By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
They are mad, maybe not the crazy kind of mad scientist, but mad nonetheless. When people are mad, sometimes good judgment goes out the window.
The Guardian published a fascinating “open letter” from AAAS, signed by 250 biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, etc. in defence of climate science.
So far, it has not gone over too well. Even Andy Revkin at the NYT Dot Earth blog points out that:
“The letter has a defensive tone that hasn’t served scientists particularly well in the past…”
Revkin also notes the fact that even the AAAS deputy editor himself tried to tone it down in a companion editorial:
The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior.
Of course, we, the great unwashed public, can’t read either the original letter nor the editorial at AAAS, since both are hidden behind the great paywall of science. We have to rely on the Guardian and NYT to give us mere mortals snippets of wisdom issued from on high. What a great way to “get the word out” to people you are condemning. Yes, “we’ll make them pay”.
In addition to the condescending tone, the use of the d-word, and the lack of open access to an “open letter” and companion editorial, the letter was so poorly written, that we thought we would pitch in and lend them a hand. Italics are their writing. Plain text interspersed are our suggestions.
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts.
A better way to word this would be : “We apologize for the bad behaviour of our colleagues, and recognize that the public is well educated and aware.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them.
Should read : “We recognize that the process is broken, and we appreciate the help of the public in correcting our errors.”
And then there’s this howler.
When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
Should read: “We recognize that a few treemometers in Yamal, and particularly tree YAD061, aren’t really representative of the global climate for the past millennium and therefore a solid basis to overturn whole economies. We’ll fix that right away.”
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).
That paragraph should be cut completely. Implying that anyone who criticizes you is a “flat earther creationist” is not going to win any converts. Insulting the customer is a really poor idea.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.
Very bad idea to compare the customers, aka the referenced “all citizens”, to holocaust deniers. That is a total non-starter.
Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
Should read : “Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Should read : “Wow, none of knew that it was the snowiest decade on record in the Northern Hemisphere, until we read it on WUWT.”
We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.
Should read : “We promise to see the doctor about our paranoid delusions.”
All in all, this letter is a PR train wreck. Then there’s the signatories.
Since it is common to see the “but he/she is not a climate scientist” argument used against people that offer views differing to “the consensus”, here are the impeccable climate science credentials of the first 20 signatories :
Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD
Richard M Amasino – Biochemist, UW Madison
Edward Anders – Geologist, University of Chicago
David J. Anderson – Biologist, Cal Tech
Luc Anselin – Geographer, ASU
Mary Kalin Arroyo – Biologist, University of Chile
Dr. Berhane Asfaw – Palaeoanthropologist, Rift Valley Research Service
FRANCISCO J. AYALA – Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine
Dr. Ad Bax – Physics, NIH
Anthony Bebbington – Professor of Nature, University of Manchester
Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer
MICHAEL VANDER LAAN BENNETT – Neuroscientist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jeffrey Bennetzen – Geneticist, University of Washington
May R. Berenbaum – Entomologist, UIUC
Overton Brent Berlin – Anthropologist, University of Georgia
Pamela Bjorkman – Biologist, Cal tech
Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn – Biologist, UCSF
Jacques Blamont – Astrophysicist
Michael Botchan – Biochemistry, Berkeley
John S. Boyer – Marine Biosciences, University of Delaware
After the first 20 names, they are batting 0.000. If anyone cares to go through the rest of the list and report, please pitch in.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone that continues to defend the science either has not read the emails or simply does not understand how proper science is supposed to be done.
For example, there’s this “you can’t be serious” Briffa quote from McIntyre’s recent presentation at Trinity College:
” In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is
likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this
assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free
from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.”
You can’t be serious….
For the inevitable griper that will be upset about the use of the phrase “mad scientist” in jest in our satirical piece, I’ll point out that even scientists themselves make use of the same image:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/wisc/images/090925_Shindig.PNG
At Columbia, home of GISS no less.
Absolutely substance free!
Well……what would you expect? If anything och anyone is or are in “denial” this is it!
I really pity them to be so totally isolated from reality.
Here’s the version as printed in Science…(it is accompanied by this photo of a lone polar bear on ice… http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php )
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
Just read the caption for the bear photo at istockphoto.com …
“A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now) ”
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php
A fake photo for fake outrage! How apt.
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/list-of-signers.html
I signed it. Waiting for my confirmation 😉
Same photo but with a penguin!
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3726704/
Focusing on one area of study to the exclusion of all others is madness.
Making your science rather than following where it takes you is madness.
Listening to Al Gore our saviour is madness.
Politicians following these scientists studies and contributing to only one outcome is madness.
Put Anthony in a room with Al Gore for one week would be madness as well. Sorry Dude!
Well, if anyone doubted the loss of integrity in science today this letter will convince the fence sitters that being a “team player” and “protecting your pay check” triumph over the Scientific Method.
Thanks Marc.
“One U.S. senator has called 17 prominent climate scientists criminals”..must be the paranoia speaking….
What a joke. See my post on this here:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3628
Cheers,
Simon
well the last polar bear better start getting used too walking as the artic ice is getting back to normal. and I bet the bears keep saying why did al Gore tell us you better take up swiming lessons.
I forgot to mention the TIMING of this letter. It just in time for the Congressional hearing on the EPA findings and before a vote on Cap and Trade. This means the letter is nothing but a political move and that is why it is behind a paywall. It is not really addressed to the unwashed masses or the skeptics but to the senators in the US Congress. The paywall is to keep regular citizens and scientists from seeing the letter and commenting before Congress votes on Cap and Trade.
As I said previously it cements my disgust with present day scientists and reinforces my reasons for dropping my membership in the American Chemical Society (pro-CAGW). If this is an example of Scientific Integrity I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed I am a chemist, I am ashamed of Purdue University where I got my degree, and I am ashamed of the American Chemical Society despite thirty five years of membership.
Thankfully the number of people who view this letter as making perfect sense are not the majority.
However, there’s no telling how this might change. Will the current AGW movement fade away, or grow with a new generation of people?
One way of the other, there needs to be a better way to interact with the green movement than simply waging cultural war.
It is complicated because there’s at least two sides to the green movement: one is a regressive “noble savage” ideology which ties in with anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, anti-modern sentiments, and the other is a progressive “whole world” vision where we deal with the problems of living in a world that is fragmented by poverty, disease, dictators, incompatible ideologies, competing economies, etc., all within a technological material base that is struggling to keep up.
So perhaps a question is, how are these scientists healing the rifts?
Let’s assume climate change is real and happening — how is this knowledge going to heal the rifts? How does it fix the problem of dictators in Africa? How does it fix healthcare in ageing western economies?
Maybe we have been “denialists” about their findings. But are they not also guilty of something, namely,
of being fixated with their own speciality?
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).”
There are no profits in these theories… Let me know when we have a market based on trading evolutionary credits…
Well, if there was a place for anti-signatories, I’d sign it in a heartbeat. Even put down my “credentials”, which would trump most of the first signatories listed. A political statement deserves an anti-political response.
They must really be feeling the heat (figurative, not literal), but after seeing the Climategate emails and other documents, it would be upsetting to find yourself on the wrong side of the issue.
“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.”
Really? Society has just two choices? First, let us examine the two “choices” provided.
1. “Ignore the science” (or “Heads in Sand”). the problem is, no one is doing that, so it’s simply a straw man. Instead what they are calling “the science” has been both exposed as exaggerated, and even fraudulent, as well as robustly refuted.
2. “Act now in the public interest” (or “no delay”). So we must now act on the basis of, “the science” which has been exposed as both faulty and fraudulent? And this is in the public interest? It sounds a little like the sleazy used car salesman, fearing the customer is finding out the car he’s trying to sell them is a lemon is trying to “close the deal” quickly. Gee, I think we’ll pass, thank you very much. Nice try.
That “letter” is an embarrassment. How anyone could possibly sign it is beyond me.
Perhaps a letter in response from skeptics/climate realists is in order.
Circle the wagons.
The section condemning threats of criminal prosecution is notable. It was the alarmists who first started the notion of subjecting skeptics to Nuremberg-style prosecution. And Heidi Cullen’s proposal regarding yanking of credentials from meteorologists who don’t drink the kool-aid is still fresh in my mind.
They said: “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association”
————-
Reply: No, the threats of criminal prosecution aren’t based on innuendo or guilt by association. If these “climate scientists” have fudged the data, suppressed open dissent, and stifled alternative viewpoints, and in the process pushed energy policy in directions that have caused foodstuff shortages in underpriveleged countries that have caused death by starvation, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The same applies to economic policy, such as the laughable stance the EPA takes on carbon dioxide. Criminal behavior deserves criminal justice. And that’s no “threat”… that’s a promise.
“Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: ”
Only if someone can get their theories published, which the Climate-Science cabal makes difficult-to-impossible.
Einstein wasn’t blackballed for thinking outside the orthodoxy.
Interesting that they didn’t mention that errors have been pointed out by the very people they are condemning.
The whole thing smacks of trying to fool the same people into thinking everything is OK.
It has a funny side, but it’s still a complete insult and only makes their position much worse.
I think the letter translates as, ” Our opinions are correct and you must trust us and stop listening to anybody else and do what we want NOW.” In relation to their demands, I believe that King Phillip II of Spain when tasked with the slowness of assembling the Spanish Armada said, ” In matters of great import, one must move with feet of lead.”
Colour me incredulous about the faith of the AAAS.
Is it just me, but aren’t most of the signers just old white guys, thus discrediting the whole exercise?