These guys again?
Excerpts from: Climate scientists plot to hit back at skeptics
Donations to buy ad on climate change
by Stephen Dinan
Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.
“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
The scientists have been under siege since late last year when e-mails leaked from a British climate research institute seemed to show top researchers talking about skewing data to push predetermined outcomes. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative body on the matter, has suffered defections of members after it had to retract claims that Himalayan glaciers will melt over the next 25 years.
…
In a phone interview, Mr. Schneider, who is one of the key players Mr. Inhofe cites, said he disagrees with trying to engage in an ad battle. He said the scientists will never be able to compete with energy companies.
“They’re not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can’t beat them,” he said.
…
“What I am trying to do is head off something that will be truly ugly,” he said. “I don’t want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior and I’m already personally very dismayed by the horrible state of this topic, in which the political debate has almost no resemblance to the scientific debate.”
Not all climate scientists agree with forcing a political fight.
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
She said scientists should downplay their catastrophic predictions, which she said are premature, and instead shore up and defend their research. She said scientists and institutions that have been pushing for policy changes “need to push the disconnect button for now,” because it will be difficult to take action until public confidence in the science is restored.
“Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research,” she said.
…
Paul G. Falkowski, a professor at Rutgers University who started the effort, said in the e-mails that he is seeking a $1,000 donation from as many as 50 scientists to pay for an ad to run in the New York Times. He said in one e-mail that commitments were already arriving.
…
George Woodwell, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, said in one e-mail that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He blasted Pennsylvania State University for pursuing an academic investigation against professor Michael E. Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the British climate research facility.
…
In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” but said scientists have had their “classical reasonableness” turned against them.
“We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths,” he wrote.
==============================
Read the entire article at the Washington Times
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d still like to know where these energy company slush funds are located. I’m still skeptical that such an energy company-funded comspiracy even exists. I’ve never seen any money.
I am pleased to be on the opposite side of the debate from Paul Erlich, a neo-Malthusian, anti-science, anti-growth, reverse-Cassandra scaremongering crackpot of long standing.
Ummm, if I were a serious climate scientist, dusting off my credentials and preparing for war, I would first and foremost tell everyone, at the top of my lungs, “I don’t know any Paul Ehrlich. Nevah hudduvim, nevah did.”
I mean, Ehrlich is past the gutter and into the sewer. His work makes comic books seem almost credible (Gee, maybe Gotham City DOES have a caped crusader!)
9 of 10 sentient beings reading these pages know of Ehrlich and his failed, Old Testament-style prophecies. All the guy needs is a beard, a robe and a sign saying, “The End Is Near (Again).”
Schneider is no better. He was there with John Holdren and Margaret Mead when the AGW scam was born, way back in 1975.
Good luck to the side of truth, because the crazies are extremely well funded.
In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” but said scientists have had their “classical reasonableness” turned against them.
“We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths,” he wrote.
Incredible to a level beyond believe. This is a type of people that i won’t hold in high regard, they are right about that, in my opinion these people should be prosecuted for committing crimes against humanity.
High regard? Facts? Appeals? Am i missing something here in their black and white world view?
Schneider is up to his usual lies… blaming energy companies when the AGW scientists are being funded by the government with billions of dollars
Amusing. They still think the “energy companies” are against them instead of the science, the weather, the climate and not least, their own words and data released in the emails, etc! Should we call them denialists? (:-))
Of course the effect of these advertisements will be to focus even more attention on them, thus continuing the “debate”. I’m glad that they think there are many scientists who will cough up $1000. That’s a bit more than the rest of us can afford, as we are paying off our electricity bills, artificially raised because of their politicizing their science.
“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,’” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
Bingo! They need to stop the spin and start telling the truth if they want to regain any credibility. That’s not a slightly different approach. It’s the opposite approach for them.
Dr. Curry got it right. She’s advocating a steady course towards climate sanity. Unfortunately, there are former scientists out there who have fooled themselves into untenable beliefs and who will not be dissuaded from sailing over the cataract, brandishing their ad hominem slogans and blowing loudly on their kazoos. Pathetic.
Stay the course, Dr. Curry.
Dollars to doughnuts it will be a misuse of their funds when used to take out ads that do not begin to resemble legitimate research efforts. Political ads do not constitute research in anybody’s world.
Since when do grants have this kind of discretionary allocation? I venture to say that attacking other scientists in newspapers is not a form of scientific discourse and healthy discussion of disagreements.
Happy to see Dr. Curry continues to call the plays objectively. Evidently she is clearly distinguishing herself from the alarmist faction.
LOL, Paul Ehrlich, the scientist who has been wrong about more things than most anybody I know. Hey Paul, hows those malthusian “Limits to Growth” coming? Weren’t we all supposed to starve to death by the end of the 1980s?
Schneider, Hockey Team member, unrepentant decline hider…
These guys are organizing a Legion of Doom
I guess we’re up to stage 3…
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi
[In a phone interview, Mr. Schneider, who is one of the key players Mr. Inhofe cites, said he disagrees with trying to engage in an ad battle. He said the scientists will never be able to compete with energy companies.]
He He He we got them on the run now! They think we got’em surrounded.
Isn’t ExxonMobil giving $100 million to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project between 2007 and 2017? Perhaps they can get into a bidding war with themselves over whether pro/anti AGW ads will be on the back page of the New York Times? British Petroleum, Dutch Royal Shell and His Excellency The Sultan of Oman can chip in by asking their beneficiaries down in CRU to continue discrediting themselves.
Still, we have Dr. Butterflies up there to thank for saving us from the global mass starvation he predicted for the 1980’s. Humanity stopped laying hundreds of our eggs on the underside of leaves just in time.
“Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.”
So if climate scientists throw up a tantrum, then the confidence in their work will be restored and the science proven as accurate. Sounds like some strategy.
My students are frequently surprised, upon re-reading, to find that what they just put on paper is not what they thought they had written. Or perhaps Mr. Woodwell is just not that familiar with English syntax. An “…opposition that is not going to listen to … appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard….” can only be construed to mean that the alarmists so hold themselves.
And as they are going to publish in a “mainstream” newspaper (which have not rushed to discuss climategate much at all), they will be doing the job for us of publicising their faults, at their own expense, that will have the effect of getting more people interested and finding out for themselves, so stirring up debate even more. It will become a discussion point again in the blogosphere which will again regurgitate climategate, glaciergate, etc etc. Good PR for yourselves fellas (:-))
“… by running a back-page ad in the New York Times . . .”
Jeez. These guys are so out of touch it is incredible. How many NYT readers do they think are skeptics? How many skeptics do they think still read the NYT? Pretty doubtful they will change anything for anybody, anywhere.
They will spend more time and more money preaching to the choir, just to preach to the choir. Thankfully, they might be using their own money this time.
These scientists must have much on their minds: They should welcome genuinely constructive questions or criticisms. All they are now doing is adding fuel to a fire.
The USA government, and others, needs lots of money to support the vast programs being proposed. No one seems to know how to get the amounts needed except by imposing costs on CO2 production. If such production isn’t going to destroy Earth then the justification for controlling CO2 goes away. To many of the people mentioned in this piece it is important to keep the money flowing for their projects, salaries, students, and university overhead. They could stay funded by studying issues more likely to be of benefit to Earth and its population of things but, so far, they haven’t figured out how to make the money flow in other directions. So, we get the sort of panic shown by this article. This is a sad time for science and serious problems are being ignored.
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
“Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research,” she said.
Okay I’ve been rather harsh on Dr Curry in the past so fair is fair. You have made 2 great points and should be commended for that. On these 2 I can agree with your assessment completely. You seem to be distancing herself from the alarmists at an increasing rate which is a smart thing to do because circling the wagons in this case is a Custer approach IMHO.
it is very disturbing that this person is still allowed to teach young people at an university.
at least energy companies could sue schneider for his infamy and untrue statements.
Back Page ad? I was under the impression that the NYT didn’t run a comics page.
John A (21:22:36) : I’d still like to know where these energy company slush funds are located. I’m still skeptical that such an energy company-funded comspiracy even exists.
I endorse that, John. It seems those making these wild assertions cannot comprehend that individuals would freely devote their time to fighting back against the alarmism being promoted. As an individual it has cost me precious time following and attempting to refute their wild predictions. I do it because I cannot tolerate the supercilious presumption of authority to socially engineer my world; I do it because I believe these alarmists have debased both science and truth; I do it for my children and grandchildren, both to guard the world they will continue to live in from a social dictatorship and to show them I did not come under the spell of a Hollywood-style blockbuster of belief.
Anthony Watts is an excellent example of a selfless campaigner against cant. I do believe it cost him personally to progress his social conscious of what is right, and if in the end he becomes a monetary winner I believe this is just ─ and equally believe this was never his intention.
World-of-tomorrow, you owe me. You owe many much, much more for taking their stand on morality. The vast majority of us will take our wages only in the knowledge we stood tall against a tide of insanity; and that will be enough.
But we were never propped up by cynical money, nor desire for it.
“an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach”
If they do that, their credibility is shot.
Their credibility may already be shot just for saying this.
People just laugh at hyperpartisan nut-jobs.
Advertising! Stick to climate science.
You want to change someone’s mind? Advertising doesn’t do that.
If they want to change people’s minds –
Invest the funds in time for climate scientists in different research areas to run blogs that post articles, explain their research and answer questions.
And try a radical departure from a well-known blog by not insulting/demeaning skeptical people with questions. I’m sure there are plenty of climate scientists who could do an interesting job and be very educational.
Recommendation for climate scientists – build some bridges:
Don’t say “It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, go and read my paper there”
Do say “Let me explain what we tried to measure and why..”
Let us encourage them to do it. Yes.
However, the ‘big-monied interests’ have transformed themselves in friends of AGW, for good reasons: If you can’t stop foolish regulations, then rebuild your business to benefit from it. Trade hot air. They are as smart as Al Gore is.