GISS?

  345. UK Sceptic says:

    Tom P – “Roy Spencer is analysing his own data and finding very good agreement with the CRU temperatures. The period analysed is from 1986 and shows a significant warming trend.”

    Roy Spencer also has this to say about the data:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/spencer-record-january-warmth-is-mostly-sea/

    I’m an archaeologist with a Holocene onset Quaternary leaning. This makes me an informed historical climate observer, not an expert in satellite data. If Dr. Spencer’s raw data does support the CRU satellite data then that means not all of the data is corrupt. However, it does not mitigate the data that has been proven to be corrupted with a warm bias: the proxy temperature data and the land surface temperature data. That still leaves CRU and Phil Jones on the wrong side of the truth equasion.

  346. Cap'n Rusty says:

    Here’s a link to an article in the Telegraph regarding the next financial bubble – the trading of “carbon credits.” Also, within the article, follow the link to the longer expose in Atlantic magazine:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/

    As in everything, follow the money.

  347. A C Osborn says:

    Dawn Watson (08:17:40) :
    So have you personally invested your own money in “refurbishing your house to passiv house standard” then?
    Do you drive a Car – using petrol or electricity?
    Have you flown on a Plane recently?
    Used a Train or boat?

    Have you seen the studies on Overall Wind Turbine Efficiency and their contribution the UK’s Power supply?
    Do you know that they are not self sufficient and require Subsidies to keep them going?
    I agree with you that our Government is wasting Billions of Pounds in the wrong areas including the research and propaganda of CAGW.

  348. NickB. says:

    Anthony,
    Please consider the following… you are now in the company of people like Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen. Unfairly, and unjustly maligned for questioning the orthodoxy

    You may be, in their eyes, a heretic… but your integrity, unlike Sachs’, is intact

    I say wear this as a badge of honor, and don’t let this incite you to becoming like them

    Best Regards,
    Nick

  349. stumpy says:

    Man thats looooow, what a d#@k!

    If I recall, the acid rain scare was exactly that, a scare wasnt it ? wernt the sceptics on that one right? Rain is naturally acidic, trees like slightly acidic rain and no one could ever prove that rain was increasing in acidity due to factory smoke etc…

    Bit like CFC’s – now they are saying CFC’s most likely play a very small role in the “hole” in the ozone layer and its mostly natural

    Some times the sceptics are right, even though ignored!

    Also, (contraversial I know) I dont see the issue with people being sceptical of the link of smoking and cancer if there is good reason (i dont know the facts on the subject), but somone always needs to be sceptical somewhere or any old drivel will get by! Its a scientific duty!!

    Sorry for your loss, cancer is a horrible things to have to go through with loved ones – a perfect example of why people like this should shut their mouths if they dont know the facts

  350. Tim Clark says:

    John Galt (07:19:40) :
    It’s always nice to feel you have a majority support of popular opinion, but the American public is woefully ignorant of science and economics.

    51.7% of the American public is woefully ignorant. Fixed.

  351. R. Craigen says:

    May I suggest, Anthony, that you make this article a floater that stays at the top of the blog for a week or so? It seems that the most productive use of it would be as a greeting for the flocks of Guardian readers likely to visit WUWT for the first time out of curiosity after reading Sach’s loquacious libel. Give ‘em the proper treatment (add a welcome for them in the first paragraph!)

  352. A C Osborn says:

    Herman L (09:41:17) :
    You actually have the nerve to ask Anthony that question on this Site, hasn’t anything that has been presented on here (and not just by Anthony) given you pause for thought?
    Because if it hasn’t then what is the point in him answering (even though he has)?

  353. Herman L says:

    Anthony,

    No, it hasn’t been done. Take out the links to opinion pieces and politics.
    E.g., “The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed.” That has nothing to do with science.

    You behave similarly when you write “why did CRU and IPCC need to hide data from public view …?” and ” … ignore clear warnings made by reviewers over the 2035 glacier date and other now uncovered debacles?” Both of those make the assumption that some sort of fraud is going on, not science or all too human errors in reporting science.

    Like I said: The science can stand on its own. I’ve read the IPCC FAR Technical Summary and found zero references to politics and political debate. If you want to make a convincing scientific argument to me, do the same here.

    I would like to believe that AGW is wrong at a purely scientific level. However, if you have to resort to politics to make your case, I doubt your sincerity.

    REPLY: Well then we agree on something, because I’ve always doubted yours. Your first post here was attacking my choice of a word, not the science. I see you as politically affected, not scientific, and to be clear, your anonymous opinion means nothing. I was once very much a believer like you, though I doubt you have the ability to see beyond the dogma of the IPCC report (written by a political body) you cite. I’m simply not interested in investing the time in you, since you’ve rejected everything so far, it would be a futile excercise. Your mind is closed. – Anthony Watts

  354. What’s also amusing is that Sachs’ Earth Institute has a Corporate Circle of donors who include some the nations’ worst polluters. People who are being supported by Monsanto, Pfizer and Procter and Gamble should make unfounded allegations that others are being supported by Big Oil.

  355. Harbinger says:

    Whilst not wishing to downplay Anthony’s obvious distress on the subject, it does show that emotion can interfere with objectivity. Whilst the tobacco companies did hide knowledge of harm from direct smoking of tobacco in excess, there is absolutely no evidence that second hand smoke, whilst unpleasant, is harmful. We criticise falsified temperatures, but the data trawls on tobacco produced false claims and mortality statistics that could not in practice have happened, from an examination of general death statistics.

    Cigarettes per se do not cause cancer, if they did everyone who smoked would get cancer. This is patently not the case. They increase the risk, as they do of emphysema and other problems, if used to excess. Many people enjoy cigarettes and are aware of the dangers, but they make a personal choice.

    I have never smoked in my life, I hate cigarettes (and second hand smoke), but we should not abandon scientific rigour on something with which we have a personal problem.

    Whenever these ad hominems arise we should respond with facts, as Richard North has today at eureferendum, and ask them to explain themselves.

  356. Smokey says:

    AJStrata (10:12:44),

    Exactly right. As you point out, the AGW cult is not science based. It violates the scientific method, making it akin to Scientology rather than honest science.

    You add, “…it is the responsibility of the theory supporters to prove their case, not denigrate and silence those challenges.”

    As the CRU emails show, denigrating and silencing skeptics is a tactic repeatedly used by the AGW crowd, as is their deliberate fabrication of temperature data.

    Hermal L says above:

    Maybe you are right and the answers at skepticalscience.com are wrong…

    The skeptical science blog is anything but skeptical science. It is faith based anti-science, which disregards the scientific method: skeptics have nothing to prove.

    And since the promoters of CAGW hide [or "lose"] their data, and provide upwardly adjusted data with no chain of custody traceable back to the original raw data, there is no way to verify their results. We are expected to take their word for it. But they have forfeited the right to say, “Trust us” with the climategate emails. They can not be trusted. Phil Jones is not out of a job because he is trustworthy.

    Scientific skepticism is required of every honest scientist. But in order to employ skepticism per the scientific method, all data, methods, code, and anything else bearing on the AGW hypothesis must be made freely available to scientific skeptics for the specific purpose of attempting to falsify that hypothesis.

    If the catastrophic AGW hypothesis can withstand falsification, then it will be accepted by mainstream scientists. But the purveyors of the hypothesis refuse to provide the necessary information. That is a pretty clear indication that they know CAGW will be quickly falsified as soon as they open their data and methods to the public.

    So they stonewall. It is their only option if they hope to keep the grant money flowing. But it makes a mockery of the scientific method. It is pseudo-science; propaganda masquerading as science, just as the skeptical science blog masquerades as skeptics.

    The catastrophic AGW hypothesis appears on its face to be preposterous. If it is not, then show us by simply opening the books. To verify it or falsify it, there must be complete transparency. Instead, secrecy of data and methods is the tactic used by people who can no longer be trusted.

  357. Kay says:

    @ stumpy (10:49:37) : If I recall, the acid rain scare was exactly that, a scare wasnt it ? wernt the sceptics on that one right? Rain is naturally acidic, trees like slightly acidic rain and no one could ever prove that rain was increasing in acidity due to factory smoke etc…

    That’s correct–rain naturally contains carbonic acid and has a pH of around 5.5. Carbonic acid in conjunction with bicarbonate is important in the oceans, too. CO2 and H2O form carbonic acid, When it dissociates, it gives up a hydrogen ion, forming bicarbonate. If the acid becomes too strong, the bicarbonate absorbs hydrogen ions, making the acid weaker. It’s the reason the oceans aren’t going to turn into boiling seas of acid anytime soon…and yet, with all that acid raining down for millions of years, the Earth is still here.

    When I was in middle school, acid rain was taught as fact. So was the ozone layer when I was in high school.

  358. Robert says:

    [snip - you put words in my mouth in your response which aren't true. Better reword because I'm not going to allow your post as is. - A]

  359. TonyB says:

    Dawn Watson

    Do calm down.

    History tells us that there have been far worse weather incidents in the past than the ones you cite, and that todays climate is nothing out of the ordinary.

    Why don’t you read a book like ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ by Hubert Lamb, the first Director of the infamous CRU? It will put today’s climate into its proper perspective.

    The ISBN is 0-415-12735-1

    Tonyb

  360. Herman L says:

    A very interesting response, Anthony. You doubt my sincerity, and I doubt yours. But when I ask that you put all politics aside and address your concerns in purely scientific terms, you retort: “Your mind is closed.”

    REPLY: I gave you a list of 75 things, and two questions, and you rejected them all, what does that say about your ability to look beyond your comfort zone.? Put simply, I’m done wasting my time with you. I care not if you are convinced or not. -A

  361. Gosport Mike. says:

    As far as science is concerned AGW is dead and buried. Economically it is still very much alive. The media voice which never fails to blame AGW for everything but Swine Flu is the BBC. Now Peter Dunscombe who is Head of the BBC Pensions Investment is also Chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. The BBC Pension Fund has £8 billion invested in IIGCC, a group which has at least 50 other investors and, in total, controls in the order of 4 trillion Euros. This money is in turn invested in UNEP F1 which controls upwards of $15 Trillion, money which is used to fund Carbon Credits and similar dubious ventures.
    With so much investment at stake can anybody believe that CRU or IPCC or other instigators of AGW will be allowed to come clean?

  362. David Middleton says:

    Robert (10:26:27) :

    “It’s full of the kind of angry, baseless, stereotypical innuendo . . .”

    Physician, heal thyself.

    I thought it was a pretty tame article, myself. Certainly correct on the facts.

    [...]

    I suppose that one could view at least some of Sachs’s “facts” as being correct…

    Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

    It is true. Many of us AGW skeptics were also right about ozone holes and acid rain.

    The annual thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica is an artifact of the polar winter. Although it is claimed that the ozone hole didn’t exist prior to the 1980’s… It has occurred during every Antarctic spring in which anyone was trying to measure it.

    Ozone in the upper atmosphere is created when UV radiation from the Sun strikes oxygen molecules. This leads to the creation of ozone. The ozone layer doesn’t so much act as sunscreen as it acts like reactive armor. During the Antarctic winter very little sunlight hits the upper atmosphere over Antarctica and the Antarctic polar vortex prevents much in the way of atmospheric mixing between the polar and higher latitude air masses. This leads to an annual depletion of Antarctic ozone from mid-August through mid-October (late winter to mid spring). As the Antarctic spring transitions to summer, there is more exposure to sunlight and the ozone layer is replenished.

    This process has occurred since the dawn of continuous ozone measurements in 1986. NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory / Global Monitoring Division features a very disingenuous chart on their ozone page.

    South Pole Total Ozone

    The NOAA ESRL/GMD chart implies that the annual ozone hole did not exist during an earlier period of measurements from 1967-1971. This is wrong. The actual data from 1967-1971 clearly show that the annual ozone hole did exist. It may have been less pronounced at higher altitudes and it may have bottomed out in September rather than October; but it did exist. At low altitude (200 MB and 400 MB) it was nearly identical to the present-day…

    Comparison of 1967-1971 and 1986-1991 Antarctic ozone (Oltmans et al., 1994)”]

    There are a lot of reasons why earlier measurements differ from the modern data:

    1. The older data were sparsely sampled (1/4 the number of profiles) and the earlier ozonesonde balloons rarely, if ever, reached higher altitudes (40 MB and 25 MB).

    2. The error bars of the two data sets almost overlap.

    3. Natural climate oscillations. 1967-1971 was during a period of global cooling. 1986-1991 was during a period of global warming. Without having a continuous series of profiles across a full wavelength of the ~60-yr PDO/ENSO cycle, it’s impossible to know if the annual ozone depletion has a cyclical nature.

    4. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). It is possible that CFC’s did exaggerate the Antarctic ozone hole. However, the data clearly show that CFC’s did not create it.

    The ozone hole scare cost many people a lot of money. Refrigerating fluids, particularly in automobile air conditioners, had to be replaced. If you were the owner of a 1980’s motor vehicle in need of air conditioner repairs in the 1990’s, you may as well have traded your vehicle in; because the cost of repairs became almost prohibitive due to new environmental regulations related to CFC’s.

    The economic cost of this particular chapter of environmental junk science was minuscule in comparison to that of the current environmental swindle (anthropogenic global warming)… But this should serve as one more reminder that no one ever bothered to check the work of these Enviromarxist con men prior to Steve McIntyre’s debunking of Mann’s Hockey Stick.

    References:

    Data Visualization >> South Pole Ozone Hole >> South Pole Total Column Ozone

    Oltmans, S. J.; Hofmann, D. J.; Komhyr, W. D.; Lathrop, J. A. Ozone vertical profile changes over South Pole. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center, Ozone in the Troposphere and Stratosphere, Part 2, p 578-581

    As far as acid rain goes… Rain is supposed to be acidic. Most of the lakes which were showcased as acid rain victims were naturally acidic and had been acidic since well before mankind ever burned his first lump of coal.

    Rather than being a global problem, anthropogenic acid rain was a localized problem in parts of Northern Europe which was relatively easily fixed.

    Acid rain became an “issue” in 1980 when Congress passed the Acid Deposition Act. After a ten year study, National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program reported that there wasn’t much of a problem with acid rain. The first report was rejected and Congress went ahead and amended the Clean Air Act to mandate SO2 and NOx emissions. These emissions have been substantially reduced at a cost of several billion dollars per year. Chump change relative to the potential costs of Kyoto/Copenhagen schemes.

    But… The reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions has had no clear affect on the pH of rainwater. In some parts of the country, the pH is stable, in some parts it’s gently falling, in other parts it’s gently rising. Most stations exhibit little or no change in slope over the measurement period, which in many cases goes back to the late 1970’s.

    National Atmospheric Deposition Program Interactive Map

    Click on a station, select “Trend Plots”, then select “Field pH”… Look at the actual data.

    The costs of reducing CFC, SO2 and NOx emissions haven’t been that awful… And the reductions did lead to some beneficial environemtal effects… But… No crisis ever existed regarding ozone holes and acid rain.

  363. Andrew W (01:03:26) :While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.

    Andrew, IMHO it’s a lot more subtle but is still basically correct. Twenty years ago, Maggie Thatcher revoked funding on all research – except for any, from any discipline, that supported AGW. It was IMO like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice: started tiny and gradually grew. Probably without anyone being aware. Researchers would apply for grants, and those who believed in, and touted, scare stories would get the grants. Nothing done deliberately.

  364. Robert says:

    ” Robert (11:21:15) :

    [snip - you put words in my mouth in your response which aren't true. Better reword because I'm not going to allow your post as is. - A]”

    I’m going to argue with someone who’s going to gag me on a whim?

    Not likely.

    I stand by my original statement. You need to take a hard look for the flaws you identified in the article in your work here, because you are a much worse offender than they are.

    REPLY: Oh please….moral lecturing from someone too cowardly to put their full name to their words. -Anthony Watts

  365. David Porter says:

    I see that Robert eventually made it to this thread. Pity, because it comes ahead of my previous posting that for some reason disappeared into the ether, which was, if I remember correctly something like: [snip]

    If this gets snipped or ends in the spam bin then please give me a clue as to why.

    REPLY: Even though I strongly disagree with “robert” such ad homs are not something I want here – Anthony

  366. Andrew W says:

    REPLY: Its already done for me, have a look at this list: 75 reasons to be sceptical about “global warming”

    Anthony, there’s almost nothing on that list that’s correct, I’m surprised you link to it as I’m certain you’re smart enough to know it’s mostly nonsense.

  367. Eric Smith says:

    Sachs is a necon mega criminal who, with his AGW pal Soros, handed the best part of the Russian economy over to seven oligarchs. The Guardian is an oil company sponsored, corporate rag.

  368. two moon says:

    I read the article and left a comment decrying its “dishonest sleight-of-hand.” The AGW true believers more and more behave like religious zealots, not scientists.

  369. Mike Davis says:

    From an African perspective, Jeffrey Sachs lives in a timewarp out of which he still seems to believe that the problems of this continent can be solved by throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at its governments, who will then of course use it wisely to reduce poverty, etc. He also dismisses without regard anyone who differs with his argument.

    To anyone who has actually taken the time to understand how Africa works, it would be clear that this approach fails, and in fact contributes to the problem.

    It now seems that his only solution to any problem is to spend lots of money without questioning the rationale too closely.

  370. Pascvaks says:

    In many cultures the stature of a man was measured by the strength of his enemies. You do not sound or act like a fool. You have powerful enemies. Therefore, you are a very great man.

    (Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, is the pawn of a powerful man.)

  371. Robert says:

    “Oh please….moral lecturing from someone too cowardly to put their full name to their words.”

    That’s quite a rationalized escape hatch you’ve built for yourself there: since the vast majority of people on forums and comment threads use a handle, if you have absolutely no answer to the point raised, you can always condemn them for “cowardice.”

    I’m glad you recognize that this is a moral issue. I suggest you reflect on a basic moral principle: “Do as you would be done by.”

    REPLY:
    Hmmm… but when I suggest you do a “do-over” on a comment that says something untrue about me, you say you’re done. Point is, you simply have no courage to stand up for what you say. If you want to accuse me of a wrongdoing, put your name to it, and I’ll print it, otherwise bug off. – Anthony Watts

  372. DougS says:

    Anthony!

    Wow, one of your very best posts and a complete contrast with Sachs’ piece.

    I do hope he has the guts to respond to your challenge but somehow I doubt it.

  373. pwl says:

    “Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain, We must not be distracted from science’s urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate” by Jeffrey Sachs.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

    Well Jeffrey I’ve never written about tobacco until this sentence and the same goes for acid rain thus I prove your assertions wrong you foolish man.

    It’s no longer enough to write claims such as “we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate” Jeffrey Sachs, you must PROVIDE the actual hard evidence for every claim made EVERY time you make any claims.

    When you and your cohorts cry wolf long enough people get fed up with it Jeffrey Sachs and demand hard evidence of the causality link of the claim that man causes the warming as alleged in the AGW hypothesis. Prove it Jeffrey. It’s no longer enough to simply state your beliefs, you must provide hard evidence.

    Oh, wait a minute, you can’t provide the hard evidence so you attack the character of those who have the gall to ask questions of your wild unproven allegations about climate change causes.

    And that’s just the response to the title and byline of your article!

    pwl
    http://www.PathsToKnowledge.NET
    Never written about tobacco or acid rain till this sentence! (Well the one above). Never received any money from big tobacco nor big oil. I’m a systems scientist and a computer scientist who makes a living designing, writing, maintaining complex software systems for banks, engineering companies, insurance companies, the movie and video industry, mobile phone applications, and even have authored commercially successful video games. I write in assembly language, C, C++, Java, Smalltalk and so many other languages, including work on a new object oriented language. I’m an expert in cellular automata having invented a number of unique Eden Generators. I’ve written simulation systems. My site Paths To Knowledge dot Net makes no money for me and in fact costs me time and money to operate, it also has no ads. I am dedicated to the scientific method and have been seeking any hard evidence of the alleged AGW hypothesis and have yet to find any that can withstand close scrutiny. People drive over bridges designed and engineered with my software – their lives depend upon accurate scientific and engineering calculations to the point where we needed extended double precision math; accuracy to millimeters matter and to get that you actually have to be accurate to 1,000 or 10,000 of millimeters to err on the side of safety. I diagnose complex systems for a living and have extended the debugging capabilities of a number of computer programming languages to provide much more depth in the debugging of complex concurrent multi-threaded applications. Times are tight, so if you’re with big oil I sure could use a lucrative software development contract right about now, or maybe you’re with some group that wants to prove or disprove the alleged AGW hypothesis… I sure could use a software development or systems science vetting contract… Of course no matter how much someone pays me for consulting my opinions on matters of science are independent, honest, and straight forward. That’s actually why clients hire me, they want an honest unbiased opinion on their complex systems that they often don’t get from their own employees. My clients don’t want yes men, they want facts supported by hard evidence, they want systems that work and produce correct results reflecting the relevant aspects of the real world. Bridges and buildings must stay up. Accounts must balance. Concurrent programs must work correctly. Excellence must prevail, or we’re doomed to live in the Idiocracy.

  374. David Porter says:

    Anthony, not for the first time you have snipped me for making an observation about a remark by a troll. And then later I find that my sarcasm becomes common place, i.e., Monbiot vs Moonbat.

    It would appear that in your and my case we are two people separated by a common language.

  375. Dave Wendt says:

    I have always found the alarmists to derogate the work and character of their critics based on associations and past comments quite ironic. The patron saint of AGW has always been Svante Arrhenius, the father of the green house effect. Although the Wikipedia bio page for him seems to have been sanitized quite a bit since I first looked at it a couple of years ago, it still contains this passage,

    Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute.[citation needed] Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.[citation needed] Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden.

    As I said the bio has been sanitized, but even in its present state, reading it hardly leads one to view him as one of nature’s noblemen, and if you pursue less biased outlooks, the portrait gets nothing but worse. To be consistent should we not discard the greenhouse effect on the basis of the character flaws of its creator, without even needing to mention its potential scientific flaws.

  376. Dave Wendt says:

    oops, should be “efforts to derogate”

  377. Vincent says:

    Eric Smith,

    “Sachs is a necon mega criminal who, with his AGW pal Soros, handed the best part of the Russian economy over to seven oligarchs.”

    Soros helped to panic Yeltsin’s government in handing over the economy to prevent the communists from getting hold of it. It was viewed as a last ditch attempt to privatise. I understand that Soros now regrets the advice he gave.

  378. John Haythornthwaite says:

    Asking for your own contribution and printing Jeffrey Sach’s article is hardly slimy – it shows they are at least making some attempt to capture both sides of the debate. More than can be said for the Daily Mail (how many times have they been successfully sued for libel?), National Post, or many other publications. I don’t think you should shy away from contributing just because of one offensive article – if anything you should write a rebuttal piece for the Guardian (and/or other publications), along the lines of what you said above.

    Eric Smith said:
    “The Guardian is an oil company sponsored, corporate rag.”

    I’m not sure that is true as you provide no proof, but even if it is, how does that make the Guardian different from any other Paper?

  379. badmedicine says:

    Anthony – I must agree with Andrew W (12:01:01). Would you really defend that list of 75? Really?

  380. UK John says:

    Sach’s hair it must be a wig!

  381. harleyrider1978 (03:38:58) : … The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%…

    Anthony, I feel for your situation. But I have to admit harleyrider’s careful statements too. I also have my own stories… on both sides and in both directions. What helps me is to remember that originally smoking the pipe of peace was a sacred activity, just used for sacred purposes. Cigarettes abandoned the sense of the sacred… and added toxic additives… and were used as a displacement activity, usually some kind of avoidance of deeper life issues. In a very similar way, alcohol has its sacred place in Christian communion but in excess is a devastating killer.

  382. Paddy says:

    Doug in Dunedin (10:00:09) :

    The lawyers are already on the march. There are several types of legal challenges underway: administrative appeals of the EPA endangerment findings; administrative requests to EPA to withdraw its finding; administrative appeals per FOIA to EPA and NASA to compel production of documents; lawsuits per FOIA to compel EPA and NASA to compel production of documents; lawsuits by Pacific Legal Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce, Competitive Enterprises Institute, States of Texas and Virginia to either legally review EPA finding in a US Court of Appeals per the APA or in a US District Court declaratory and injunctive relief and to void the Finding for several reasons.

  383. Vincent says:

    “The Guardian is an oil company sponsored, corporate rag.”

    No, the Guardian is a government sponsored rag, subsisting from the copious streams of advertising revenue for comfy public sector non jobs. When the axe falls on public spending, so shall fall the Guardian.

  384. still crying says:

    Wow, “slimy” is too much of a compliment for this ^!@!#$@#!#@%!!!

    Brought tears to my eyes :(

    Think I’ll cruise on over to the Guardian and post this thread on the comments & urge every one else to do some venting over there too

  385. Robert says:

    As to why a reasonable person might want to maintain their privacy on the Internet, especially in the midst of such an angry, polarized debate, let’s look at e-mails sent by “skeptics” to scientists with whom they disagreed (h/t tinyCO2):

    “If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you.”

    “F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT.”

    “Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?

    “Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.”

    “Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

    I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.

  386. Walt The Physicist says:

    Putting aside scientific disagreements, it seems obvious that a layman had spoken: AGW science is not credible and the restrictions on CO2 emissions are bad for economy and should not be imposed. Weather it is scientifically “correct” or not, it is clear that such sentiment dominates public opinion. It is quite amazing what my colleagues scientists don’t understand in this message. And it is shocking that they continue pushing their agenda while calling layman names. It looks like they really forget (or never thought of) that their salaries are paid by layman who is taxed too much. I would like to advise my colleagues, concerned with the wellbeing of those ignorant masses, to solicit funding for their research from the private sources. Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bono, the names that first are coming to mind as potential sources for such funding. Why NASA Goddard Center, Columbia or Penn State should hang on our neck employing quite a number of people who do questionable or worthless research (as appears to us) and draw 100k+ salaries ripped from taxpayer’s pocket while demonstrating their intellectual superiority in front of those “ignorant trolls”, i.e. majority of us?

  387. Herman L says:

    Andrew W (12:01:01) : Since the list “75 reasons to be sceptical about ‘global warming’” is all Anthony seems willing to give me as a scientific report on the science which disproves global warming, I am now reading it. There are a huge number of non-science items in it, and the many of the items which purport to be about science take me to newspaper articles, not actual scientific studies (yes, I will follow the links, but it takes time). Frankly, I was hoping for better.

    REPLY: Hope all you want. I run a business during the day, with occasional times spent here. I’m not going to drop everything simply because you demand it your way. Your arrogance is astounding. – Anthony

  388. wws says:

    “I have seen people hanged for making statements way less inflammatory than this.”

    I never have, but I’ve wanted to!

    now thass a joke there, just trying to lighten things up a bit. ;-)

  389. NickB. says:

    Andrew W (12:01:01) :
    Anthony, there’s almost nothing on that list that’s correct, I’m surprised you link to it as I’m certain you’re smart enough to know it’s mostly nonsense.

    That’s a troll reply

    Lets play a game here:

    Globally, the mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of cloud formations. Large scale cloud formations change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Earth… The mean temperature on Earth, averaged over the year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale cloud activity is.

    That is not the original quote… but tell me if you think the underlying logic is BS

  390. tune-in says:

    I didn’t read the whole thread, so maybe it was already mentioned, but I heard on NPR just yesterday a similar propaganda assault on skeptics.
    The guy interviewed was a self proclaimed communications specialist and his points were roughly:
    -climate scientists are bad at communications- that’s what really feeds the skeptics. It’s all a misunderstanding.
    -it’s no longer global warming or climate change, it’s now “climate crisis”,
    -the term “climate change” was apparently invented by the Republican polster Frank Lutz in 2004 or 2006 to make it seem more “natural” and less urgent.
    -record snow and cold is a sign of “climate crisis”.
    -the term global warming should not be taken literally.
    – he also brought up tobacco and other special interest.

    I screamed at the radio. This was such brazen propaganda.
    Frank Lutz? what about IPCC?
    Bad communicators? what about AL Gore and his film? What about the constant assault on the sense of human pity through the images of drowning polar bears and hurricanes?

    This is definitely a coordinated effort to save their agenda.

  391. NickB. says:

    Robert (12:55:35)

    If you guys notice, I don’t put my last name on stuff either… but one would be amiss to think that the road only runs one-way

    I’m sure Lindzen, Christy and Spencer – just to name a few – have received plenty of hate-mail too

    Unfortunately the consequences for this debate have become apocalyptic for both sides. “You’re killing my grandkids” vs. “I won’t be able to heat my house next winter”

    Responsible parties on both sides need to make a concerted effort to turn down the volume – and I *DO* consider Anthony to be a responsible party… so lets try and keep it civil here. Please.

  392. Dawn Watson (03:58:56) : …As a country (UK) we have some serious energy decisions to make…

    Dawn, that’s precisely why we need to clear out the mess in Climate Science… because the c**p science currently doing the rounds is wasting horrendous quantities of time and effort, and is only too capable of making useless, dangerous energy decisions. We need the fraud and ignorance cleared out of science. For this we need open-source science, free the data, free the methodology, free the debate. We need to take pride in research as a public service.

    Take tidal energy. Locally to me the government wants to push through big barrage ideas that are expensive and inefficient. They get big business backing. But the future for tidal energy is small devices that are still in the hands of small-time inventors. IMHO.

    Take nuclear energy (“normal” kind). The waste problem is still unsolved. Backhanders are foisting unwanted “solutions” on people. Yet LENR (the name-change already tells the story) might solve the current waste problem as well as the future energy problem – if research were supported.

    Take Illinois coal. Mine that coal for uranium: enough to run two reactors for every one coal plant.

    There are no doubt lots more possibilities currently scoffed at by the likes of Nature magazine – because they offend the current scientific paradigms.

  393. Thomas Gough says:

    “First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
    Gandhi

  394. regeya says:

    I think some of you missed the point of the smoking jab, which would be that tobacco companies have paid for loads of studies over the years to try to prove that their products aren’t dangerous, or that they aren’t nearly as dangerous as claimed, all in the name of making a profit.

    The parallel would be that bad science is being used to distract people away from real pollutants like mercury, uranium, benzene, etc. and on to an element which is one of the base elements required for life, and the creation of a market for “trading” said element as a commodity, all in the name of making a profit.

    But arguing with a smoker is like trying to argue with a junkie, so I’ll shut up.

  395. Sharon says:

    So, it seems the pro-AGW side has turned to Psy-Ops now that their Sci-Ops have failed.

    N+36,3762,14 hits on this blog says this new strategy is a FAIL.

    Go Anthony!

  396. Anthony

    In his attacks on skeptics, Sachs joins Pachauri and the B-grade-acting CRU director Prof Liss. No mention is made of skeptics arguments, no attempt is made to refute them. Their aim is not to refute but to discredit. Maybe it because the positions taken by AGW proponents are so shaky that slander, smearing and ad hominem slurs are the only avenues they have left.

    Particularly galling is the implication that skeptics are mercenaries for evil industries. Given your openness, integrity and even-handedness, that is highly insulting. Its not the skeptics who have been bought. Men like yourself and Spencer are not rice-bowl scientists. That possibility, however, can be leveled at some Climate Change scientists:

    http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/02/climate-change-rice-bowl-science/

    Keep blogging, Mr Watts. The world will keep reading.

  397. Vincent says:

    tune-in,

    “it’s no longer global warming or climate change, it’s now “climate crisis”

    A sign of desperation. First we were urged to fight global warming, and when that proved to be a lie, we were extolled to fight climate change. Now that the number of true believers are disappearing faster than Al Gore’s glaciers, they bring in the fastest, sharpest PR mind to conjure up the final label on which to hang their phony junkscience; a concept that is so singularly terrifying that it will galvanise the global masses into crying out for salvation.

    But after “climate crisis”, there’s nowhere left to go. Maybe “climate catastrophe”, but that sounds too far fetched even for the most evangelical of converts.

  398. Vincent says:

    Robert,

    “I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.”

    Years ago the Australian passion was “pomie bashing.” Now it seems they’ve found someone else to bash instead of us old poms.

  399. FergalR says:

    Another God-awful UK press attack piece on sceptics, this time from a decidedly colourful historian.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7036900.ece

  400. NickB. says:

    badmedicine (12:37:08) :
    Anthony – I must agree with Andrew W (12:01:01). Would you really defend that list of 75? Really?

    That’s, unfortunately, the risk of summary lists like that. I am personally skeptical of some of the claims in there as I am unfamiliar with them and, just going off the odds, there’s probably *at least* one in there that is a little flaky… much like claims of drowning polar bears, disappearing glaciers in India, etc

    So what would that mean… that the entire document should be junked? That one should look skeptically at compendiums of supposedly solid science? That one should junk it all because of one bad assertion? Or that one should gloss over the bad points because, en masse, it is mostly right and we should trumpet it all as solid science?

  401. George E. Smith says:

    A life long friend of mine (we went to grade school together) recently retired, as a full professor of Pediatrics, and Behavioral Psychology from the University of Miami. He’s actually an expert on Epidemiology; and also the learning processes of Retarded Children (so’s his wife who is his equal in thoise fields)

    At that Institution he rubbed shoulders daily with the medical school faculty.

    Regarding the issue of tobacco and lung cancer; he puts it this way;-

    “There’s a body of scientific evidence that tobacco smoking causes Lung Cancer. There’s also a body of scientific evidence, that sex causes children.

    It’s just that the tobacco evidence is much better.”

  402. Tim says:

    Don’t sweat it Anthony – not only is this the last gasp of AGW alarmists, it is the last gasp of “old media” as well. I suspect your readership is now approaching that of the Guardian, if not exceeding it.

  403. Robert says:

    @NickB.

    I agree, and I have some angry and intemperate comments on my conscience, too. A little story:

    I was on a climate blog the other day (“The Science of Doom”; http://scienceofdoom.com/) and I asked something to the effect of “The denialists say this, and I’m not sure what the science is.” Do you know what happened, on this very AGW-is-real website? They blocked it! I was referred to the “etiquette” file:

    “Peoplewhodontagreeus-ists – we all know the words. Again, no thanks. Usually these words are created as insults. What’s the point? We are looking into the pros and cons of the science. Join a tribe or a church.”

    Now that made me feel about three inches tall. That blogger promotes a civil discussion, and he does so without respect to whether his friends or his critics are the targets.

    Just a pleasant story of somebody showing some real integrity. It is possible, despite our differences.

  404. DirkH says:

    “Vincent (13:41:24) :
    [...]
    But after “climate crisis”, there’s nowhere left to go.”

    Climate SNAFU?

  405. Just The Facts says:

    Robert (14:17:44)

    “The denialists say this”

    Hello Robert

    Can you please provide us with your thoughts on what is that said “denialists” deny?

  406. marchesarosa says:

    The Guardian’s average daily circulation July to December 2009 was 313,026 (AdInfo). This represents 13.9% share of the UK’s quality daily press circulation.

    According to its own editor, Peter Preston, The Guardian’s circulation dropped 14.8% in 2009, a much greater decline than other UK qualities which fell about 9.2% in the same period.

    Why? Because people are finding reputable and interesting sources of information elsewhere – i.e. from blogs like this. It is hardly surprising
    The Guardian is haemorrhaging readers given the Sachs article we are discussing here!

  407. As Director of the UN Millenium Development Project and its MDGs, Sachs also promoted a global carbon tax in order to redistribute global income.

    See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/DoubleStandard.htm#propaganda

  408. Ron Dean says:

    Tom P (02:33:34) :
    Roy Spencer has just posted an analysis of satellite data that is in very good agreement with HadCRUT:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/

    His conclusions:

    “I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.”

    Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?

    Tom, you need to read Dr. Spencer’s post a bit more carefully. His post did NOT address satellite data. There was NO inference that Dr. Phil Jones’ ground data is in accord with the satellite data.

    Dr. Spencer used raw data from the International Surface Hourly (ISH) Dataset. That data is a super-set of the other ground temperature data sets.

    You have mis-characterized Dr. Spencer as having said Dr. Jones’ surface data set agrees with the satellite record. The only think Dr. Spencer said is that the raw data of the ground stations he analyzed correlated well with Dr. Jones’ records. His analysis did not address UHI or any other biasing of Dr. Jones’ data, or the divergence of the satellite record and the surface temperature record.

  409. JamesG says:

    NickB
    True but overconsumption might be:
    exhibit a) when it’s cheaper to buy a new printer than ink for the old one. In 1000 years time they’ll dig down to our level and call it the age of beige and black plastic.
    exhibit b) I don’t know if it’s just where I live but in the last five years i can’t buy anything that will last for very long: Life becomes a continual struggle fixing the house against planned obsolescence. We are all scouring the car boot sales for classic furniture, cast iron radiators etc, old brass valves etc because things used to be built to last.

    What i don’t understand though is what resources are we supposed to be running out of? And who the hell might we be keeping them for? Is it all just an excuse to borrow my stuff? The fact is that we create new resources all the time. Whoever dreamt about plastics before they were invented? And now we can make it out of silage and use the old stuff for road surfacing. I’ve recently seen a tv programme about the wonderful things they can now make out of seaweed: I can’t see us running short of that. I used to think i was a pessimist until i read some of these blogs but now i realize i’m an optimist. But not so much that i think the UK actually has the money for any nuclear programme regardless of it’s plans.

  410. Indiana Bones says:

    Interesting isn’t it that just about the time a whole new crew of trolls show up here and Mr. Sachs writes his article – we have a brand new “climate change agency” operating out of DoC,

    Coincidence??

  411. Barbara says:

    Blasting free-market Wall Street Journal is odd considering Sach’s role (shock therapy), probably with George Soros (did you know Soros is an “adviser” at the Earth Institute, along with Pachauri?) in the devaluation/profit taking off the Russian ruble in 1998? Obama has okayed a $2 billion grant to Brazil for off-shore drilling. Soros made a bundle off that last August. Time to take a look at Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs’ finances.

  412. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Herman L., you said: “Anthony, if you want to turn a believer in AGW like me into a skeptic: here’s your chance. What are those “tough questions?” Can I get a list?”

    I have worked in alternative energy since 1979, focused on methane mitigation from manure and industrial wastewater treatment. I’ve won awards from the UK and US governments for this work. My belief in climate change was a primary motivator.

    I’ll kick this off…the science of climate change is incredibly complex, involving vast quantities of gases, liquids, and solids. Climatologists have made a mistake by developing a “dose-response” relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, ignoring huge inputs such as solar variation. Google the term “Maunder Minimum” for example, this was related to a mini-ice age.

    I recently queried my astronomy professor (emeritus) at the University of Illinois/Urbana about the ongoing solar minimum we have experienced, and he replied to me:

    “To the question — i have NO idea, and neither does anybody else at this
    point. the sun has been extremely quiet since the end of the last cycle,
    unusually so, so one cannot rule out a new extended minimum, yet the
    cycle could just be delayed — it’s too early to tell. The people who
    thought they could predict this one seem to have failed, but all we can do
    for now is to wait it out. I do not think climate models know quite what
    to do with solar activity, but that’s just an opinion. One problem is how
    this all factors into the politics of global warming.”

    Summary: climate science is NOT settled, there is only a consensus in a very small slice of the scientific community, and that group is dissolving day by day. Astrophysicists, geologists and others are just now starting to weigh in.

  413. Robert says:

    “Hello Robert

    Can you please provide us with your thoughts on what is that said “denialists” deny?”

    Did you read the part where I was impressed and humbled by the argument that those kinds of labels are rude and counterproductive?

    A short answer would be “they deny the theory of AGW.” But the real significance of all these “ist” labels — denialist, alarmist, believer, warmist, etc. — is to try and define people as ideological (as opposed to “our” views, which are reasonable and practical.)

    They ramp up the conflict and persuade nobody. I invite you to join me in swearing off all of them.

  414. Robert (14:17:44) : “The denialists say this, and I’m not sure what the science is.”

    Robert, I have a simple question to ask… did anyone in your family give the ultimate sacrifice, so you could enjoy exercising your freedom of speech to toss around loaded words like Denialist?

    Robert (12:55:35) : “…I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.”

    Jim Hansen said the following “…In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. …” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions

    Robert, at “Real Climate” their forums have discussed criminal trials like the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 for “skeptics” of climate change. At one time, when I still visited there, they discussed making lists of posters on sites like this one, so that “we” could be rounded up and prosecuted for our crimes against humanity.

    Those comments were meant to silence any one who was a skeptic. To install fear in people, so they wont ask the *wrong* questions. Those comments, where designed to remove peoples freedom of speech.

    It turned me into a skeptic willing to stand up and sign my name.

    Jack H Barnes Jr.

    I am a founder & CEO of a small mining company, so make sure you put me on your mining list.

  415. Kay says:

    From Australia:

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-take-on-sceptics-20100220-omrw.html

    I think the Guardian’s article–as horrible as it was–is just the beginning.

  416. Robert Christopher says:

    FergalR (13:58:56) :
    Another God-awful UK press attack piece on sceptics, this time from a decidedly colourful historian.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7036900.ece

    I am just stunned at how many subjects on which this article manages to touch. All I can say, for each, is… follow the money.

  417. NickB. says:

    JamesG (14:48:03)

    I read an interesting post on PlanetGreen.com a while back talking about mining landfills for recyclables. The fact of the matter is that if we really do start running our of stuff – like oil – prices will start to rise and *that* will lead to all sorts of innovation. Some day the prices could well be worth someone going in and mining landfills for all those recyclables that get put into the wrong bin… for now, in some cases at least, we spend more on recycling than we get from the end product. I’m not saying we shouldn’t recycle… just sayin’

    What the Greens are allegedly trying to do here is to artificially cause that to happen prematurely (sorry, but the 5th grader in me just chuckled at the thought of “premature innovation”, do they have a pill for that?). Where was I? Oh yeah, so the real question is will it work?

    I hate to bring up smoking again, or drinking… but here in the states every few years there are new taxes levied against tobacco and alcohol, allegedly to keep people from falling into addiction or to convince them to quit… but all it really does is lift money out of the pockets of people who have decided to partake in these legal activities. Another way to put it is that they are profiting from people’s addictions.

    I am much of the mindset that people are addicted to tobacco or alcohol in many of the same ways as they are to oil for transportation, and cheap electricity from coal… and maybe even planned obsolescence in cheap products. anything, western society has demonstrated quite clearly that we have no idea how to deal with addiction

    Arbitrarily raising prices on people who have no control over what cars are available, what power plants produce electricity, or what products are on their shelves is not the right way to go about it. It is, IMO, fundamentally unfair

    Sorry if that was a ramble

  418. RichieP says:

    Strength and honour Anthony – you have those qualities and great integrity above all, they don’t. The Guardian has become the catspaw Pravda both of our government and of the warmist last stand. It was once a voice of freedom against oppression and irrationality but has now become The Tyrant’s Friend, The People’s Foe. They will never recover their reputation.

  419. rick d says:

    The Ghost of Climate Change Past

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics

    Do climate change sceptics give skepticism a bad name? by Adam Corner.

    Dr. Corner is an expert on climate change. He is a research associate at Cardiff University whose interests include the PSYCHOLOGY OF COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE. He states the following in his article:

    “Recent climate scepticism has been characterised by a visceral mistrust of science, scientific institutions and scientific governance. Never mind that the case for climate change has been painstakingly pieced together over decades – climate change sceptics are busy writing it off on the basis of a few inconsistencies.”

    After this as usual, unbacked-up perfunctory drivel, he breaks into the real subject of his story, namely the etymology of the word skeptic and how it has been hijacked by the evil Climate Change Deniers. He cites a British expert on skepticism, from the organization “UK Skeptics”, John Jackson:

    “Terms like “climate change sceptic” are very damaging to skepticism (quoth Jackson) – basically because this is not what scepticism is. We often get people calling us, referring to themselves as climate sceptics, but we argue with them. We accept global warming because the evidence is overwhelming.”

    Dr. Corner goes on:

    “With trust in climate change and climate science rapidly dwindling, statements such as these could become incredibly powerful. Here are groups of intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers, directly contradicting the view of the so-called climate sceptics. Debate continues about whether “denier” is an appropriate term for those who oppose the climate science consensus. But it seems clear that “sceptic” is no better – the sceptics themselves reject the climate contrarians’ claim to their title.”

    Yes, thanks for the existence of Mr. Jackson et al.

    Since Dr. Corner cited Mr. Jackson in his article, I wished to find out more about UK Skeptics. After all it represents “groups of intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers, directly contradicting the view of the so-called climate sceptics.” I visited their website and found the following:

    UK-Skeptics is a UK registered not-for-profit educational organization (No: 05819701) which is administered by director John Jackson and non-executive directors Dr. Wendy Cousins and Dr. Jason Braithwaite.

    Ok, So three is a group, right?! Especially if two in the group are Ph.D.’s. I noticed two blog postings for February with three comments on one. Quite an active blog-roll. I dig deeper…..

    On their website, UK Skeptics define skepticism as:

    Skepticism is a method of assessing claims. It is a form of critical inquiry which can be used positively: in business; by consumers; in the defence against being defrauded or scammed; as an intellectual exercise; and in increasing one’s knowledge and awareness of reality in general.

    The idea is to look beyond claims, beliefs and opinions, which are often accepted at face value, and look at whether the evidence actually supports such claims. This approach also makes skepticism a valuable thinking tool where opposing or contradictory claims are made for the same issue.

    Sounds good, so far. So, what are these skeptics skeptical of? Let us look at the introduction for the UK Skeptic’s PARANORMAL CONFERENCE 2009 from their web site.

    The UK-Skeptics conference 2009 will take place at Muncaster Castle in Cumbria during the weekend 18th – 20th September. Muncaster Castle is a fabulous location on the west coast where a lot of research has been done into HAUNTING EXPERIENCES and so serves as an excellent backdrop for a conference examining the topics of paranormal and anomalous experiences.
    The aim of the conference is to take a BALANCED VIEW OF PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES and we will be getting talks from all perspectives (not only from skeptics) in the hope of increasing understanding of the issues and generating healthy debate in a friendly manner with those on all sides of the Paranormal debate.

    O.K. so they are skeptical of paranormal activity but are willing to listen respectfully to the other side? But wait it gets better:

    I was unable to find any information on the expertise of Mr. Jackson. His associates, Dr.’s Braithwaite and Cousins, provided their background of expertise for this recent Paranormal conference.

    Dr Jason Braithwaite is a Senior Research Fellow at the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham. His mainstream research interests are the visual cognitive neurosciences, more specifically – visual selective attention, memory and awareness. He publishes widely in top international peer-reviewed journals in the field of visual cognition. Dr Braithwaite has also published studies investigating aspects of hallucination and anomalous cognition including Apparitions / Hauntings, the Out-of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experiences.

    Dr Wendy Cousins is a psychologist and university lecturer with research interests in health and social care provision. Her doctoral work at Queens University Belfast was on the topic of health and social services complaints, although she prefers to describe herself as having a PhD in Complaining! Currently carrying out research on epilepsy care, she has a growing interest in altered states of consciousness, such as hypnosis and sleep. She is an Honorary Associate of the Centre for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology at Lund University in Sweden. Outside of work she is fascinated by the history of Psychical Research.

    So Mr. Jackson and his organization, UK Skeptics, as cited by Dr. Corner as unassailable experts on skepticism. They are certainly skeptical as to the existence of ghosts, people with paranormal abilities or out of body experiences. They are not skeptical, however, about AGW, after all, the “evidence is overwhelming.”

    In other words:

    Ghosts=probably not, but lets look into it.
    Climate change skepticism=no way.

    This would mean that people like Dr.’s John Christie and Wil Happer are cranks and flat earthers because they are, in turn, defined by him as “Climate Change Skeptics.” They are, in Dr. Corner’s world, more delusional than people who believe in ghosts. Lets listen rather to this group of “intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers.”

    Nice piece of Bloggin’ Dr. Corner. Maybe you could ask Roger Ravelle’s Ghost if he still believes in Climate Change?

    This goes to show what passes for journalism at the Guardian. Anthony you really shouldn’t pay them the slightest notice.

    Thanks for all you do,

    Rick D.

  420. badmedicine says:

    Nick B. (14:06:57) “…one should junk it all because of one bad assertion?”

    Well, no, of course not. But I was agreeing with Andrew W that “…there’s almost nothing on that list that’s correct”. (Or, if correct, then irrelevant to the argument, I would qualify.)

    You and I apparently disagree. I was wondering if Anthony would defend the list.

  421. Pascvaks says:

    Robert

    Hang in there!

    ________________________

    Everyone Else

    Lighten Up! One battle does not a war make.

  422. Romanoz says:

    I see Thomas Friedman in the NYT has joined the “slime brigade”. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
    “The climate-science community .. knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. ”
    Bit of an emotive reply by Antony, understandable BUT…….

  423. JohnWho says:

    Slimy it is, Anthony.

    But remember, they only “slime” those who they fear.

    And it is clear that they fear you and the truth.

    Keep up the good work.

  424. Bryn says:

    I am mildly surprised to find no reference in the preceding 422 comments to “Yellow Journalism” or the “Yellow Press”. I think these terms aptly describe the state of science reporting in the MSM.

    “…the term is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion, such as systematic political bias. Yellow journalism can also be the practice of over-dramatizing events.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism.

    I suggest that one reason for this attitude among writers for the so-called ‘flag-ship’ press is simply their ignorance. How many journalists have a thorough grounding in science? Over the years I have observed and even talked to journalists for the Oz media and found it virtually impossible to communicate on any scientific matter because of the profound depth of their ignorance and shallowness of their perceptions, no matter how I tried to explain matters in lay terms. CP Snow’s ‘Two Cultures’ was never more in evidence.

    What I am most surprised and downright disgusted by is the complete lack of integrity of people like Sachs who declare association with a University (in his case, Columbia U). So much for seeking truth or whatever is the function of such august institutions.

  425. Robert says:

    “jackhbarnesjr (15:30:09) :

    Robert, I have a simple question to ask… did anyone in your family give the ultimate sacrifice, so you could enjoy exercising your freedom of speech to toss around loaded words like Denialist?”

    I have two words for you: reading comprehension. There are classes starting in your area soon!

    Robert (12:55:35) : “…I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.”

    “Jim Hansen said the following “…In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. …” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions

    Do you hear rage there? I don’t. He’s talking about prosecuting people for deceiving the public and endangering lives as a result. It’s very different from threatening to gang-rape somebody’s children.

    Of course, who is a worse offender isn’t the point; the point is that I and many others have no interest in receiving e-mails like that, and so we maintain our privacy online.

    “It turned me into a skeptic willing to stand up and sign my name.”

    Of course, part of the point of skepticism is supposed to be eschewing arguments from authority, such that it shouldn’t matter who you are, if your reasoning and evidence is sound. I can only think that the desire to ferret out people’s names has to do with the desire to intimidate and silence critics of the anti-AGW point of view. Some skeptics seem surprisingly intolerant of skepticism when they are on the receiving end of it.

    By the way, I have a few questions I like to ask self-identified skeptics. Nothing hard; no trick questions, but it helps me understand what kind of a skeptic you are:

    1. What do you think are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?

    2. If you are in error in rejecting the theory, what kind of evidence would make you think you were in error?

    3. If you are in error, and AGW is a big problem, how would you suggest that society address it?

  426. Sharon says:

    Oops, my previous post read:

    “N+36,3762,14 hits on this blog says this new strategy is a FAIL.”

    The number should have been n+36,762,141.

    But I return to find the hit counter at 36,779,789. That’s over 17,500 hits in just a few hours. Whoa! This place is jumping!

  427. Pascvaks says:

    Pascvaks (15:50:16) :

    “…One battle does not a war make.”
    _____________________
    A point of clarification:
    The only thing I want to win is the truth. I don’t think I’ve heard that yet about “AGW”; I’m very skeptical. There are just too many WallStreeters” and politicians jumping around trying to get their hands in my pocket to make me think this is a human and CO2 nightmare. I’m not skeptical of Science but I do think many “scientists” have sold their souls and are just backing the current fad. And if and when it turns out that AGW is real and true, I want to elect the boneheaded politicians I want to fix it –the current crop is not up to fixing anything. If Leif and Robert are a couple of tough, thickheaded, Scientists who rarely agree with anyone that’s GREAT by me. And this nonsense about tell us who you are and where you live and work is insane. For those who think that what happened in Germany during the 1930’s couldn’t happen here, I hate to pop your bubble, but that just ain’t true. China now sits in the catbird seat we sat in after WWI.

  428. pman says:

    Anthony,

    You say:

    “The claims made that skeptics are connected to tobacco companies is ludicrous.”

    That’s not an entirely true statement. You should qualify that statement with “some”. Some prominent skeptics have had no connection with tobacco PR front groups, some have. Given that you detest the tobacco lobby I would urge you to read Naomi and Erik’s book. And again, given that you care so passionately about this subject I would urge you to dissociate yourself with the Heartland Institute who have in their past denied links between cancer and human health.

    I’m sorry, but you seem to have been extremely naive in your choice of associations.

  429. pwl says:

    Andrew W (12:01:01) there are a number of summary lists in addition to those 75 that Anthony pointed you to.

    First you need a lesson in science from a master of science.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn

    Now show the evidence FOR the alleged AGW hypothesis. Science is based upon the idea of those who support a hypothesis to show the evidence. Show it or shut up.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/16/show-the-evidence-for-anthropomorphic-global-warming-or-shut-the-frig-up-with-all-the-claims

    Oh, make sure data collection is done properly.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/16/for-the-sake-of-scientific-integrity-we-must-abandon-filling-in-missing-data-with-fictitious-invented-data

    Oops, ensure your bias is eliminated rather than put into the data.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/21/man-made-global-warming-climate-change-caused-by-human-bias

    Alternative Hypothesis Are Out There: The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming

    Of course the Sun Sol can’t have anything to due with the weather/climate.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/20/the-constant-and-never-changing-sun-cant-influence-climate-on-earth

    Make sure your Warming Cause wasn’t started by Darth Strong.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/18/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-only-one-earth-under-the-new-world-order-based-upon-false-science-brought-to-you-by-maurice-darth-strong

    Deal with real problems rather than fake C02 fears.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/rather-than-venting-on-the-imagined-dangers-of-co2-an-essential-plant-nutrient-how-about-doing-something-real-about-global-poverty

    Make sure those who propose the AGW hypothesis aren’t criminal fraudsters with an intent to lie as the man who said this does: “In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.”
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/there-is-a-100-chance-that-al-gore-will-get-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-since-he-intentionally-exaggerates-lies-and-distorts-the-science-to-promote-his-vested-business-interests-in-blood

    Gore’s Bloody Carbon Credits.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/16/blood-and-gore-maximize-green-profits-at-all-costs-including-goring-science-integrity-and-extracting-blood-and-taxes-from-the-developed-and-developing-world

    Deprogram your brain from the political green agenda.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/if-there-has-been-climate-change-for-four-billion-years-why-are-you-against-it-now

    The Sun Sets on the alleged AGW hypothesis.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/the-power-of-belief-and-trust-and-mass-propaganda-are-the-greatest-challenge-in-continuing-the-scientific-enlightenment

    Learn to engage in actual debate rather than in ad homenem personal attacks.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/two-approaches-to-debate-and-free-public-speech-prevent-it-or-seek-it-out-and-engage

    Listen to what the skeptical scientists have to say and learn baby learn.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/11/professor-fred-stinger-vs-bob-watson-on-agw-hypothesis

    Don’t support corrupted alleged scientists who distort data in an attempt to get their papers accepted as reflecting reality when it’s actually just fraud. Heck, we learned that in grade 10 science class in high school.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/08/it-was-a-trick

    Nature rules the wasteland that is Earth. Man is but a flea on her back.
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/07/nature-falsifies-the-mann-made-global-warming-climate-change-hypothesis

    There is wisdom in those skeptical scientists.
    http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public-works-committee

    Now we’re done with some of the preliminaries we’ll get to the two lists.

    Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/15/climate-change-is-natural-100-reasons-why

    Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 Report
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/06/03/nongovernmental-international-panel-on-climate-change-nipcc-2009-report

    Hope that helps you on your path to knowledge about how the alleged AGW hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

    pwl
    http://www.PathsToKnowledge.NET

  430. Tim says:

    Is this a cover-up? I mean his hair – it looks like he is wearing a wig.

  431. Just The Facts says:

    Robert (15:28:05) :

    “they deny the theory of AGW.”

    Can you describe the “theory of AGW”? I am familiar with the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can effect Earth’s temperature, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am familiar with the hypothesis that human activities can impact the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am also familiar with various temperature data sets that indicate that warming has occurred at various points during the current interglacial period, including since the last little ice age. I accept the possibility that some portion of the warming that has occurred since the last little ice age may have been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Does the “theory of AGW” you speak of ascribe a specific degree of causality between the increase in temperature since the last little ice age and increases anthropogenic CO2 emissions, e.g. if I thought the warming was 50% anthropogenic and 50% natural, would I still be a denialist? Does the “theory of AGW” you speak of also require that I accept future predictions of the likely impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, e.g. must I accept that these impacts will be at least X degrees by year Y in order to not be a denialist?

    Would you be willing to agree that human’s current understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best?

    “But the real significance of all these “ist” labels — denialist, alarmist, believer, warmist, etc. — is to try and define people as ideological (as opposed to “our” views, which are reasonable and practical.)”

    I began using the Warmist label because it helped to counteract efforts to switch the argument from “global warming” to “climate change” and now “climate crisis”. It really wasn’t intended to define people as ideological, but rather to prevent efforts to shift the debate to nebulous grounds.

    “They ramp up the conflict and persuade nobody.”

    While it is true that these labels have helped ramp up the conflict, the use of denier has actually been reasonably effective in persuading fence-sitters to become skeptics and skeptics to become more so.

    “I invite you to join me in swearing off all of them.”

    A noble effort, and one I wish I could support, but unfortunately, as long as efforts continue to obscure the debate by using phrases like “climate change” and “climate crisis”, it is prudent to continue using the “Warmist” label in order to be sure the public remembers what it is that we are arguing about.

  432. sHx says:

    CRS, Dr.P.H. (15:24:47) :

    “Summary: climate science is NOT settled, there is only a consensus in a very small slice of the scientific community, and that group is dissolving day by day. Astrophysicists, geologists and others are just now starting to weigh in.”

    I don’t know about astrophysicists, but I think climate science never had geologists’ full support. In Australia, the two leading climate sceptics, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, are both geologists.

    Geology is a fairly well settled scientific discipline. They already had on the record massive ups and downs in temperature and CO2 levels in Earth history when the new kids on the block (climatologists) barged in with their ‘unprecedented’ nonsense. The problem is that so far geologists are speaking as individual scientists, and hence outside their area of expertise. It would be good to hear what geology as a scientific discipline has to say about climate change. That means leading geological institutions will have to join the fray… if they could be nudged.

  433. John Whitman says:

    Mr. J. D. Sachs, by his lack of integrity as shown is his essay, weakens further an already shaky CACGW* agenda. The position taken by Sachs, as students of logic know, is the weakest of all logical positions.

    Why has the CACGW* agenda recently been in retreat on many major fronts? Read Sachs essay. It shows the cause of the CACGW* retreat better than any words of an independent rational thinker (aka “skeptic”) could.

    * CACGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Carbon-caused Global Warming

    !!! NOTE to Anthony, again I say that this kind of thing is strong evidence that you are a MSM player (of the blog based variety). : )

    John

  434. Robert says:

    “Can you describe the “theory of AGW”?”

    Your description is fine:

    “I am familiar with the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can effect Earth’s temperature, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am familiar with the hypothesis that human activities can impact the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am also familiar with various temperature data sets that indicate that warming has occurred at various points during the current interglacial period, including since the last little ice age. I accept the possibility that some portion of the warming that has occurred since the last little ice age may have been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    That’s AGW. That’s all it is. Most climate scientists would state the main points with more conviction, for example:

    1. There is a warming trend (>99.9%)
    2. CO2 levels are rising and humans are the cause (>99.9%)
    3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)

    Among those that accept the theory of AGW, there are differing opinions as to how dangerous the warming is and how much of it we are likely to see in the short- to medium-term. But that goes beyond the theory of AGW, which is just what you’ve described.

    “A noble effort, and one I wish I could support, but unfortunately, as long as efforts continue to obscure the debate by using phrases like “climate change” and “climate crisis”, it is prudent to continue using the “Warmist” label in order to be sure the public remembers what it is that we are arguing about.”

    2009 tied for the second hottest year on record; 2010 so far is the hottest year ever. I think the public remembers.

    [I am sure they are sweating it off while freezing to death]

  435. John Whitman says:

    ””””Beth Cooper (01:46:56) : ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,’ . . . . ”””’

    Beth,

    Congrats on your comment. I have long loved that Carroll poem! In the back of my mind I was thinking for a while about working it a comment here on WUWT. It is nice to see other minds have similar ideas.

    John

  436. Richard M says:

    1. What do you think are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?

    None. I don’t consider CO2 basic warming as part of AGW. It’s well understood physics that almost all skeptics accept. After that there’s really nothing but WAGs.

    2. If you are in error in rejecting the theory, what kind of evidence would make you think you were in error?

    I’ve never “rejected” any climate theory. I simply believe that the science is so poorly understood that all the various hypothesis are only slightly better than guesses. This includes many of the hypotheses put forward by other skeptics as well.

    3. If you are in error, and AGW is a big problem, how would you suggest that society address it?

    Wealth generation. A wealthier society will be able to handle any future problems better than a poor society. This may include whatever you mean by AGW or it may include cooler weather or maybe even the next glacial onset. It might also include asteroids, deadly viruses and super-volcanic eruptions.

  437. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    SHX said:
    “I don’t know about astrophysicists, but I think climate science never had geologists’ full support. In Australia, the two leading climate sceptics, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, are both geologists.”

    Cheers & thanks for the comments! I’m familiar with Plimer, the guy is stout!

    Outside of dyed-in-the-wool climatologists, I’m hard pressed to name many disciplines that completely buy into the “coming catastrophe” GW scenario. Some oceanographers are outspoken about oceanic acidification, and they may have merit in their work, I’m still on the fence.

    Regarding the coming end-of-earth etc., I am hearing loudest dissent from geologists, meteorologists, mathematicians, economists and physicists. Guys like Steve MacIntyre have my highest regard and are doing some excellent analysis!

    Also, many posters on WUWT are wonderfully insightful, this is a great meeting-place of the minds!

    This link is to an excellent talk given to CERN about the effects of cosmic rays upon climate, I highly recommend it to anyone.

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

  438. Just The Facts says:

    Robert (17:29:22) :

    “3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)”

    We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds works, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Don’t you think that a confidence level of “(>90%)” is a bit high given all that we don’t understand about Earth’s climate system?

    “2009 tied for the second hottest year on record; 2010 so far is the hottest year ever.”

    The hottest year ever? A bit of hyperbole there? Perhaps it would be more believable if you said, “the hottest year ever based on the 130 years of highly suspect surface temperature data we have on our 4,500,000,000 year old planet.”

    “I think the public remembers.”

    A reasonable portion of the public only remembers as far back as the last blizzard or heat wave, and right now that works in the skeptics’ favor.

  439. Another Brit says:

    Sigh! This is politics as usual in the UK. (I can’t vouch for any other country).

    If in doubt, attack the individual, not the issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Dr Kelly case for example, it was the personal attacks on his integrity that did the damage. The same is happening today over the allegations that our illustrious PM is a bully. Don’t address the issue, just lambast those who say it. It is standard procedure for the spinmeisters that are behind most governments, and the PR guys that do the dirty work for others. It is a lot easier to denigrate your opponents than to enter into reasoned debate, and a lot easier for the lumpen proletariat to digest than a logical but perhaps complex discussion.

    I fear that until one of the braver MSM comes up with a headline that says, “AGW Will Cost Every Man Woman and Child in the UK £XXX, Yet The Science Is Seriously Flawed”, this saga will run and run. Clinton was right about the economy. Most people only become concerned when it affects their pockets. Until the general public realise what this is going to cost them, both sides can vent their spleens to little effect. In other words, this is in the hands of the electorate, and regrettably we have every major party in the UK on the AGW bandwagon. The fringe parties will be the only beneficiaries, to the detriment of long-term political stability. We desperately need some bold and strong personalities in the political arena to demand that the science be properly and openly debated before we rush in like fools. It would be like going to war on faulty intelligence.

    Ah hold on, didn’t that also happen in the not so distant past?

  440. Capn Jack says:

    Robert, Herman.

    Not once have you outlined a proof of runaway global warming by man made increased co2.

    You dance well, skeptics do not have to prove to you anything, your job is to prove a simple hypothesis or point people to it.

    If you are too lazy to read this this entire blog it’s myriad debates on causes and effects from a scientific point of view then attend to your own sloth.

    If you are are so arrogant to demand an anti proof, then you need to go somewhere else. There are warmers and coolers in this debate.

    If you say the AGW hypothesis is proven, then show it.

    Look at the widget in the side bar. That sir is the rebuttal, there is no evidence of runaway global warming, which was the original line in the sand, now the wishy washy term climate change.

    It is not a debate in semantics, philosophy or economics. Science, cause and effects, measured.

    And On Topic I think it’s wrong to comment on Mr Sach’s rug, even if does look like a dead wombat perched on his head, snip away. (The first commenter made me spit my coffee larfin’).

  441. Joe says:

    Anthony,

    I should be the most sceptical man on the planet.
    Can you imagine finding a whole area of science that was missed and in doing so the great deal of theories we have for this missing science is incorrect.
    Meanwhile all this incorrect science has been passed on from generation to generation through the school system.
    This same system we created from NASA ,colleges and universities all willnot consider looking at any new science by an individual. It must be peer reviewed.

    But who are the experts in a field that has not been researched before?
    Mind you, waiting on answers that usually never came, allowed me to go further in this area that is quite massive. Rotation.
    In order to even understand this area, takes a great deal of teaching basic geometry with mechanics and understanding molecular desities.
    Densities change with rotation at different speeds.

    I am so far advanced that going backward is like teaching kindergarden to physics who need to know step by slow step by slow step.

  442. TA says:

    I hate tobacco, too. I do not have a personal history with it, since no one in my family smokes or has died of smoking. Nevertheless, I can’t stand the stuff. When I was dating, smoking would be a deal-breaker.

    By the way, what exactly does that have to do with the climate? The Guardian really should get a clue. Of course there will be some skeptics who, for reasons unfathomable, like tobacco. So what? Some liberals are felons, too. Does that mean all liberals are felons?

    Anthony, others have said it better, but the skeptic message is getting through the slime, now more than ever.

    Someone should start a new organization: Climate Skeptics Against Tobacco. Except SKAT doesn’t sound so good.

  443. Mickey Spillaine says:

    Relax Anthony;
    Dr. [Sachs] article is not worth the anxiety attack. If anyone reads his Bio and titles of his other articles, you can see why he is trying to re-ignite the alarmists.

    He is the “left wing” social agenda guy!!!

    What people haven’t figured out yet is that the UN is like King Minos, only different. Everything the UN touches turns to shi*. Show me a UN success story……of any kind!!!!!!

    That said, reading the article, it is so obviousely “bloody minded” and clearly encapsulates the problems that occured with UEA, CRU and a large portion of the enviromental science world. What they haven’t figured is that they can write what ever they want. As soon as they want billions/trillions from everyone, that is when the big review will happen (as it did).

  444. Smokey says:

    pman (16:57:38),

    By your own criteria, the IPCC must promptly disassociate itself from the WWF, and anyone connected now or in the past with the WWF. The same goes for any other quango or NGO that has insinuated itself and its lobbyists into the UN, like Greenpeace and all similar NGOs [unelected, non-governmental organizations.]

    WUWT is a privately owned site that takes no money from tobacco companies, oil companies, or George Soros. It is funded mostly by individual donations, along with some google ads, just like any other popular site.

    The difference is that the IPCC is a militantly pro-AGW propaganda organ, funded with public tax money, and also funded by NGOs with a heavy AGW agenda. It is staffed by 100% political appointees who have their marching orders: inform individual countries that catastrophic AGW is an undeniable fact, in order to pave the way for what comes next. Scientific truth has nothing to do with the IPCC.

    Their admitted plan is to require every company [and eventually every individual] that emits CO2 ["carbon" to the members of the world idiocracy] to purchase “carbon credits” as a hefty financial penalty for all CO2 emissions.

    Those costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of much higher prices. Because as we know, companies don’t pay taxes, they collect taxes for the government.

    Along with the much higher prices in store, individual income taxes and user fees will begin to ratchet up, while wages will remain relatively stagnant, resulting in an enormous transfer of wealth from individuals to the government. And it is all based on the false notion that a harmless trace gas is going to cause climate catastrophe.

    The ultimate goal is the UN’s proposed World Tax, in reality to be paid only by the rich industrialized countries [primarily the G-8]; and collected and administered/doled out by the totally corrupt, unaccountable, audit-free, and opaque UN, to “developing” countries like Brazil, China, Russia and a hundred others.

    The fact that China already owns a trillion dollars in U.S. financial assets means nothing. They will still be in the “developing” category according to the UN, and will receive billions more dollars every year, transferred from U.S. pockets to Chinese pockets.

    Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who personally enriched himself in the Oil-For-Food scandal, worked tirelessly setting up the mechanism for his proposed World Tax — aimed directly at the wealth of the U.S. and the West. His successor, Ban Ki Moon, recently began promoting the same annual World Tax, equal to .7% of rich countries’ GDP. Anyone who believes that such a tax will remain at .7% is a card-carrying member of the idiocracy.

    In the mean time, another heavy layer of bureaucracy, used to regulate and administer carbon credits and allowances, will be put on the backs of taxpayers in the U.S. and the West, as a prelude to relegating sovereignty to the UN.

    So complaining about Heartland is ridiculous and petty, when the true danger is the confiscation of your assets by UN thugs, whose charter says nothing about it being a world government or tax collector.

    We should be worrying about what matters, not issuing ad hominem innuendo regarding any minor contributions from energy companies which, unlike the UN, actually provide products that fill a need.

  445. Mickey Spillaine says:

    Sorry, that was King Midas, not Minos (of course)

  446. Robert says:

    [snip - it is not for you to judge who is a "true climate skeptic or not" - into the troll bin with you - take a one day timeout, you are wearing the moderators out]

  447. Don Shaw says:

    Dawn says (03:58:56) :
    “It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ’stealth taxes’ (I know this as my own father harps on about it having being brainwashed by the daily express (he didn’t do any science at school).

    Dawn, you come across as very naive. I would never pubicly criticize my parents who had a lot less education than I did even if I disagreed with them . My father had limited opportunity for education yet he worked hard, improved his skills and knowledge via correspondence schools, and ultimately became a wise person with many talents that I respected immensely. I suggest that you listen to your father and try to gain the benefit of his years of experience. The proposals to tax fossil fuel to make alternatives more attractive will significantly increase the cost of energy for everyone and the middle class will be affected most.

    “As a country we have some serious energy decisions to make, and embarking on a low carbon future would mean we are more resilient and less dependent on volatile foreign energy sources. ”
    This is the typical lie of the CAGW folks. In the US, we have extensive reserves of oil and natural gas to develop that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil if only the global warming believers would allow us to explore and develop our own resources in the USA. The administration is blocking the development in every way it can think of including cancelling leases already issued and supporting lawsuits.
    The claim that the non existant low carbon liquid fuels will get us off foreign oil in the near future is simply not true. They are multiple decades away, may never materialize and will be very expensive. There are no commercially operating cellulosic feedstock plants operating and the Start ups have have been delayed. Consequently the Congressional goals established for this year for ethanol will not be met and more intensive goals will likely not be achieved .

    We will be dependent on oil and gas for a long time and artifical policies that choke off the fossil supply before cost competitive alternatives are available will be suicidial.

    “Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….”
    Since you are in Europe, you might want to check out how well this policy has been working in Spain where they are apparently about to go bankrupt and have high unemployment rates. Also with all the cold weatther in UK this year, think about how the middle class will keep warm if the cold period continues. It has beem reported that folks in UK are buying used books to burn to keep warm. Is that true?

  448. TA says:

    Oops, I meant CSAT.

  449. Robert (16:26:48) : I have two words for you: reading comprehension. There are classes starting in your area soon!

    Robert,

    What a wonderful reply on your behalf, it has definitely provided some resolution about your underlying character traits. Your need to start off your response with a personal derogatory comment toward myself, speaks volumes about your approach toward civil discourse.

    Do you always attack people with your first comments to them, and then expect civil discourse to pick up from there? Has this been a successful approach in the past?

    Now that you have publicly attempted to belittle me, I ask you politely to return to the *First* question asked. To be clear, I will gladly engage you in civil discourse, and provide you with answers to the questions you asked, if you have the capacity to reply in a civil and non demeaning way.

    I will even provide the reason why I asked the question. I am wondering if you are an American, who understands the cost our nation has paid for the right to exercise our *RIGHTS* of freedom of speech and of personal civil rights.

    Your approach appears to be of someone who is trying to remove peoples rights. Basic Civil Rights. I am trying to get context of your underlying respect for the human individual, before we move this conversation to the arena of thoughts about climate change.

    I eagerly await your reply,

    Jack H Barnes

  450. RockyRoad says:

    Lucy Skywalker (11:48:20) :

    Probably without anyone being aware. Researchers would apply for grants, and those who believed in, and touted, scare stories would get the grants. Nothing done deliberately.
    ————–
    Reply: Ah contraire, Ms. Skywalker. A perfect example of Pavlov’s dog.

  451. 3x2 says:

    UK Sceptic (10:42:18) :

    I’m an archaeologist with a Holocene onset Quaternary leaning.

    It can be treated these days. Excellent recovery rate or so I am led to believe.

  452. RockyRoad says:

    All this brohaha all boils down to just one question: Is CO2 the culprit?

    And here’s the answer: Yes it is. But wait, what was the question again?

    CO2 absorbs all the IR at current levels found in the atmosphere.

    CO2 absorbed all the IR at the pre-industrial levels found in the atmosphere, too.

    Can anybody here do the math? And once you’ve done the math, what is your conclusion?

    Here’s my answer: CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t absorb any more IR now than it did 150 years ago. Unless somebody can show me where CO2 actually GENERATES heat, the inescapable conclusion is that CO2 is not what’s heating up the planet.

    It has heated it up about all it can.

    Next question.

  453. John Whitman says:

    Has this blog turned into an Oprah show on tobacco? Is it now a forum for the true confessions of a tobacconist’s lover to his/her priest? Or has it evolved into the tobacco equivalent of “Debbie does Dallas”? What-is-up-with-that?

    All, I recommend that if tobacco is going to be a topic of a post, then explicitly make a post that is specifically on tobacco. Please do not address this in an aside to the CACGW* topic . . . . it makes one (us) look unprofessional at best and it profoundly dilutes the skeptic argument on climate.

    * CACGW=Catastrophic Anthropogenic Carbon-caused Global Warming

    It maybe that the good people here at WUWT are starting to “feel all thin, sorta streched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread” with the climate tasks that face us. [apologies to JRRT] That is understandable.

    John

  454. RockyRoad says:

    Robert (16:26:48) : I have two words for you: reading comprehension. There are classes starting in your area soon!
    ——————-
    Reply:
    Robert, please learn some manners. It’s the least you should do.

  455. Smokey says:

    Robert (17:29:22),

    ‘Just The Facts” (17:55:01) set you straight. Allow me to elaborate.

    Your cherry-picking, claiming that 2009 was the hottest year on record, disregards Michael Mann’s and Keith Briffa’s amazing treemometers. Of course, trees measure environmental factors other than temperature, so let’s forget them as far as their being a temperature record. But there are plenty of other temperature records.

    In reality, the temperature record goes back much farther than you claim. So allow me to debunk your claim:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7
    click8
    click9
    click10
    click11
    click12
    click13
    click14
    click15
    click16
    click17
    click18
    click19
    click20
    click21
    click22
    click23
    click24
    click25

    Next, you state that CO2 levels are rising, but incorrectly state that humans are the main cause. According to the IPCC’s own data, more than 95% of all CO2 emitted comes from natural sources: click

    And there is zero empirical evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the planet’s natural warming trend. None. It is simply a temporary correlation, like saying the rise in U.S. postal rates causes global warming: click

    Finally, the Devil quotes Scripture, and you claim to be a skeptic. If you want us to believe you are a CAGW skeptic, then get on your alarmist blogs and start demanding that their pet scientists must immediately open their entire data and methodologies, and anything else related to their CAGW hypothesis, to anyone who requests it. And to fully comply with all FOI requests instead of making endless excuses.

    Archiving the information online would make it easy for anyone to access the data and falsify it, if possible.

    Your attempt to re-frame the discussion by presuming that CAGW skeptics have our own hypothesis is simply an attempt to get out of your bind. CAGW skeptics have no hypothesis. You do, and it fails.

    Trying to downplay the presumed effect of AGW doesn’t work either. Those pushing CAGW must argue that climate catastrophe will result. By admitting that AGW might only cause a few tenths of a degree warming, they can never justify spending $trillions. And money is what the AGW scare is all about. Honest science has been defenestrated by the alarmist crowd — in return for money and status. And now it’s all imploding.

  456. Dion Rogers says:

    I agree that the CAGW scientists have sold their souls and destroyed the integrity of science itself in exchange for money and status. Along with the radical “greens” they have become ‘helpful fools’. I am in no way excusing them but they have been used by the real power behind the Climate Change fraud – the money men, such as Carbon-credit trading companies and worldwide banking organisations like the World Bank, who will reap endless profits from lending money to governments who institute huge projects to “counteract” global warming. These are the people who are still pushing the idea and who deserve to be strung up.

    In my humble opinion, the silence of the mainstream media on any of the downfall of CAGW has less to do with disingenuous editors/journalists and more to do with the fact that their incredibly rich owners all have investments in the aforementioned finance houses.

  457. John Whitman says:

    David,

    I am sorry to see you were given a one day time out in the WUWT penalty box. Anthony does have some penalties for lack of minimum civility. Just think of it as Anthony’s equivalent to ice hockey’s high sticking penalty. Nasty stuff, high sticking is.

    Well, when you get out of the penalty box would you answer the following question?

    What is the rational or even emotional basis for your very apparent skepticism? This is not a trick question, I am personally interested. I will not attack you and I doubt other commenters will. I think you are aware that most commenters have provided stories relating to the basis/experience of their own skepticism.

    I will completely understand if you do not answer, because you might be skeptical of my intentions in asking this fundamental question about you. That is how skepticism works.

    John

  458. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Daniel H (01:23:13) :

    Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation:

    So the Soros/global warming connection isn’t just a conspiracy theory.

  459. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    John Wright (03:48:14) :

    Let them do their worst, Anthony.

    They are scraping the bottom of the barrel. And that’s all they have at this point.

    CilmateGate is too much for them.

  460. mandolinjon says:

    Anthony:
    The print media and to an extent the television media are jealous. They wish they could claim 36,000,000 readers looked at their prose. The blogsphere has made the MSM irrelevant because blogs allow free access, they are mostly open to all writers, and they are convenient for the readers. Newspapers, magazines and, television are very costly, reach a limited audience, and cannot achieve any depth or penetration into a subject. They never follow up on topics they introduce to the public. The MSM is tardy most of the time with respect to immediate news. They are lazy and depend upon news networks to do their work for them. They are biased towards the easy news sources such as the government sources and refuse to admit that anything worthwhile can be found on a blog. So it is not surprising that the Guardian thumbed their nose at you by supporting the article by Sachs. It was easier for them!
    The quality control of science of the climate is not destroyed by this sophomoric article. This blog and some others like it have filled a need in the world of climate science by providing alternative sources of ideas and intellectual stimulation for the readers, and a forum for discussion. The MSM is a one way street of information with little or no opportunity for dialog. Thank you for administering the blog
    OT I am still interested in helping on the temperature measuring site evaluations project around New Mexico. I may have missed your response when I volunteered. I was deluged with e-mails promoting a book. It took me 20 minutes to delete them from my e-mail list. You have my email. Let me know if I can help
    Yours Mandolinjon

  461. Roger Carr says:

    Chrisz (06:34:44) : What a pity, Anthony, that you actually seem to be buying into the “second-hand smoke” BS (which, exactly like AGW, is nothing but an excuse for erosion of individual liberty…

    Exactly, Chrisz. I share your disappointment.

    REPLY: You didn’t grow up within it. I did, I ask that you trust my ability to gauge my own surroundings. I have a sister who suffered the same fate. It’s not a genetic issue, because there are no other instances in my family. SHS by casual exposure is one thing, living in a chimney is quite another. – Anthony

  462. John Whitman says:

    Robert,

    Actually, I meant to address you in my comment above “John Whitman (21:04:20)” not David. Where the heck did I get David from? I haven’t a clue. Guess that sort of implies I’m clueless . . . hmmm. Robert, I apologize to you and to any David reading this.

    Here is my post to you again without the David:
    =======

    Robert,

    I am sorry to see you were given a one day time out in the WUWT penalty box. Anthony does have some penalties for lack of minimum civility. Just think of it as Anthony’s equivalent to ice hockey’s high sticking penalty. Nasty stuff, high sticking is.

    Well, when you get out of the penalty box would you answer the following question?

    What is the rational or even emotional basis for your very apparent skepticism? This is not a trick question, I am personally interested. I will not attack you and I doubt other commenters will. I think you are aware that most commenters have provided stories relating to the basis/experience of their own skepticism.

    I will completely understand if you do not answer, because you might be skeptical of my intentions in asking this fundamental question about you. That is how skepticism works.

    John

  463. Marlene Anderson says:

    Anthony, the smear article written by Sachs is the same old garbage that’s been written about climate skeptics time and again over the past two decades. The general public has seen it so many times it really has very little power to influence attitudes. The public has already formed their opinions and there’s been so much mudslinging that only facts, data, reason and integrity will influence anyone to change their mind.

    Jeffrey Sachs, if you happen to read these comments, the truth is that we AGW skeptics are a massive, loosely organized network of ordinary people. Our ranks are filled with people from all walks of life. Many of us have science backgrounds that include engineering, geoscience, physics, chemistry, math, medicine, biology, climatology and meteorology among others We understand the science and we know that the crucial science proving CO2 is driving warming is missing. We are all volunteers and what unites us is the desire to free climate science from the lie of AGW. And every day our numbers grow and yours shrink. In ten years you’ll pretend that you never believed in AGW.

  464. Brendan H says:

    “I suggested that if they really wanted to make a gesture that would make people take notice, they should consider banning the use of the word “denier” from climate discourse in their newspaper.”

    Good lateral thinking, Anthony. As a quid pro quo, you might consider banning references in WUWT to the Third Reich and genocide, and such terms as scum, scam, criminal, fraud, hoax etc.

    Could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

    REPLY: Point – I don’t say those things, though some commenters do. I’m talking about main body of stories. As for “Third Reich”, since you obviously haven’t been paying attention and acting only on your preconceived biases, you’ve failed to note that I routinely strike the Hitler parody videos attempted to be posted here no matter how many times people try. Actually there’s an olive branch coming this Wednesday, but it’s not coming from the Guardian, and I don’t expect they’ll have the lateral thinking to offer anything. Like you, their bias clouds their lateral thinking. -A

  465. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Anthony, you sure know how to throw a party!!

    BTW, instead of “most slimy,” isn’t it proper to say “slimiest”? Whatever!

  466. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    “Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity.” — Jeffrey Sachs

    I guess if you find politics, environmentalism, money, and power wondrous, then sure, it’s great.

    Too bad it’s not a wondrous data collecting activity.

  467. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    If people know he’s associated with George Soros pieces will fall in to place for them.

  468. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    zt (07:08:23) :

    Thank you for the link zt!!

    from it:

    IPCC Chief Pachauri Heads Board of Climate-Risk Center
    International Research Institute Focuses on Practical Adaptations

    …..Jeffrey Sachs, also a board member….

    http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2479

  469. Robert says:

    “Jeffrey Sachs, if you happen to read these comments, the truth is that we AGW skeptics are a massive, loosely organized network of ordinary people. Our ranks are filled with people from all walks of life. Many of us have science backgrounds that include engineering, geoscience, physics, chemistry, math, medicine, biology, climatology and meteorology among others”

    Climatologists, eh? Not very many of those among the “skeptics.”

    REPLY: There’s not many climatologists, period. Even “leading” climatologists aren’t climatologists. Hansen for example is an astronomer. There aren’t many degree programs in climatology, though scads in meteorology and earth sciences. Metamorphosis occurs later. BTW you are on 24 hours timeout. – A

  470. Roger Carr says:

    (Anthony to me:) REPLY: You didn’t grow up within it. I did, I ask that you trust my ability to gauge my own surroundings. …

    I did grow up within a smoke haze, Anthony; but that is not the point I would make, which is: You have created the most widely read and respected news site in history based on a healthy scepticism, yet appear to have abandoned this greatest strength on a side-issue in which you have a personal position.

    Please do not allow this to become your Achilles heel. Nicotine is another book, and I have already asked once in this thread that it be left alone for fear it would dilute the real message.

    The battle against the demons promoting catastrophic climate change has not yet been won. Our focus must remain fine; intense; and be eventually fatal to their cause.

    REPLY: We’ll have to disagree on this one. The environment favored ear infections, I got them repeatedly. Tetracycline antibiotic is what killed my hearing. Smoking was the catalyst, not the cause. – A

  471. Andrew W says:

    “Like you, their bias clouds their lateral thinking. -A”

    So you see yourself as unbiased? As standing at a privileged reference point?

    REPLY: Read what comes out Wednesday, in the meantime I’ll point out that your question is classic troll bait when it begins with “So…”. Everybody has biases. Nobody is perfect. You have a bias, I have a bias, we all have a bias. It’s how far you can see outside of the biasphere that matters. -A

  472. John Whitman says:

    Anthony,

    You teaser. I can’t wait until Wed (Thur Taipei time).

    Love your stuff and all your wonderful team.

    Cheer up, there is a serious community around you. Though we all are sometimes (maybe most of the time) a little rufe around the edges, there is broad appreciate the things you have created.

    Best wishes.

    John

  473. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    After reading up about Jeffrey Sachs for myself and seeing him on video I feel like I need a shower.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    ex: his solution for malaria in Africa—bed nets, and the development of medicines, no mention of the immediate solution DDT.

    ex: his solution for jobs in America—on way: money from the government to GM to develop electric cars, “if” it that car can be done

    ex: he is anti-military

    ex: ‘prosperity is shared’, i.e, redistribution of wealth, advocates “Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries….” enforced by the U.N.

    ex: agrees with the WWF that ‘humanity is pushing the rest of the earth’s species off of the planet’.

    ex: against mining of all fossil fuels

    ex: is for government subsidies for alternate fuels, says the free market is not the solution but it is a problem

    ex: wants people to stop eating meat to save on feed crops used on animals, i.e, less meat eaten less crops needed to feed those animals, no mention of ending biofuel programs for the same purpose.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    He does not live in the real world, IMO.

  474. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    I see self righteous environmentalists have come out to comment in this thread. After looking in to who Jeffrey Sachs is for myself I can see he is one of their biggest names. And he is just as unrealistic as they all are.

    What we wish the world was like and what it is really like are two different things.

    If environmentalists really do care about people then get the ban on DDT lifted all over the world. AND STOP ALL BIOFUEL PROGRAMS! Families are being broken up by it. And people are starving to death from it!

  475. John Hooper says:

    Another Brit (18:05:14) :

    Sigh! This is politics as usual in the UK. (I can’t vouch for any other country).

    If in doubt, attack the individual, not the issue.

    Normally I’d agree, but not necessarily in this case.

    You see, on one side of the argument you have every scientific body and every government in the world in unison. We’re being told it’s a “scientific consensus” and the “science is settled.” Very very few notable scientists are willing to disagree on record.

    So when you see counter group form, it’s reasonable to be want to know who’s behind it. And it’s right to be suspicious. After all, if you’re going up against NASA, you’d want to know your stuff, right?

    Is there is a special interest group funding it?
    What’s in it for them?
    Is there a conflict of interest?
    is there a political spin to it?
    What have they been involved with before?
    Where they right about that?
    Do they sound a bit like cranks?

    Now in the case of Heartland, we know it’s taken a contrary stance against smoking legislation, and it tends to side with corporate interests. Many of us would and do, find its stances jarring and in some cases, fallacious. Take tobacco, for example. It doesn’t even matter whether it causes cancer. Making someone else breathe your smoke against their wishes is bad manners.

    Straight away, this gives us a bad feeling, especially when we compare them to any of the scientific and academic bodies, some of whom are centuries old.

    The same, but to a lesser extent, applies to the plethora of Libertarian think tanks, heavily defended in here by those who see this as a battle for the Right. They do us little favour, merely alienating those we need most to convince that we’re not all selfish greedy capitalists who don’t care about (…well, you fill in the rest). If you play to petty political bigotry, you stand to lose by the same sword. And the other side has far better press.

    So I plead, once again, think about who this campaign most needs to convince, and see it from their side of the political fence and not your own.

  476. UK Sceptic says:

    3×2 (18:53:51) :

    UK Sceptic (10:42:18) :

    I’m an archaeologist with a Holocene onset Quaternary leaning.

    It can be treated these days. Excellent recovery rate or so I am led to believe.

    The need to eat and pay my mortgage cured it. :D

  477. Alexej Buergin says:

    ‘ Robert (12:55:35) :
    I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.’

    Nonsense. People who use their real name think a bit more before writing. It just takes some courage.
    Nobody, really nobody would take the trouble to write “Robert” a nasty email.

  478. Green Sand says:

    To me, the only suitable comment:-

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

    If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    ‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
    if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
    And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

    Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

    Keep up the good work Mr Watts

  479. pwl says:

    Robert (17:29:22) wrote: “Most climate scientists would state the main points” and

    “1. There is a warming trend (>99.9%)
    2. CO2 levels are rising and humans are the cause (>99.9%)
    3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)”

    However Robert the rest of your post failed to provide any evidence, direct or otherwise, for claim 2 that “humans are the cause” of the “warming trend” or claim 3. Simply stating your “beliefs” or summarizing the arguments isn’t what it takes to prove a hypothesis as that is just an explanation not evidence, what it takes is hard evidence that can successfully survive open vetting and auditing and falsification that counter evidence provides.

    Hard evidence is needed that C02 causes the alleged warming of the alleged AGW hypothesis.

    Without a causation link that can withstand scrutiny you’ve got nothing but a vague correlation and soothsaying of doomsday scenarios that are all over the map, literally as well as figuratively.

    “Bad explanations are easy to vary while good explanations are hard to vary.” – David Deutsch, physicist.

    “The key issue with an theory whether it’s a myth or a scientific theory is that not only must it have testable predictions but more importantly it’s “explanation” of objective reality must be hard to vary; in other words, there can’t be many or any variations of the explanation. The narrower the explanation that has success making predictions the closer that hypothesis (theory) is to objective reality. The more variants to the hypothesis (theory) that have as accurate (or inaccurate as the case may be) predictive power the less likely those hypotheses (or theories) have to do with objective reality.” -pwl
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/05/bad-explanations-are-easy-to-vary-while-good-explanations-are-hard-to-vary

    Wow, the alleged AGW hypothesis sure has a whole lot of variations with all kinds of wild predictions that have just about everything happening on the planet being either a direct man made cause of or the direct effect of the alleged man made global warming climate change.

    So where is the hard evidence that has survived open review without any valid counter evidence? Where are the papers, peer reviewed or otherwise, that prove beyond any doubt that man has caused the alleged AGW climate change?

    pwl
    http://PathsToKnowledge.net

  480. Vincent says:

    Robert,

    “1. What do you think are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?”

    I will have a go, but I intend to preface each point with my own comments.

    (1.a) CO2 has radiative properties that absorb IR radiation. However, The forcing due to CO2 doubling is known to be about 3.7 W/M^2 and solving the Sefan-Boltzman equation for this, yields a compensatory rise of 1.2 degrees C. The effects of clouds and water vapour feedback are poorly understood and we don’t know whether overal feedbacks are positive or negative.

    (1.b) Some studies have attempted to show stable temperatures for thousands of years with an “unprecedented” rise in the 20th century. This is a necessary pre-requisite to the theory of AGW. Without it, you cannot reject the null hypothesis that states that current warming is mostly natural.

    However, these hockey stick studies have been thoroughly debunked and stand in direct contradiction to the mountain of evidence that testifies to the medieval warm period being global and warmer than today.

    (1.c) Computer models are unable to account for 20th C warming without CO2 forcing + feedbacks. However, to argue that as evidence for AGW is clearly a tautology.

    Conclusion – evidence weak and circumstantial at best.

    “2. If you are in error in rejecting the theory, what kind of evidence would make you think you were in error?”

    I would expect to see heat accumulating in the system. No, that is not the same as air temperature. According to Hansen, AGW leads to a radiative imbalance that will average 0.85 W/M^2 by 2010 which will, among other things, warm the oceans. By our best instrumentation to date – the Argo network, measuring down to 700M – there has been no accumulation of ocean heat since 2003. Yet, by Hansen’s own calculation, there should be an anomaly over the past decade of 1 * 10^22 joules.

    Furthermore, I would expect to see clear evidence with high confidence intervals that the outgoing radiation decreases when surface temperatures increase. I would also expect to see the tropical mid troposphere hot spot, as predicted the GCM’s. And finally, I would expect to see temperatures to exceed the MWP and Roman warm periods over the coming decades.

    3. If you are in error, and AGW is a big problem, how would you suggest that society address it

    This is a leading question. You are conflating the issues of AGW with CAGW. You should first ask, if AGW is real, will it be catastrophic? Based on the geological past, I believe it will be beneficial, for here is an area of study that has been most corrupted by IPCC.

    What do YOU think are the 3 biggest arguments in favour of AGW? What would convince YOU that you were in error?

  481. Ryan Stephenson says:

    The Guardian has a circulation of 450,000 copies, ten times smaller than the UK’s most popular daily. It is the newspaper of the “intellectual left” and is popular with a range of left-wingers ranging from Liberals to Stalinists. It is also popular with public sector workers looking for jobs, as this is the newspaper used by the British government to advertise employment opportunities. It is technically bankrupt, but is kept on life-support by a Trust fund that uses profits from a used-car magazine called “Autotrader” to keep it afloat.

    Basically the Guardian is the dying mouthpiece of a dying policital movement in the UK. It’s one current claim-to-fame is “Comment is Free” (CIF) on the web, a political blog popular with both left-wingers and right-wingers as a place to blow off steam. With reference to AGW, CIF provides a fascinating insight into the levels of group-think and suggestibility of AGW proponents indicating that many AGW supporters are the kind of people easily influnced by demagogues and charasmatics. An analysis of comments by AGW supporters on CIF will show a strong tendency to regurgitate the statements of more prominent AGW campaigners and to repetitively use stock phrases such as “there is overwhelming evidence of mankind’s contribution climate change”. There is little point in engaging such people in dialogue since they rarely tackle the arguments head-on, but it acts as a place to observe the thinking (or lack of thinking) behind the AGW movement, the way it propagates itself through mantras, and the mind-set of the individual supporters. If you frequent CIF over a longer period of time you will observe there are many such examples of group-think around key issues of our time, all of which seem to be sustained by the repetitive regurgitating of mantras, many of which are long past their sell-by date. Sadly, it is all about the brainwashing of “useful idiots” and is about the most de-humanised place on the internet.

  482. harleyrider1978 says:

    climate science is the same as anti-tobacco science all psuedo and propaganda to further a political agenda of socialism……..game over witch doctors

  483. Roger Carr says:

    Green Sand (02:01:54) :
    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

    That’s odd, Green. I thought the first two lines were:

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming C02…

  484. Dawn Watson says:

    Kay wrote:
    It only seems like there’s an increase because we have instant information at our fingertips. 20 years ago, stories like these would never have seen the light of day globally–they would be local news, yes, but outside of that, no one would know.

    Does that mean that you ignore it? Surely that’s cherry picking data? Is that skeptical or scientific? I’ll admit I was naughty and unscientific to post that comment but couldn’t resist as someone had put ‘Moscow has worst snow since 66′ in a congratulatory manner. This suggested the raging ‘climate war’ blog was being won by Mother Nature herself showing show all the ‘warmists’ were a bunch of raving loons. When in actual fact – parts of the world are still sweltering in extreme temperatures – and it is extreme weather events that are on the increase.

  485. harleyrider1978 says:

    The sky is falling cried al gore…………..

    Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)
    Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/comment-page-1/#comment-495197

  486. Dawn Watson says:

    Yes its a degree where I specialised in resource geology, paleoclimatology and also studied climate systems science. So I am pretty au-fait with ‘natural cycles’. This was luckily back in the 90’s before any of this got political. I studied various theories on climate change ranging from sun spots, Milankovitch cycles and the various climate forcings.

    I also have an MSc in energy related studies so although I wouldn’t claim to be an ‘expert’ think I have some authority to speak in these matters. Could fellow bloggers who so willingly criticise everything I write also claim this? without really reading what I have written – I may add?? (Dave Watson for e.g. and the assumption I am some left wing hippy anti nuclear protestor!)

    I agree with you Tony B about FOE and Greenpeace’s protests – all they do is alienate people and as they are so ‘anti’ everything its hard to take them credibly. However – can’t you also see that a lot of people on this blog are also guilty of the same things – albeit from the other side?

    I suggested that retrofitting homes would be a sensible solution – nowhere did I advocate the use of PV – yet some of you immediately assumed that’s what I meant. Apologies – I did mean 2.7 billon/yr in winter fuel payments, a slip on the keyboard. However can you not see that this is a sensible solution – how much did it cost to bail out the banks? £850 billion? http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=495326&in_page_id=2

  487. Herman L says:

    CRS, Dr.P.H. (15:24:47) :

    I’ll kick this off…the science of climate change is incredibly complex

    Agreed.

    Climatologists have made a mistake by developing a “dose-response” relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature

    I have no idea how one defines “dose-response.” Can you define that please?

    ignoring huge inputs such as solar variation. Google the term “Maunder Minimum” for example, this was related to a mini-ice age.

    You claim climatologists ignore solar variation and the Maunder Minimum? I disagree. Go to Sections 2.7 and 6.6 of the IPCC FAR. There is significant information there and many references. You may disagree with what their findings are, but that is not the same as ignoring the issue.

  488. Hoi Polloi says:

    What happened to my original post made a.m. (GMT) 22nd Feb?

    [ No idea. I see two prior postings from you. If it's not one of them, I don't see any in queue. -mod]

  489. SouthAmericanGirls says:

    Mr WATTS, YOU ARE A HERO, FIGHT SACHS, YOU WILL BEAT SACHS WHO IS JUST A PAWN IN A GIGANTIC ACADEMIA, MEDIA & BUREAUCRACY MACHINERY THAT PROMOTES, THROUGH PSEUDO SCIENCE, GIVING EVEN MORE POLITICAL OPRESSIVE POWER TO POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS. BUT YOU, MR WATTS, YOU ARE MAKING HISTORY AND WRITING THE BOOK ON HOW WE BEAT THAT PSEUDO SCIENCE ENSLAVING MACHINERY. FIGHT SACHS, YOU WILL WIN AS YOU ALREADY WON AGAINST CLIMATE PSEUDO SCIENCE!

    They say prostitution is the oldest profession. Well, one could say too that making gargantuan amounts of wealth through obscene opressive political power is the oldest profession. They say that love is the oldest passion. Well, one could say too that getting inmoral opressive power over the people is the oldest passion, even fairy tales are full of tyrants that seek opressive power just for the pleasure of having it.

    So many people want to get opressive power that is not surprising how Big Academia, Big Media and Big Bureaucracy gives us such humongous amounts of fallacies , falsehoods and lies that promote giving even more opressive power to politicians and bureaucrats: Sachs is just another pawn in this enormous machine seeking oppressive power through pseudo science i.e. through falsehoods, fallacies, lies and through deliberately ignoring “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” that prove their theories are false. Sachs and keynesians are the equivalent of warmists in the world of economics, they promote even more opressive power with pseudo science, they ignore the INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that prove their tehories false, as warmists do.

    But you, Mr Anthony Watts, you are a HERO of the people, a HERO of the new era that emerges thanks to this wonderful internet. Not only you are a hero, Mr Watts, but you are one of the BIGGEST heroes: 100 years from now probably kids in schools will know who was Anthony Watts and what is wattsupwiththat.com, the man and the blog that defeated the climate pseudo science of megalomaniacal United Nations (U.N.) and big Academia & Big Media, but Sachs will be only remembered as one of these so many ivory tower academics that parroted pseudo science theories -like keynesianism- that pretended to justify politicians and bureaucrats oppresive power.

    Keynesianism failed miserably in Japan in the 1990s; one “stimulus” after another never achieved the Japan recovery until they cut taxes in 2003. But Krugman, a keynesian like Sachs, keep saying that the “stimulus” had not failed and that you needed more “stimulus” even tough the crisis already was a decade long and it was totally obvious, excepting probably to ivory tower academics, that “stimulus” was POISON and not medicine. Keynesianism too failed spectacularily in the 1970s when it was unable to solve stagflation. It failed even more spectacularily in the 1930s, the Great Depression, the Hoover Years 1929-1933 were the years when Federal Spending increased spectacularily from about 3% of GDP in 1929 to about 10% of GDP in 1933 and Hoover made spectacular tax increases that created the Great Depession (tight money too, like there was before every recession since Great Depression excepting 1938 when there was horrifyin tax increases, was CRUCIAL in the Great Depression). Keynesians typically ignore the horrible damage done by higher taxes and they say Great Depression happened because of a Fall in Aggregate Demand: A crisis brings a fall in Aggregate Demand, so saying that is like saying that the cause of the crisis was… the crisis. So you see, it is obvious that they are clueless. So you see, it is obvious that they ignore these INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that show their opresive power seeking theories are false.

    You are protecting us against people like Sachs, Krugman, Stiglitz and hundreds thousands others that seek to kill freedom, prosperity and happiness through pseudo science and political opression. You, a small David, you have been beating, one after another, the giant machineries of Academia, Media and Bureaucracy. You -and others- have been defeating United Nations (U.N.), one of the most dangerous bureaucracies that ever existed, since it seeks WORLD government, the MOST dangerous kind of government because freedom and prosperity exists today precisely because people could flee opressive places -like most european monarchies- to much less opressive places -like the free United States of the founding fathers that rapidly became the world superpower thanks to rule of a law that is custom and not imposition of a political class and thanks to the limitation of the power of government-. Small United States rapidly became a superpower, surpassing China in 1840. But U.N. seeks world unelected (!!) government who will seek universal opression, maybe not immediately but history has shown that unelected governments become tyranny. And elected governments arent that hot either, already in the USA every day you have a new opressive regulation, a new law,va new “duty” imposed by the political class and not by custom or by voluntary contract.

    The small USA became the world superpower, the same thing is happenning with wattsupwiththat.com and others: Your integrity, your respect for truth and science, your permanent posting of the facts for and against the theories have won you the respect of millions: You are writing the book on how to beat the gigantic opressive power machineries run by people like Sachs that for milleniums conquered opressive power through pseudo science.

    Fight Sachs, beating him will be easier than what you think because you fight with integrity and truth against that gigantic human slavery machinery that lied for milleniums but now thanks to the wonderful internet, thanks to people like you and blogs like wattsupwiththat, the pseudo science cannot go anymore.

    You had a surprise victory against megalomaniacal U.N., you will also have a surprise victory against Sachs: You are eroding the power of those gigantic machineries, so you are a threath to their megalomaniacal opressive power dreams. Fight them, you will win!

    Thanks for keeping fighting, thanks for protecting us against evil machineries, thanks for existing. Thanks!

  490. Vincent says:

    Dawn Watson,

    “Yes its a degree where I specialised in resource geology, paleoclimatology and also studied climate systems science. So I am pretty au-fait with ‘natural cycles’. This was luckily back in the 90’s before any of this got political. I studied various theories on climate change ranging from sun spots, Milankovitch cycles and the various climate forcings.

    I also have an MSc in energy related studies so although I wouldn’t claim to be an ‘expert’ think I have some authority to speak in these matters. Could fellow bloggers who so willingly criticise everything I write also claim this?”

    Yes Dawn, they could. Many visitors to this site are engineers and scientists with careers spanning decades, and judging by the quality of their postings, I would say they have every authority to speak on these matters. You yourself have not even offered any technical or scientifc evidence for AGW, if indeed that is what you believe, but have veered off into discussions of low carbon economies, home retrofitting and troops being sent to die for oil.

    I am dubious about your claim of how cheap it would be to retrofit homes. I’m not sure what you have in mind. Anything more than cavity wall insulation and double glazing isn’t going to be cheap. If you say, £5,000 per home, that works out to £125 billion – hardly an insignificant amount.

    I am dubious that the dash for wind will do anything for Britain’s energy security, and I am sorry, but all this about importing oil from evil regimes is just hogwash. We import food and raw materials from all over the globe, but nobody talks about the dangers of importing copper from here or aluminium from there. If we build all these wind farms to “decarbonise” the economy, we will be paying 4 times as much for energy as well as having to build fossil fueled powerstations to act as spinning backup.

    If you are trully worried about importing oil from dicators, then I suggest you consider a more viable alternative. As an energy post grad, you must know that Britain sits atop a wealth of coal reserves that can last for many centuries. Shouldn’t we be developing that instead of tilting at windmills?

  491. UK Sceptic says:

    Dawn Watson – I think the reason you came under such heavy criticism is because you came in with guns blazing. As for your qualifications – they are impressive but you are in the company of other people equally or better qualified.

    Constructive dicussion is always welcome but talking down to people with doctorates in physics and other science disciplines (of which I am not one, I hasten to add) isn’t the way to go. However, your views on making homes energy efficient has much merit. Saving energy is definately a sensible course to take. I know because I made my own home energy efficient three years ago. The greatest bugbear is cost because it cost me several thousand pounds and I live in a small bungalow. Many people in the UK that have already fallen into energy poverty cannot afford to install new windows etc. And since the current government has beggared us there isn’t enough money in the coffers to be able to afford the grants necessary to retrofit hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of homes. Householders having to bear the full brunt of the cost will struggle also in this uncertain financial climate especially since the banks are unwilling to finance many loans.

    Of course, we might be able to fund such a thing if the government wasn’t spending billions on the CO2 fraud, bailing out banks and paying the EU danegeld.

    Anyway, as a fellow Brit I welcome you to the WUWT blog. I hope your shaky start won’t put you off returning to comment on other threads. It’s always interesting to see an intelligent, alternative view. :0)

  492. Green Sand says:

    Re: Roger Carr (Feb 23 03:49),

    Green Sand (02:01:54) :
    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

    That’s odd, Green. I thought the first two lines were:

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming C02…

    Magic, Roger I like it! It is also a pertinent observation, there is definitely something in the air. The incidence of this type of ad hominem article has escalated in the last few days.

    Not sure that it is CO2 though, as it is colourless, tasteless, and odourless. Whatever is in the air at present is definitely not odourless. There is a very unhealthy stench about.

  493. NickB. says:

    Dawn,
    On the increase of extreme weather events, I propose what we’re seeing is simply a Summer of the Sharks. If you’re no familiar with it, it was a year where all the news networks breathlessly reported every shark attack, freaking everyone out about a year that actually turned out to be below average. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that today’s “extreme” weather is, in fact, unprecedented.

    On the home retrofit, by all means we want people to have efficient homes – it’s a win-win… but, when the government gets involved all sorts of fun things happen like a $1 CFL costing $3 and the government program wrapped around it has to install said CFL and “train” the homeowners on it… so for each CFL installed you wind up with a total cost of $15. Those numbers are off the cuff, but that story was reported here in the states.

    There’s an old saying, from Reagan I think, along the lines of ‘there is nothing quite as frightening as hearing the words “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help”‘

    That quote was meant to be tounge in cheek, and I do not think that government or government workers are evil, but as someone with an economics background working for a very, very big company I can say the following: if there is a way to bungle something, always trust a beaurocracy to do it, and to to do it most spectaclarly.

    There are ways to accomplish things while minimizing the bungle-risk. Please see my comment earlier about addiction. If the greens really wanted to talk about CO2 reduction, a ban on coal and maybe even oil should be on the table and nuclear (which typically is not included as an option in the states in the green panacea of CO2 free energy surces) would be an option. This cap and trade deal will accomplish nothing, only exploit populations who have no control over the power plants that produce their electricity. I can only surmise from this little inconsistency that the greens are not really going after what they say they are (CO2 reductions), but something else and are thefore untrustworthy players in the discussion.

    I think you’ll find that most here are actually pretty reasonable people, and not the knuckle dragging zombie corp for the Big Oil lobby we’re made out to be. I think as well you’ve also seen how open the conversations are here in the comments thread. Stick around a while, maybe we could all learn a little and be the better for it

  494. David Middleton says:

    Robert (17:29:22) :

    [...]

    That’s AGW. That’s all it is. Most climate scientists would state the main points with more conviction, for example:

    1. There is a warming trend (>99.9%)
    2. CO2 levels are rising and humans are the cause (>99.9%)
    3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)

    “1. There is a warming trend (>99.9%)”

    Over what time period?

    The Earth is cooler now than it was 68 million years ago, during the Upper Cretaceous (>99%).

    The Earth is cooler now than it was 130,000 years ago, during the Eemian (or Sangamonian) interglacial stage (>90%).

    The Earth is warmer now than it was 20,000 years ago, during the last Pleistocene glacial maximum (>99%).

    The Earth is cooler now than it was 8,000 years ago, during the Holocene Climate Optimum (>90%).

    The Earth is cooler now than it was in 980 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period (>67%).

    The Earth is warmer now than it was in 1600 AD, during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (>99%).

    The Earth is warmer now than it was in 1880 AD, the end of the Little Ice Age (>90%).

    The Earth is warmer now than it was in the 1930’s to early 1940’s (~50%).

    The Earth is warmer now than it was in 1998 (99.9%)”

    CO2 levels have risen from ~330 ppmv to ~385 ppmv since 1960 (>99%).

    Two thirds of the methods used to estimate pre-industrial CO2 levels (plant stomata and contemporary chemical analyses) show that CO2 levels have routinely fluctuated between 275 and 360-390 ppmv over the last 12,000 years.

    44% of anthropogenic CO2 is taken up by carbons sinks each year. From 1996-2006, anthropogenic carbon emissions were equivalent to 37 ppmv CO2. Using an annual 44% decay rate, less than 5 ppmv of that 37 ppmv is currently in the atmosphere.

    By every method of calculation or measurement, apart from the combination of post-1960 infrared spectroscopy (Mauna Loa) and ice cores, 330 to 380 of the current 388 ppmv CO2 is of non anthropogenic origin (85% to 98%).

    CO2 levels are currently rising (>95%)… Humans are the primary cause (90%)”

    Which warming trend?

    It is physically impossible for anthropogenic GHG emissions to have played a significant role in any of the warming trends prior to the 1976-2003 warming trend. And… Anthropogenic GHG emissions have not been able to overcome the lack of warming since at least 2003.

  495. David Middleton says:

    Oops…

    “The Earth is warmer now than it was in 1998 (99.9%)”… Sould be…

    The Earth is cooler now than it was in 1998 (99.9%).

  496. vigilantfish says:

    Roger Carr (23:48:50) :

    (Anthony to me:) REPLY: You didn’t grow up within it. I did, I ask that you trust my ability to gauge my own surroundings. …

    I did grow up within a smoke haze, Anthony; but that is not the point I would make, which is: You have created the most widely read and respected news site in history based on a healthy scepticism, yet appear to have abandoned this greatest strength on a side-issue in which you have a personal position.

    Please do not allow this to become your Achilles heel. Nicotine is another book, and I have already asked once in this thread that it be left alone for fear it would dilute the real message.

    The battle against the demons promoting catastrophic climate change has not yet been won. Our focus must remain fine; intense; and be eventually fatal to their cause.

    REPLY: We’ll have to disagree on this one. The environment favored ear infections, I got them repeatedly. Tetracycline antibiotic is what killed my hearing. Smoking was the catalyst, not the cause. – A

    _____________________

    Roger,

    Like Anthony I had numerous severe ear infections growing up in a smoking household – to the point of having a perforated ear-drum. My brothers suffered likewise. My 4 children, growing up in a smoke-free household, have never had a single ear infection (my youngest is nearly a teenager). That may be anecdotal, as is Anthony’s case, but this contention is backed up by scientific studies. Anthony is not making up an isolated argument, nor do you have any evidence that this is junk science. Hopefully our skepticism does not now lead to the immediate dismissal of ALL science. My personal understanding after reading the most recent study, is that the extra irritation from smoke causes more release of secretions in the inner which create a growth medium for bacteria, and hence, infections. Here are some links, ad the most recent study is from 2008. (Most are from the 1990s, when effects of second-hand tobacco smoke research was at its height.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519110703.html

    http://living.oneindia.in/health/science-study/2008/childhood-earinfection-
    passive-smoking-210508.html

    http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/10/smoke.ear/Ilicali

    http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/otitis-media-000121.htm

    OC, Keles N, Deger K, Savas I. Relationship of passive cigarette smoking to otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(7):758-762.

    Stathis SL, O’Callaghan DM, Williams GM, Najman JM, Andersen MJ, Bor W. Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is an independent predictor for symptoms of middle ear disease at five years’ postdelivery. Pediatrics. 1999;104(2):e16.

  497. TonyB says:

    Dawn

    Thanks for your comment. I think you will agree that you came in all guns blazing and may have been surprised to find that we are not knuckle dragging neanderthals-there are some extremely qualified and knowlegable people here and many would sympathise with parts of what you say.

    As regards politics and taking extreme positions (Greenpeace etc) I think that it is a serious impediment to tackling the energy problems. I had a very interesting conversation with a green party activist recently who had literally set out a table and put on it his various leaflets. I could agree with many of the things he said when he took local practical leaflets from the right hand side of the table, but then he started spouting the most extreme and indefensible policies liberally laced with inaccuracies when he moved to the left side of the table and picked up ‘national policy’ leaflets. I found these a complete turn off.

    So at local level I had sympathy with the cause but at the national level I think they were positively alarming. Greenpeace and FOI are similar in many respects. If only they would do practical things such as those discussed in my last post they might find a different audience and actually help the environment.

    I am certainly very happy to consider solar power/heat pumps/wind power but not when it is sold through commisioned salesmen and so end up paying three times more than its worth. Consequently I do feel that Greenpeace et al have a potential role in helping the public at a practical level by offering this sort of service instead of espousing ‘right on’ causes.

    Hope you stop by again-its very useful to get other views but please don’t treat us all as little children who need lecturing, most of us are pretty intelligent people who are as concerned about things as you are, but we just have a different perspective.

    Tonyb

  498. Don Shaw says:

    Dawn,
    While I would agree that winterizing homes might be a good idea, under Obama’s stimulus paln it cost over $57,000 per each home. This is what happens to our tax dollars when the government runs the program. And only a fraction of the homes are being winterized due to red tape requirements inserted in the stimulus bill by Pelosi.
    Maybe people should winterize their homes themselves just like I did to save the cost of heating in the winter.

    From the , the LA Times

    “Who could forget the $5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money that was going to rapidly create nearly 90,000 green jobs across the country in these tough economic times and make so many thousands of homes all snuggy and warm and energy-efficient these very snowy days?
    Well, a new report due out this morning will show the $5-billion program is so riddled with drafts that so far it’s weatherized only about 9,000 homes.
    Based on the initial Obama-Biden program promise that it would create 87,000 new jobs its first year, that would be about 10 jobs for each home weatherized so far. Makes for pretty crowded doorways.”

    For details go to:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/obama-stimulus-weatherization.html

  499. pman says:

    This is an interesting website. Anthony, try searching for ‘Heartland Institute’ here:

    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

    You’ll find plenty of firm evidence that Heartland were involved in the tobacco deception. Given that you quite frankly state your detest for smoking and the dire effects of tobacco I would urge you to dissociate yourself with the Heartland institute. I only claim an association based on the fact that your document ‘Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?’ was apparently published by the Heartland Institute.

    REPLY: And again I point out that no scientific organizations have stepped up to ask the tough questions or to offer skeptical scientists and citizens a forum. Life is imperfect, you work with what is dealt you. Would Heartland be my first choice? No. I’ve made my objections known and I’ve never hidden the connection.

    Also, the link you reference is Oreske’s, who has an agenda. Take a look at where she gets her funding. -A

  500. sHx says:

    Ryan Stephenson (02:47:01) :

    That was a nice primer on the Guardian, Ryan. It’s appreciated. Thx.

  501. pman says:

    Anthony,

    I’m not certainly not accusing you of hiding your links to Heartland and it is good that you are open about it.

    As for a forum for skeptical scientists and citizens, IMO, the peer reviewed literature is open to work published by skeptical scientists/citizenry that is of a sufficient quality. How else do you explain Lindzen and Choi for instance? What about standard literature? Mosher and Montford found publishers willing to publish their work.

    You could have just produced your report under your own steam and made it available on the web as it currently is. That’s where I obtained it. Would you agree that that route would get less exposure outside of the blogosphere? Heartland has got the advantage of a decent PR budget to help promote it. I’m just speculating as to why you’d choose them. Could you elaborate on what influenced your decision? Who approached who? Also, would you consider ditching associations with Heartland given your strong personal convictions on smoking?

    On Oreskes, AFAIK her agenda is that of a scientific historian and she’s funded via the normal routes for an academic. Again, don’t shoot the messenger for bringing unsavory news, history is against Heartland on this one.

  502. Mark Zimmerman says:

    Fred Singer also has a long history of working for tobacco interests and he is publishing on climatology with Christy and Douglas, for example. Why do established climatologists need Singer, if not for the techniques he learned working for tobacco denying the health effects of second-hand smoke?

  503. Smokey says:

    pman, Zimmerman, and others who revel in ad hominem attacks against the messenger are as slimy as the Guardian.

    Today’s demon isn’t tobacco, it is carbon. From the IPCC, through almost every university, to just about every TV station, newspaper and magazine, anyone who publicly states that carbon isn’t evil is treated like a leper. James Hansen wants the executives of coal companies imprisoned, which is more severe than what used to be suggested for tobacco execs.

    If the government thinks tobacco is that bad, then it should make tobacco illegal. But politicians are every bit as addicted to the money tobacco brings in as smokers are to nicotine. So they allow the use of a dangerous substance in order to pocket the money it brings in, no matter how many people it kills.

    Now, suppose a coal company offered you a stipend for doing some research. Would you turn them down out of moral courage and ethics? Or would you take their money? I think we know the answer to that question.

    Dr Singer did nothing wrong. Thousands of people have done similar research, and I defy you to show one instance where a scientist is on record at the time as refusing their money on anti-smoking principles. Name one.

    The fact that you attack the messenger is because you are incapable of showing any solid evidence that CO2 causes measurable global warming. That is why you engage in your hypocritical ad hominem attacks. It is you who lack principles and ethics.

    Anthony has already told you the situation regarding Heartland, yet you continue to pester him. And implying that Dr Singer is not an established climatologist shows either your ignorance, or your mendacity. Is Pachauri, or Hansen, or Mann, or Jones, or Briffa an “established climatologist?” No. They are pretend climatologists riding the grant gravy train.

    The mainstream media never give anything resembling equal time to the skeptical view — which is turning out to be the correct view regarding CAGW. If a smaller organization is willing to do what the lock-step media refuses to do, then there is no choice in the matter, and the fault is due to big media and their enablers.

  504. David Middleton says:

    Mark Zimmerman (12:12:00) :

    Fred Singer also has a long history of working for tobacco interests and he is publishing on climatology with Christy and Douglas, for example. Why do established climatologists need Singer, if not for the techniques he learned working for tobacco denying the health effects of second-hand smoke?

    Fred Singer did not deny “the health effects of second-hand smoke.” He wrote that the EPA’s report on the subject was full of exaggerations. Which it was.

    This statement, in particular, is totally unverifiable…

    “ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.”

    Is second hand smoke an irritant? Heck yeah!

    Can it be harmful to human health? Almost certainly.

    Is there any empirical evidence that second hand smoke is a Class A Carcinogen? No. For that matter, it’s not really possible to obtain true empirical evidence that tobacco use causes cancer, because you cannot perform a controlled experiment on humans. However, the statistical data are overwhelming. Tobacco use vastly increases the probability of cancer and a wide range of other adverse health effects in humans.

    Are there at least some statistical data to support the claim that second hand smoke could be a carcinogen? Sure.

    Why shouldn’t Singer have criticized the EPS’s findings?

    This once again boils down to a skeptic using very measured scientific terminology in criticizing an exaggerated environmental alarmist report…
    And then being demonized for their effort.

    Fred Singer has been very consistent in pointing out the exaggerations of environmental alarmists across a broad spectrum of subjects.

    Fred Singer is also one of the most distinguished atmospheric scientists in US history. From Wiki

    Singer received a B.E.E in Electrical engineering from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph.D in physics from Princeton in 1948.[1] He received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]

    In the 1940s and 50s Singer designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.[1] He invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites.[3][4][5] By the early 1960s he was a leading figure in the early development of earth observation satellites, becoming a Special Advisor on space developments to President Eisenhower and establishing and becoming the first Director of the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center (1962-64). He was recognised by President Eisenhower for his contribution to the early design of satellites, receiving a Special Commendation. Upon stepping down as the first Director of the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center he also received a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.[2][6][7][7]

    In his career Singer has held a variety of government and academic positions.[1] He was Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1953-62)[8] and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center (1962-64).[2][6] He was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67),[2][6] and later Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94).

    Singer has also held a variety of government positions. He was Special Advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960). In the late 1960s and early 70s he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-70), and Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71). Later he was Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation (1987-89). Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania.[1][9]

    As far as having a “dog in the hunt”… My Mom’s death of a stroke in her early 50’s was probably smoking related. My brother-in-law’s death in his early 60’s from cancer was probably smoking related. The asthma that I have had since childhood might be related to second hand smoke exposure.

    An aversion to alarmist exaggerations does not mean that someone denies the threats that aren’t exaggerated.

  505. pman says:

    Smokey:

    “…..and others who revel in ad hominem attacks…..”

    Fabrication, ad hom:

    “James Hansen wants the executives of coal companies imprisoned, which is more severe than what used to be suggested for tobacco execs.”

    Ad hom:

    “Is Pachauri, or Hansen, or Mann, or Jones, or Briffa an “established climatologist?” No. They are pretend climatologists riding the grant gravy train.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Meanwhile, Smokey, please explain where I have engaged in an ad hom attack against Anthony. Ad hom meaning “X is stupid therefore X is wrong” or some derivative of that logical flow. I have not said this. All I have done is point to a mutually agreed upon fact regarding Anthony and Heartland. Given that Anthony says he detests smoking, and I believe him, I thought it reasonable to seek clarification on his opinions on this matter. I have not said that Anthony is wrong because of this association in anyway, nor have I said that he’s wrong. Please read my posts more carefully.

  506. RACookPE1978 says:

    Mark Zimmerman (12:12:00) ; Pman,; Dawn

    “Fred Singer also has a long history of working for tobacco interests and he is publishing on climatology with Christy and Douglas, for example. Why do established climatologists need Singer, if not for the techniques he learned working for tobacco denying the health effects of second-hand smoke?”

    —…—…—

    Therefore, you are explicitly accusing the skeptical community of being “bribed” (er, receiving money from XYZ interest group and (changing) influencing our results to favor that interest group”) by money from (oil and spectil interst groups … True? Or False?

    If True, then EXACTLY what money have “we” – all of us, including the 33,000 (plus) scientists, weathermen, and engineers and statisticians who have signed our names stating that AGW is NOT supported by the “science” and MUST be re-examined free of bias and political aims – received? WHAT DID I GET TO CHANGE MY MIND? (If YOU can show what money “I” have received, please let me (my wife!) know – since I’d (she) would like to spend it, and I (we) need to include it on our IRS forms….. If “I” have not received any money for our analysis of the facts and data, then admit YOU are lying about Mr. Watts.

    If True, then you do ADMIT that YOU know “scientists” (and public figures) who WOULD change their research and results and data to influence the results to influence our world? (But only for the better, of course.)

    Of course, since YOU are making this accusation (of bribery and deceit) against UNKNOWN scientists and UNKNOWN peer-reviewed “outside-the-ABCNNBCBS-Science-National Geographic-experts” then YOU must have some personal experience which scientists and people YOU DO KNOW who would do such a criminal and immoral thing … else YOU would not believe such a thing would happen and YOU would NOT be accusing unknowns of what YOUR know KNOWN associates (friends ?) actually would do!

    If True (that YOU believe people would change “Science” for political gains, and since YOU are unable to show ANY money influencing the skeptical side … and since “I” can show 89 BILLION dollars being funded to the AGW community ONLY when they follow the AGW “bible” of lies and exaggerations, then the burden falls on YOU to show that the AGW warmists are NOT influenced by THEIR money , power, political goals, and economic worth of 1.3 trillion dollars in increased taxes.

    But the AGW community will ONLY get that 1.3 trillion IF their schemes and lies are supported.

    By you.

  507. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    This man, Sachs, is from the left of the political spectrum that likes to have power over people. This is why he takes a low, dirty shot at WUWT because WUWT is raining on his global warming parade with its guilt filled message.

    Global warmers like to use guilt over pollution and prosperity to gain power over people. WUWT opens the prison door of that guilt and people are able to walk away free from that guilt.

    This rubs people like Sachs the wrong way. After all, how can he make all the people in the world live the way he wants them to live if he can’t manipulate them?!

  508. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    pman (11:46:51) :

    IMO, the peer reviewed literature is open to work published by skeptical scientists/citizenry that is of a sufficient quality.

    Well, thanks for your stingy permission. Your generosity is truly overwhelming.

    /sarc off/

  509. Barbara says:

    Project Syndicate is a George Soros project – a non-profit that supplies articles for 300 or so newspapers. Sachs has written a number of articles for them. Sachs advocated free-trade as a remedy for Russia and Poland after the fall of the USSR. Russia struggled, Poland is doing quite well. Why the antagonism towards the WSJ? Why, if both countries followed Sachs’ “shock therapy”, is Russia struggling?
    The Wall Street Journal documented the May 1998 “assault by financial speculators led by Soros” on the Russian ruble. Lots of people went hungry and didn’t get paid. Currency speculation is how Soros makes his money – a tad hypocritical from a man who wants an open society and lectures capitalists about putting the common good above their own interests. Hat tip to Peter Schweizer in Do As I Say (Not As I Do).
    Sachs and Pachauri are advisers to the Asian Development Bank, Pachauri as head of TERI. Interesting how Sachs and others are promoting sustainability – an unproven “theory” based entirely on the unproven “theory” of AGW. http://www.nas.org Guess who is the delegate from the US to the Asian Development Bank? Tim Geithner
    The UNEP is meeting in Bali as we speak. Considering Soros currency speculations in Thailand in Malaysia, I wonder if they’d be so fond of Dr. Sachs if they knew of his relationship/funding with/by Soros.
    Watch for euro problems – Sachs assured the Times of India that the euro was fine, no worries on 2-8. Not according to Soros, as of yesterday, who doesn’t want any bailout for Greece. Who knows? Environmentalist Soros is against off-shore drilling here but his boy Obama gave $2 billion to Brazil for that very thing.
    Soros Foundation guy Fraga became head of the Brazilian Central Bank in 1999. Their relationship with Petrobras? Soros relationship to Petrobras?
    Dr. Sachs may be reached at sachs@columbia.edu He needs to be asked some very searching questions about his financial interests. How much is he paid for each article he writes for the Project Initiative, for example.

  510. nigguraths says:

    Major Sachs ‘offensive’ in the offing

    Breaking the Climate Debate Logjam

    http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v302/n3/full/scientificamerican0310-30.html

    More offensive stuff, all in preparation I guess

    Carbon Rock Lock

    http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v302/n3/full/scientificamerican0310-17a.html

  511. Pamela Gray says:

    pman, no it ain’t. Been there done that. If you are researching something someone else is doing and you find something they didn’t find, AND they are friends with the editor of the journal you want to publish in, TRUST ME! You will NOT get published in that journal! Been burned by that! Journal shopping is the rule and who you know is the way to get published, as long as you agree with the editor of the journal and do not SCOOP him/her. So naive.

  512. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way, I recently just determine that my research was duplicated with a larger subject pool and they found what I found. That is way cool.

  513. Indiana Bones says:

    aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (00:24:25) :

    To be fair IMO, you have painted some of Mr. Sachs’ positions negatively without good cause.

    ex: his solution for malaria in Africa—bed nets, and the development of medicines, no mention of the immediate solution DDT.

    Sachs supports mosquito netting impregnated with DDT.

    ex: his solution for jobs in America—on way: money from the government to GM to develop electric cars, “if” it that car can be done

    GM claims it will repay all government loans by June. The GM VOLT extended range electric vehicle is an American engineering triumph that is revolutionizing transportation. It launches November.

    ex: is for government subsidies for alternate fuels, says the free market is not the solution but it is a problem

    Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies. The free market necessarily includes subsidies to launch new products/services beneficial to citizenry e.g. rural electrification.

    ex: wants people to stop eating meat to save on feed crops used on animals, i.e, less meat eaten less crops needed to feed those animals, no mention of ending biofuel programs for the same purpose.

    Lowering daily consumption of meat especially high in fats can reduce obesity/heart disease which contributes to massive healthcare costs in U.S.

    However, the association of skeptics with tobacco is a low blow more typical of yellow journalism than a sophisticated university.

  514. Don Shaw says:

    Indiana Bones

    “Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies. The free market necessarily includes subsidies to launch new products/services beneficial to citizenry e.g. rural electrification.”

    Possibly you could enlighten me as to what specific subsidies Oil and gas get today. The oil depletion allownce was discontinued many decades ago.

  515. Roger Knights says:

    Dawn Watson (05:13:07) :

    I suggested that retrofitting homes would be a sensible solution ….

    Here’s something I’ve posted repeatedly on a stock market site, SeekingAlpha:

    I suggest that the gov’t. take over where Rex & Co. left off, by offering homeowners a premium in exchange for a share of future profits on the sale of the house. (Say 15% of the house’s current valuation in exchange for half the upside above its current market value.) This would buffer the effects of the current crunch on the homeowner, allowing him to make his mortgage payments and/or renegotiate his mortgage, while being a good long-term buy for the gov’t. It’s win/win.

    Going further, I think the gov’t should offer to pay for home-improvement projects for home-owners, again in exchange for a share of future profits on the sale of the house. There are certain desirable home improvements that wouldn’t require skilled labor, such as adding fencing, home security, and earthquake protection. Millions could be hired to do these tasks after a bit of videotaped training.

    This technique could also be used to fund purchase and installation of insulation, attic fans, south-side awnings, white-painted roofs, and heat pumps. The US needs to cut its energy consumption, and a little governmental nudging is OK to get us there.

    These initiatives would stimulate lots of economic activity; upgrade the country’s housing stock; make life pleasanter for home-owners and their neighbors (who’d live in an upgraded neighborhood); reduce crime; and be a good investment for the gov’t. in the long run. They would also be politically popular. (assuming it would work).
    ———-

    On Nov. 2, 2009, Business Week published A three-sentence version of my letter above.

  516. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Indiana Bones (18:12:11) :

    To be fair IMO, you have painted some of Mr. Sachs’ positions negatively without good cause.

    The cause was to emphasize his left political views. And also to make his political and environmental motivation clear. His Marxist viewpoints are too extensive for me to believe he just a nice guy. You are probably overestimating him. Although I do believe he does have some good intentions.

    Sachs supports mosquito netting impregnated with DDT.

    I’ll need a link to this.

    If that is true why not just use DDT alone? There must be a reason.

    GM claims it will repay all government loans by June.

    Why did he single out GM? Why no other car company? It’s revealing that he did. It is probably because GM was seized by President Obama. Why was Government money needed in the first place? If they did not budget R & D then why save them from themselves? Is GM really going to pay it back? Shouldn’t GM just have been let to fail?

    Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies.

    Oil and gas? That’s new to me. Agriculture should not be getting subsidies. You are missing the point, the government should not be present in every day life. To advocate that it should be is socialism and Marxism. Both have no place in a free world.

    I am pointing out that Jeffery Sachs is for control over people, his control, the U.N.s control, and anyone else he has approved. He is not for freedom. It appears he feels he knows how to run peoples lives better than they know how to themselves; he is condescending. And his softcore approach doesn’t make it any better. I think he is a passive aggressive. His Marxist views are extensive in his opinions, from top to bottom.

    Lowering daily consumption of meat especially high in fats can reduce obesity/heart disease which contributes to massive healthcare costs in U.S.

    Sachs argument for having less meat has nothing to do with the things you mention. He makes a ridiculous argument that cattle are consuming human food. They do not. But biofuels do! And the feed that cattle eat is paid for in the cost of the meat. No injustice is taking place. No humans are starving because cattle eat. But there are people starving because of biofuel programs. Why isn’t Sach’s advocating stopping all biofuel programs??

    If Sachs thinks there is no more farmable land to grow more food for humans because growing feed for cattle is using it all up then I will add abject stupidity to the list of things I see in him.

    However, the association of skeptics with tobacco…

    His doing this speaks more about him to me that apparently it does to you.

    REPLY – “A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.” (blame Kipling) ~ E

  517. Brendan H says:

    Smokey (13:07:54) : “pman, Zimmerman, and others who revel in ad hominem attacks against the messenger are as slimy as the Guardian.”

    Yes, they have some nerve. Sliming people on account of their supposed connections to moneyed interests is your speciality, and here they are muscling in on the territory.

    There oughta be a law against it.

  518. JamesG says:

    Dawn,
    If you get this far down the page then I didn’t call you a hippy or liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with hippies or liberals: We need idealists in society just as much as realists. In order to understand all the ins and outs of energy and climate policy though one needs a historical perspective and a good memory.

    I’m hazarding a wild guess that you are working for Babcock, as I used to. I remember -20C in Glasgow as a student though in 1980. We didn’t blame climate change then; it was just a cold snap. 1980 of course was around the time that the global warming argument came into vogue (one prediction I remember was that Argyle would be under water by 2010), roughly 5 years after the global cooling argument had been in the news: Both of them of course being blamed on fossil fuels. Hence the ideological beginning of the preposterous “warming masked by cooling” argument which slightly preceded the even more preposterous “warming causes cooling” argument. Thatcher we now know encouraged the global warming catastrophe meme and set up Hadley principally to encourage the greenwashing of nuclear power as opposed to coal power. How do we know that? – because the people in the room at the time told us so!

    I remember all the blah, blah about a nuclear future then too since i was designing parts of Sizewell B and helping construct Torness. The nuclear effort failed not because of the greens but due to privatisation when the real costs were revealed to potential investors. This current greenwashing of nuclear power will also fail for exactly the same reason. Exactly what a bankrupt Britain will, or can do, I can’t imagine but it probably involves buying energy from France or getting gas from coal. Scotland of course can happily explore alternative tech for a few years, safe in the knowledge they have plenty of nuclear power.

    Incidentally, Howden’s just up the road from Babcock were building wind turbines back then too. Nobody bought them!

    As for climate-proofing our houses, it might be an idea to go back to building houses that have walls with a metre of stone in them as in times past. These old houses are much in demand – I’ve got one myself and it fairly retains the heat. No doubt it was indeed cheap fossil fuels that allowed us to reduce wall thicknesses to stupid levels: Not what I call progress.

    James Gardiner

  519. Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

    We must not be distracted from science’s urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate

    Acid rain was a scam from Day One. Here’s something really funny!

    The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) has a great catalogue of rainwater chemistry that spans about a 30-year period (1978-2008),

    I downloaded all of the annual data from the NADP and calculated an annual average rainwater pH for the lower 48 states of the USA…

    Rainwater pH 1978-2008

    Rainwater was not becoming more acidic prior to the initiation of the EPA’s Acid Rain Program in 1990. The pH of rainwater was actually rising (becoming less acidic) prior to the EPA’s efforts to fight acid rain. The really crazy thing is that the pH has been rising more slowly since the EPA started to fight acid rain!

    Depending on whose numbers are used, the Acid Rain program has cost consumers and taxpayers between $2 and $5 billion per year over the last 20 years. So… somewhere between $40 and $100 billion has been spent to solve an environmental crisis that did not exist!

    Didn’t anybody ever check these people’s work before Steve McIntyre?

  520. That such an intelligent and independent minded person the likes of Anthony Watts has fallen for the Environmental Tobacco Smoke canard is indeed a frightening illustration of the power of the Big Lie. The ETS myth is *the* prime example of how epidemiology as now practised has corrupted the scientific objectivity of Medicine.

    The conclusion that second hand smoke is lethal is based on manipulating dodgy statistics until they yield up in a ludicrously strangulated form the answer that the agenda of the “investigators” required. Sound vaguely familiar. A “consensus” is then announced based upon “peer-reviewed” studies and the science is declared “settled”. Any scientific, medical or mathematical specialists who raise methodological and physiological doubts are vilified as creatures of Big Tobacco and the moral equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.

    Since tobacco now bears the social and moral stigma once reserved for the clap the propaganda sweeps all before it and politicians, recognising a good bandwagon when it rolls by, rush to regulate the personal behaviour of “free” citizens in the name of the Greater Good.

    The irony of such a boondoggle being affirmed on this blog is clear.

    Two things.

    I’m not having a go at Anthony here. This blog is a monument to the contribution he has made to our collective welfare the world over. Even Hercules, though he had twelve labours, could only perform them one at a time.

    Nor have I any doubts about the health risks of smoking itself. Sir Richard Doll’s epidemiology – this was in the sixties before the rot set in – was impeccable and the link he made with lung cancer was established as an irrefutable fact by overwhelming statistical evidence. It is sad that he subsequently lent his truly illustrious name to the ETS farrago.

  521. Tom Bethell says:

    Haven’t had time to read all of the massive response to Watts, but my sense is that Sachs is funded by George Soros. I have some evidence for this, but not conclusive. Maybe there already is something on the web. Sachs is a Soros flunky — I’d bet money on that.

  522. Indiana Bones says:

    aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (23:00:17) :

    BTW, your name is wonderful. And insightful. On the subject of Sachs, though hardly worth the ink…

    You are probably overestimating him. Although I do believe he does have some good intentions.

    Agreed. Typical of this type personality they are blustery and self-righteous to a fault.

    If that is true why not just use DDT alone? There must be a reason.

    I have this first hand. Sachs accepts the need for insecticidal bed nets that last up to five years. Aerosol DDT dissipates rapidly requiring continuous spraying. Both are effective.
    http://www.southafrica.info/about/health/malaria-190906.htm

    Why was Government money needed in the first place?

    We should ask the same question of banks and insurance, and housing. Some of these heavily lobbied industries get big breaks. Chrysler went the same route to the benefit of U.S. auto workers and unions.

    Oil and gas? That’s new to me.

    I (and Obama) misuse the word “subsidies.” Domestic drilling tax credits, depletion allowance, intangible drilling costs, low volume, domestic manufacturing, etc. represent a cumulative tax break “subsidy” of some $36B. I agree government should not be present in everyday life. That’s what the Fourth Amendment is about.

    Sachs argument for having less meat has nothing to do with the things you mention.

    True. To his infinite detriment. I don’t buy his reasons, nor the “biofuel starving people” claims. Only 12% of the U.S. corn crop goes to food. Less to fuel. I believe we need cellulosic ethanol to achieve energy independence.

    His doing this [smear] speaks more about him to me that apparently it does to you.

    Don’t get me wrong. This is a pernicious act from an infantile personality. I have tried only to be fair in the spirit of this excellent blog. That fairness has won Anthony and Co, MANY, MANY friends worldwide. Thanks for your engaging response.

  523. Brian G Valentine says:

    Anthony, with all due respect, the ranting of every watermelon that comes along isn’t necessarily worthy of a “rebuttal”

  524. Pussycat says:

    I am a PhD scientist and C.Eng with 20+ years of home brewed AGW sceptisism to my credit. When am I going to get my long overdue oil/auto industry megabucks? Or, how about a cushy well paid job to promote public understanding of global warming?
    In fact, simply not being an AGW enthusiast has lost me work and career prospects over the years. Working in energy and environment related fields or science education, It isn’t enough to keep doubts to yourself, not cheerleading for AGW counts against you.

Comments are closed.